Talk:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

Image copyright problem with Image:JG27aces049.jpg
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


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

War crimes
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)
 * I have reverted again. The above comment is irrelevant and silly. All sources need to be used in all articles. The very fact there is another article with this information means there is no need for it to be regurgitated here as well. Besides, the Spanish Civil War falls outside the 39-45 period. As for war crimes; German war crimes has its own article for a reason.
 * The article, as it stands, is too long. If you are keen to have a specific page that links to Luftwaffe war crimes, then create one and link it under the "See also" section. Dapi89 (talk) 15:52, 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)
 * This isn't true either. See my answer on your talk page. You should know better.
 * To my mind, although I have contributed to this article, it needs chopping up altogether. I will open another sandbox and cut it down and set out better. Some of the article could do with its own article. IMHO this subject needs two articles. The Nazi-era has two distinct periods, 33-39 and 39-45. Six years of peace and six of war. The 1933-1939 article I will begin in due course. In the meantime this one needs rewriting partially. I'll begin a total revamp soon. Dapi89 (talk) 18:11, 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)
 * "Others". You mean one? This typical blockheadedness ignores the fact that such an article should have its own article, not relegated to insignificant paragraph in a large article. Dapi89 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could use neutral language when responding to a critique, in accordance with Wiki guidelines. There is a problem with this article which should be addressed from a non-partisan viewpoint. Encyclopedias are characterised by cross-refs, so a useful starting point is to have a new section on Luftwaffe war crimes linking out to a longer article. Peterlewis (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an irony in that. Is calling my work "partisan" neutral? Can I ask you for clarity? This page deals primarily with the Luftwaffe Operational History.
 * To your second point; You have my absolute support. This what I tried explaining to Molobo many moons ago. Its a very good starting point.
 * I think a series of articles dealing with the Luftwaffe is best, covering:
 * Development
 * Supporting Industry
 * Organisation
 * Operational History
 * Technology
 * War Crimes
 * Influence on post war aviation/ or Jet technology...something to that effect. Dapi89 (talk) 20:26, 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)

Move Page
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.- JustPhil 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. This is a sub-article of the Luftwafee page and the time period needs to be set out in the title. The article makes clear this was during the Nazi era so I don't think "Wehrmacht" needs to be there either. If you check out the sister article on the RAF page (History of the Royal Air Force) it doesn't have an info box, and I don't think a sub-article needs one. This sort of thing has been discussed before. One other user opted for the 1933-1945 heading and I did agree with him. Dapi89 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Göring
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)

Bomber cost
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)
 * In the same vein, I'd add (if I could cite it...) von Kesselring cut the 4-motors because German industry simply couldn't produce enough of them (if any at all). Criticism of the "lack of strategic aircraft" must take that into account (but usually doesn't...).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article does. Dapi89 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

208,000 Parachute troops?!
" 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)

Number of Jagdgeschwader present 1939-1941
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)

Possible War crimes
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)
 * Peter, we first spoke about this two or three years ago and I was quite clear then. There is no evidence that Lw personnel took part in these activities, or that it was ordered by the OKL. I've asked for citation before that say the individuals in the picture were members of the Lw. Anything less -liaisons etc is not enough to say this was a war crime carried out by the Luftwaffe. Undoubtedly, this was a war crime and it was carried out by SS doctors on behalf of the Lw. This makes the Lw complicit in the crime. It does not mean that the institution itself was conducting these experiments itself as a matter of course. The best wikipedia can say it that it was complicit in the crime - not that the Lw was systematically carrying them out. I find that misleading. Dapi89 (talk) 10:10, 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
 * That is not the case and I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. Please read my above post again more thoroughly. These were war crimes. My dispute with Peter, which has lasted three years, is whether these can be called Luftwaffe war crimes as a) Lw personnel were not involved and b) no evidence exists that the OKL ordered these experiments. Peter Lewis insists on adding that they are Lw war crimes (as opposed to SS or other organisations) yet refuses to provide citations for these assertions. Unfortunately I do not have a citation that states the Lw was definitely not involved, so we are stuck. That means "Possible War Crimes" is the next best thing, not just "War Crimes" - as it is quite clear such a statement is unsupported. Further, it is obvious these experiments were war crimes and the title does not dispute these acts in the way you describe. Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Some war crimes in which the Luftwaffe Ground forces definitely participated took place in Białowiez forest, Poland: This comes from an article Securing Hitler's Lebensraum: The Luftwaffe and Biaowiea Forest, 1942–1944, Philip W. Blood Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 24, Number 2, Fall 2010, pp. 247-272: Published by Oxford University Press


 * "These records are those of two Luftwaffe ground force battalions (Luftwaffe Sicherungsbataillon z.b.V. Bialowies (LWSB) and Jäger-Sonderkommando Bialowies der Luftwaffe (JSKB)) deployed in the forest of Białowieza (German:Bialowies), in Eastern Poland during the period 1942–1944. Variously named and designated, these security formations administered the Luftwaffe’s occupation of the forest. Collectively, their war diaries, combat reports, and ordinary day-to-day armed forces bureaucratic records provide a detailed account of the occupation. Contrary to expectation, the highest echelons of the Luftwaffe appeared to condone and indeed encourage the harsh behavior of the troops policing the forest...A string of reports from November 1942 makes clear that the enthusiastic killing of Jews was routine. On November 19 an “emaciated” Jewish woman wasfound hiding in the swamp. The troops shot her, vindicating the act with the formulaic excuse that she was “attempting to escape” (auf der Flucht erschossen). On December 2 troops shot four “escaped” Jews near the forest village of Sykki...In January more Jews were killed and yet again patrols and Jagdkommandos recorded the kills as if they were competing for trophies...It could be argued with some justification that there was little difference in the reporting styles of LW-Major Herbst and LW-Major Frevert,when compared to the reports of SS-Standarten
 * -führer Rudolf Pannier or other mid-ranking SS officers."


 * All evidence shows that these two Luftwaffe Battalions were guilty of war crimes. Minorhistorian (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done Minor. Although this does not directly relate to the above this is clearly a War Crime. If you'd care to add it to the article, then "War Crimes" becomes a justified heading. Dapi89 (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Strategic Bombing Bias
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)


 * Most of the points you make are not accurate. But before we start, this article is nowhere near finished.

Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Your point about LR fighters is one of around 30 reasons for the Luftwaffe's failure in the battle of Britain - and LR fighters is way down the list.
 * 2) Yes it has. The failure of intelligence during the Battle of Britain denied the Luftwaffe a chance to strike at the Spitfire factory at Southampton early in the battle. It would have had serious consequences for the air battle - though whether Sealion could have been achieved even with air supremacy is unlikely
 * 3) Your opinion about the Ural bomber is misplaced and your personal opinion is irrelevant to wikipedia. Time and time again the Luftwaffe was to achieve substantial success at strategic bombing in the Soviet Union - the lack of strategic bombers denied a greater impact from being made. There's plenty of evidence - 1,000s of books on strategic bombing have been produced on the subject, try buying one.
 * 4) Again, your seeming lack of knowledge regarding the German bombers' ability to damage the Soviet war economy is way off. A strategic air offensive prior to Kursk destroyed a plant of nearly 8,000 tank engines. Again in October 1943, another campaign against Soviet industry in the Ukraine was effective.
 * 5) The fighter cannot influence the ground campaign. Even in 1943 USAAF and RAF bombers were getting through and doing enormous damage despite losses. The Americans had the manpower and resources to continue even under these circumstances in 1944-45 and the RAF actually did it throughout the war. The P-51 merely reduced losses and tore the heart of the Luftwaffe day fighter force. In strategic terms, the fighter comes second. But like I said, this article is not even 50 percent complete.

War crimes
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)


 * I think you should include this specific material into the article. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement
The article contains the following sentence:


 * Göring had played a leading role in the build up of the Luftwaffe in 1933-1936, but played little further part in the development of the Luftwaffe until 1936 ...

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)

Requested move

 * 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. 

