Talk:Wehrmachtbericht

Private war correspondents
I'm not sure what a 'private war correspondent' is in the context of Wehrmacht. Can someone clarify? Otherwise, I'd like to delete this statement as it's unclear: "...while private war correspondents were not admitted." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and remove shortly. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Military commendation?
I'd like to submit this article for a B-class review, and the only uncited passage is on the report's link to a military commendation. The role as a military commendation is discussed in Mentioned in dispatches, but it's unreliably cited to ww2awards.com and everything2.com (?)


 * During World War II, the Wehrmacht Supreme Command (OKW) sometimes mentioned individual soldiers in its daily propaganda radio report to the public. This was known as the Wehrmachtbericht and a mention in this report was held in high esteem by German soldiers. In mid 1941 mentions in Wehrmachtbericht were awarded by the soldier's name being included on the Honour Roll of the German Army. Later, after January 1944, inclusion on this list was also sometimes rewarded with an honour clasp, known as the Honour Roll Clasp of the Army.

The Google book searches do not appear to bring up anything meaningful, such as (1) wehrmachtbericht "mentioned in despatches" and (2) wehrmachtbericht commendation. The second search brings up Wette, but the book discusses the report's propaganda role only. I've also tried (3) "wehrmacht report" commendation and (4) "wehrmacht communique" commendation.

This source Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War mentions the Wehrmacht communique, but in the context of military news only. Similar for the abbreviation, WB.

Anyone has advice or can point to sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like I made a mistake by removing the Wehrmachtbericht mentions in Otto Wöhler page. I'll provide a correction. The thing is that I found in the Wiki German page Namensnennung im Wehrmachtbericht (Nominal mention in WB) enough information and one reference (Auszeichnungen des Deutschen Reiches 1936-1945: Eine Dokumentation militärischer Verdienst- und Ehrenzeichen by Kurt G. Klietmann, 2002 Motorbuch 11th ed.), which, although unreachable, I cannot doubt to be sufficiently reliable and on the point. Carlotm (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is an RS? The article that you linked to uses him as the only source. The Klietmann's de.wiki article includes the following:


 * Klietmann founded a private "Scientific Institute for Phaleristics" where he served.
 * As a guest of the Department of "Military History" of SS veterans organization HIAG, Klietmann lectured at the organisation's 11th national conference in 1964 on the state of development and tradition of of the Waffen-SS. He called for the involvement of SS veterans in re-creating the history of the Waffen-SS, "similar to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey". He published apologist articles in HIAG's publications.
 * During WWII he served in a propaganda capacity (?) in the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Wehrpolitik und Wehrwissenschaften
 * Motorbuch-Verlag appears to be a somewhat questionable.

So I would consider the source to be WP:QS, or am I mistaken? Is this the only source available? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Klietmann is not an RS but, I may be wrong, not on this question. People who have a perverted vision of historical events so that it can second their political agenda, may still hold knowledge of certain facts. Surely it is unpalatable to introduce a source that, all in all, will never shine. But we may be able to bypasse mister Klietmann. On this page the original printed location of von Brauchitsch's document can be found (HVBl [Heeresverordnungsblatt - Army Orders and Gazette] 06.05.1940, part C, 27 ed., p. 189, n. 520). We need only to ascertain the trueness of this piece of information. Carlotm (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * http://en.ww2awards.com/ is non RS; it's mostly a forum. What's surprising is the lack of sources. If indeed:
 * —"This is a very special honour. Thus only deeds will be recognized wich (sic) call such a special attention from others that they justify a public mentioning (sic) in front of the German people"—
 * then surely there would be some RS sources to state that? The web site does not appear to be able to offer a proper translation even. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry K.e.coffman, but for me the question is already settled. These Wehrmachtberichte existed and the mentions there were considered an award, of the lowest level, I suppose. The interested parties may buy the volumes at Amazon eg. Carlotm (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur; if this was indeed an award, then it was mostly created for propaganda purposes. I will move it here for storage.


