Jump to content

Talk:German Army (1935–1945): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 241: Line 241:


:It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht, per the move discussions above. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht, per the move discussions above. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

::"It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht" That's not even a rationally -silly- answer, since there are NO "German Navy (Wehrmacht)" or "German Air Force (Wehrmacht)" entries for their wiki's, they are called by their service names in nazi Germany, the "Kriegsmarine" and the "Luftwaffe". So to insist on continuing with the incorrect usage of "Wehrmacht" the definition of which is "Armed Forces", as opposed to the correct term, "Heer", which means "Army", is not only ignorant, it smacks of a rather puerile attraction and/or attachment to the more lurid aspects of the absolute lowest denominator of the literature of nazi Germany.

Revision as of 12:43, 6 November 2018

June 2007

I've introduced a separate article named Wehrmacht Heer to focus on the army and its units which are covered by many separate articles. No hierarchical structure seems to exist on Wikipedia that would connect these articles, though.

The article Wehrmacht should focus on general aspects. -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect campaign objective regarding Army Group Centre

Regarding the strategic deployment of the wehrmacht, the article states that AGC had the campaign objective of taking Smolensk, the last major city before Moscow. This is wrong. It is abundantly clear that the main objective of this Army was Moscow. Army Group Centre was the strongest army group at the beginning of Barbarossa, and its trajectory of advance was virtually a straight line to Moscow. Perhaps because it was driven back from the Russian capital in disarray (thus exposing the failure of Blitzkreig) can explain the glaring inaccuracy. It seems extraordinary that Hitler would have the capture of Smolensk (just another Russian city) as the main objective of his strongest Army and centre of Gravity for the entire Eastern front.

The army failed in its main objective, you cant then just claim its main objective was a city in which it was victorious. I wont edit for I am a mere guest, but i would like other opinions....

Ok, here is an opinion....

Moscow was the objective of AGC during Operation Typhoon. Smolensk was the object of AGC during Operation Barbarossa (Minsk was its initial objective). The idea was that the 3 AGs would destroy the Red Army forces facing them in a 10-12 week campaign (Barbarossa). It was intended that the panzer forces of each AG would attack on narrow fronts, break-through, quickly advance into the rear-areas of the Red Army and then turn North or South to meet and therefore surround the target Soviet forces. The Heer infantry formations closely following the panzers would relieve and takeover the task of holding the surrounded Red Army forces before compressing and destroying them. Released from their holding role and with the bulk of the Red Army encircled and about to be destroyed, AGN panzers forces would then be in a position to advance more or less unopposed to Leningrad, AGC panzers to Moscow and AGS panzers to Rostov & the Caucasus. This didn't work out because the Heer infantry forces were insufficiently mobile to quickly back-up and relieve the faster-moving panzer formations during the envelopments. In addition, the surrounded Red Army forces fought back hard. Naturally, their resistance increased the time spent destroying them. Time was a vitally important factor in this campaign. While the Heer spent time getting its infantry forces into position to seal, compress and destroy the surrounded Soviet forces, the Red Army used the respite to assemble more forces. Thus when the panzers were finally ready to move on they came across fresh formations opposing them. Barbarossa mainly failed because the Germans had insufficient mobile forces to fulfil the plan in the time allotted but also because Red Army formations stiffly resisted them, even when surrounded. Against the wishes of his AGC commanders, Hitler directed AGC panzers South (PzGrp2) following the capture of Smolensk because a strategic opportunity had developed in the Ukraine due to the failure of AGS to match the depth of the advances of AGN & AGC. This resulted in the Battle of Kiev and the capture of all of the Western Ukraine, a highly-prized economic target identified by Hitler in the planning for Barbarossa. It was only after the completion of the Battle of Kiev that Hitler's focus finally moved to Moscow and the resultant Operation Typhoon.

The German forces preferred method of attack ('Blitzkrieg') wasn't a failure. It was merely a tactic. A means to an end. The failure was in vastly overestimating the power of the Wehrmacht to complete an operation (Barbarossa) which contained an unrealistic schedule. The failure was also about underestimating firstly, the size of the Red Army and the quality of much of its equipment, secondly the ability of the Soviet state to replace losses and simultaneously ADD new forces and thirdly the ability of the Communist Party & the Soviet state to rally the population and the troops to resist the invaders.

The image Image:German cavalry.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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FG 42

FG 42 was NOT given to the Heer. Hitler was opposed to the FG 42 and insisted that it is not to be produced. Goring, on the other hand, insisted that his paratroopers had a weapon to drop with that was useful in both long range and short range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added the 'expert needed' tag