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)
 * Just warn you to be careful of your dates; the remnants of the Luftwaffe did not suddenly spring out of existence at 2359 on 8 May 1945 - I suspect formations, elements, and other bits and pieces continued in a variety of shapes and forms for up to months afterwards. I don't think the surrender at Reims actually unilaterally dissolved the Wehrmacht by decree. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The surrender forbade the German units any activity but to surrender. The Luftwaffe did not take to the skies anymore, the submarines surrendered to the first allied ship they sighted, etc. Officially the Wehrmacht was disbanded by order 34 of the Allied Control Council on 20 August 1946; but there were a bunch of orders before that had already forbidden the wearing of uniforms, disbanded all military institutions etc. Here you can find all the relevant orders: - especially relevant: proclamation nr. 1, proclamation nr. 2, directive nr. 18, the laws (Gesetz) 8, 23 and 34, order nr. 2 - that's all I can remember for now. noclador (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My German is limited, but I can see the first of those orders is dated 20 September 1945. So really for now, the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe was in existence 1 March 1935 - 20 August 1946?, unless there's another order somewhere between 20 Sept 45 and 20 Aug 46? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * actually that is a good question! In Germany it is assumed that the Wehrmacht ceased to exist on May 8, as from that moment on no the entire Wehrmacht surrendered and no orders were anymore issued from higher commands, no salaries were paid, all material was handed over, etc. etc. but from a legal point of view: on what date exactly was the Wehrmacht disbanded... I would say September 20th with proclamation 2, as it says "all German armed forces on land, on sea and in the the air, the SS, SA, SD and Gestapo, with all their organizations, staffs and institution, including the general staff, the officer corps, the reserve corps, the military schools, veterans organizations, ..., are to be fully and finally disbanded in accordance with the methods and procedures as defined by the Allied representatives." The law nr. 34 specifically says: "Because of paragraph I of proclamation nr. 2 from September 20th, 1945, the Allied Control Council issues the following law:" - now it lists again the same institutions as above - but omits the SS, SA, SD and Gestapo and adds instead "The German war offices: Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) and Oberkommando der Kriegsmarine ... are hereby viewed as disbanded and fully liquidated and declared unlawful." Surprisingly the law says "are hereby viewed as disbanded and fully liquidated" and then it states that any attempt to violate the law will be prosecuted with up to the death penalty. Therefore it can be assumed that after September 20th the allies began with officially dismantling the various commands and that this process was finished by August 20th 11 months later. I went through some legal texts now and they interpret it alike - disbanding began officially on September 20th, the Brits did it slowest and on August 20th 1946 nothing of the former Wehrmacht was left in any organized form. this is a link to copies of all the Allied Control Council documents in English. noclador (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Noclador. So Sept 20 with Proclamation 2 (did Bremner's staff remember this - that's creepy - Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2 !) seems to be the start of the legal process. Now, you and I both know that this 'assumption' about May 8 will have exceptions. Just because units/formations surrendered does *not* mean they were magically made-out-of-existence. Some activities must have continued in some areas. Do you know anything about 'routine' activities of Wehrmacht units, commands, etc, after May 8? If not, where would we look? Finally, I think we should move this whole discussion to Talk:Wehrmacht because it deals with the whole Wehrmacht, and then we can get on with the RM you listed. Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 20:36, 4 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! noclador (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment - Please focus the discussion on the move request with Opposes or Supports with rationale and refrain from discussing minute details unless necessary to support the position rationale. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Second relisting comment - Although the requested title may be appropriate, I would like to see other editors familar with the topic to weigh-in. There is significant overlap with other related Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe articles that editors should consider harmonizing all the article to ensure no confusion exists if this title is changed. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title is clear and to the point. The claim by the proposer that the Luftwaffe of 1933-45 "has no connection to the Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr)" is clearly untrue as shown by the careers of Johannes Steinhoff and other Luftwaffe officers who served in both.  Similarly, the claim that the Luftwaffe of 1933-45 had " no connection to the Luftstreitkräfte of the German Empire" is equally untrue as shown by the careers of officers such as Ernst Udet.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * that's wrong! you can not connect one airforce to another by personnel that moved from one to the other! With this argument the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Air Force need to be merged into one article as officers moved between these two during WWII. noclador (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a clear line of transition between the Luftstreitkrafte, the WW2 Luftwaffe, and the postwar Luftwaffe. Any demarcation was forced by treaty, not by a split of forces (like the Army Air Corps-Air Force stuff with the US). I don't see any reason to change how the article's currently laid out.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What clear line of transition?? There is none! If you can provide sources that the WW2 Luftwaffe saw itself as successor to the Luftstreitkräfte and that the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe sees itself as the WW2 Luftwaffe successor - please go ahead. As neither Luftwaffe saw/sees itself as successor to anything there is NO line of transition. Popular belief does not trump fact. noclador (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't get hostile when people don't agree with you. It's not helpful to the discussion and certainly won't help sway others to your position. As for fact, please review the development of what became Luftwaffe doctrine in the 1920s and 1930s. Since Germany was prohibited from maintaining an air force, it should be obvious that there would be no public claims of succession. Von Seekt, and others, were determined to maintain an air service in idea and fact where possible, and went to great lengths to do so. And the Luftwaffe of WW 2 certainly tried to maintain links with its WW 1 heritage. Your position also ignores the divisions that existed within the Luftsreitkrafte itself (Bavarian and Saxon Jastas, to name just two points). Does that mean we should have articles for the Bavarian air service now? In fairness, I do think it's silly to have separate articles for the USAAS, USAAC, and USAAF, but that's Wiki for you. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, If I came over as hostile - I did not mean to be sound aggressive and I wish to make it clear that above comment is not meant as an attack/insult in any way! Yes, I agree with you that the Reichswehr maintained a clandestine program of aerial power even though it was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Also I know that these various "civilian" entities were all merged in 1935 to form the basis of the Luftwaffe. But the discussion began because the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe which makes a point to distance itself from the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe is grouped with said Wehrmacht Luftwaffe into one article at Luftwaffe (which also is the name of the Swiss Air Force). Also this article is erroneously named: The Wehrmacht Luftwaffe was founded and the name given only 1935 (not 1933) and it was officially disbanded only in 1946 (not 1945)... so the point I am trying to make is mainly that Luftwaffe needs to be split and ideally this article should be renamed to Luftwaffe. The Luftstreitkräfte should stay were they are. noclador (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, and it might help if you framed your position in terms like you used below. Something like "It makes sense for German Air Force articles to follow the format used by USAF articles, Soviet/Russian articles." This focuses on the Wiki organization of the articles, and takes it away from the "there is no link" position (which some will have trouble with for reasons mentioned by myself and others above). If it's a matter of Luftwaffe articles agreeing in terms of organization with USAF history articles, then I'd shift to support. But if it's based on the position that there's no link between the various German air services, then I'd remain opposed. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

