![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) page were merged into Luftwaffe on 26 September 2012 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The image Image:JG27aces049.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
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted back to an earlier version with war crimes back into the article. All citations are in the War crimes article. These crimes need emphasis if the article is to be balance3d and NPOV. Peterlewis ( talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Who is being silly? You should know that all W articles need balance and links for browsers. If you are possesive of the topic, you should have made thses links in the first place. Peterlewis ( talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Supporting War Crimes information. I criticised the article before for missing that and I am happy that others have spotted this flaw as well.-- Molobo ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please allow me to comment and state my position here. The title of the article is "History of the Luftwaffe (1939–1945)" the name is not "Operational History of the Luftwaffe" so if indeed the Luftwaffe is guilty of war crimes in this timeframe than it deserves a section that deals with this issue. However, as always, the information must follow the rules of Wikipedia, meaning the information must be well referenced. User Dapi has put a lot of work into this article and made every bit of information verifiable. I therefore can understand all too well if he takes a strong position in opposing un-cited information. I also agree that the article has become a monster and should be broken up into segments. However, the newly revised article should contain a reference to the crimes committed. I like Dapi's proposed structure of the article! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this was already discussed, but I think that instead of "History of the Luftwaffe" we should label this page "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)" or something. Also, I think we need the military infotable for this page.-
Just
Phil
15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Göring does not wear an uniform of the Luftwaffe on the picture. It's his uniform as Reichsjägermeister and not the uniform of a Reichsmarschall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.221.239 ( talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
From the article: "German industry could build two medium bombers for three heavy bombers and the RLM would not gamble on developing a heavy bomber which would also take time. " Surely there must be some sort of misquote here? This is suggesting that heavy bombers were in fact cheaper than medium bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
" The Luftwaffe's strength at this time stood at 373,000 personnel (208,000 parachute troops, 107,000 in the Flak Corps and 58,000 in the Signals Corps)."
Uh. So the Luftwaffe didn't have a single pilot, or a single ground-crewman, but.. they had 208,000 parachute troops. An entire parachute army, 4 Corps strong! You've got to be kidding. (we're talking 1939 here..)
I don't think the LF ever had more than ~25 thousand parachutists. I'm not sure if this is vandalism or what, but it needs to be corrected. I would do it myself but I'm not sure on the correct number of pilots/groundcrew. If it isn't changed soon I'll just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.134.146 ( talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Another (apparent) problem with the article: It states that there were only 9 fighter wings operating at the outbreak of WW2 in the Luftwaffe. I know, Wiki pages can't be used as a source, but just glancing through them, I can count 11 that were active on Sept. 1st 1939. They are as follows, in case anyone wants to look for (real) sources: JG1, JG2, JG3, JG26, JG27, JG51, JG52, JG53, JG54, JG76, and JG77. Of these 11, they were active throughout the entire war (again, according to their wikis *only*) with the exception of one: JG76. It was supposedly disbanded in late 1940, and re-created in 1944, serving til the end of the war.
If this is true, it should be corrected as well. Then again - perhaps the pilots were too busy parachuting to form Geschwaders. ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.134.146 ( talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this misleading title since medical experimentation on prisoners is clearly a war crime when conducted without their consent. Peterlewis ( talk) 07:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Dapi89, I read your edits as meaning that these experiments were possibly *not* war crimes. You may be clear in your mind that what you means is that these are war crimes that were possibly committed by direct involvement of Luftwaffe personnel; I read it as that you are stating that you feel that it is uncertain if these experiments are criminal acts. Bendel boy
I found this article extremely biased. In the sections about the pre-war years, they never mention fighters at all. How can you talk about doctrine without mentioning the role of fighters? Additionally, I found this article very biased in terms of promoting strategic bombing. Over and over again I found mentions of how Germany's lack of a strategic bomber proved fatal. But this simply isn't true. For exmaple, the article implies the reason for the failure of the Battle of Britain was the lack of a strategic air force. But clearly the lack of long range fighters had far more to do with that; unescorted 4 engined bombers are not much less vulnerable than unescorted 2 engined bombers. Secondly, there has not been a single instance in history where the destruction of industry has ever proved decisive. In the case of Allied bombings, the disruption in communications and supply proved to be the real decisive factor. When the transportation system collapsed it didn't matter how many tanks were being built in factories. The implication that if Germany had the "Ural Bomber" that it would have been decisive is simply another lie passed on for years after the with no real evidence. It took two years of allied strategic bombing to really begin to affect the German war effort. But the Allies had more strategic bombers even in 1943 than Germany could have ever built and still kept its fighter arm strong. But the idea that a few thousand B-17's used against Russia could have done much at all is preposterous; no German fighter could ever escort the bombers to the Urals and even if they could it would take substantial amount of time to have any real impact, time Germany did not have.