i am no expert, but something seems to be missing here. ie, some mention of the SS and its relationship with the army. for this reason i have added the 'expert' tag. thank you. Decora (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if nothing else it should be clarified that the Waffen-SS was not part of the regular army or Heer (but should be considered as part of the overall Wehrmacht [as I understand it]).Historian932 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. That was the easy part. There was some discussion about the disambiguator used. This close should not be viewed as closing that discussion. If the other options might be better then it should be discussed here and brought back to RM if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heer (1935–1945) → German Army (1935–1945) – relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The common name in English for the German Army in this period is “German Army”. The term Heer is not used in English (and is simply the German word for “army” in any case) and is far less common (to non-existent) in reliable sources, compared to the term German Army. Also, despite the title, the article uses the term “army” and “German army” throughout in preference to Heer, which makes a nonsense of its use in the title.
Our Manual of style discourages the use non-English terms in general (“Foreign terms should be used sparingly”); there is no warrant for it when an adequate English term exist instead.
A Google search of the term Heer shows it is highly ambiguous, (while “German Army (1935-1945)” is not); and the first English use of it for German army would seem to be this WP article, offending the guidelines on neologisms: these point out that “articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term” and indicates they are “commonly deleted” for that reason. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support WP:Use English not German. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have major articles on the Kriegsmarine (Nazi navy) and the Luftwaffe (airforce), so this is the logical third leg of the stool. The military aircraft project has happily created an entire airforce of Wikinamed craft, while classical music project has done the same for classical music. So let's not get all neologophobic here. There are occasions when the English language simply doesn't have le mot juste. Why did the Nazi regime have a Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, and Heer, instead of a navy, airforce, and army? This has to do with the wonderfully sinister sound that German military words have for English speakers. As Winston Churchill put it, "Enemy submarines are to be called "U-Boats". The term "submarine" is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." The Nazis actually had two armies: The Heer and the Waffen-SS. So this terminology allows us to compare, say, a "Heer panzer" (155 English-language Google Book results) to a "Waffen-SS panzer". Kauffner (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources regularly distinguish between the Waffen-SS and the German Army and their relationship cannot be simplified to being 'two armies' (an 'army' is a different thing to an 'armed force'), eg 'Although the Waffen-SS was a military force of the Third Reich, it never technically attained the position of the fourth branch of the German armed forces. It paralleled the German Army in almost every respect, and was subordinate to the Army High Command (OKH) or Armed Forces High Command (OKW) in time of battle.' From Ailsby's SS: Hell on the Eastern Front. Note the use of 'German Army' and 'Waffen-SS', and not 'Heer' and 'Waffen-SS'. If we want to compare two Panzers, we can compare 'a regular Germany Army panzer' to a 'Waffen-SS panzer', without having to use the term Heer. Benea (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neologophobic? Good one!

      OTOH, Heer is hardly a mot juste; it isn't even a borrowed term. You may be as likely to encounter Luftwaffe as "German Air Force" in an English language source, but that certainly isn't true of Heer.