please note
please note:
 * Soviet Air Forces & Russian Air Force, same personnel different articles
 * Czechoslovak Air Force & Czech Air Force/Slovak Air Force, same personnel different articles
 * Imperial Japanese Army Air Service/Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service & Japan Air Self-Defense Force, same personnel different articles
 * Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps & Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps & United States Army Air Service & United States Army Air Corps & United States Army Air Forces & United States Air Force, same personnel different articles

and:

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)
 * moved German Army (Wehrmacht) as with the names of all its subordinate units (i.e. 46th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)) noclador (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Split

 * Luftwaffe is now a disambiguation page leading the three Luftwaffen that exist/existed
 * the current Luftwaffe is at German Air Force
 * only thing to do is to rename this article to Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht). noclador (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title is succinct and to the point and well within the knowledge of the average Joe, who might not understand Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht). Mention of the correct title in German and directly translated English should be included in the lead of the article, if it is not already!! Petebutt (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the Luftwaffe was in existence from 1935-1946... so the title already contains two errors. also as there are 3 different Luftwaffe (from two countries and with no relation to each other) a disambiguation is needed; and as Wehrmacht units use the (Wehrmacht) suffix and the Luftwaffe is a subdivision of the Wehrmacht... furthermore saying we need to name the article Luftwaffe 1935-1946 is like naming the Confederate States Army article: Confederate States Army 1861-1865... (or if we were to keep with the wrong dates of this article: Confederate States Army 1859-1864)... noclador (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on. This change of the article on the Luftwaffe happened this afternoon - you did it.  Very few people were involved in the discussion.  Wikipedia uses the principle of the common name - hence Luftwaffe = German Air Force.  I cannot help feeling that you have a POV - to distance the current Luftwaffe from its wartime predecessor.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Luftwaffe article and Luftwaffe (disambiguation) page have both been reverted to their prior states, pending completion of this discussion and any other moves that may be requested. Copying and pasting the disambiguation page to a new title is simply unacceptable, regardless of what thinks of the existing arrangement.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As there was barely any discussion for over a week I was bold and just began to edit. and now to answer:
 * @Toddy1: what POV? if an article is wrong then it needs to be corrected. If people think that same name = same thing, without proper sources and then name the article even wrong (History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - that's a full two years earlier then actually the founding of the Luftwaffe!), this needs to be corrected! Also - all other arms of Wehrmacht, Bundeswehr, Imperial Army and Reichswehr have separate articles - for some unknown reason a few insist that for the German Luftwaffen, (two separate entities, one of whom distances itself from the other), need to be thrown into one article. Factually, historically and officially wrong! So the articles Luftwaffe needs to be separated! and this here should be the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe article and the current Luftwaffe needs to go to German Air Force as there is also the Swiss Luftwaffe!! noclador (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have the view that there should not be an article on the history of the German Air Force from before the First World War to the present. This is a POV.  I do not agree with this POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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 the Luftwaffe as it is a duplicate of material here 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) 11:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re 1st proposal item 2 - the content is not duplicated, as a "history of ...." type article it goes into more detail than the Luftwaffe article. Similarly but not identically you have history of the RAF (which itself could probably use a more detailed history of the Second World War as history of the RAF (1939-1945) as a bridge between the general history and RAF Coastal Command during World War II). and item 3 per making it obvious to readers, using the dates is preferable to using the disambiguator Wehrmacht if only because I suspect your average reader confuses Wehrmacht with the Heer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Graeme.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the only way I'd support a move if it was to bring Luftwaffe in line organizationally (wiki-organizationally, at least) with the other national air force history articles. But I can't support it based on the "no links" theory. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe to use dates is more confusing then to use Wehrmacht. Using the dates would imply that there is a longer history then just 1935-1946. I believe that as units of the Wehrmacht (i.e. divisions, etc.) use Wehrmacht as disambiguator also the branches Luftwaffe and Heer can use it (with a the first line of the article being: "The Luftwaffe was the Wehrmacht air arm.") As for the duplicate content: I meant that as the history of the Luftwaffe article says the same but in much more detail than the Luftwaffe article, that therefore the content at Luftwaffe is a condensed duplicate and can be discarded in favor of the more detailed content at History of the Luftwaffe. And no to the point Intothatdarkness makes: the main point for me is to split the two Luftwaffe apart, as 1) also Kriegsmarine and German Navy, and German Army (Wehrmacht) and German Army are split 2) as other air forces articles are split (i.e. see Soviet/Russian or Japanese air force) and 3) as it is confusing for a reader to come to the article Luftwaffe now: if he wants the modern German Air Force, he finds first the WWI, then Interwar, then WWII text, and if he looks for the Nazi Luftwaffe he finds and article that is mostly about the modern Air Force! As for the "no links" debate, I don't care - the official line of the current Luftwaffe is "no links", but sourced content laying out the connection/links (i.e. Jagdgeschwader Mölders) and their eventual severance is welcome, should be in the article and is fine with me. To understand what I aim for with this discussion it will be best to have a look at the articles I mention (Kriegsmarine, German Navy etc.) - this is how Luftwaffe should also be handled. noclador (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support move to Luftwaffe as the main English use of this term in the sources is the Wehrmacht arm. See Talk:Luftwaffe for the full proposal(s). --Bermicourt (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would support either of the two current proposals, and definitely there should be some sort of content or disambig at German Air Force, maybe just a short summary article. Part of the reason we've got into this tangled situation is the different connotations of 'Luftwaffe' and 'German Air Force.' Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of cited material and replacement with uncited material
has the deletion of cited material and its replacement with uncited material. What is going on?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Admin comment - I have reverted the large content changes mentioned above pending resolution of this requested moved. The article is edit protected for 7 days or until resolution of the Requested Move. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (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.