Basically my point is that it was never the 4 engined bomber that proved decisive, it was fighter aircraft and their pilots that made the real difference. This article seems to be only about the bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.5 ( talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regards. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the caption to the picture of Rascher, given the following info on his career in the Wiki artcile:
High altitude experiments
Rascher suggested in early 1941, while a captain in the Luftwaffe's Medical Service, that high-altitude/low-pressure experiments be carried out on human beings. While taking a course in aviation medicine at Munich, he wrote a letter to Himmler in which he said that his course included research into high-altitude flight and it was regretted that no tests with humans had been possible as such experiments were highly dangerous and nobody volunteered for them. Rascher asked Himmler to place human subjects at his disposal, stating quite frankly that the experiments might prove fatal, but that previous tests made with monkeys had been unsatisfactory. The letter was answered by Rudolf Brandt, Himmler's adjutant, who informed Rascher that prisoners would be made available.[4][5]
Peterlewis ( talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Well, you have a point I think! One question: Did he hold rank in the Luftwaffe, and was he an officer? Were these crimes carried out by the SS for the Luftwaffe, or was it a joint venture by both or perhaps they were carried out at the behest of the OKL? Were did you get the sources? Cheers. Dapi89 ( talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence:
which is as it stands, nonsensical. I suspect that one or other reference to 1936 is a typo, but which one?. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 11:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved) Mike Cline ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) →
Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) – The Luftwaffe this article describe was in existence from 1 March 1935 to 8 Mai 1945; it has no no connection to the
Luftstreitkräfte of the German Empire and it has no connection to the
Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr). That Wehrmacht Luftwaffe officially existed from 1 March 1935 to 8 Mai 1945 (with preparatory work undertaken in the years before); therefore 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.relisted again - see comment below --
Mike Cline (
talk) 10:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC) relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
noclador (
talk)
22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There is some info on that in the German Wehrmacht article - the most interesting parts of it are that in Norway life went on as normal (training was going on as usual - including live fire artillery training) and that Ferdinand Schörner ordered his troops to continue to fight, which they did for 3 more days (while he fled to Austria on the evening of May 8th!) - the last German unit to surrender did so on September 4th ( Operation Haudegen). What is shocking - the navy kept its war tribunals going: 3 executions for desertion on May 10th, 1 on May 11th, 2 on May 13th, etc. etc. and imagine for the one on May 13th the Canadians actually arrested the two guys, handed them over to the head of the POW camp at Schellingwoude, who organized for a war tribunal and then the Canadians handed the German some rifles back to carry out the execution! [2] noclador ( talk) 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
please note:
and:
German Empire | Weimar Republic | Nazi Germany | German Federal Republic |
---|---|---|---|
Reichswehr | Wehrmacht | Bundeswehr | |
Imperial German Navy | Reichsmarine | Kriegsmarine | German Navy |
German Army (German Empire) | Reichsheer | German Army (Wehrmacht) | German Army |
Luftstreitkräfte | History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) | German Air Force |
the only two article who stand out for erroneous naming:
History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) &
German Army (1935–1945)... both should be renamed,
noclador (
talk)
15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As this is a far more complicated issue then a simple move (Luftwaffe being a primary article) there are two possibilities:
First proposal:
Second proposal:
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) 11:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
[4] has the deletion of cited material and its replacement with uncited material. What is going on?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) page were merged into Luftwaffe on 26 September 2012 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The image Image:JG27aces049.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
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted back to an earlier version with war crimes back into the article. All citations are in the War crimes article. These crimes need emphasis if the article is to be balance3d and NPOV. Peterlewis ( talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Who is being silly? You should know that all W articles need balance and links for browsers. If you are possesive of the topic, you should have made thses links in the first place. Peterlewis ( talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Supporting War Crimes information. I criticised the article before for missing that and I am happy that others have spotted this flaw as well.-- Molobo ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please allow me to comment and state my position here. The title of the article is "History of the Luftwaffe (1939–1945)" the name is not "Operational History of the Luftwaffe" so if indeed the Luftwaffe is guilty of war crimes in this timeframe than it deserves a section that deals with this issue. However, as always, the information must follow the rules of Wikipedia, meaning the information must be well referenced. User Dapi has put a lot of work into this article and made every bit of information verifiable. I therefore can understand all too well if he takes a strong position in opposing un-cited information. I also agree that the article has become a monster and should be broken up into segments. However, the newly revised article should contain a reference to the crimes committed. I like Dapi's proposed structure of the article! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this was already discussed, but I think that instead of "History of the Luftwaffe" we should label this page "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)" or something. Also, I think we need the military infotable for this page.-
Just
Phil
15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Göring does not wear an uniform of the Luftwaffe on the picture. It's his uniform as Reichsjägermeister and not the uniform of a Reichsmarschall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.221.239 ( talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
From the article: "German industry could build two medium bombers for three heavy bombers and the RLM would not gamble on developing a heavy bomber which would also take time. " Surely there must be some sort of misquote here? This is suggesting that heavy bombers were in fact cheaper than medium bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
" The Luftwaffe's strength at this time stood at 373,000 personnel (208,000 parachute troops, 107,000 in the Flak Corps and 58,000 in the Signals Corps)."
Uh. So the Luftwaffe didn't have a single pilot, or a single ground-crewman, but.. they had 208,000 parachute troops. An entire parachute army, 4 Corps strong! You've got to be kidding. (we're talking 1939 here..)
I don't think the LF ever had more than ~25 thousand parachutists. I'm not sure if this is vandalism or what, but it needs to be corrected. I would do it myself but I'm not sure on the correct number of pilots/groundcrew. If it isn't changed soon I'll just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.134.146 ( talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Another (apparent) problem with the article: It states that there were only 9 fighter wings operating at the outbreak of WW2 in the Luftwaffe. I know, Wiki pages can't be used as a source, but just glancing through them, I can count 11 that were active on Sept. 1st 1939. They are as follows, in case anyone wants to look for (real) sources: JG1, JG2, JG3, JG26, JG27, JG51, JG52, JG53, JG54, JG76, and JG77. Of these 11, they were active throughout the entire war (again, according to their wikis *only*) with the exception of one: JG76. It was supposedly disbanded in late 1940, and re-created in 1944, serving til the end of the war.
If this is true, it should be corrected as well. Then again - perhaps the pilots were too busy parachuting to form Geschwaders. ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.134.146 ( talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this misleading title since medical experimentation on prisoners is clearly a war crime when conducted without their consent. Peterlewis ( talk) 07:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Dapi89, I read your edits as meaning that these experiments were possibly *not* war crimes. You may be clear in your mind that what you means is that these are war crimes that were possibly committed by direct involvement of Luftwaffe personnel; I read it as that you are stating that you feel that it is uncertain if these experiments are criminal acts. Bendel boy
I found this article extremely biased. In the sections about the pre-war years, they never mention fighters at all. How can you talk about doctrine without mentioning the role of fighters? Additionally, I found this article very biased in terms of promoting strategic bombing. Over and over again I found mentions of how Germany's lack of a strategic bomber proved fatal. But this simply isn't true. For exmaple, the article implies the reason for the failure of the Battle of Britain was the lack of a strategic air force. But clearly the lack of long range fighters had far more to do with that; unescorted 4 engined bombers are not much less vulnerable than unescorted 2 engined bombers. Secondly, there has not been a single instance in history where the destruction of industry has ever proved decisive. In the case of Allied bombings, the disruption in communications and supply proved to be the real decisive factor. When the transportation system collapsed it didn't matter how many tanks were being built in factories. The implication that if Germany had the "Ural Bomber" that it would have been decisive is simply another lie passed on for years after the with no real evidence. It took two years of allied strategic bombing to really begin to affect the German war effort. But the Allies had more strategic bombers even in 1943 than Germany could have ever built and still kept its fighter arm strong. But the idea that a few thousand B-17's used against Russia could have done much at all is preposterous; no German fighter could ever escort the bombers to the Urals and even if they could it would take substantial amount of time to have any real impact, time Germany did not have.