      And if consistency is the argument (rather than just "other stuff exists") there's a better case for moving Luftwaffe to "German Air Force" than there is to having German Army at Heer. How much consistency do you think we need? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It is simply not the case that Heer is the common English name used in sources to describe the army of that period, in the way that Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe are for the navy and air force. There is no requirement to use only German terms or no German terms, WP:COMMONNAME applies on a case-by-case basis. Why does the classical music project's conventions have any bearing on this? 'Why did the Nazi regime have a Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, and Heer, instead of a navy, airforce, and army?' That would be because that were the names applied in the German language. While the Churchill comment may explain why Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine are the enduring names in English for those forces, it falls down flat in this argument because the common name for the army isn't Heer! Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Waffen-SS, Wehrmacht, etc, may all have endured and become the common name in English. Heer, for whatever reason, has not. Benea (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is a principle of titling listed in WP:TITLE: "Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?" "German Army" would certainly break the existing pattern of titles for WWII German military formations. Precision is another titling principle that I feel would be lost in the proposed move. So common name isn't the end of the story. Kauffner (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would however been entirely consistent with the use of German Army. Benea (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Heer is not in current English useage, while Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe are known much more commonly. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Buckshot06 comments on how unfamiliar this term is in the English language; most English-language users who had any knowledge would use the (incorrect) term Wehrmacht if asked what the German word for "Army" was during the Second World War. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wehrmacht" is certainly a better disambiguator than using dates. But my first choice is to name the article Wehrmacht Heer, which is where it was before this move. The abbreviation "WH" was common at the time.[1] "Wehrmacht" is actually more common in English than "German Army", according to this ngram. Adding "Heer" is a modest adjustment that takes into account what I like to call the "correctness factor." There are 143 English-language examples of "Wehrmacht Heer" on Google Books. Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually far fewer results for 'Wehrmacht Heer', when you actually examine the search there are just 62 results. And when you discount the random dual occurrences of those words in lists ('Die Versorgung der Wehrmacht (Heer und Luftwaffe)', 'SS Waffen-SS Volkssturm Wehrmacht Heer Luftwaffe') and in cites ('the crimes of the German Wehrmacht (Heer and Naumann 1995)', 'the historical image of the German Wehrmacht (Heer et al. 2003, 2008)') there are fewer still. This hardly seems to be adding any correctness factor. Indeed it is just adding an unused term in English (Heer) to one that is (Wehrmacht), to create a new term, that is also unused. Benea (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peacemaker: It’s a fair point about Wehrmacht as a disambiguator, except for the observation made by WB Wilson and Peterkingiron that in many peoples minds, Wehrmacht and German Army are synonymous; so putting them together in a title presents an ambiguity that disambiguating by date avoids. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kauffner: If the objection to Heer is that it is rarely if ever used in English, then hearking back to a term (Wehrmacht Heer) that is even rarer in English isn’t making progress towards a solution, is it?
And the rationale given for the move [2] you mentioned sort of illustrates the problem, don’t you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'There was no such thing as "Wehrmacht Heer"'? But that rationale is quite obviously mistaken. Here is a good example of English-language usage. Camouflage colors: Wehrmacht Heer : 1939-1945 is the title of a book. It's certainly a word in German as it gets nearly 4,000 Google Book hits. The German authors seem to like "Wehrmacht (Heer)" or "Wehrmacht/Heer", but that's a just a style issue. The army's vehicles were marked "WH", so it was an official usage.
"Wehrmacht" is the common English-language name of this organization. But it is a sloppy usage and we already have an article of this title. "Wehrmacht Heer" improves precision and disambiguates while prominently retaining the common name. Kauffner (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So at the cost of using English, you want us to use a term that is no more precise, and far less recognizable, than "German Army (1935-1945)"? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You might want to take another look at the examples you gave; they don't help your case at all. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If dates are required to explain the concept, there is obviously a precision problem with the proposed title. Kauffner (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have read and seen quite a bit about WW2, and I have never seen the term Heer. Luftwaffe is fairly well known to English speakers, I question whether we should use Kriegsmarine. Like a lot of English speakers, I assumed that Wehrmacht was the name for the German army in WW2, not the German armed forces collectively. Wehrmacht Heer is just complicating matters. PatGallacher (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Heer does not seem to be used by the sources e.g. Osprey's The German Army 1939-1945 series. In any case Heer just means "army" - if we're going to use it, it should be Deutsches Heer, but I'd stick with "German Army". --Bermicourt (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsches Heer is the modern German Army. This subject is Wehrmacht Heer. Kauffner (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Don't break something that isn't broken, although the initial new name suggestion is somewhat acceptable. What I can't live with is Deutsches Heer or Wehrmacht Heer - both names do not exist. It has always been just Heer. --Denniss (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do consider it broken and in need of fixing, since it's using a term that English-language sources hardly ever use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless of German terms being used for other military branches, in this case the English term should be used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Voted above) -- still support, but German Army (World War II) might be a possibility. I do not think it was created in 1939 or formally dissolved in 1945, being kept after allied victory as a mechanism for controlling the defeated troops. Dissolving the Iraqi army upon its defeat was one of President Bush's big mistakes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to German Army (1935–1945) as proposed. It seems a no-brainer to me, Heer is not used in English, I've only just learned what it means, so it's out at first base in terms of WP:AT ...recognizable to readers... (while Luftwaffe is extremely common in English and Kriegsmarine reasonably common, so there is no parallel). I note also that one of the two oppose votes describes the original proposal (which is what I'm supporting) as acceptable. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move. again

Having gone through a request move a couple of months ago, this was moved, without discussion or reference to the RM (above), to a new title ( German Army (Wehrmacht)
I’ve reversed this, as it is an out-of-process move which circumvents the previous RM decision and is thumbing it’s nose at the whole notion of consensus. It also repeats a format which was discussed, and was rejected by the closing admin. One problem with it which springs to mind is that it reinforces the (not uncommon) idea that the Wehrmacht and the German Army were the same organization.
But, if anyone thinks that would be a better title, I suggest they open a RM on the subject, and see what support it has. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that re-naming it German Army (Wehrmacht) could be confusing to the general reader and reinforces the incorrect notion that Wehrmacht is the name for the German Army, when in fact it is Heer. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people will always misunderstand, but under our titling rules the base name and the disambiguator are never supposed to mean the same thing. I find the current title most unsatisfactory. It implies the existence of a series of articles entitled "German Army", each for a different historical period. Here the dates are used not so much for disambiguation as an essential part of the name, i.e. this title assumes that readers understand the significance of the dates. Even though these dates are relatively well-known, it is still a non-standard format. Kauffner (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, the timeframe is made clear to readers as it is stated (1935-1945); even if it is "non-standard". With that said, I would be agreeable to Wehrmacht-Heer if need be. Kierzek (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not looking to re-open the debate, just to give the guy who moved the page the option of requesting his move and putting his case.
As an aside, though, Heer was the previous title, which was rejected by a large margin, so it is unlikely to be returning there any time soon. The question is only whether there is a better disambiguator or not.
As a point of fact, though, we do have articles on German Army and German Army (German Empire), so in that sense this is one of a series. The logical dab would be GA(Nazi Germany) but I can’t see that being a popular or satisfactory choice.
On balance I’m inclined to think this title is adequate, or (failing that) the least worst option. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German Military naming convention

please see the discussion at WikiProject Military history which concerns this page. noclador (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus appears to be in favour of the move, largely because the debate over whether the organisation was disbanded in 1945 or 1946 makes the current title inappropriate. Number 57 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


German Army (1935–46) → German Army (Wehrmacht) – The article title makes a controversial statement as to the exact date of the dissolution of the German Army. No reliable sources have been produced to support the claim. The new name has been suggested on the WikiProject Military History talk page, where the matter has been discussed in the past days. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information. 'German Army' presently links directly to German Army for the present day army of Germany (ie, without an intervening disambiguation page. The article presently has the following (in an 'about' template):

This article is about the modern army of Germany and post-World War II army of West Germany. For the World War II army of Germany, see German Army (1935–46). For the World War I army of Germany, see German Army (German Empire). For other uses, see German Army (disambiguation).

