Talk:Bundeswehr

message: Its the only vehicle with 2 photos and it was nt a very big nor a very iconic part of the Bundeswehr. Wouldent it be better to exchange one picture of it for another vehicle?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.95.55 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIG29 photo issue 

message: I tried to insert the Navigation Panel from the german Wikipedia.

But the lower table makes trouble. Maybe somebody who understands this, can insert it in the 5 articles. --Pixelfire 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
I wanted to add the yearly budget to this article, but I noticed it's already in the info box and just doesn't show on the article page. I tried fixing it, but didn't succeed. Maybe someone else has more luck...
--142.104.118.91 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation Panel 

message: It is very disturbing that some German participants want to dictate our English-language Wikipedia. That the Bundeswehr as the military force of Germany is the successor of the Wehrmacht and the earlier Reichswehr is an obvious fact. Denying that the Wehrmacht and the Reichswehr were the military forces of Germany in previous times and that the current military force of Germany is the Bundeswehr is a really odd POV which does not belong in the article. Casual English readers are not always so familiar with the complicated history of Germany that they know what the military force in previous time was called, and this information is hence necessary. Some German participants here are behaving extremely arrogant and silly. I haven't yet seen an answer above and will continue to revert POV-pushing attempts.
:The question is: What can be called a successor. It is obvious that the Bundeswehr is the military force of Germany. Also the Wehrmacht was a military force of Germany, however, there was no organisational continuity. The first Bundeswehr formations have been founded after 10 years without German military. They are not allowed to maintain the tradition of former Wehrmacht or Reichswehr formations. The official lines of traditons have been explained in the article but have been erased again and again during this edit war. These lines of tradition are based on official Bundeswehr regulations.
:The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany as the German State is in legal continuity of the former Reich does not imply that all its institutions also are direct successors of former state institutions. Nobody will claim that the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) is the successor of the Volksgerichtshof or the police detectives are successors of the Gestapo.
:To sum up again: Neither in terms of organisation nor in the lines of traditions the Bundeswehr is a successor of the Wehrmacht. This is a fact of German history that is important to English readers as some of them might not expect such a radical interruption in the military tradition of a nation that is widely described as militaristic in parts of the British media. That the German military during WW II had been called Wehrmacht is probably known to 99 pct of all English readers. It is of no informational value.
:To remove any ambiguity I have changed the text now in an way that everyone can understand that the former German military was called Reichswehr and Wehrmacht. But also there is the fact that the Bundeswehr does not consider itself as their successor. That can not be disputed. Someone else might have a different opinion but that does not change the official position of the Bundeswehr.
>>Thats like the new Iraqi-Goverment would be the decendent of Saddam 
:To the anonymous author who wants to enforce his position without disclosing his identity: Your (German) claim that the Bundeswehr is following NS-traditions and naming installations by war criminals while the former East German NVA did abstain from this is not correct: As I already once tried to explain to you you can not call Stauffenberg a war criminal. And it was the NVA to consciously keep Wehrmacht-Traditions (uniforms, rank insignia, "goose-stepping"). They claimed to follow real German military traditions while the Bundeswehr was just coping the U.S. military. When you than call my understanding of history socialist it gets more than absurd.--KuK 13:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear unknown User. It was very confusing to read, that some bad Germans dictate your Wikipedia. I thought everybody should work at the wikipedias,... Not only Germans at the German Wiki and English at the Englisch Wiki. Have you ever noticed that there is no US Wiki, or Austrian Wiki. That would be a very racist view of the Wikipedia. In my eyes, you try to dictate your own opinion to this article. --Pixelfire 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry bout that. Just like the American leftists who have nothing better to do than messing up Bush administration related articles, some of their German equivalents engage in similar anti-state, anti-military, anti-everything activity. Whether it's PC or not to admit that the Bundeswehr is the successor to the Wehrmacht, it is pretty obvious that it is. And to the guy above who pointed out that saying so would be silly since other institutions of today's Germany (like the justice system) aren't successors to their Third Reich counterparts, you do know how many Nazi judges just went on working for the new government, don't you? :-) --84.58.44.174 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is: would you call the knigths of Charlesmagne precedessors to the German Bundeswehr? And is it NPOV to tell (inter alia) what an institution says about itself, or isn't it?-- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You will certainly admit that the relationship of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr is much more obvious, seeing that one immediately followed the other, they're somewhat similar in structure and even employed the same people. But I'm fine with the current version of the article. It only baffles me why people always have to fight over PC crap like that. --84.58.50.161 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you closely monitor this article you will find out that we already have been through this phase of the discussion. The fact that the Wehrmacht has been the German military organisation before the Bundeswehr is so obvious that it can't be questioned. The text only says that the Bundeswehr does not regard itself being the Wehrmacht's successor. This is based on a number of intended discontinuities between the two forces. Bundeswehr personnel has been educateded not to accept the Wehrmacht as such as a source of tradition due to the moral failure of this organisation in view of the Nazis' organised crime. That does not mean that individual members of the Wehrmacht cannot be part of the Bundeswehr military tradition. To make it short: it is not very reasonable to call an organisation that came into being ten years after another organisation its successor if it is strongly disconnecting itself from the previous organisation.--KuK 21:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German problems with NPOV