Basically my point is that it was never the 4 engined bomber that proved decisive, it was fighter aircraft and their pilots that made the real difference. This article seems to be only about the bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.5 ( talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regards. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the caption to the picture of Rascher, given the following info on his career in the Wiki artcile:
High altitude experiments
Rascher suggested in early 1941, while a captain in the Luftwaffe's Medical Service, that high-altitude/low-pressure experiments be carried out on human beings. While taking a course in aviation medicine at Munich, he wrote a letter to Himmler in which he said that his course included research into high-altitude flight and it was regretted that no tests with humans had been possible as such experiments were highly dangerous and nobody volunteered for them. Rascher asked Himmler to place human subjects at his disposal, stating quite frankly that the experiments might prove fatal, but that previous tests made with monkeys had been unsatisfactory. The letter was answered by Rudolf Brandt, Himmler's adjutant, who informed Rascher that prisoners would be made available.[4][5]
Peterlewis ( talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Well, you have a point I think! One question: Did he hold rank in the Luftwaffe, and was he an officer? Were these crimes carried out by the SS for the Luftwaffe, or was it a joint venture by both or perhaps they were carried out at the behest of the OKL? Were did you get the sources? Cheers. Dapi89 ( talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence:
which is as it stands, nonsensical. I suspect that one or other reference to 1936 is a typo, but which one?. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 11:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved) Mike Cline ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) →
Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) – The Luftwaffe this article describe was in existence from 1 March 1935 to 8 Mai 1945; it has no no connection to the
Luftstreitkräfte of the German Empire and it has no connection to the
Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr). That Wehrmacht Luftwaffe officially existed from 1 March 1935 to 8 Mai 1945 (with preparatory work undertaken in the years before); therefore 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.relisted again - see comment below --
Mike Cline (
talk) 10:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC) relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
noclador (
talk)
22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There is some info on that in the German Wehrmacht article - the most interesting parts of it are that in Norway life went on as normal (training was going on as usual - including live fire artillery training) and that Ferdinand Schörner ordered his troops to continue to fight, which they did for 3 more days (while he fled to Austria on the evening of May 8th!) - the last German unit to surrender did so on September 4th ( Operation Haudegen). What is shocking - the navy kept its war tribunals going: 3 executions for desertion on May 10th, 1 on May 11th, 2 on May 13th, etc. etc. and imagine for the one on May 13th the Canadians actually arrested the two guys, handed them over to the head of the POW camp at Schellingwoude, who organized for a war tribunal and then the Canadians handed the German some rifles back to carry out the execution! [2] noclador ( talk) 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
please note:
and:
German Empire | Weimar Republic | Nazi Germany | German Federal Republic |
---|---|---|---|
Reichswehr | Wehrmacht | Bundeswehr | |
Imperial German Navy | Reichsmarine | Kriegsmarine | German Navy |
German Army (German Empire) | Reichsheer | German Army (Wehrmacht) | German Army |
Luftstreitkräfte | History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) | German Air Force |
the only two article who stand out for erroneous naming:
History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) &
German Army (1935–1945)... both should be renamed,
noclador (
talk)
15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As this is a far more complicated issue then a simple move (Luftwaffe being a primary article) there are two possibilities:
First proposal:
Second proposal:
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) 11:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
[4] has the deletion of cited material and its replacement with uncited material. What is going on?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)