Talk:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

message: The image :Image:JG27aces049.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:JG27aces049.jpg

message: I don't know if this was already discussed, but I think that instead of "History of the Luftwaffe" we should label this page "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)" or something. Also, I think we need the military infotable for this page.- JustPhil 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. This is a sub-article of the Luftwafee page and the time period needs to be set out in the title. The article makes clear this was during the Nazi era so I don't think "Wehrmacht" needs to be there either. If you check out the sister article on the RAF page (History of the Royal Air Force) it doesn't have an info box, and I don't think a sub-article needs one. This sort of thing has been discussed before. One other user opted for the 1933-1945 heading and I did agree with him. Dapi89 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Page 

message: Göring does not wear an uniform of the Luftwaffe on the picture. It's his uniform as Reichsjägermeister and not the uniform of a Reichsmarschall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.221.239 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Göring 

message: From the article:
"German industry could build two medium bombers for three heavy bombers and the RLM would not gamble on developing a heavy bomber which would also take time. "
Surely there must be some sort of misquote here? This is suggesting that heavy bombers were in fact cheaper than medium bombers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same vein, I'd add (if I could cite it...) von Kesselring cut the 4-motors because German industry simply couldn't produce enough of them (if any at all). Criticism of the "lack of strategic aircraft" must take that into account (but usually doesn't...).  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does. Dapi89 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomber cost 

message: " The Luftwaffe's strength at this time stood at 373,000 personnel (208,000 parachute troops, 107,000 in the Flak Corps and 58,000 in the Signals Corps)."
Uh.  So the Luftwaffe didn't have a single pilot, or a single ground-crewman, but.. they had 208,000 parachute troops.  An entire parachute army, 4 Corps strong!  You've got to be kidding.  (we're talking 1939 here..)
I don't think the LF ever had more than ~25 thousand parachutists.  I'm not sure if this is vandalism or what, but it needs to be corrected.  I would do it myself but I'm not sure on the correct number of pilots/groundcrew.  If it isn't changed soon I'll just remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.134.146 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  208,000 Parachute troops?! 

message: Another (apparent) problem with the article:  It states that there were only 9 fighter wings operating at the outbreak of WW2 in the Luftwaffe.  I know, Wiki pages can't be used as a source, but just glancing through them, I can count 11 that were active on Sept. 1st 1939.  They are as follows, in case anyone wants to look for (real) sources: JG1, JG2, JG3, JG26, JG27, JG51, JG52, JG53, JG54, JG76, and JG77.  Of these 11, they were active throughout the entire war (again, according to their wikis *only*) with the exception of one: JG76.  It was supposedly disbanded in late 1940, and re-created in 1944, serving til the end of the war.  
If this is true, it should be corrected as well.  Then again - perhaps the pilots were too busy parachuting to form Geschwaders.  ;D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.134.146 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Jagdgeschwader present 1939-1941 

message: I found this article extremely biased.  In the sections about the pre-war years, they never mention fighters at all.  How can you talk about doctrine without mentioning the role of fighters?  Additionally, I found this article very biased in terms of promoting strategic bombing.  Over and over again I found mentions of how Germany's lack of a strategic bomber proved fatal.  But this simply isn't true.  For exmaple, the article implies the reason for the failure of the Battle of Britain was the lack of a strategic air force.  But clearly the lack of long range fighters had far more to do with that; unescorted 4 engined bombers are not much less vulnerable than unescorted 2 engined bombers.  Secondly, there has not been a single instance in history where the destruction of industry has ever proved decisive.  In the case of Allied bombings, the disruption in communications and supply proved to be the real decisive factor.  When the transportation system collapsed it didn't matter how many tanks were being built in factories.  The implication that if Germany had the "Ural Bomber" that it would have been decisive is simply another lie passed on for years after the with no real evidence.  It took two years of allied strategic bombing to really begin to affect the German war effort.  But the Allies had more strategic bombers even in 1943 than Germany could have ever built and still kept its fighter arm strong.  But the idea that a few thousand B-17's used against Russia could have done much at all is preposterous; no German fighter could ever escort the bombers to the Urals and even if they could it would take substantial amount of time to have any real impact, time Germany did not have.
Basically my point is that it was never the 4 engined bomber that proved decisive, it was fighter aircraft and their pilots that made the real difference.  This article seems to be only about the bomber.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.5 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the points you make are not accurate. But before we start, this article is nowhere near finished. 
# Your point about LR fighters is one of around 30 reasons for the Luftwaffe's failure in the battle of Britain - and LR fighters is way down the list.
# Yes it has. The failure of intelligence during the Battle of Britain denied the Luftwaffe a chance to strike at the Spitfire factory at Southampton early in the battle. It would have had serious consequences for the air battle - though whether Sealion could have been achieved even with air supremacy is unlikely
# Your opinion about the Ural bomber is misplaced and your personal opinion is irrelevant to wikipedia. Time and time again the Luftwaffe was to achieve substantial success at strategic bombing in the Soviet Union - the lack of strategic bombers denied a greater impact from being made. There's plenty of evidence - 1,000s of books on strategic bombing have been produced on the subject, try buying one.
# Again, your seeming lack of knowledge regarding the German bombers' ability to damage the Soviet war economy is way off. A strategic air offensive prior to Kursk destroyed a plant of nearly 8,000 tank engines. Again in October 1943, another campaign against Soviet industry in the Ukraine was effective.
# The fighter cannot influence the ground campaign. Even in 1943 USAAF and RAF bombers were getting through and doing enormous damage despite losses. The Americans had the manpower and resources to continue even under these circumstances in 1944-45 and the RAF actually did it throughout the war. The P-51 merely reduced losses and tore the heart of the Luftwaffe day fighter force. In strategic terms, the fighter comes second. But like I said, this article is not even 50 percent complete.
Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Bombing Bias 