The text for the disambiguation is as follows:

The German Army is the land army of Germany.

The German Army may refer to:

See also

Some relevant page view statistics reported during the Milhist discussion are:

An interesting statistic - (quoting the number of page views for yesterday), there were 1,825 for Wehrmacht, 649 for German Army (1935–46) and 922 for German Army. I do not think that one can, on the basis of this, reasonably assert that Wehrmacht is "completely foreign ... to the vast majority of readers." Even before the move (11 Jan), the maximum page views per day (in the last 30) was 507 (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/German_Army_%281935%E2%80%9345%29) for "German Army (1935–46)". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But Wehrmacht has more than twice as many internal links. Srnec (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And it is visited nearly three times as often as "German Army (1935–4?)". I think my point stands. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In light of some comments being made, I thought it might be useful to make this information explicit here.Cinderella157 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC) This material was deleted in good faith but contrary to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list above adds value to the discussion as it gives indication to the whole dilemma. "German Army" is both a context independent translation of the German land army, independent of the governing organization, regime, era or war it may be associated with, and on the other side, it is a very specific name of the current land component of the armed forces of Germany. This ambiguous use of the translation may also apply to the "German Navy" and "German Air Force". In every instance the current Wiki article points to the component of the Bundeswehr. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can confirm that this matter was discussed at length on the Milhist talk page, and the consensus was to RM this move. German Army divisions of WWII already use this disambiguation. It is natural and unambiguous, and avoids the possibly WP:FRINGEY 1946 issue. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I participated in this discussion and believe this to be the best choice under the circumstances. However, I oppose an out of context opening statement "No reliable sources have been produced to support the claim." My understanding of the discussion so far was that a number of sources have been brought forward allowing various interpretations to when exactly the Heer ceased to exist. From my point of view, the issue is an interpretation challenge. We came to the conclusion that interpreting the sources should not be made a problem of the article name. The suggested rename of the article unlinks the name of the article from the challenge of interpreting the sources. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing controversial about the date 1946. For reliable sources, see Large, Germans to the Front (1996); Rolf-Dieter Müller et al., Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität (2012); Diehl, The Thanks of the Fatherland (1993); Lockenour, Soldiers As Citizens (2001); Klein, "The Myth...", Baltic Defence Review (2001); and try [3] for numerous sources, mainly but not only in German. The term Wehrmacht as a disambiguator in this case has two downsides: (i) it is a foreign word that a majority of readers will not recognise or understand, even if a majority of WWII buffs don't bat an eye, and (ii) it invites the mistaken assumption that the German Army and the Wehrmacht were the same thing, but the former was only a part of the latter. (This latter mistake is unlikely to occur with German Army divisions.) The dates 1935–46 are not confusing to anybody except that very small subset of readers. Srnec (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out elsewhere many historians consider 8 May 1945 to mark the end of the Wehrmacht, eg Wette,The Wehrmacht: history, myth, reality (2009) [4]. We are, however, not discussing the Wehrmacht, but the German Army. As to (ii): it is the purpose of the lede to make clear what the article is about. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's the end of the Wehrmacht as a fighting force at the unconditional surrender of Germany and there's the end of the Wehrmacht as an organization by order of the Allied Control Council. While Tadeusz may be making too much of it, he is definitely correct that the surrender had no implication whatsoever for the existence of the Wehrmacht. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand how I have "made too much of it" when I have pointed out 1) that the Wehrmacht as an organization continued to exist for some time after WWII both de jure and as a matter of fact (and that an army doesn't cease to exist by a surrender itself) and 2) that it was not a matter of an insignificant bureaucratic detail or anything like that; the Wehrmacht as an organization was huge for months after 8 May, we are talking millions of serving personnel who didn't just disappear overnight. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do not believe there is too much controversy as to whether 1946 is technically the year in which army of the Werhmacht ceased to exist. I percieve the controversy is whether this is appropriate for the title [ie German Army (1935–46)]. I suggested (in the discussion on the Milhist talk page) that the principle of "common recognizability" applies here IAW the MOS (Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title). I suggest that 1935–45 is more commonly recognizable. I support the proposal [German Army (Wehrmacht)] as both an acceptable name in itself and one which avoids the pedantic argument of 'which is more correct' (not which is better). As per the Milhist talk page, information on page view statistics does not support a view that the term Wehrmacht as a disambiguator is a foreign word that a majority of readers will not recognise or understand. While there may be a prevalent mistaken assumption that the German Army and the Wehrmacht were the same thing, this title, does not, of itself, perpetuate such a mistaken assumption. The lead of the article (quoted as follows) and the Wehrmacht article address any pre-existing misconception.

