Talk:German Army

message: German army was implicated in massive war crimes including assisting the genocide of Jewish people during the The Holocaust.
Molobo added these few words on war crimes to the Wehrmacht paragraph, could this be rewritten by someone with a better command of the English language? This could also be a little less sensationalist, based on the following sentence from the 'War Crimes of the Wehrmacht' article he links to: The Nuremberg Trials of the major war criminals at the end of World War II found that the Wehrmacht was not an inherently criminal organization, but that it had committed crimes in the course of the war. Colonel Mustard 23:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes 

message: Information on the treaty of Versailles written in this article is completely wrong. This version of the end of the first World War, as written by the author, is related to as the Dolchdstoßlegende. It was commonly used by german soldiers and  
rightist extremists, who claimed that their army would still have a chance to win the war, which is wrong, as even germany's highest generals, i.e. Hindenburg and Ludendorff, were already negotiating with President Wilson about a german surrender, as they knew that the Reichswehr was about to break down, and still every month 250.000 american soldiers were shipped to France to fight for the french and the english. Furthermore, all of Germany's allies had already capitulated and german seamen on several battle ships were mutinying when they were sent to battle. The treaty of Versailles took place after the germans had surrendered and was injust only due to the fact that especially the french had lost millions of soldiers, and was some kind of revenge. German politicians would never have signed a capitulation if there would have been only the slightest chance of winning this war.It is true that the German Reichsheer was still holding enemy territory, but if they had waited longer than they did, a massacre would have been likely to take place if their enemies would have been able to break through their trenches. 84.147.77.207 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War I 1914-1918 

message: The user with IP address 219.88.171.118 keeps vandalizing the article. Request a ban? Edward Sandstig 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 219.88.171.118 

message: I temporarily removed a line added by an anon user that went: "The 14th Panzer Division staioned near Wiesbaden in Hessia (Des Hessischer Loewe)(The Hessisch Lion) is also a very professional tank unit. The Original 14th Panzer Division was destroyed in WW2 at Stalingrad while assigned to the 6th Army." It seemed out of place in the Armoured Corps section, since, if I'm not mistaken, the individual divisions do not come directly under control of one specific combat arm. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. --Edward Sandstig 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  14th Panzer Division 

message: I checked out the site of the Heer and they listed five divisions, instead of the three listed in this article. Were those two units left out because they were recently reactivated or were they left out because they would be deactivated in the near future? --Edward Sandstig 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7th Pz and 14th PzG missing in article? 

message: I strongly propose a merge of the Heer article into German Army, and a permanent redirect page from Heer to German Army.  I’ve seen in the discussion that in 2005 a move from Heer to German Army was decided by the community. Unfortunately, it seems that after this move a new separate Heer article was started.
In my opinion this new Heer article is of minor quality compared to the German Army article, it’s main content is related to the Wehrmacht not to the Heer as such. But maybe some content can be used for the German Army article. MikeZ 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. I'd say go ahead, and have Heer redirect to Germany Army.Michael Dorosh 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Heer]] into [[German Army]] 

message: Does anyone know what German army units are currently in Afghanistan? Chwyatt 08:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany army in Afghanistan today

message: The G36 picture shows a Marui G36C airsoft gun, not the real gun. Just have a look at the fire selector or a the bullet magazine...
:Given that there are bullets in the magazine, I think you're wrong. Otto Tanaka 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: G36 picture looks false

message: So what are the ranks of the Army, and why does this article neither list them, nor link to a list of them? Listings for other countries' armies do, what makes this one inferior?
i think that the comparison between german army and us army ranks is completely wrong! just check out the NATO standardization agreement on military ranks (STANAG 2116). i'm afraid of changing this, since i'm not familiar with writing on wikipedia plus my english isnt that good... :) 87.176.106.169 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks?

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With proper inline citations, this article would easily qualify as a B if not GA.   --dashiellx (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Suggest paragraph on 'war crimes' of German Army World War II be eliminated altogether; all armies committed war crimes, and World War II combat was complicated as well by bands of terrorists, partisans, resistants or whatever they called themselves, virtually all communist, including those in western European countries.  These persons engaged in atrocities, combat, sabotage and so on against recognized national armies, and fighting back was only judged a war crime after the war by the special interest groups.
In the paragraph on the composition of the Wehrmacht in the 1939-1945 period, you omit any reference to some 34 combat divisions who fought under the command of the Wehrmacht, i.e., the Waffen SS, mostly famed as armored and mountain troops, and a branch of the German armed forces to a far greater extent than the Kriegsmarine was.  If a country has a police and security service called the SS under one civil hierarchy, and an entirely separate combat force called the Waffen-SS fighting under Wehrmacht command, one set are cops, the other soldiers.
"Conquered lands" should not be used when in fact, after Great Britain, France (Canada, Australia, etc.) declared war on Germany, and Great Britain sent the Expeditionary Force into France (and lost) and the British invasion force to Norway to keep the North Sea open (and lost), and the Soviet Union entered/invaded the Versailles-created territory then called Poland from the east, at the same time Germany entered from the west what had been Germany, (i.e., the German border territory lost when Versailles created Poland out of it), many would call that defensively occupying a portion, such as in France to hold the Channel ports, by negotiated agreements with the French government (Belgian, etc.), which is not the same as "conquered."  And since since the populations of such countries as Austria and Soviet-hating Ukraine welcomed the German armed forces (Army, Waffen, and later Luftwaffe fighting as ground troops under Wehrmacht command and as part of the Wehrmacht Order of Battle), would not call that 'conquering' either.72.81.65.59 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrmacht 

message: i slightly corrected the denomination of two airborne battalions since their main duty is in the field of support and their official bundeswehr denomination is "Luftlandeunterstützungsbataillon" (Airborn Support Battalion), while the fighting units are called "Fallschirmjägerbataillon" (Airborn Battalion). --swexx 87.176.106.169 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  small changes to nomenclature 

message: To achieve a better visibility, I have edited and rearranged the entire article. Also I've corrected some grammatical and spelling mistakes as good as I could. 
My sources were "Our Army" (ISBN: 3932385020) and http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLtzAIA8lB2c76kXDRoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQBALId7/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzE2XzhCRg!!
I removed some images as well. This happened because some of them have shown basically the same (such as two helicopters on the ground in different angles) and thus did not contribute much informations to the article. 
Maybe someone could look over it and correct minor errors I might have made. 
-Mitch818  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch818 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I understand the army has forces stationed in the UK and the USA. Chould not a section be set up to reflect this? Also, a brief history of permanent deployments could be helpful: German tanks in Wales is not a well known fact and deserves a place in Wikipedia. (Gaccha (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas permanent deployments 

message: From my experience with the more-or-less identical structure of the Royal Netherlands Army (although I agree the latter is slightly less complicated than the German sister), the correct equivalent of Faehndrig (which in the article is currently deemed equivalent to a (U.S.?) 'Sergeant') is "Warrant Officer". Can anybody with applicable experience confirm or deny this? 
PS: I should've added that the Faehndrig rank is the last rank before commissioning (i.e., it is the last rank an officer cadet holds before he gets his 'field' rank) - I believe that corresponds to the Warrant Officer rank in U.S. terms.Mfhulskemper (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Naming 

message: look at this source .... http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443cTQCSYGYxgEh-pEwsaCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUATi3qcg!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0NfNENM ....
Ill make the edit and add the referance to it, as i Noticed there is no info to back the 135,000 claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro5990 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this  there are indeed 35.000 thousand places for reserve forces. Please note, however, that in the source it only says that the possibility exists to summon up to 35.000 reserve troops; it does not say that they are permanently on active duty. My preference therefore would be to use the 102.000 for the strength of the German Army and to mention the 35.000 possible reserve troops at a prominent place in the text (or infobox). Just my five eurocents. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Army (Heer) has 102,000 active troops 

message: I guess the problem stems from merging: The Deutsches Heer and the Bundeswehr have no history before 1955. There is no continuation from prior German armies or armed forces. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Article in its introduction already gives a wrong image of how the history of a German Army is to understand. It states "The German Army" would have taken part in World War I, World War II, and has missions in Aghanistan today. The Bundeswehr is not the successor of the Third Reich's Wehrmacht. That urgently needs to be adjusted. -- Von Hochtraben (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Older stuff, such as medieval "Heer", "Kaiserliches Heer", "Schwere Reiter" etc. are missing as well because there is no direct connection to this. Even photographs of late Chancellor Helmut Schmidt had to be removed from barracks, because inspite of being a Social Democrat, he served wearing the wrong uniform. What a shame. 188.105.240.71 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty history 

message: I think this article has serious issues. As visible from the infobox, this article clearly gives the impression that it deals with the current German Army, that is the land component (Heer) of the armed forces (Bundeswehr) of the Federal Republic of Germany. Nevertheless, half of the introduction and a significant part of the main text is written about historical German armies and not the current one. I don't think this is a good solution. 
The German Army was founded in 1955. It would be OK to mention some historic lines prior to that date, but this should be kept much shorter than the detailed information given in the current article. 
However, if this is meant as a general article on German land armies, then the current infobox should be removed. The article should then also deal with much more detail with the historic German armies, e.g. the land component of the NVA, the military of the GDR.
Levimanthys (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As there are specific articles for the other German armies the material regarding those should be moved there and deleted here; safe for some little intro. The other articles are: German Army (German Empire), Reichswehr, German Army (1935–1945) and Land Forces of the National People's Army. A good example would be the German Air Force article, as it deals exclusively with the current Air Force. noclador (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I began to clean the article up now. There are also a lot of errors in there! especially syntax and article errors. noclador (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current German Army and previous German armies 

message: Surely people realise there are more than 66,000 personnel in the Army, the support services provide additional troops split between the main 3 services (with the majority going to the army). There are actually around 90,000 personnel in the Army structure.Osama is Obama (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :German Army's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Bundeswehr":
From Joint Medical Service (Germany): 
From German Air Force: Die Stärke der Streitkräfte (10 November 2014) 
From Bundeswehr: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:German Army]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on German Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205193544/http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~maampo/militaer/milindex.html to http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~maampo/militaer/milindex.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050330111634/http://www.tulipacademy.org/gew/ddhob/ to http://www.tulipacademy.org/gew/ddhob/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, we've received the following e-mail (OTRS Ticket#2017102510009501) from the editor-in-chief of the German Army's website, listing following errors in the article:
Can someone knowledgeable about the topic address these concerns? utcursch | talk 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixing it. noclador (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistkaes 

message: Shouldn't they be just one article put together? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Heer (German Army) is the army, while the Bundeswehr is the armed forces which includes the air force, army and navy. We wouldn't merge the British Army and British Armed Forces articles for the same reason. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @BilCat Correct, but in addition it should be mentioned that with Bundeswehr in the general usage only the army is meant. When someone in Germany says I'm going to the Bund, he means: I go to the army. Otherwise, the person will almost certainly say I'm going to the Marine or the Luftwaffe. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the difference between the Germany Army and Bundeswehr? 

message: "The present-day German Army was founded in 1955 as part of the newly formed West German Bundeswehr together with the Marine (German Navy) and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force)."
Sorry, the upper unit is the "Bundeswehr"/German Federal Forces. It has an army (Heer), navy (Marine), and airforce (Luftwaffe), among some more units. See de.wikipedia/Bundeswehr. Regrettably, in spite of another post before in the same sense, the original author did not update the text. Please eventually correct. Thank You. (regrettably, my login failed today)2A02:8108:9640:1A68:DDA6:CB7:EAE5:CF5 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what you think is incorrect here. It could be rewritten for clarity, but the current text is saying the same thing as what you're staying is correct. BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  false relations