message: I have reverted the caption to the picture of Rascher, given the following info on his career in the Wiki artcile:
High altitude experiments
Rascher suggested in early 1941, while a captain in the Luftwaffe's Medical Service, that high-altitude/low-pressure experiments be carried out on human beings. While taking a course in aviation medicine at Munich, he wrote a letter to Himmler in which he said that his course included research into high-altitude flight and it was regretted that no tests with humans had been possible as such experiments were highly dangerous and nobody volunteered for them. Rascher asked Himmler to place human subjects at his disposal, stating quite frankly that the experiments might prove fatal, but that previous tests made with monkeys had been unsatisfactory. The letter was answered by Rudolf Brandt, Himmler's adjutant, who informed Rascher that prisoners would be made available.[4][5]
Peterlewis (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should include this specific material into the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: War crimes

message: The article contains the following sentence:
:Göring had played a leading role in the build up of the Luftwaffe in 1933-1936, but played little further part in the development of the Luftwaffe until 1936 ...
which is as it stands, nonsensical. I suspect that one or other reference to 1936 is a typo, but which one?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical statement 

message: please note:
* Soviet Air Forces & Russian Air Force, same personnel different articles
* Czechoslovak Air Force & Czech Air Force/Slovak Air Force, same personnel different articles
* Imperial Japanese Army Air Service/Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service & Japan Air Self-Defense Force, same personnel different articles
* Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps & Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps & United States Army Air Service & United States Army Air Corps & United States Army Air Forces & United States Air Force, same personnel different articles
and:
German Empire              	Weimar Republic	Nazi Germany                        	German Federal Republic
                           	Reichswehr     	Wehrmacht                           	Bundeswehr
Imperial German Navy       	Reichsmarine   	Kriegsmarine                        	German Navy
German Army (German Empire)	Reichsheer     	German Army (Wehrmacht)             	German Army
Luftstreitkräfte           	               	History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)	German Air Force
the only two article who stand out for erroneous naming: History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) & German Army (1935–1945)... both should be renamed, noclador (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: moved German Army (Wehrmacht) as with the names of all its subordinate units (i.e. 46th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)) noclador (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  please note 

message: As this is a far more complicated issue then a simple move (Luftwaffe being a primary article) there are two possibilities:
First proposal:
# move the content about the current Luftwaffe (1956-today) from the article Luftwaffe to German Air Force (now a redirect to Luftwaffe)
# delete the content about the 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at the Luftwaffe as it is a duplicate of material here at History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
# rename History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) to Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)
# put a disambiguation page to the article Luftwaffe
Second proposal:
# move the content about the current Luftwaffe (1956-today) from the article Luftwaffe to German Air Force
# delete the content about the 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at Luftwaffe
# move History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) to Luftwaffe
# put a link to Luftwaffe (disambiguation) page on top of the Luftwaffe article
any of the above is fine with me, but the current mix of two separate entities at Luftwaffe is factually, historically and officially wrong! noclador (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Re 1st proposal item 2 - the content is not duplicated, as a "history of ...." type article it goes into more detail than the Luftwaffe article. Similarly but not identically you have history of the RAF (which itself could probably use a more detailed history of the Second World War as history of the RAF (1939-1945) as a bridge between the general history and RAF Coastal Command during World War II). and item 3 per making it obvious to readers, using the dates is preferable to using the disambiguator Wehrmacht if only because I suspect your average reader confuses Wehrmacht with the Heer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Graeme.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the only way I'd support a move if it was to bring Luftwaffe in line organizationally (wiki-organizationally, at least) with the other national air force history articles. But I can't support it based on the "no links" theory. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe to use dates is more confusing then to use Wehrmacht. Using the dates would imply that there is a longer history then just 1935-1946. I believe that as units of the Wehrmacht (i.e. divisions, etc.) use Wehrmacht as disambiguator also the branches Luftwaffe and Heer can use it (with a the first line of the article being: "The Luftwaffe was the Wehrmacht air arm.") As for the duplicate content: I meant that as the history of the Luftwaffe article says the same but in much more detail than the Luftwaffe article, that therefore the content at Luftwaffe is a condensed duplicate and can be discarded in favor of the more detailed content at History of the Luftwaffe. And no to the point Intothatdarkness makes: the main point for me is to split the two Luftwaffe apart, as 1) also Kriegsmarine and German Navy, and German Army (Wehrmacht) and German Army are split 2) as other air forces articles are split (i.e. see Soviet/Russian or Japanese air force) and 3) as it is confusing for a reader to come to the article Luftwaffe now: if he wants the modern German Air Force, he finds first the WWI, then Interwar, then WWII text, and if he looks for the Nazi Luftwaffe he finds and article that is mostly about the modern Air Force! As for the "no links" debate, I don't care - the official line of the current Luftwaffe is "no links", but sourced content laying out the connection/links (i.e. Jagdgeschwader Mölders) and their eventual severance is welcome, should be in the article and is fine with me. To understand what I aim for with this discussion it will be best to have a look at the articles I mention (Kriegsmarine, German Navy etc.) - this is how Luftwaffe should also be handled. noclador (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support move to Luftwaffe as the main English use of this term in the sources is the Wehrmacht arm. See Talk:Luftwaffe for the full proposal(s). --Bermicourt (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would support either of the two current proposals, and definitely there should be some sort of content or disambig at German Air Force, maybe just a short summary article. Part of the reason we've got into this tangled situation is the different connotations of 'Luftwaffe' and 'German Air Force.' Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals