Talk:Junkers

The usage of the name "Junkers" is very confusing on this page. It os often unclear whether it referes to the engineer Hugo Junkers or to one of his former companies, such as Junkers & Co or others. Also, this article does not differntiate between the different companies. The history of the company Junkers & Co needs to transferred to the porper lemma (instead of the page redirecting here) while this page should only deal with the aircrafts. -- Riper2008 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree. I think the distinctions between the different companies are well explained through the body of the article. Further, the wiki generally doesn't use "Co" in names, so your move is against general guidelines. I haven't seen anyone else express concerns about this either. Maury 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Maury, first of all, sorry for the "& Co" thing. I wasnt aware of this rule and just blindly copied the name from the german wikipedia. However, I didnt move any content there, so no harm done. One could use "Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG" as the article name instead. What I moved was the content from "Junkers" to "Junkers (aircraft)" as the name stands for various companies (which may all be traced back to Hugo Junkers but have nothing in common anymore today). That I would like to separate the aircraft history from the rest was only a idea so far that I wanted to put on discussion. Regarding the name distinction: I cannot see any distinction between the person or any company. Only the paragraph "Financial Troubles" and the last paragraph mentions other companies at all. Moreover, only in the same paragraph the owner Hugo Junkers is mentioned for the first time, and this is only with his first name... . Also, I may be the first one to be concerned about it, but maybe I am because as another example, the article only starts with the production of airplanes in 1914. In fact, Junkers & Co was founded in 1895 and had a successful history in non-aviation technology before starting with the design of aircrafts (actually this part of the company still exists today, now under ownership of the Robert Bosch GmbH). I hope you can see my point. Cheers, Riper2008 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junkers.png
Image:Junkers.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

what about post WWII East German Junkers
Most of East German Junkers were forcibly relocated by the Soviets to work on the Russian Space program. Perhaps this is worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.242.8 (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumo
I assume Jumo is a contraction of "Junkers Motorenbau"? Drutt (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Junkers Today
Would it be possible to expand on and mention a bit about Junkers today or clearly state what happened to Junkers after the 1960's. The whole post-war history seems to be absent. Please forgive me if this question or suggestion seems a lot, I have the upmost respect for peole who research and write articles like this - but it was curiousity about what happened to Junkers post-WWII that led me to this article in the first place! ConsulHibernia —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

The Ju 52 was a bona fide commercial success
What is a "bona fide commercial success"? Could the person who wrote this please use English that we can all understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.235.4 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the picture of the only surviving J1 is of the later J1 biplane ground-attack aircraft, not of the experimental monoplane.Manormadman (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Junkers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_jumopat_a1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Junkers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518143222/http://hugojunkers.pytalhost.com/ju_jfm_a1.htm to http://hugojunkers.pytalhost.com/ju_jfm_a1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518143402/http://hugojunkers.pytalhost.com/ju_jfmgmbh_a1.htm to http://hugojunkers.pytalhost.com/ju_jfmgmbh_a1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure Junkers was either a pacifist or a socialist.
Quote Adam Tooze's *Wages Of Destruction*:

Early in the morning of 17 October 1933 Dr Hugo Junkers was arrested at his vacation home in Bayrischzell on charges of treason.93 Junkers was Germany's leading aviation pioneer, a celebrated engineer who at his plant at Dessau had constructed the world's first full-metal aircraft. Junkers's factory, though modest in size, was by far the largest aircraft factory in Germany. '''It has sometimes been suggested that Hugo Junkers's expropriation was due to his interest in internationalist politics and pacifism. But Junkers was in fact a conservative nationalist, who eagerly embraced the cause of rearmament.''' His difficulty was simply that he owned the largest aircraft plant in Germany and that Goering and his Secretary of State Erhard Milch were determined to have control of it. In the 1920s Junkers had squabbled with the German military about the future direction of aerial rearmament. The new holders of power were not willing to argue. After twenty-four hours in police detention, Junkers agreed to sign away his firm to the Reich.

I'd change it myself, but I don't know how to cite an ebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazyNecromancer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't mention the war ?
Is it just me or is that history section strangely avoiding the nazi period ? We have the time between WW1 and WW2 and then "Financial Problems" followed by the time after WW2. No mention of the dive bombers and all the other Junkers aircraft that were used to destroy all kinds of things. Did I mention the civil war in Spain ? Ok, forget it. Did I ask about the use of slave labor ? And so on. For some strange reason one of the most infamous manufacturers of nazi weaponary can have its Wikipedia page without any report about its role in the so called 3rd Reich. Strange. JB. --92.195.45.63 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well there was an editor who felt he need to remove most parts of these period due to lack of references. This happened in late August 2022.--Denniss (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia requires references. It's not a new policy either. Anyone can add it back at any time, provided that they cite reliable, published, secondary sources. Or they can write it themselves, and cite their sources. But anything unsourced is liable to be removed again. BilCat (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider these blankings highly problematic from a user who seems to have been very problematic/controversial himself. Looked for a new playing field after being indef topic-banned from DR discussions. I would like to revert these blankings and having either the sections or the whole article tagged as missing references. There's just too much valuable information lost. --Denniss (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with huge sections of unsourced text is that they often contain non-neutral claims and original research, analyses, and conclusions. If you want to review the sections as you restore them to remove that sort of stuff, then I'd support adding it back without sources. However, it's probably better than someone write the history from scratch, along with sources to support it. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Junkers brand today
There is a company which is building modern reproductions of Junkers 1920's designs. I saw one in person in the Waco Aircraft hangar in Kalamazoo MI this weekend. Can we get a new section to discuss the modern Junkers brand? TAPwiki (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's also a comment from 2009 asking about the lack of history after the 1960s on the page. It's strange that the Ju-52 page links here regarding the new reproductions while this page makes no references to the company or any parts thereof existing after 1969. Fisk0 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is nothing written here about their part in the Nazi war crimes?
As described on the attached website

Junkers Companies and Facilities (hugojunkers.bplaced.net)

Is it not an important enough topic or is it terribly important to hide the real history? I'll write the supplement myself and we'll see Esttg (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)