message: I have noticed that in the table stating the manpower availability, only males are considered. This applies to all countries except for Israel and the United States. Why is this? In Germany, women are allowed to serve in all positions men are allowed to serve, while in the U.S., women are not allowed to be combat troops. So, if anything, it should be the US table that ignores females.
:I guess this is done because there is a draft for men only. Women _can_ serve in the Bundeswehr if they want to, men _have_to_ serve. It is not allowed to draft women even in the event of a war, so they are not counted as potential forces. As for other countries, for example the U.S., there is no draft (at least not at the moment), so the potential is calculated differently. But you are right that there should be a change in the counting method if women are not allowed in combat troops, but only as support. --Chrysalis 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manpower- Availability: Why males only? 

message: It might be not easy to explain this so I won't try it, but it's completly forbidden for these german soldiers to aim at humans, not important if their weapon is loaded or not. This image shouldn't be used because it's a completly untypical situation which would have serious follows for the commanding officers. --Saperaud 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this written? On training scenarios you have to aim at humans. Its only forbidden to do this for fun. --Pixelfire 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Training scenarios which include to aim at humans (especially their comrades) are few and it's not really a written law, anyhow it's a matter of safety to forbid "9 month soldiers" (propably these are) to aim at humans in any non-critcal situation (especially training them to do so). It's not necessary for these soldiers to train scenarios like these and it's dangerous to leave such soldiers with armed weapons later on (f.e. guard services). To my knowledge that's only done with soldiers training for an abroad mission and as a follow untypical for others. --Saperaud 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but i've never heard of this. You don't let W9's aim at other people at this distance with loaded Weapons, but I don't see there any problems with unloaded ones. And a well trained Corporal (OR-4) or above should know he does with his weapon. --Pixelfire 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In the description of the picture stands, that the two soldiers prepare to raid a room, that is marked on the ground. The left one ist just at aiming position, because of possible enemies coming out of the room. And he looks down to watch the right one. The thumbnail is missleading, yes. Matthias Rötsch --217.225.60.81 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well, I have moved him farther down. Ve3 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you could not aim at humans, what would the AGDUS (MILES-equivalent) be there for? And yes that is trained with 9 month soldiers.--93.135.57.193 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "Critics also claim that the Bundeswehr was too slow to change the names of barracks and other facilities bearing the names of prominent Wehrmacht and Reichswehr officers"
That suggests that all barracks named after Wehrmacht or Reichswehr soldiers should be renamed (since there are barracks and other institutions "still" named after Wehrmacht or Reichswehr officers). That's  POV.
129.13.186.1
::Your changes really improve the article, thanks. And it is true that the German Wikipedia has huge problems with leftwing POVs. 129.13.186.1 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrmacht tradition 

message: This article is subject to frequent vandalism by IP-vandals, sock puppets, and some other individuals like user:Mr.Do! who is playing his games also in the German wikipedia under the Name "Eins". If this does not stop one possibility to protect it is to ask for semi-protection.--KuK 15:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: In general, the unification process of the military - under the slogan "Armee der Einheit"/"Army of Unity" - is publicly seen as a major success and an example for other parts of the society.
I've neither heard of "Armee der Einheit" before, nor being a "major success and example for other parts of the society". Are there any sources for this?--84.56.237.68 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armee der Einheit 

message: Why does it not say anything about the training of the bundeswehr? the training has alot to do with the effectivness of a fighting unit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.236.189 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reason may also be that training contents are VS-NfD, that is, "restricted - for use on duty only", that means it is not allowed to anyone who has been trained himself to explain any training content, if he is not 100% sure that his explanation does 100% not interfere with German security. (99,9 % are not enough!) --84.154.81.219 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bundeswehr Training 

message: the military age is 17. I edited it. R. Grasemann  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.244.211 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: FAQ [www.bundeswehr.de] : Alter - Bundeswehr
Ab welchem Alter kann ich zur Bundeswehr gehen? Sie müssen mindestens 17 Jahre alt sein. Bewerben können Sie sich jedoch bereits im Alter von 16 Jahren.
Q: What is the age I'm able to go to the bundeswehr?
Answer: You need to be 17 years of age. But you can send an application at the age of 16.
213.191.70.179 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: There should be a section about the equipment. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.198.84 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment 

message: Why does this article have the foreign language word "Bundeswehr" as it's title while virtually every other article about a nation's armed forces has a title after the pattern of "Military of Xxx" or "Xxx Armed Forces"? The French armed forces for example are found under Military of France and not under "Armées françaises", the Malaysian armed forces are found under Military of Malaysia rather than "Angkatan Tentera Malaysia" and the Spanish armed forces are found under, well, Spanish Armed Forces and not "Fuerzas Armadas Españolas". What's the reason for this exception? --DavidDCM (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "Bundeswehr" is the international standard denominator. As someone already quoted in the above topic 'Translation', Bundeswehr.com writes:
"Die Bundeswehr hat keine offiziellen Namen (Übersetzungen) in anderen Sprachen, sondern trägt die weltweit anerkannte und bekannte Bezeichnung BUNDESWEHR. Sie können bei Bedarf (zur Erläuterung) den Begriff 'Bundeswehr' wie folgt übersetzen: (German) Federal Armed Forces."
Translation: "The Bundeswehr has no official name (translation) in other languages, but is referred to by the internationally accepted and familiar designation BUNDESWEHR. If required (as explanation) you can translate the word 'Bundeswehr' as follows: (German) Federal Armed Forces."
As far as I know, there are very few similar designations for other national forces (France's nuclear Force de Frappe is an example). Furtheremore, it is customary in international military jargon (for example NATO's) to use the term 'Bundeswehr'. Accordingly, this wikipedia-article can be labelled 'Bundeswehr', as an explanatory 'translation' of the term is given in the first sentence so that nobody gets confused... :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.74.253 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Could sb change the G22 as a group of countrys into the gun "G22" which is a Arctic Warfare (I think so).--84.161.98.151 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons 

message: Shall this be the translation of "Bundeswehr"? Very strange.--WerWil (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bundes-" means Federal, "wehren" (Verb) means to defend. "Of Germany" is added for explanation. And Force is used in English. --84.154.81.247 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess ther is no better Translation, but "...wehr..." is used in various ways where the Translation as defence would be wrong. It can also mean "Weapon" or "capabilitiy to fight".--WerWil (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Please don't try to split the word in two parts and to translate them individually. In most cases this goes wrong. The translation may not be perfect but in the end both wordings are essentially the same. --Denniss (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I can not truly judge the konnotaion of "Defence Force" in english, I can say as a nativ speaking German, that in this Case the meaning of "Wehr" is not primarily "defend". IMHO "Armed forces" would be more correct.--WerWil (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. “sich wehren” is to defend oneself, particularly in a “Notwehr”-situation. The “Feuerwehr” doesn't exactly use fires offensively either—they defend other people's property against them. Just as the Bundeswehr was conceived as a federal armed force for defensive purposes. Quite frankly, being a native speaker myself, I have absolutely no idea what other translation you may have had in mind. Cheers, —mnh·∇· 23:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I can not speak for the whole meaning of english words, but as far as I can see "Wehr" is used in different ways than "Defend". For example "Gewehr", "Wehrpflicht" or "wehrhaft" are not only or primaryly used in relation to defense. "Wehr" is also a word for Weapon (f.e. in Poetry "In Wehr und Rüstung) or capability to fight. It might be a difference of taste or social kontext, but in my opinion most people in Germany don't use "Bundeswehr" in the Meaning of "Defence" Force but as "Armed" Forces.--WerWil (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal Defence Forces of Germany