The German Army (German: Heer, German pronunciation: [ˈheːɐ̯]) was the land forces component of the Wehrmacht, the regular German armed forces, from 1935 until it was demobilized and finally dissolved in August 1946. The Wehrmacht also included the Kriegsmarine (Navy) and the Luftwaffe (Air Force). During World War II, a total of about 15 million soldiers served in the German Army, of whom about seven million became casualties. Most army personnel were conscripted.

In balance, I see this is as a preferable option to the present title. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion has taken place among WWII buffs. I doubt the average reader could choose between "1935–45", "1935–46" and "Wehrmacht". A user makes a small correction to the title, and suddenly everybody thinks the title shouldn't have dates in it at all! The current title is less misleading and confusing than the proposal. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move that does not include years Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#German Army (1935-46) shows that there is a consensus for a move, whether among WW II buffs or not. It also indicates a lack of consensus on the end year for the organization (although there appear no takers for 1949 or 1955), which strengthens my support. I appreciate the reservation that the Wehrmacht (like the Reichswehr or Bundeswehr) is not the German Army, which weakens it. Unless someone comes up with a better distinguishing mark than Wehrmacht, I have to support the suggested move. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Do we really expect readers know that the army was a component of the Wehrmacht? Unless you know that obscure factoid, the proposed title makes no sense. The 1945 vs 1946 end date issue is a detail and it should not be allowed to wag the dog. NotUnusual (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to note this but required if turns out to be community banned user: SPI on User:NotUnusual In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the date is debateable, the name not. If one doesn't know what timeframe Wehrmacht denotes then he/she failed in history class. --Denniss (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the proposed title is adopted, many readers will assume that this is Wikipedia's article about the Wehrmacht. But that organization is already covered in a separate article that is titled simply Wehrmacht. NotUnusual (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, in my experience, lots of people don't know the exact timeframe. For example in this discussion, not everyone was aware that the Wehrmacht ceased to exist in 1946, not in 1945. And among the general public in English speaking countries, I doubt many people know that Wehrmacht was created in 1935. Also, for the record, the year 1946 is not debatable in any way, it is the year when the Wehrmacht ceased to exist both officially by decision of the Allied Control Council, and de facto, after its personell (at least those outside Soviet-occupied Europe) had been repatriated and demobilized and the organization dissolved, which obviously would have been impossible to do in just one day. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some kind of move. I definitely agree that 1935-46 is confusing even if technically defensible, and should probably be avoided. "(Wehrmacht)" is fine. One other option would be "(1935)" - there is no question it is the 1935 version of the German Army, and we don't strictly need to include both dates in the title... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strenuously disagree with the wording of the proposal above, specifically the claim that "The article title makes a controversial statement as to the exact date of the dissolution of the German Army". It does no such thing; it is proven by sources beyond any doubt that the Wehrmacht was dissolved by the Allied Control Council in 1946, and this has in fact been mentioned prominently in eg. the Wehrmacht article for ages. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out, that you have not provided a single source explicitly mentioning the "German Army"? May I suggest also, you look up the chronology of events in 1945 and 1946? May I suggest further, you have a look at the original texts you refer to?
You are struggling to provide reliable sources, because there is no doubt among historians that the German Armed Forces ceased to exist on 8 May 1945, the date the unconditional surrender of Germany came into force. Everything that happened afterwards was somehow backed by the Allies or - as in the case of some of the military courts still passing sentences - the ones responsible were made accountable. Demilitarization had just begun and repatriation was far from finished in the summer of 1946. In September 1946 there were more than 400,000 German POWs in Great Britain alone (the highest count ever!), and France had more than twice that number in custody. BTW, the - oh so civilized - French used their POWS to clear mines, resulting in the death of around 2,000 POWs per month, contrary to international humanitarian law.
Contrary to your believes, however, the Soviets followed international law to the letter. This means, that - in their view - unless it was spelled out expressis verbis, it was not happening. And that is the raison d'etre of Law No.34. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have been over this already, and your claim that I have not provided sources is blatantly wrong. On the contrary, you have not provided any relevant sources. Your unsupported assertion that "there is no doubt among historians that the German Armed Forces ceased to exist on 8 May 1945" is preposterous, has nothing to do with actual history and shows a very, very lacking understanding of the laws and customs of war and what a surrender means. The Soviet Union did also not follow the laws of war to any noticeable extent, for example they were routinely attacking medical personnel in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no doubt among historians that the German Armed Forces ceased to exist on 8 May 1945" is complete bollocks. The source cited above—Wette—does not even say that it was dissolved in 1945, but that it was dissolved after 8 May 1945. The rest of the paragraph is about later efforts to cleanse the Wehrmacht's image. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what exactly is confusing about the dates? And how "German Army (Wehrmacth)" is not potentially just as confusing? Srnec (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The end date is a minor concern compared to the problems with the proposed title, which encourages readers to think that the German army and the Wehrmacht were the same thing. The end date is when the story ends for purposes of the article. The 1946 ACC order ended pension rights for servicemen, which is a significant part of the story. NotUnusual (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having examined the various oppose arguments above I can fault them all logically. For example it seems to be argued that as this army was not the same thing as the Wehrmacht, then that's not a suitable disambiguator. That argument if accepted would disqualify nearly all disambiguators currently in use throughout the encyclopedia. It seems to be argued that some experts are in consensus regarding the date, but there seems no dispute that others disagree on it. The valid arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of the move as proposed. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think the average reader knows that the German Army was just one of several components of the Wehrmacht? Not only that, but the proposed title assumes the reader knows that the Wehrmacht existed only under the Nazis. The title should not be written in a code that only WWII trivia buffs understand! NotUnusual (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure, nor do I think we have any chance of deciding it either way, but I think it's completely and utterly irrelevant anyway. The function of the disambiguator is to identify the correct article. The article itself should make this distinction of course, but we can't put the entire article content into the title. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't seem to understand the purpose of titles. Someone reading the article should be able to look up at the title and think, "Yup, I am at the right article," not "I wonder what this article is about." When I first saw the proposed title "German Army (Wehrmacht)," I assumed that "German Army" was intended as a translation of Wehrmacht. I find it astonishing that anyone would argue that this type of confusion is irrelevant. The title tells the reader the name of the subject. The disambiguation page identifies the correct article. As for the disambiguator, it prevents title clashes. NotUnusual (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please discuss my arguments rather than speculating on my competence. I know it can be difficult to avoid such phrasing, but it really helps the discussion if we can.
          • Yes, I can see how someone might make that mistake if they were new both to Wikipedia and to the topic and so did not understand our disambiguation conventions and syntax. In common English, the parenthetical term is more likely to be a synonym, rather than a qualifier. But our convention here is that it is a qualifier, not a synonym.
          • So you make a valid point, but it goes a long way past this particular article title. If we accept this argument, we will also need to change many, perhaps most, of our disambiguated titles. For example someone could similarly assume from the title Pin (chess) that pin and chess in this context were synonyms or near synonyms. That's what we would most commonly mean by that phasing outside of Wikipedia. But we accept this risk, phrase the article lead to quickly clear up any confusion, and use hatnotes where helpful for navigation to the correct article. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, there is nothing quite like being patronized by someone too clueless to follow my responses. No, this isn’t something I have “speculate” on since I usually do know what I mean when I write something. Here’s a tip: When you airily dismiss another editor’s argument as “completely and utterly irrelevant,” you can generally expect a backlash. The purpose of writing is to communicate with the reader. Your claim that this aspect of a title is irrelevant is, well, hardly self-evident. You compare this case to “(chess)”? I mean, seriously? Everyone knows that chess is a game with various pieces and moves. If you’ve watched a World War II movie, you may be vaguely aware that Germany had a Wehrmacht at this time. But the fact that the German Army was a component is a rather obscure piece of trivia. Not even the specialists can maintain this very fine distinction consistently, as the book titles cited by ÄDA - DÄP VA below show. NotUnusual (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's argued is that (Wehrmacht) is just as potentially confusing as (1935–46). Our readers do not know our diambiguation policies, so it should usually be clear from the title itself how the term in parentheses modifies the base name. Wehrmacht, being a foreign word unfamiliar to most readers, is not as clear as dates, which clearly indicate that this is the German Army of a specific time.
      As to the date, numerous reliable sources have been cited for a date of dissolution of 1946. Plus the primary source (here, p. 75 of the PDF). The only secondary source cited (above) for a 1945 date does not say what the editor claims it does. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and again this is attempting to put content into the title. There are many reasons for avoiding this. But I am interested in the claim that The only secondary source cited (above) for a 1945 date does not say what the editor claims it does. So, you are saying that the 1946 date is agreed in all reliable secondary sources, is that your argument here? Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. I have looked at several pages of Google Books results without finding even one that says that the Wehrmacht was dissolved in 1945 or any year other than 1946. I have cited several of sources for 1946 above and I could cite more. That doesn't mean there is no source that says the Wehrmacht was dissolved in 1945; but the primary source is pretty clear, so I'd be surprised if there were. Srnec (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated before, I am not entirely happy with (Wehrmacht) as the disambiguator, although it beats the hypertechnical (1935-1946). What about German Army (Third Reich) or German Army (Nazi era) instead? Either would be clear to the average reader who has never heard of the Kommandatura.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's hypertechnical about the dates? There seems to be an unspoken assumption either that a defeated enemy's army disappears upon his defeat (which is absurd) or else an unconditional surrender means the dissolution of the surrendering army (which is less absurd, but still a nonsequitur). The Wehrmacht may have been, for most purposes, an irrelevance after May 1945 (although its members, as men, certainly weren't), but that's not the same thing as having been dissolved. The Allies were not required to dissolve it (they chose to) and the "technicality" of August 1946 (and not the surrender of 1945) necessitated the formation of new armies later.
The only problem with your suggestions is that the Nazis inherited the Reichswehr in 1933, but this article is only about the army after 1935. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the military entity officially and commonly known as the German Army, which was a branch of the entity officially and commonly known as the Wehrmacht (Defence Force). So the title should either be German Army and a parenthesis with the appropriate dates (1935–1946), or German Army with an parenthesis with the overall name of the armed forces (Wehrmacht) (an idea that I don't reject in principle, although this specific move request is tendentiously worded and difficult to support for that reason). I'm absolutely against politicizing the title by including unnecessary Nazi propaganda terms like "Third Reich". The Army was a concription-based regular military force, unlike the Nazi Party's various own military entities. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much is being said about the role of the title, the perceptions of the title by the reader and and how various titles are a barrier to the reader accessing the correct article. I had added information about page views, what the disambiguation page says and how readers access this page, for the purpose of informing this discussion. Apparently a waste of time, since claims are being made which appear totally at odds with the reality of how readers actually access this article. This post, too, is probably a waste of time. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You are wasting our time. You have provided no evidence of how readers access this article. The disambiguation page has nothing to do with this. Srnec (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument here is we can boost page views by adding "(Wehrmacht)" to the title? I bet we could boost them even more with a disambiguator along the lines of "(hot naked chicks)." People who are interested in the Wehrmacht should should go to Wehrmacht article. A misleading title is bad practice, no matter how many readers it brings in. NotUnusual (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that this is a waste of time, but it can seem like one, see the Parable of the Ants. The argument here that most interests me is the one that asserts that we should avoid German Army (Wehrmacht) as a title because the German Army of the time was not the same thing as the Wehrmacht, which will mislead some readers. This is a valid reason for concern, but as I stated above it has much wider implications than this one article. If we accept and act on this argument we may then find ourselves renaming an enormous number of other articles which currently also run foul of this.
