Talk:Bundeswehr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bundeswehr article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] General issue

Not well known but the Bundeswehr does consist of the military part and a civil administration and procurement part. Please refer to the German page for details. In this article only the military part is mentioned.


[edit] afghan news item

please incorporate the following news item [1] into this article. Kingturtle 02:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the afghan news item is true anymore. German magazine Spiegel Online reports on a Bundestag decision to continue the Afghanistan mission on October, 24. [2] I think this will include the KSK elite troops. So, please don't work that news item in, maybe the article should reflect the continuation (and territorial extension) of the Afghanistan mandate by the Bundestag. -- till we *) 18:30, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Successor of the Wehrmacht (?)

Naja Stauffenberg hat schließlich das Attentat gegen Hitler begangen und wurde dafür hingerichtet. Die NVA hat genug Wehrmacht Traditionen übernommen (Art des Marschierens, Aussehen der Uniform etc.) Die BR Deutschland ist übrigens nicht Rechtsnachfolger, sondern noch derselbe Staat. Die Bundeswehr hingegen, hat nichts mehr mit der Wehrmacht gemeinsam.

Well, to say that the KSK is a "terror-commando" implicates, that you are not aware of, for example, the rules of engagement, or what a combatant is. Do terror-commandos wear the flag of their country? Are they wearing their weapons openly? Are they shooting on civilists? Civilists? Do you know what the DSO is? I guess not, but please give me prove of your belief, then we can discuss. Or do you have experience in serving in the Bundeswehr? (t-6)

I do not think that after this statement there is any further need for discussion. I very well understand that you do not want to post your opinion in English since everybody could understand that it is NPOV. Calling Stauffenberg a war criminal tells enough about your biased position. You are in fact well aware of it, otherwise you would not permanently hide your identity.--KuK 11:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to the Federal Constitutional Court, ruling from 1973, "die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist nicht 'Rechtsnachfolger' des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat 'Deutsches Reich'". To KuK: We are not interested in rubbish talk in this article. The Bundeswehr is the successor of the Wehrmacht and the earlier Reichswehr in the sense that it is the military of Germany, and this needs to be explained to English readers who are not familiar with military history of Germany. The socialists in Germany may have a different opinion, but we should stick to historical facts and not rewrite history.

[edit] Navigation Panel


Bundeswehr
Teilstreitkräfte or TSK
(Branches)
Heer
Luftwaffe
Marine
Organisationsbereiche
(Organisational areas)
Sanitätsdienst
Streitkräftebasis

I tried to insert the Navigation Panel from the german Wikipedia.

{{Bundeswehr|Image:Bundeswehr logo.gif}}

But the lower table makes trouble. Maybe somebody who understands this, can insert it in the 5 articles.
--Pixelfire 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)


I wanted to add the yearly budget to this article, but I noticed it's already in the info box and just doesn't show on the article page. I tried fixing it, but didn't succeed. Maybe someone else has more luck... --142.104.118.91 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German problems with NPOV

It is very disturbing that some German participants want to dictate our English-language Wikipedia. That the Bundeswehr as the military force of Germany is the successor of the Wehrmacht and the earlier Reichswehr is an obvious fact. Denying that the Wehrmacht and the Reichswehr were the military forces of Germany in previous times and that the current military force of Germany is the Bundeswehr is a really odd POV which does not belong in the article. Casual English readers are not always so familiar with the complicated history of Germany that they know what the military force in previous time was called, and this information is hence necessary. Some German participants here are behaving extremely arrogant and silly. I haven't yet seen an answer above and will continue to revert POV-pushing attempts.

