Jump to content

Talk:Luftwaffe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.156.48.77 (talk) at 21:22, 4 November 2012 (→‎War crimes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateLuftwaffe is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

-

The currenct government issue isn't correct

Hey guys!

I'm from Germany, so that's why I'm not able to contribute on a high level in your language, I'm sorry.

So what I want to tell you is that the Luftwaffe wasn't founded by the Nazis. It's true that they called their airforce Luftwaffe, too, but it isn't true that today's Luftwaffe is identical with the Luftwaffe in the Third Reich.

So please edit it, I won't 'cause you would have changed it back. Thank you!


Greetz Lasse


P.S.: Sorry for my bad English!
-- Uhlemanns (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Hitler came to power in 1933, Luftwaffe in 1935.....that would make it the NAZI leaders in charge is creating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.173.150 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well he suggest making Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr), but i think History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is enought to separete natzi issue from nowadays air force. --SojerPL (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be broken up

this article is the worst of the German military articles so far! In it's "catch all" approach it throws air forces together, which have nothing to do with each other. The German wiki is correct in its approach by dividing the four completely unrelated air forces into 4 separate articles

This article needs to be split asap. noclador (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia even the German version is not a reliable source. I think completely unrelated is probably a bit of a stretch. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there was a consistency in personnel, but legally there is no connection! one was disbanded in 1919, one was founded in 1935 and one in 1956 - and the one in 1956 made it clear all the time that they are not related! especially erroneous is the title of the article History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - that Luftwaffe is unrelated to the one founded in 1956 and unrelated to the one disbanded in 1919; That Luftwaffe existed from 1 March 1935 to 8 Mai 1945; the proper place for this article is Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and nowhere else as the article spans already spans 100% (and more) of this formations existence. noclador (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, thankyou for your comments. Different language wikipedias do have some ability to vary the format of their treatment of subjects. I tend to believe that if this article was split up completely presumptiously, it would be re-built up again, because Luftwaffe is also the generic German term for an air force. Noclador, I tend to think that before this article is split to the four winds, it needs some wider commentary, and probably a notice at WT:MILHIST - it's a very prominent article, and needs some wider En:wiki commentary. Such a wider discussion will also mean more long-term stability for the final article(s) arrangement. Options include:
  • this page as a disambiguation page only, listing Austrian, Swiss, WW1, WW2, and NVA
  • this page as a summary page, with a number of paragraphs about Austrian, Swiss, and the German air forces since c.1915, with referenced statements at the top saying from authoritative sources that there are no lineage links officially maintained between the German air services.
  • no page at all.
However, just because de:wiki does it one way does not necessarily mean that en:wiki has to do it exactly the same way, and because this is a pretty prominent military article, I would strongly advise that we consider this carefully and slowly, with wide consultation - which will also avoid revert wars/page move wars later on. Noclador, you feel strongly about this, would you mind please alerting WT:MILHIST to this issue and discussion, as well as WT:GERMANY?
Finally, for History of the Luftwaffe 1933-45, I'd say two things: first, was it the only 'Luftwaffe' in existence at the time, thus making it inescapable which one was being talked about? Second, what about 'History of the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe 1933-1945'. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
already there are all the articles as it should be:
  1. Luftstreitkräfte
  2. History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - needs to be renamed Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)
  3. East German Air Force
  4. Luftwaffe (needs to be cleaned of the unrelated air forces and should be renamed Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr))
at Luftwaffe should be a disambiguation page. thoughts? noclador (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945): the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe was the only one in existence at the time (Austria kept to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) which forbade Austria to possess air forces and Switzerland only named its air force Luftwaffe in 1996)
a quick side note - the name of the Swiss air force over time: [1]
  • 1914-1924 Fliegerabteilung
  • 1925 - 1936 Fliegertruppe
  • 1936 - 1995 Flieger- und Fliegerabwehrtruppen
  • since 1996 Luftwaffe
back to History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - there is no need to mention a year at the Luftwaffe article - it is like calling the Confederate States Army article History of the Confederate States Army (1859-1865) and then adding part of the Confederate States Army article to the United States Army article, as they are both Armies in America and so surely they are connected somehow in their lineage... but that would be wrong! There was only one Confederate States Army and there was only one Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and that Luftwaffe existed even for a shorter time then mentioned in the article and it's entire history is between the beginnings of the German rearmament and the unconditional surrender of Germany afterwards. noclador (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the various US aerial forces are split up by organization, even though to my knowledge they do share a common lineage (see for example United States Army Air Forces, United States Army Air Service, etc.). The article for US Air Force covers only the modern history of the organization (that is, since about 2005 - a separate History of the United States Air Force article covers the extended history). Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A split would make sense even if they where connected by more than a shared country. I this case there is even more reason to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To turn this into a disambiguation page seems to be the cleanest way to go, especially since the Swiss Luftwaffe has nothing to do with the German Luftwaffe. —Kusma (t·c) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont have a problem with this being a dab page but the current Lufwaffe should really be at German Air Force as this is English wikipedia and Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) is not a name used in English. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I have reverted these changes. First of all, it is always wrong to try to rename an article, or a disambiguation page, by copying and pasting its content instead of using the "move" function. Second, these changes were contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and affected literally thousands of other articles that contain wikilinks to "Luftwaffe." At a minimum, any change in the title of this article, or of Luftwaffe (disambiguation), should be proposed on WP:RM and subjected to discussion before being carried out. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

