Talk:Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Holocaust[edit]

I've added the Holocaust Series banner to the article. However, I'm not sure if this article belongs to it so feel free to remove it again if it is inappropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including the sidebar -- while Wehrmacht enabled the Holocaust by conquering vast territories and providing logistical support to the SS, Wehrmacht was not the organisation primarily responsible for it (the SS was). The Wehrmacht committed plenty of their own war crimes, that were white washed after the war, so the article should primarily deal with those. Holocaust is one of the areas where it contributed, but not the main one. Feedback / comments? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Youre probably right. You can remove it. I certaily won't argue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The idea of a "clean Wehrmacht" is surely at odds with the Himmerod Memorandum. The Wehrmacht was rehabilitated officially.101.98.74.13 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Obviously the Wehrmacht wasn't clean, and it committed systematic war crimes and atrocities. As explained in this article, the Himmerod Memorandum was an act of white-washing, carried out in order to "reform" West Germany and make it into an ally of the West. 190.194.223.134 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Waging aggressive war is a crime against humanity which in itself disproves the myth, never mind anything else. Grassynoel (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

New section: war preparations[edit]

I created a new section based on content from Operation Barbarossa. It may be too long for the scope of the article, so copyedits/condensing would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Military occupation regimes[edit]

A very interesting article! The oft-seen belief that Wehrmacht-run military occupations (in Belgium, France etc.) were less brutal than those in civil (i.e. party or collaborator-run) administrations definitely deserves a place here.

I think it's also worth flagging the existence of another article, Nazism and the Wehrmacht, which risks overlapping with the content on here. Perhaps worth considering how this can be avoided, or even if a merger is appropriate. Please note also that a large number of the template:sfn citations are "broken" and do not link back to books in the bibliography.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit[edit]

Regarding this edit concerning the participation of the Wehrmacht in the murder of Jews and others, please also see Marching into Darkness: The Wehrmacht and the Holocaust in Belarus. Plenty of sources exist; this is by no means controversial. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Grammar/Spelling[edit]

In the last paragraph - "Finally, in his last book, he points out how the "German army's moral failure and military failure" were always reinforcing each other, whether in the good days after victory over France, or in the days of defect and destruction." - the grammar and spelling is atrocious. Can someone clean it up?  Done I've cleaned some up. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article still has an 'English as a second language' tone to it, and would benefit from further copyediting. I am reluctant to do this because I am largely unfamiliar with the subject matter. --Ef80 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ef80, what do you mean specifically by [having] English as a second language' tone to it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It is simply that some of the grammar and phrasing reads oddly to a native English speaker, though it's not actually incorrect. This isn't unusual in the case of articles which are effectively translations. I am not suggesting that the translation is poor, only that it could be more idiomatic. --Ef80 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Over-capitalization[edit]

I don't think "clean Wehrmacht" should have a capital-C in mid-sentence. This isn't really a proper name, and sources don't consistently capitalize it. If I recall German rules correctly that language would capitalize it as a noun phrase, but English doesn't follow such a rule. It's just a descriptive adjective in front of a proper name. Cf. also "myth of the flat Earth", "Strawberry Quik meth myth", even real myths like the Antemurale myth; just because a proper name is present doesn't mean the entire string transmogrifies into a proper name. To the extent there's a fringe "doctrine" of a clean Wehrmacht, we still wouldn't capitalize, per MOS:DOCTCAPS. And see also special relativity, Moore's law, Ockham's razor, etc., etc.; those are much closer to proper names in the linguistics sense, and are in the philosophy sense, yet take lower-case aside from an eponym. Plus, frankly, I don't think it's cool to dignify this with "special signification" via an extraneous capital letter; the first rule of MOS:CAPS is do not misuse capitalization for any form of emphasis.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with reducing capitalisation if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll let it sit a little while in case someone has a super-mega-compelling reason for the caps.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2019[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved to Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. There is a clear consensus to change from the current title, and although there is disagreement about the target, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht has the most support, accurately conveys what the article is about, and avoids unnecessary formatting and capitalization. bd2412 T 01:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Clean WehrmachtMyth of the Clean Wehrmacht – Article titles reflect what the articles are about. Here the title suggests that we're writing about a phenomenon ("cleanliness of the Wehrmacht"), when we're actually writing about the myth of the phenomenon. We ought, then, to use the correct classifier, just as we do with "Moon landing conspiracy theories" and "Holocaust denial" (though the latter should more appropriately be called "denialism"). Using the existing name without a classifier suggests the phenomenon was real rather than mythical, which is inappropriate for a subject of this gravity and contention. If this was listed as one myth of many, then we could've used it without a classifier, but as it is rarely the case (see this change for typical usage), we ought to clarify from the get-go what it is and what it isn't. François Robere (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I support the change to Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht . Jack90s15 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Although "Clean Wehrmacht myth" sounds better to me. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to "clean" Wehrmacht per WP:COMMONNAME - Took a look at how about two dozen sources refer to this, and this is how the concept is more consistently described. I believe that use of the word "myth" definitely introduces a strong POV to one side, whereas the current title may only slightly imply a POV to the other side, but the use of "clean" in quotes may balance the two and is strongly COMMONNAME. Some sources do use "myth of the 'clean' Wehrmacht", but just as common is the phrase "legend of the 'clean' Wehrmacht" - I think any specific use as a wikilink should follow the sources, and not be locked into the title. Also, "clean" is almost always in lowercase and presented in quotes, so François Robere's suggested title is flawed in that way (if you go that route, it should be myth of the "clean" Wehrmacht). In principle, also, the word myth has a specific meaning, and in this usage is quite hyperbolic - it should be used with care and with associated sources, not in a title like this. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to "clean" Wehrmacht per the argumentation of Netoholic.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC))
  • Comment: I'm okay with either mine or RaiderAspect's suggestion, with or without quotation marks, and with standard capitalization. Netoholic's suggestion that the classifier "myth" introduces an undue POV to the article is wrong, as there are no competing POVs - it simply describes the case. We ought to be clear in naming, so as not to promote the myth by virtue of ambiguity; cf. Rommel myth, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which in a POV- and RS-free world would've been named Rommel's public image and 9/11 alternative explanations. François Robere (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, per nomination. The original proposal, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, sounds best to me. The word "myth" is not POV when the preponderance of sources describe the notion of the Wehrmacht being "clean" as a myth or a legend. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: should be Myth of the clean Wehrmacht (without the capital C in "clean"). I oppose the "scare" quotes, as per below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attribution notice[edit]

I'm going to be copying information from Franz Halder to this page. Myself and @K.e.coffman: wrote 100% of the material to be copied and have access to all of the sources used. The attribution, the old ID, of the Franz Halder page and this talk page will be noted in the edit summary when it is done. The content is distinct and pertinent to both pages. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Soviet views on the Wehrmacht?[edit]

Does anyone have a good source on what the Soviets thought of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front? Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is more or less covered. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional source[edit]

I am far from being an expert on this subject, but there is a source which is crucial (and hard to disprove even by the most ardent Wehrmacht apologists) to this subject: the protocols of the discussions between the captured German officers held at Trent Park and published by Söntke Neitzel in Abgehört (English edition Tapping Hitler's Generals). It reveals not only the participation of Wehrmacht units, but also the full knowledge of the Wehrmacht elite about the crimes, their attitudes towards the crimes, Hitler, the SS, the Russians, etc. unfiltered and uninhibited. Constantine 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have an epub copy that I've not read. I will take a look, I'm not sure how I could use it without page numbers, there may be other notes I could use as a work around. Szzuk (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I have the German version, but really not enough time to go through it again, it is huge. I can give you pages for references though if you point me to specific sections of the text. Constantine 20:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am reading through. It is quite direct, which is refreshing. I will post anything that I'd like to add to the text here so you can drop a page number on it. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Just ping me and I'll get to it. BTW, I also notice that the article focuses on the Eastern Front, but the Wehrmacht did many of its war crimes in the Balkans, where the SS were not as present as in Poland or the USSR. In Greece alone there are some very prominent examples such as the Massacre of Kalavryta, the Massacre of Kommeno, pretty much everything that happened on Crete, the Massacre of the Acqui Division against the Italians, or the Kragujevac massacre in Yugoslavia, these were all done by regular, and even elite, Wehrmacht troops. I still remember the incredulous reaction of the Greeks to the Germans' "shocked" reaction to the Wehrmahtsausstellung in the late 1990s. I was going to the German School of Athens at the time, and when the exhibition came there as well, even the most history-ignorant among us couldn't believe that it was news to the Germans that the regular army was involved in Nazi war crimes. Constantine 20:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. I will also ping; @K.e.coffman: to see if he can add some structure to the article for Greece, the Balkans etc. as noted above? I just need the structure of the article, preferably with some sources and I can copyedit/fill the rest. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I can probably help with this, but only come September. Constantine 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I read tapping the generals. The insight I gained was second to none. The problem is that some of it is WP:Primary and all of it is close to source. As the book is written by a reputable author any of it could be included in the article regardless. It is just much more difficult to include and beyond my capabilities, even with your assistance. Szzuk (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Does the book mention the myth of the clean wehrmacht? I checked my copy of Soldaten by Neitzel (based on similar material but down to lower ranks). Myth of the clean wehrmacht / Clean wehrmacht was not included in the index. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: no, as it deals in a wartime context. But there are hints of what is to come: General der Kavallerie Edwin von Rothkirch states (p. 59): "In everything I say, I have decided to present things in such a manner, as to clear the officer corps. Ruthlessly so! The others (the SS) they don't take any consideration towards us either."
@Szzuk: Yes, of course that is primary material. But at least Neitzel's summary in the front can be used as a secondary source, concerning the widespread knowledge of crimes (even if only at the level of hearsay), the pervasiveness of anti-Semitic thought and vocabulary, and the complicity even among some of the more critical generals (von Thoma or von Choltitz) with war crimes such as the commissar order and the executions of Jews in the Soviet Union. Constantine 08:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There was a significant hardening of sentiment against the generals since about 2005. I just checked to see if 2 of my sources were going to mention the tappings but they didn't. I think it should be in the article bibliogprahy as a source so I will see what I can find. I will have another look at some more sources. Szzuk (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I found a quote about prisoners of war. It was document number 103, p.109 of Neitze I think? Szzuk (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Italian collaboration?[edit]

I've just added content which says the Italians refused to help in the persecution of the Jews. But the Collaboration section says this is a myth. I'm conflicted now. Opinions? Szzuk (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to delete this section as WP:Out of scope. The article needs to discuss Germany. Theoretically we could include numerous war time myths from Britain, France etc. I don't think the Waffen SS section is a contemporary parallel either, they are inextricably linked to the Wehrmacht. So I will integrate that into the article somewhere else. Szzuk (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I Support that Change I think we should remove the SS part, and just put a hyperlink in the see also part of the page to the waffen-ss page.so that way the Paige is primarily focusing on the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. we could leave the mention of it in the opening and also hyperlink to the lobbying group of the waffen-ss in the see also to.:Jack90s15|Jack90s15]] (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I had thought it was a good idea to keep the waffen ss section, but now i'm thinking it should be deleted too. They are different myths. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
OK that is done. Szzuk (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I will do the hyper link for the SS lobby groupJack90s15 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we need a separate article about the myth of the clean Italians? Certainly seems to be well sourced, from what has been said. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Their is enough material for Myth of the clean Waffen-SS if it doesn't already exist. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that there needs to be an article on Italian war crimes. In post-war Italy, the myth that the Italians were "good guys" (Italiani brava gente), especially when compared to the Germans, has been a national credo. I have some Italian sources on their occupation in the Balkans that treat the subject more critically, but even they mostly focus on the events of 1943 and the Germans turning on them. Constantine 08:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
And by googling brava gente I just ssaw that the German wiki already has an article: de:Brava-Gente-Mythos. Constantine 08:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Need more pictures[edit]

I think the article needs more pictures. Generally articles can have one per sub section and this should relate to the material discussed in that sub section. Any ideas where to get more pics? Szzuk (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Szzuk: what are some pictures do you think we may need? for the page they have some on the wiki commonsJack90s15 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, something that illustrates the text, like the trial of Manstein, or something from the US Army Historical Division, or something to do with the Himmerod memorandum. I've looked but not found anything, that for example, links the himmerod memorandum to the myth of the clean wehrmacht. I could get a picture of the place himmerod but its uninteresting. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: what about a picture of Franz-Halder for the page. I can put it in just want to know the best place to put it so it does not collapse the section since he mentioned a couple times on the page.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franz-Halder.jpg

In this picture he's a prosecution witness, so he might be helping the allies to make himself look good. If he was on trial for his crimes that would be ideal. Does anyone know why he was in the witness box? Szzuk (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


@Szzuk: you are right Just looked it up it was him trying to make him self look good.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
He was lying, so maybe I could find a reference that says he was committing perjury. I will look. Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: you are right Just looked it up it was him trying to make him self look good


@Szzuk: or what about a picture of some one who was Convicted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walter-Warlimont.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rudolf_Lehmann_1947.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Command_Trial#Defendants_and_judgements
Then under the picture put,
Some officers were charged at the high command trial but others were not like Franz-Halder
Something like that what do you think?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


West German public opinion

For the west West German public opinion part of the page what if we put this picture, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-34150-0001,_Bonn,_Theodor_Blank,_Bundeswehrfreiwillige.jpg

And have it say, Former Wehrmacht generals Adolf Heusinger and Hans Speidel sworn into the newly founded Bundeswehr on 12 November 1955 witch Continued the notion of a clean Wehrmacht in World War II Jack90s15 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the Halder and the Speidel/Hesusinger ones are good. I will need to add some text in the article from a book and adjust the caption, I will need to look for right text but I will be able to find enough. Warlimont and Lehmann aren't big enough players on the scene for them to be included. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The Crimes in Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR section could do with something, so too the criminal orders section. I'm not sure what to put in the Manstein section, maybe something relating to the crimea and the Holocaust of the Jews. I will see what else I can find. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Erwin Rommel

@Szzuk: I put Erwin Rommel in the West Germany part of page what do you think Since is image was used for propaganda for the myth?Jack90s15 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Rommel pic is fine. I will have to write something into the text because he currently isn't mentioned, but should be. Szzuk (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok @Szzuk: sounds good I am trying to figure out how to get more pics in the crime section with out it drooping in to the section below it.Jack90s15 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: I added information about German military brothels since that was a crime they took part inJack90s15 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

3 more[edit]

  • I think we need 3 more pics, one for the himmerod section, one for manstein and one for the criminal orders section. Szzuk (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk:OK I will look for some today Jack90s15 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. I found one for the himmerod section, Ike is a reasonable addition. Szzuk (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added an image to the Commissar Order section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: added picture for von manstein and footage from the robert h jackson center of manstein denying everything in Cort as a sourceJack90s15 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the pics are all suitable. Szzuk (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • when I tried to sfn Cite it messed up the links to the sources @Szzuk:Jack90s15 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I can't currently see anything wrong, maybe you fixed it. If I find it later I will change it then. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

copy editing tag?[edit]

WE got two copy edit tags I already verified the two sources on the page the other one needed clarification. @Szzuk: @K.e.coffman: Jack90s15 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I have copy edited both of those sections. Szzuk (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

@K.e.coffman: are you sure that you want to put this forward as a Good Article based on interpretation of sources such as what is said in this edit summary? "On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. Consequently, it is assumed that about 10 million rape of German men took place on Russian soil alone" MPS1992 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: On page 9 it does say,

Based on biological facts can be assumed that, statistically, about one in ten sexual intercourse has a pregnancy result. Consequently, it must be assumed of about 10 million German men rape solely on Russian soil. Instead of using Google translate I converted the document into English. I don't think swans were involved, but maybe? MPS1992 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: I think Google switched the world baby with swanJack90s15 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like K.e.coffman's opinion on whether world babies being switched with swans is the sort of thing that should constitute a Wikipedia Good Article. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: in the source on page 9 it says pregnancy. when I translated the document https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/translationform it gave the correct world used witch is pregnancy. which is stated in the journal and on the page. The concept is discussed further in the article Witch. MPS1992 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: in the Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR section it is using the world as it is in the journal (pregnancy)Jack90s15 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I accept that it is using the world as it is in the journal. MPS1992 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Myth of the clean Wehrmacht/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: For my good friend Szzuk. Will start reviewing soon, looks a long one.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Very well written. Lead was a bit long and unfocused - see MOS:LEAD 'It gives the basics in a nutshell', 'the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs' and ' a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway'. But I found it good enough so as not to give a fail.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Well referenced by a number of reliable books
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images were used appropriately, for the most part i.e. the image of the saluting Wehrmacht soldiers was slightly irrelevant. A bit of work and it should be fine in no time.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Well written and sourced. Well done, a lot of time and effort has clearly been put into this.

General notes from reviewer[edit]

Some notes for me to look at, don't think these are my final thoughts - just some stuff to look over.

  • Date in introduction of International Military Tribunal Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Comma 'In 1950...' Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Wikilink for West GermanySymbol confirmed.svg
  • The whole of Germany's rearmament or just West Germany? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'Foreign public opinion must be transformed' (to what from what?) Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Wikilink for Nazis Symbol confirmed.svg
  • The myth began to grow - When? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Wikilink for 'et al' Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'In actuality there was no difference between the leaders of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi Party on how the war should be conducted' - I find that hard to believe. Symbol confirmed.svg [Clarified]
  • "subhuman" - punctuation should be outside of wikilink Symbol confirmed.svg In the lead I changed "sub-human" to "subhuman", I think that is correct
  • 'The war of annihilation threatened the Soviet state and the extermination of the civilian population' - is this sentence really needed? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Wikilink for 'Einsatzgruppen' in top imageSymbol confirmed.svg
  • Comma in list at start of 'Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR' section should be removed Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'The armies behaviour in Poland' - apostrophe needed? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • ' Author Ursula Schele estimated that that up to ten million women in the Soviet Union could have been raped by the Wehrmacht and one in ten of those could have become pregnant' - what does this mean? I fixed it to acknowledge how it was from the mass rape Jack90s15 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'History' section to be changed to 'Background'?Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Wikilinks for 'join the European Defence Council and NATO.' I think this should be "European Defence Community or just the defence of europe. Can someone check or I will delete it. Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'During the war Foertsch had worked' comma needed Symbol confirmed.svg
  • '...demands for German re-armament to begin.' should re-armament all be one word.Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'The myth began its formation shortly after the war at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg' - clarification needed, the war wasn't there. Symbol confirmed.svg

Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

More comments: @Szzuk:

  • 'They blame the Soviet Union for signing a non-aggression pact with Germany' Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - is this the pact? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Operation Barbarossa needs wikilink Symbol confirmed.svg
  • 'Russell said he was a hero' -> 'Russell said Manstein was a hero'? Symbol confirmed.svg

(Note to Willbb234 and Szzuk: I have just moved the "General notes from reviewer" section from the article talk section to this review page; all review comments should be placed on this page. Also, review pages should only have a single level-2 section header, so this is now a level-3 subsection. Thanks!) —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Szzuk (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: for that picture its showing how the high command of the Wehrmacht was rooted in NazismJack90s15 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)