 * Military commendation: The Wehrmachtbericht references were established by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH) on 27 April 1940 as a military commendation.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A more important question, though, is why do we love, in en:WP, to entertain the reader by listing awards after awards? French (intermittently) and Italian WPs follow the same track of ours, whereas Spanish and German WPs are much more humble: in a fast, and narrow, look around I haven't found any of these award chapters. Carlotm (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no clue. For me, the award does not make the person, it's the action that has led to the award. If secondary RS do not cover this action, then the person, no matter whether they exhibit "extreme battlefield braver or successful military leadership", is not notable. In articles on WWII military men, listing WWI awards is superfluous, IMO, unless they are Adolf Hitler, with his Iron Cross, or Erwin Rommel, who showed extreme determination in getting the Pour Le Merite. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted with: Quoting from Wehrmachtbericht vs London Gazette at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht
I was approached by various editors to address the omission of the concept of the "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" as a military award. As the article in its previous state had failed WP:GACR criterion 3, it is not broad in coverage. The concept of the award characteristic of the "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" is based on Felix Römer (see German Historical Institute London stated in his book Kameraden. Die Wehrmacht von innen. Note, I will not be available to comment on possible discussions for at least 4 weeks. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Moved comment here from GA review page. This is the correct venue; the GA review has been completed. Vanamonde (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was that some of the content was about the German WW2 awards in general, not about this specific distinction. I also removed Murawski: as a former propagandist, he does not appear to be a credible source on the topic. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Does not quite match the source". I would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * + diff; this has an appearance of being WP:COATRACK, as the statement is about the awards in general, not the named mention in the Wehrmachtbericht. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @K.e.coffman While your edit of the first part of the upper half (" played a  critical role of utmost importance ( überagende Bedeutung ) for all German soldiers. Römer stated that military decorations in general created respect and symbolized soldiery masculinity ) is excellent (as it removes the pathos present in the decree and used by Murawski for his description of the award), Murawski was working for the Federal Archive and his study was officially published by the Archive. It is true that former German generals/regime staff and historians working for the Federal Archive created quite a few embellished (if not revisionist-ish) battle reports and analyses up to the 1960s, but Murawski is halfway accurate regarding the content of the actual decree and the purpose of the (revised/specified) policy outlined in the decree, well, you may have to deduct those sections, where he details the award with a lot of pathos. If it comes to awards then you should check out Klietmann's work: Auszeichnungen des Deutschen Reiches 1936–1945. Eine Dokumentation ziviler und militärischer Verdienst- und Ehrenzeichen. (11. Auflage. Motorbuch-Verlag, 2004, ISBN 978-3-87943-689-7, S. 214–215.) His scientific "Ordens-Lexikon" known as the Standardwerk "Klietmann-Neubecker", which he authored on behalf of the International Society for scientific phaleristics, is the core literature in that particular branch.
 * What's missing in the current description is the set of preconditions for getting such mention. IIRC, Klietmann lists two "qualifiers", where - before the start of heavy combat/a major engagement - 1) an individual either had to be the leader of a shock or recon platoon that had made enemy contact and captured a considerable amount of weapons or enemy soldiers under enemy fire twice, or where the leader captured or located enemy documents - "furthermore inflicting" (probably meaning "resulting in") damaging operations on the enemy (based on that intel). Individual actions of regular recruits/soldiers or NCOs would only be mentioned, if those were well above-average - if not /decisive/crucial.
 * During 2) major/heavy combat operations, commanders/leaders of all ranks could be mentioned, but their personal efforts had to influence a given operation in a fashion that made the outcome particularly valuable to the "leadership" (Supreme Command?). Personal engagements/CQB of individual leaders (on the front) were considered, too, but then they had to be extraordinary actions and their consequences had to be particularly valuable to the leadership.
 * You removed the sections packed with pathos, but the actual conditions for awarding a mention are somewhat blurry in the current article, imho. GeeGee (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to expand the article based on available RS, I would obviously not object. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Total War section
"Meanwhile, Goebbels was working behind the scenes to advance his program of mobilisation of the population for the "total war", using the impending defeat at Stalingrad as a rallying cry. Getting the go-ahead from Hitler, Goebbels launched the effort in the late winter of 1943."

The highlighted part does not reflect the historical course of things, nor does it mention Goebbels' infamous speech (February 1943) at Berlin's Sportpalast. With the speech, Goebbels hoped to mobilize the population and push those members of the government/regime who were in charge of the wartime economy to reduce the production of luxury goods and a range of other civilian products, and to extend the recruitment guidelines, so that additional production capacities could be freed for additional armament production efforts and the production of goods for the military and a vital share of the factory workers be recruited to raise new divisions. Since Hitler feared the emergence of civilian protests, the civil production was not significantly changed for months and recruitment regulations only slightly changed, more women started to take over jobs in the armament industry, though, plus an increasing number of slave workers were forced to work in key facilities. Starting in February 1942 already, Albert Speer had started to revise vital parts of the processes in the armament industry, though. Besides radicalizing the German population, Goebbels speech prepared the general population for future hardships, but failed to encourage regional NSDAP leaders (Gauleiter, pl.) to reduce their spendings on political events and luxury goods and/or to reduce their overall budgets. Despite hoping to become a member of the Joint Tripartite War Economy Committee (members: Bormann, Keitel and Lammers), Goebbels was not granted to influence the economical conditions/plans. Only after the Normandy landings turned out to be successful and after the Soviets had crushed the Germany Army Group Center, Goebbels allied with Speer in July 1944 to convince Hitler to renew the "total war" idea, which was put into practice, eventually. Goebbels was appointed "Chief Representative for the total war effort" and equipped with all corresponding mandates, along with the right to personally report to Hitler, as a result. Goebbels ordered to sift through the armament production workforce and pressed 700,000 workers into service. Speer had already raised the number of slave workers in 1943, with another hefty increase in early 1944 (and spring/summer 1944?). GeeGee (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In re: this passage:


 * On 16 January 1943, the dispatch finally mentioned that the 6th Army was fighting the enemy "on all sides", thus acknowledging the encirclement, but little was said about the situation in subsequent reports. Meanwhile, Goebbels was working behind the scenes to advance his program of mobilisation of the population for the "total war", using the impending defeat at Stalingrad as a rallying cry. Getting the go-ahead from Hitler, Goebbels launched the effort in the late winter of 1943. The state propaganda after that focused on the home-front mobilization, the civilian contribution to the German war effort, with this message continuing through the rest of the war.


 * I don't currently have access to Uziel (2008) and Longerich (2015), but, to the best of my recollection, the contents reflects the sources. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources brought forward for West German/former Wehrmachtbericht perspective
A now-banned POV-pushing bully IP attempted to make an assertion that the Wehrmachtbericht was a reliable source in a discussion-turned-argument on a "panzer ace" talk page, and edited this article to lend credibility to that perspective. the sources they brought up, however, could possibly be included if presented in the appropriate context as a view coming from inside the propaganda machine. Here they are, sloppily copied over from their edit:

Mewnst (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)