Talk:Nazism and the Wehrmacht

Tag

The following tags were applied to this article:{{multiple issues|cleanup-reorganize=June 2012|essay-like=June 2012|original research=June 2012}}.

However, when placeing tags, one is supposed to go into detail on the talk page why somebody feels these tags are warranted. Since that was not done, I'm removing these tags for the moment. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The instructions say, "When the reason is not obvious". I feel the tags are self explanitory: it is currently multiple screenworths of prose with no way of easily extracting information without reading the entire section. That's not an encyclopedia article, that's an essay. I tagged it for cleanup because of the essay-like structure and WP:Citation overkill. The NOR tag is due to my experiences with essay-style articles. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2014

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Nazism and the Wehrmacht. Other proposed titles created as redirects. No prejudice against a new RM on the off chance anyone wants to further discuss "Nazism" and "Wehrmacht" should be arranged in the title. Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Wehrmacht and National Socialism → Wehrmacht and Nazism – We commonly use "Nazism" instead of "National Socialism." --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 76.105.96.92 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Suggest alternatives Nazism in the Wehrmacht or Nazism and the Wehrmacht Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Nazism and the Wehrmacht seems like the best option to me Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, not picky about the arrangement, but for clarity it should say "Nazism" rather than "National Socialism". bd2412 T 12:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subsections

I believe this article would benefit from more subsections to improve navigation and readability. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Given there is now a separate branch article: Corruption within the Wehrmacht; the sub-section "Corruption", herein needs copy editing and to be streamlined. Too much of the bulk of the new article is still in this main article; too much redundancy. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I was planning on doing, as the level of detail impacts readability IMO. Please feel free to take a stab. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking better; thanks for taking the time for ce. Kierzek (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Doenitz

I cannot find the information that Hitler had chosen Donitz as his successor since 1943 on the page 826 or anywhere else in the Weinberg book, or in any other work for that matter. This seems to be a misreading of the following

"The admiral had been a dedicated adherent of Hitler and believed practically until the last minute that the tide could yet turn in Germany's favor. His dedication to National Socialist ideas and his close identification with Hitler's strategy in the last stages of the war made him a logical, not a surprising, choice by Hitler as his successor. And that in his own strange way Hitler had assessed Donitz accurately can be seen in the insistence of the latter when in jail as a war criminal as late as January 1953 that he was still Germany's legal chief of state; only a system in which all parties including the National Socialists were allowed to participate could legally chose a successor!"

Deamonpen (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You are probably right. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. From memory, Hitler settled on Donitz close to the end, but it didn't surprise all that many people. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Soldier party membership

Regarding the [citation needed] tag on this sentence:

"Under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, no soldier of the Reichswehr was allowed to be a member of a political party nor to vote in an election."

I did some searching in the text of the Weimar Constitution (English translation), and I was not able to find support for this statement.

Here are two relevant Articles that I did find.

This one is against the statement:

Article 124 All Germans are entitled, for means which do not conflict with penal laws, to form clubs or societies. This right may not be limited by preventive measures. These regulations also apply for religious societies. Every club is free to acquire legal capacity. No club may be denied of it because of it pursuing political, socio-political or religious goals.

This one suggests there may have been such a restriction, but if so, it would be a military regulation or Reich defense law, not a stipulation of the Constitution:

Article 133 All citizens are obliged, in accordance with the law, to provide personal services for state and community. Compulsory military service is regulated by the specifications of the Reich defense law. This also stipulates inhowfar the individual's rights are to be limited in order to uphold discipline and for the Wehrmacht to fulfil its tasks.

This translation is from the external references link in the Wikipedia article on the Weimar Constitution. Jkolak (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Recent reverses of my edits (Neitzel and Welzer)

The book is a good source, the content is related to this article. I don't understand what makes it "not useful"? I'm willing to hear discussions before posting the content again.

The "National Socialists within the armed forces" gives the impression that most soldiers were politicized (Nazified) and thus prone to commit war crimes. Neitzel and Welzer evidently do not think that this connection was that important and decisive. At the same time they do not dispute that many soldiers, Nazis or not, committed war crimes. This opinion seems to give the article another dimension (when, as far as I know, no historian has accused Neitzel and Welzer of whitewashing the Wehrmacht or anything. They have no reason to do so either.).Deamonpen (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Anomynous user writes:

"That section of the page was explaining how officers were indoctrinated in Nazism it wasn't giving the impression they all were. The page is showing the correlation with the to entities the edit does not fit the page"

In this case I see no reason to add historians who explain the level of effectiveness such indoctrination actually had over the Wehrmacht.Deamonpen (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

American or other variant

Is this article written in British English or American English or other variants of English? LucasA04 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath of World War I paragraph has many factual inaccuracies

My focus in WIkipedia is on the history of Germany under the Empire and Weimar, and I came to the above paragraph to check a link from Spartacus League. I found the following errors of fact:

- the military did not turn Germany into a democracy in Oct 1918. I suspect the reference is a garbled one to the German constitutional reforms of October 1918, but there's no way to know for sure.

- the Ebert-Groener Pact did not come about in December as a result of the Volksmarinedivision. It was made in November, and not to "save" the government. It was reciprocal.

- Groener did not create the Freikorps. His name isn't even mentioned in either the English or German wiki Freikorps article.

I was considering making the fixes, but overall the article isn't in my area of interest or expertise. And since this one short paragraph has so many problems, does it mean that the rest needs attention, too? GHStPaulMN (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)