On the other hand if we accept this risk, perhaps we need to document the convention and its rationale more clearly. In Wikipedia an article named X {Y} is about a topic X in the field of Y, and not a topic X also known as Y. In English discourse generally, it would more often mean a topic X also known as Y. I think that this is an acceptable risk, as the confusion will be quickly dispelled and the reader better informed as a result under our current convention, and that this article is an excellent case in point. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion is rampant, with books like The Wehrmacht : the German Army of World War II, 1939-1945 by Tim Ripley or Wehrmacht : the illustrated history of the German Army in WWII by John Pimlott. When even specialists on the subject make that equation, it is unavoidable that non-specialist make the same mistake. This is also reflected in the assumption expressed above, that the dissolution of the Wehrmacht means that the German Army existed up to the point when the ACC law was passed. The challenge is not to describe the article correctly, but to distinguish it from other articles with similar titles. Since the name German Army has been claimed by the current land force component of the current Germany, we need to find an acceptable disambiguator. Under WP:COMMONNAME the 1935-45 would be an acceptable choice (rather than the "correct" 1946 date), or Wehrmacht, which could be almost considered an English word [5]. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that confusion is rampant over the terms German Army and Wehrmacht. Agree that Wehrmacht can for our purposes be considered an English word, as evidenced by the title of the article Wehrmacht. So I'm not convinced that there is significant damage done by using either the 1945 or 1946 dates. To the contrary, any of these three disambiguators seems acceptable to me. But Wehrmacht seems the best one. The only objection to it seems to be that most (not all) authorities regard the terms German Army and Wehrmacht to refer to significantly different organisations... as does Wikipedia! This in no way disqualifies tha use of the term in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think either of the proposed date ranges describes the scope of this article as well as the qualifier Wehrmacht does. There is disagreement among the authorities on the date at which this army ceased to exist, which makes the scope of the article unclear for either date range. Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is disagreement among the authorities on the date at which this army ceased to exist, which makes the scope of the article unclear for either date range. That's what I deny. 1946 parallels 1935: it's the formal end date as the one is the formal start date. There is nothing unclear about 1935–46. It's just surprising if you start with some unjustifiable assumptions. (Which, if it isn't clear already, is exactly what I think happened to start this off.) Srnec (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK... Just so I understand what you are saying here, does this mean that you deny that There is disagreement among the authorities on the date at which this army ceased to exist, or that you just deny my conclusion that this makes the scope of the article unclear for either date range, or do you deny both propositions? Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both, I suppose. Either date range provides a clear scope, it's just that 1935–45 is arbitrary, while 1935–46 is complete and consistent. As for the authorities, there is no disagreement as to when the Wehrmacht and Heer ceased to exist. There is universal agreement about what happened to the Wehrmacht in May 1945 and in August 1946. The end date that corresponds to 1935 is 1946, whereas the end date 1945 corresponds more to mobilization. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this just seems to be playing with words. You say that there is no disagreement, but you then say that there are reasons for each date. This is no help at all! It just confirms my suspicion that we are better avoiding these dates in the article title. Andrewa (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no uncertainty about when the Wehrmacht was dissolved: August 1946. The Wehrmacht definitely still existed in 1946. (The problem is that "ceased to exist" is not a precise phrase. In military history, it is not uncommon to have a unit "cease to exist" when it ceases to exist as a fighting force, so that it is de facto out of the order of battle. Here is an example. The 7th Army ceased to exist! But there it is again in the next sentence, because it never completely ceased to exist. Our article on it never mentions any lapse in existence at all: even the lapse in commanders you see in the list actually took place after the cessation of existence mentioned in the book.) Srnec (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no uncertainty about when the Wehrmacht was dissolved... but that surely is irrelevant? There's no proposal to rescope this article to the Wehrmacht, the opposition to that proposal-that-never-was seems to have come purely from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's disambiguation syntax, see above. The topic of this article is (and as far as I can see always was) the force that served as part of the Wehrmacht. From what you say, it may even be that this force existed in some form after the Wehrmacht ceased to exist (not a military term, just plain English). That's for the article to make clear, citing sources of course, and it seems a fascinating area we don't currently cover at all well. My preference for the disambiguator Wehrmacht is growing. The dates seem very rubbery indeed. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Heer was a part of the Wehrmacht and was dissolved with it on 26 August 1946, as both primary and secondary sources make clear. It did not outlast it. The current title and the proposed title have the exact same scope. One relies on Wikipedia's disambiguation syntax. The other is a standard means of disambiguating in English. It is still unclear to me what basis there is for opposing the date 1946. Srnec (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a link to the long version two weeks ago in German elsewhere. This is a synopsis in English. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that legal decision is (a) retroactive, (b) a part of German municipal law and (c) a primary source. It is not an RS for establishing the fact in question, but for establishing the status of the Wehrmacht in the Federal Republic after 1954. Reliable sources in both English and German have been cited in support of the current title. Srnec (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are beyond establishing facts. This is not about right or wrong. This is not about winning or losing. In a civilized discourse one should at least be able to agree to disagree. This smells of obstructionism. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And all of those subtleties (both in this post and earlier in the string) are relevant to what the article says, but much of it is irrelevant to what the article should be called. I will take one point though... If Wehrmacht is a suitable article title on its own (and there seems no question of that), then it's certainly English enough to be a suitable disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the proposed title is suitable, but the question is whether it's superior. Not many have even tried to show that it is. Srnec (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some opponents to the proposition of German Army (Wehrmacht) continue to argue against it on the basis of it being a foreign language and hence an unfamiliar term or that it is somehow confusing to readers, for whatever reason might be given. The first argument ignores the evidence of page view statistics. The second fails to consider how readers actually access this article and the information immediately presented to them (in the first two or three lines of text they might see) when they attempt to access this article by one of the possible routes. The cases being proposed totally ignore this other information even though it was made explicit from the start of this RM. IMO, these opposing arguments will continue to lack strength while they continue to ignore this pertinent information. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Page view statistics tell us nothing about the familiarity of the average reader with the term Wehrmacht before they arrived at that page. (ii) Why should we worry about that? There is nothing wrong or confusing or misleading about the current title. The fact that you might have to read the first few lines for the disambiguator to make proper sense argues against it. The function of the dates in parentheses is, on the other hand, transparent. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that neither title (in the context of how readers access the article) is a barrier to readers identifying the correct title - but then, I have never represented otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move debate again