As this is a far more complicated issue then a simple move (Luftwaffe being a primary article) there are two possibilities:

First proposal:

  1. move the content about the current Luftwaffe (1956-today) from the article Luftwaffe to German Air Force (now a redirect to Luftwaffe)
  2. delete the content about the 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at Luftwaffe as it is a duplicate of material at History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
  3. rename History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) to Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)
  4. put a disambiguation page to the article Luftwaffe

Second proposal:

  1. move the content about the current Luftwaffe (1956-today) from the article Luftwaffe to German Air Force
  2. delete the content about the 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at Luftwaffe
  3. move History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) to Luftwaffe
  4. put a link to Luftwaffe (disambiguation) page on top of the Luftwaffe article

any of the above is fine with me, but the current mix of two separate entities at Luftwaffe is factually, historically and officially wrong! noclador (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree 2nd proposal, as the historical Luftwaffe is often known by this term in the history books, but the term is less often used for the modern German Air Force and would seem odd. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the first proposal (but I personally prefer disambiguation pages to hatnotes on essentially every occasion). It will lead to less wrong links if the default page is a disambiguation page, and the pages currently linking to Luftwaffe (meaning both the current and the former German air force) will only have to be checked once, not on a continuous basis. —Kusma (t·c) 09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please bear in mind that if the disambiguation page is moved to Luftwaffe, this will affect every page that contains a link to "Luftwaffe"; all of these links will need to be reviewed and pointed to the correct post-reorganization article. But there are only about 4,500 of them, so no problem.... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If we split the pre-1945 and post-1955 Luftwaffe pages (and there seems to be consensus to do so), all of the links will need to be reviewed (as some of them will be wrong), independent of whether Luftwaffe is a disambiguation page or not. This review will be easier if Luftwaffe is a disambiguation page, for two reasons: (a) there are specialized tools for repairing links to disambiguation pages (b) it is easy to see which links have been checked (those that have been fixed). If Luftwaffe is only about the pre-1945 stuff, finding and fixing all the links to Luftwaffe that should go to the modern Luftwaffe article is going to be difficult, as there is no easy way to find out which of these links still needs to be checked. —Kusma (t·c) 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luftwaffe definitely needs to be a disambig, NOT a redirect. There are so many meanings involved.. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solution

Am I right in assuming that the consensus is for a split? If so - then the consensus seems to be for current German Luftwaffe at German Air Force; but I can see no consensus yet under what name the Nazi Germany Luftwaffe should be: Luftwaffe? Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)?... (the first is my preference) any suggestions would be welcome on how to proceed. thanks. noclador (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador, thankyou for your patience on this and waiting for opinions from others. Personally, I agree that the current de:Luftwaffe should be at German Air Force, and because the name of the force in 33-45/46 was not 'Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)' it was simply 'Luftwaffe', my opinion would be for the existing page name 'Luftwaffe (1933-45)' or whatever it was at. However, 'Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)' should be established as a redirect. That's my thoughts on this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will split it in 3 days

As the discussion has gone stale and there was no real opposition to a split I will split the article into two over this weekend; namely into:

  • Luftwaffe (1933-1945)
  • German Air Force (current)

noclador (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling - defence or defense?

Both are used in the article but it should be made consistent as far as possible. I have a slight preference for "defence" as it's a European topic so perhaps "geographically" closer to the BrE spelling than to the AmE, but I am not sure what rules, if any, should/can be applied here. Comments please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the bold thing and made the spelling consistent throughout - I chose "defence". Roger (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass renaming of Luftwaffe across other articles?

See [2] and others.

Luftwaffe meets WP:COMMONNAME, even for today's service. Even if the WP articles are split (which seems reasonable) and even if one of these articles is renamed from Luftwaffe to German Air Force, then the presentation name of the link in other articles should remain unchanged.

If and only if the name "Luftwaffe" is incorrect, should this name (as the presentation name) be changed in other articles. If Luftwaffe does indeed meet WP:COMMONNAME for the current service, then it should remain as the link. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above is a long discussion with all kinds of proposals what to do and those editors that participated endorsed a split of the article into Luftwaffe to German Air Force. As far as I can tell current news sources use German Air Force for the current air force of Germany and Luftwaffe for the WWII air force. However google searches are totally unusable because most articles/new items use both. And are you sure it meets WP:COMMONNAME even for today's service? There are a lot of instances when it says German Luftwaffe for todays service on wikipedia - which believe points out that even among editors Luftwaffe is not a name common enough to drop the German in front of it. noclador (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not dropping the "German" in front of Luftwaffe, you're dropping the "Luftwaffe".
Flight International are currently using "German Luftwaffe". Strikes me as somewhat tautological, but it's still far from "Air Force". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as there is the Swiss Luftwaffe; Flight International probably has to call it German Luftwaffe to disambiguate between the two. Well, at first I wanted to only ensure that the articles would point to the right article after the split, but I found a bewildering array of variations and so began to streamline it down to the two most common: therefore I took out all instances of German Luftwaffe, Bundesluftwaffe, West German Air Force, West German Luftwaffe, German Federal Luftwaffe, Federal Air Force (Luftwaffe), Bundeswehr Luftwaffe, etc. etc. and replaced them with Luftwaffe for pre-1946, with Luftstreitkräfte for pre-1920 and with German Air Force for post-1956. What steps do you suggest should be taken now? as German Air Force and Luftwaffe are the most commonly used names I assume we agree that the choice should be only between these two? How can we establish which name is more appropriate for the current air force? (There is no doubt whatsoever that for WWII Luftwaffe is definitely the COMMONNAME). noclador (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, the German Air Force Official site: translated) uses Luftwaffe. Can a compromise be suggested, add (Luftwaffe) in brackets to any postwar usage when you first refer to the German Air Force post-World War II. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The proposed compromise is fine with me! Do other editors agree with it? noclador (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a typical wikicompromise, equally bad for all parties. How about either [[German Air Force|Luftwaffe]] or [[Luftwaffe (1956)|Luftwaffe]] ?
There are two issues: a canonical name for the article on the body formed after 1956, and a contextually appropriate form to link this from articles such as Eurofighter Typhoon. In almost every situation, "Luftwaffe" is the appropriate link text. Even in English language texts, this is the WP:COMMONNAME. If the Typhoon links need to have their appearance changed, that implies that the previous link title was wrong, which it clearly wasn't (that context just doesn't depend upon the name or date scope of the target article).
If we have to discuss Swiss or Austrian aviation, then the link can be qualified further. In most cases though, that would be superfluous.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) be merged into Luftwaffe. With the post-1956 air force split from the Luftwaffe into its own article German Air Force, it makes sense to combine History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) back into the Luftwaffe article. (It was split out from the Luftwaffe article in 2006 [3] after a discussion that the history section regarding WWII grew so big it warranted its own article away from the current German Air Force). noclador (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you might have mixed something up: There was no merger yet, the proposal to merge is from today. The material you re-inserted here has been split and expanded into a new article! A task that found the support of the people, who participated in the above discussion, which has been ongoing since May 3rd! So - as the split of the article into two separate articles for months was not opposed, and an announcement that I will split the article did not draw any opposition for 2 weeks, I did just that today and then expanded the new article considerably (see history at German Air Force). Now I propose to merge History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) back into Luftwaffe, because the original reason to actually create the History of the Luftwaffe article (taking up to much space of the current German Air Force article) is not an issue anymore! noclador (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my vote because I was not paying enough attention here. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

As there is consensus to merge, I plan to merge the two articles in about a weeks time. noclador (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

Merger proposal found consensus, therefore merger executed on 26 September 2012. noclador (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

I have reverted the edits which removed a picture of medical experiments conducted by the Luftwaffe on concentration camp victims. The picture is entirely relevant to the section, and those who removed it should be aware of the need to remain neutral and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.48.77 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I have reverted the deletion since the picture and section are fully referenced. 81.156.48.77 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luftwaffe&oldid=521412921"