message: The article says: "There was a discussion between the United States, the United Kingdom and France over the issue of a revived German military. In particular, France was reluctant to allow Germany to rearm in light of recent history (Germany had invaded France three times in the previous 80 years)." I know that this shall express the POV from the french but it is historical not correct. Germany invaded France 2 times in the previous 80 years.. in the first and second world war. You can't blame germany for the invasion of france in 1871 since france had declared war on germany, not germany war on france.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.115.173 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless France was invaded, regardless of who was to blame. Also I think the causes of the Franco-Prussian War were more complicated than who declared war on who first. It should be remembered that Bismarck manipulated the Ems Dispatch in a way that he knew would not preserve peace.--Britannicus (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Facts 

message: It's necessary to write in the article that conscription is already de facto cancelled in Germany. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is wrong. Still young men are being drafted, even if it is easily possible to escape conscription. There are a number of people who want to serve for a short period for different reasons, e.g. to bridge the time prior to further education, or for feeling the obligation to serve the country once in a lifetime. Since the number of conscript posts in the Bundeswehr is not very high there are still sufficient people to fill them.--KuK (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of conscription 

message: I've edited a section in the Cold War History part of this article, referring to the Franco-German enmity. In the previous version it was stated, that Germany (or it's predecessors) have invaded France three times in the last 80 years, what is wrong in some extend. The invasion in WWI and II is not part of the discussion but the implied invasion in the Franco-German war of 1870/71 is not an invasion per se. France declared war on Prussia in 1870, what caused the other German states to respect their Defence Alliance with Prussia and to join them. This war resulted in a total defeat of the French Army, the collapse of the Second French Empire of Napoleon III, and the unification of the German states in the (second) German Empire under the lead of emperor Wilhelm I.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.54.153 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of the Cold War History Part 

message: could someone add the known orbat for the Bundeswehr? Akinkhoo (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  no orbat? 

message: Wehr in German does not necessarily mean defense force, it means military or armed force. The German for defense force would be Verteidigungskräfte or something similar — verteidigen being "to defend." The last three incarnations of the German military forces have included wehr in their names:  Reichswehr (Weimar Republic), Wehrmacht (Third Reich) and Bundeswehr (West Germany; reunited Germany). The second one was decidedly offensive in character. Accordingly, I have changed the translation to "Federal Armed Force."
Sca (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to contradict, bur Wehr does mean defence. Sich wehren means to defend oneself. The fact that the Nazis misused the term for an offensive force does not mean that Wehr has an offensive implication in German. Therefore, I will revert this change. --KuK (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I defer to the native German speaker ... und hab was neues gelernt.  Sca (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation-2

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bundeswehr. 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/20151231193129/http://www.janes.com/article/54292/germany-italy-may-increase-submarine-fleets to http://www.janes.com/article/54292/germany-italy-may-increase-submarine-fleets
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322031908/http://www.janes.com/article/54636/dutch-mechanized-brigade-to-be-integrated-into-german-panzer-division to http://www.janes.com/article/54636/dutch-mechanized-brigade-to-be-integrated-into-german-panzer-division
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127005113/http://www.terrwv.bundeswehr.de/ to http://www.terrwv.bundeswehr.de/
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) 13:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundeswehr. 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://archive.is/20130106080254/http://www.readersipo.de/ to http://www.readersipo.de/
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) 16:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is "Bundeswehr" written in italics in the intro? No other article (aside from Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) does this. See Spetsnaz. Italics are used to denote a foreign word, but the Bundeswehr is not exactly such (it "is", but there is no purely English variation like there is for the Vergeltungswaffe).--Adûnâi (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why italics in the intro? 

message: On the page at the present time, there's a sentence that goes
"Today, after a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1994 the term "defence" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany, but also crisis reaction and conflict prevention, or more broadly as guarding the security of Germany anywhere in the world."
Why is the word "Today" being used in such a way? The sentence isn't in quotation marks.
73.121.68.13 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Today?

message: The Bundeswehr had and probably still has problems with radical-right soldiers. Nothing here. There are hundreds of sources.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical right 

message: The section is obsolete, the government has changed, the Russian war has changed the context. German political leadership in NATO and EU is weak. The Bundeswehr declares to have limited arms. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination with European Partners 

message: Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment - circular reference 

message: I'm tired of it because I've changed it two times for now, but every time someone changes it again.  The official website of the Bundeswehr states a reserve of 930,000 men.  But it seems that Wikipedia knows how many reservists it has better than the Bundeswehr itself.
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ueber-die-bundeswehr/die-reserve-der-bundeswehr/auftrag-der-reserve-der-bundeswehr Danys (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve