From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



text used as a basis for this article. may be a copyright prob with this. looks like it's been lifted straight from the site noted on the page.

understood... it now appears that the copyvio site cited was using a hidden mirrior of the other wiki article. So there's no copyvio problem with this page. Feco 05:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is this page different from Brandenburger_Regiment... are they the same organization? Feco 05:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Brandenburg Regiment was only one manifestation of this unit. During the course of the war, it went from Company to Division. I guess. The Brandenburg Regiment was only an entity between 1941-1942. The Brandenburgers encompass this formation, but also the overall formation. (kind of like saying 'US Rangers' instead of '75th Ranger Battalion')AnsbachDragoner

understood... can you take some time to clarify that in the two related articles? Maybe put some links between the two at the top of each. I couldn't tell that there was a difference between the two articles (at the time of my original comment). Feco

You'll want to be sure to include a link to this article on the Brandenburg (disambiguation) page. Moncrief 06:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

will do and will do. Ansbachdragoner

question regarding section "Operation Barbarossa - Ostfront"[edit]

somthing's fishy with the example about the fall of Maikop, it's reported here that it fell the 9th of august 1941 which is completely wrong (it actually happend in late 1942). The germans were nowhere near maikop in 1941. Maybe the dates are wrong? Yet since the information in the example is not correct I that it should either be corrected or removed. andreas_td 14:14. Mars 1, 2006 (UTC+2) Dates were completely wrong. This Folkersalm's raid occured in October 1942. This has been corrected.--ansbachdragoner 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Abwehr II.[edit]

Hello, I have made some articles about Operations to Ireland that involved Bandenburgers. You can find them all listed at IRA Abwehr World War II. Fluffy999 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Brandenburgers sounds stupid, because the noun brandenburger is also used in the pluraral form (der Brandenburger-singular)(die Brandenburger-plural), the usual name in germany is "Die Brandenburger"(comment of a german user-- 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

War Crimes?[edit]

What about the darker sides of the Brandenburgers?-- 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Operating in enemy uniforms is a war crime!, but if you mean massacres of villages, etc, find evidence and we shall gladly put it on the article V. Joe 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's only a war crime if you engage in combat with opponents while wearing their uniforms. iirc brandenburgers were instructed to remove disguises before combat (and some of them died because of this) 07 February 2013

Regiment Motto[edit]

Where is the source on the 'Motto' "Hie Gut Brandenburg Alle Wege"? Because it absolutely makes no sense in German... "Hie" is no word and "Alle" can't be capitalized in this 'context'. Besides, the German Wiki-page on the topic does not mention any motto at all. (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not make sense in contemporary german;) It is some kind of a motto of the electoral brandenburg army. I've never heard it with the special unit, but it was the motto of the Brandenburgian units of the prussian army in WW1. It is simply an old fashioned greeting among Brandenburgers (meaning Natives of the Mark Brandenburg). It is also the title of a song about the Mark Brandenburg.JCRitter (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

this Motto is the name of a older march that will be later the march of the sof regiment, hie you can translate from german dialekt with "sie" englisch for them for the soldiers from or of brandenburg -- (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Abwere/brandenburger confusion[edit]

There seems to be inclusion of non-Bradenburger Abwere operations (such as South Africa) in the article. Can someone please provide sources that Brandenburger units were used outside Europe and North Africa?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)]]

The book "Kommando" by James Lucas is a fantastic and all encompassing source for not only the Brandenburgers but all the other WW2 German special forces, including such units as the shadowy KG200 and the Werewolf units. Anyone who is interested in the subject of German Special Forces of all types, land/sea/air/political, needs to read this book.
They were not in South Africa but in central and sub-saharan Africa. There was a 'urban legend' theory among the German high command (among hundreds that deluded the Third Reich) that the British supply lines ran *through* Africa from ports in Togoland to the upper Nile and from there down into Egypt. A special Kommando of three units was sent to find the fabled supply line but found nothing. And by the time they returned, Rommel had lost the Battle of El Alamein so it was irrelevant anyway. Yanqui9 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Allied soldiers wearing other uniforms, higher morality...[edit]

"... unlike their allied counterparts, the Brandenburgers were very particular about donning another nation's uniform. This chivalric code..."

Concerned about this phrase. It suggests that Allied special forces were 'not particular' (i.e. not worried about) disguising themselves in their opponents uniforms, and implies the Bradenburgers were operating on a higher moral code. My understanding is that it was very rare for Allied special forces to dress in their opponents uniforms. Possibly this is a false statement.

I am also concerned about the explicit suggestion that the Brandenburgers were operating on a higher moral plane than many other troops. Possibly delete the sentence I've highlighted? --mgaved (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is not one example of British Army personnel disguising themselves as enemy troops. This article thus proves that this was only a tactic of the Germans, unless the person who made the statement admits that this is a poorly constructed article and that the subject is not well understood.
Furthermore, I wouldn't say that the Brandenburgers were founded with the intention of conducting the sort of operation that Stirling had in mind when he founded the SAS . The SAS (as well as the numerous other allied units such as the LRDG and PPA) conducted long range raids and earned their reputation in a completely different enviroment. When they did fight in Europe they were self-supporting, behind enemy lines for long periods of time, unlike this German unit which merely operated ahead of the main force. The Brandenburgers used captured weapons because they often masqueraded as the enemy, the SAS did so because they had no other source of ammunition.
When the Brandenburgers did begin to adopt these tactics, it was in North Africa, after the Afrika Korps had experienced first hand the effects of these long-range raids. It would be reasonable to assume that the Germans merely copied British ideas, using the most suitable unit they had at their disposal. It is interesting to note that the Axis forces never mastered this form of warfare as the British did.-- (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Peter Flemming in "Operation Sealion" ("Invasion 1940" earlier title), it is *not* against the Geneva Convention to wear the uniforms of enemy forces for disguise, it is only against the Geneva Convention to carry weapons while doing so. Conversely, secret raiders could 'legally' fly the flags of neutral or allied nations as long as, as soon as combat was engaged, they hauled down the false flag and raised their own flag. Of course, being caught in an enemy uniform is probably going to get you shot anyway because it'll really piss 'em off but *technically* it is only a warcrime if you carry weaponry while in disguise (so Skorzeny and his men were still war criminals since they carried out their executions of US troops while in US disguise).Yanqui9 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned with the blatant lack of citation. Where are the sources? In all the documents and sources Ive come across regarding the Brandenburg Regiment, I haven't actually come across this notion of revealing 'true colours'. Kitchen-sink history? - Khorne25 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What if they were, indeed, operating on a higher moral plane? Would that eat you inside? Oh wait, it already does eat you, since you present a compulsive tendency to minimize the Brandenburgers' prowess by questioning their origins and methods. Also, fuck the idiot(s) who deleted all of the article's images. Have a nice day. Fckwkpdns (talk) 6 September 2009 (UTC) [[:File:4 Patrick Paddy leigh Fermor and Billy Moss pictured before the kidnap of General Heinrich Kreipe in Crete german uniform.jpg|thumb|alt=two men posing in front of mountains|Moss and Leigh Fermor pictured in German uniforms prior to the kidnapping of General Kreipe ]]

Its been some time since the above post but of course allied soldiers wore German/Italian uniform. Here is a picture for proof from the kidnap of General Kreipe article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore there is a Commonwealth-Sniper whom was awarded the Victoria-Cross. He was awarded the medal for actions carried out while being disguised with a german uniform and helmet.

-- (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

operation areas Brandenburger[edit]

"invasion of Crete, .. infiltrate India, " have the writer of this topic any source of that and from where has he this information? -- (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Training and Structure[edit]

"Despite the increased size, the Brandenburgers were still highly skilled. The training was physically and mentally demanding, with focuses on foreign languages, small unit tactics, parachuting, .." a lot of the soldiers of Brandenburger are Germans who lived befor in countries where the planned operation area will be, they speak the language and they know the living in this countries, that will be speciellty of them. Some only one bataillon will be trained for parachuting, not all of them -- (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Brandenburg actions in Operation Marita[edit]

"Again, the Brandenburgers were to play a role, with a large 54 man team from III./Regiment Brandenburg (the Sudeten and Slavic battalion) seizing the vital dockyards at Orşova on the Danube a day before the opening of the campaign."

I have seen this statement on several other sites. There is only one small problem - Orșova has been part of Romania since 1919, and in 1941 Romania was an ally of Germany. From who did the Germans seized the docks? From an allied country?

[1] it states that: "Dressed in civilian cloths a detachment of 54 Brandenburgers of the II. Battalion took “Iron Gates” at Orsova on the Danube during the invasion of Yugoslavia. This allowed German river traffic to continue during he campaign." Doesn't this mean that they actually secured the opposite bank of the Danube instead of conquering a dockyard from an allied country? Flavius T (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

re-name Brandenburgers vs. Brandenburger[edit]

please not all words can be given an s if you mean more than one, in german correct the unit and the soldiers will be named Brandenburger not Brandenburgers -- (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Their atrocities are missing in the article[edit]

Brandenburgers atrocities against civilian population are completely missing in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well where are the verifiable references --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have restored information about atrocities deleted by anon IP. Information comes from scholarly article in historic journal. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Expanded with additional information and sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this on[edit]

- (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, some of the information was helpful. --Hyperboreer 00:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced content[edit]

I reverted to the more or less sourced version diff; please do not restore material without providing citations. Please see WP:V and WP:BURDEN, and follow these policies and guidelines.

As an aside, Slideshare is not a reliable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@SWF88: please do not restore material without providing citations. The material in Wikipedia must be verifiable, per WP:V. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

i have provided references to a lot of material you removed. please pay attention before you blank.SWF88 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@SWF88: Could you please indicate which references were added? The only one I can see is Slideshare, which is not RS. The vast majority of the content in the article as it stands is uncited. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

German special forces of WW2 is a reliable source, the fact that it comes trough slideshare shouldn't be an issue, since it isn't slideshare that's doing the writing or research. a lot of the info that you removed is in the book, but i didn't find it necessary to ad ref to every line in the page. SWF88 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I would not call Gordon Williamson (writer) a reliable source. And citations are required for all content; it's not up to the judgement of editors whether to add citations or not. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

not every line needs a citation. also, i see no issue with his reliability. he didn't write the book as an opinion piece. SWF88 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

so much for concensus. apparently, you just want to blank SWF88 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@SWF88: could you please indicate which cited material was removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

example the order of battle. and some others, like the fact that the division ended up being the most decorated in the wermacht. SWF88 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, feel free to add those points. But the rest of the material, I'd say 90%, was not cited. I'll restore the better cited version so it can be taken it from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

so you want me to re do all my work and others, just because you fell like blanking today?SWF88 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that unsourced material was restored, contravening WP:V and WP:BURDEN. I plan to submit this disagreement to WP:3O and see what they say. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

on the flip side, you removed sourced material with the blanking. I support the WP:30 idea. SWF88 (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, slideshare is not reliable. Anything hosted on it has no guarantee that it has not been modified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know "Slideshare" but it may have editorial oversight problems; I leave that to others; as for Gordon Williamson, I would not consider him an RS historian; but a popular author who has pov problems. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm here because I saw a request made at Third Opinion, but this is not a Third Opinion given under that project, and I've left the request listed there, because I have been involved with this issue (but not these editors) before in extended discussions at V and at EP and could be seen to be opinionated or biased on the issue. There are two factors at play here: First, there is no question that BURDEN prohibits the restoration of unsourced material which has been removed because it is unsourced (except perhaps momentarily while looking for a source). Second, though unsourced material can be removed simply because it is unsourced (see the extensive discussions on that issue over the years at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:Editing policy and realize that best practices strongly suggest, but do not require, that one should (a) seek sources for the material and not remove it unless sources cannot be found, (b) tag the material and wait before restoring removing it, and if the material is to be removed to (c) preserve it on the talk page), there are many who believe that there are a couple of exceptions to that rule and that one of them is that removal of large amounts of apparently-beneficial material from a single article may be disruptive. Taking these together, I believe that the proper interpretation is that removal of a large amount of unsourced material from a single article simply because it is unsourced and without following best practices may be disruptive and subject to being sanctioned through filing a complaint at ANI (which may also turn on whether the editor doing so can be shown to regularly engage in that practice), but that is the only remedy to that behavioral matter. Restoring the unsourced material without sourcing it — all of it — is also disruptive and subject to sanctions. Saying that differently, when someone removes a large amount of material from an article as being unsourced, the only thing an editor can do is to file a complaint at ANI preferably backed up with evidence that the removing editor did not follow best practices and engages in the practice on a regular basis, but not to restore the material without sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Typo corrected (see markout and underline). — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that Gordon Williamson cannot be assumed to be a reliable source, especially on topics such as this given his POV regarding the military of Nazi Germany. As Lemongirl942 notes, the version of the book being referenced here cannot be assumed to reflect what's in the actual book. Moreever, the source is a blatant copyright violation of a book published by Osprey Publishing, which Wikipedia should never link to. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked account[edit]

The account that was edit-warring the above changes has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts: permalilnk.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Need for name in italics?[edit]

For uniformity sake, consensus is needed as to the causal use of the unit name in the article. Sometimes the name "the Brandenburgers" or "Brandenburgers" are in italics and other times, not. If written as the formal official German name of the unit at a certain time, then yes, italics per MOS should be used; but otherwise in causal reference to the unit, in general, I believe italics should be removed. Thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Given I am not sure what the protocol on Wiki is regarding naming conventions, let's just go with whatever you decide is best here, Sir. I am OK with either disposition myself.--Obenritter (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I would say italics are not required. Reducing italics would also improve readability, but I don't feel strongly on this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Italics are used for non-English language terms that don't appear in an English dictionary like Merriam-Webster. Having said that, this is a word that is spelled the same in German and English, so I don't see the point of italics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It has been changed accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


I'm a bit skeptical of that "vehicle insignia". Can someone provide me with a reliable, academic source for it? Otherwise it may need to go.Widgetdog (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know when or who added it; maybe someone can confirm or deny it. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kierzek: Ich auch nicht. What I can tell you is that this image does appear further down on the German Wiki-page along with other identified org symbols:
Thanks for checking. I still wonder about it, but don't have any further information to add. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit[edit]

This edit has removed citations: diff. If this material is covered in Hamilton 2016, then please add a citation. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)