While I don't object strongly to the title "German Army (Wehrmacht)", the move debate was closed with an inappropriate rationale. There is no debate on whether the Wehrmacht was disbanded in 1946, this is a fact recognised by all serious scholars and sources, and the decision by the Allied control council that dissolved the Wehrmacht in 1946 was crystal clear. There is nothing "inappropriate" about the correct title German Army (1935–1946)"; this is only a matter of whether we generally prefer to use dates, or some other system (like "Wehrmacht" or "United States Armed Forces") to disambiguate titles like this one. Both titles are equally correct. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to argue that the version with the year range (1935-1946) is more precise and less ambiguous. Actually is completely unambiguous and describes the subject matter better, as many readers may not know the German term. While Wehrmacht has been used as a proper noun for that period, the term has also been used since at least the Frankfurt Constitution (1848) to describe the same, and since ALL nouns in German are capitalized there is no way to distinguish the meaning. It takes special knowledge to understand the meaning of the current title. Kbrose (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a process to challenge an administrator decision - use it or drop it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "challenging an administrator decision", I'm debating the validity of a statement of fact made on this talk page. I have no strong objection to the decision to move the page to its current title, but I'm pointing out that any claim that the year 1946 is "inappropriate" is flatly wrong, and we need to have this for the record on this talk page. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move debate again II

I would definitely for chosing the lemma German army (Wehrmacht) instead of the capitalized version, since the term "German Army" does not signify any official title, but is just a compromise in terms of an easier search. The German army ground fources was called Heer, not Deutsche Armee, which would be the direct translation of "German Army". That's why the article should be renamed correctly, in my view.--Uldra (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Usage of "Wehrmacht"

Why is this article entitled "German Army (Wehrmacht)"? The word "Wehrmacht" refers to the German military, which includes the Army (Heer), Navy (Kriegsmarine), and Air Force (Luftwaffe). If it is about the German Army, it should be entitled "German Army (Heer)". ETO Buff (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht, per the move discussions above. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht" That's not even a rationally -silly- answer, since there are NO "German Navy (Wehrmacht)" or "German Air Force (Wehrmacht)" entries for their wiki's, they are called by their service names in nazi Germany, the "Kriegsmarine" and the "Luftwaffe". So to insist on continuing with the incorrect usage of "Wehrmacht" the definition of which is "Armed Forces", as opposed to the correct term, "Heer", which means "Army", is not only ignorant, it smacks of a rather puerile attraction and/or attachment to the more lurid aspects of the absolute lowest denominator of the literature of nazi Germany.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_Army_(1935–1945)&oldid=867549225"