The question is: What can be called a successor. It is obvious that the Bundeswehr is the military force of Germany. Also the Wehrmacht was a military force of Germany, however, there was no organisational continuity. The first Bundeswehr formations have been founded after 10 years without German military. They are not allowed to maintain the tradition of former Wehrmacht or Reichswehr formations. The official lines of traditons have been explained in the article but have been erased again and again during this edit war. These lines of tradition are based on official Bundeswehr regulations.
The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany as the German State is in legal continuity of the former Reich does not imply that all its institutions also are direct successors of former state institutions. Nobody will claim that the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) is the successor of the Volksgerichtshof or the police detectives are successors of the Gestapo.
To sum up again: Neither in terms of organisation nor in the lines of traditions the Bundeswehr is a successor of the Wehrmacht. This is a fact of German history that is important to English readers as some of them might not expect such a radical interruption in the military tradition of a nation that is widely described as militaristic in parts of the British media. That the German military during WW II had been called Wehrmacht is probably known to 99 pct of all English readers. It is of no informational value.
To remove any ambiguity I have changed the text now in an way that everyone can understand that the former German military was called Reichswehr and Wehrmacht. But also there is the fact that the Bundeswehr does not consider itself as their successor. That can not be disputed. Someone else might have a different opinion but that does not change the official position of the Bundeswehr.

>>Thats like the new Iraqi-Goverment would be the decendent of Saddam

To the anonymous author who wants to enforce his position without disclosing his identity: Your (German) claim that the Bundeswehr is following NS-traditions and naming installations by war criminals while the former East German NVA did abstain from this is not correct: As I already once tried to explain to you you can not call Stauffenberg a war criminal. And it was the NVA to consciously keep Wehrmacht-Traditions (uniforms, rank insignia, "goose-stepping"). They claimed to follow real German military traditions while the Bundeswehr was just coping the U.S. military. When you than call my understanding of history socialist it gets more than absurd.--KuK 13:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


Dear unknown User. It was very confusing to read, that some bad Germans dictate your Wikipedia. I thought everybody should work at the wikipedias,... Not only Germans at the German Wiki and English at the Englisch Wiki. Have you ever noticed that there is no US Wiki, or Austrian Wiki. That would be a very racist view of the Wikipedia. In my eyes, you try to dictate your own opinion to this article. --Pixelfire 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry bout that. Just like the American leftists who have nothing better to do than messing up Bush administration related articles, some of their German equivalents engage in similar anti-state, anti-military, anti-everything activity. Whether it's PC or not to admit that the Bundeswehr is the successor to the Wehrmacht, it is pretty obvious that it is. And to the guy above who pointed out that saying so would be silly since other institutions of today's Germany (like the justice system) aren't successors to their Third Reich counterparts, you do know how many Nazi judges just went on working for the new government, don't you? :-) --84.58.44.174 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The question is: would you call the knigths of Charlesmagne precedessors to the German Bundeswehr? And is it NPOV to tell (inter alia) what an institution says about itself, or isn't it?-- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You will certainly admit that the relationship of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr is much more obvious, seeing that one immediately followed the other, they're somewhat similar in structure and even employed the same people. But I'm fine with the current version of the article. It only baffles me why people always have to fight over PC crap like that. --84.58.50.161 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If you closely monitor this article you will find out that we already have been through this phase of the discussion. The fact that the Wehrmacht has been the German military organisation before the Bundeswehr is so obvious that it can't be questioned. The text only says that the Bundeswehr does not regard itself being the Wehrmacht's successor. This is based on a number of intended discontinuities between the two forces. Bundeswehr personnel has been educateded not to accept the Wehrmacht as such as a source of tradition due to the moral failure of this organisation in view of the Nazis' organised crime. That does not mean that individual members of the Wehrmacht cannot be part of the Bundeswehr military tradition. To make it short: it is not very reasonable to call an organisation that came into being ten years after another organisation its successor if it is strongly disconnecting itself from the previous organisation.--KuK 21:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, the vandalism on this page has reached a new quality with our old IP-vandal hiding as a sock puppet under the user names BoroughJohn and Witakone. I have marked the respective user pages accordingly.--KuK 13:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I hate to tell you but the Bundeswehr IS the successor of the Wehmacht Many Nazi germany soilders and officers made up the army. And there's even a ship named the Rommel is'nt there?

There has been a ship named "Rommel", you´re right, it is out of service for a few years now. And yes, you´re right, there were a lot of former officers and soldiers of the wehrmacht who helped to build up the Bundeswehr. But please think about one question: would you name the National People´s Army of the GDR (hope, it´s the right abbreviation, I mean the DDR/Eastern Germany) a succesing army of the wehrmacht, too? The army of a communist state? The soldiers of that army were wearing almost the same uniform like the Wehrmacht. Its soldiers had no right to refuse orders. Its soldiers were parading in goose-step. And - perhaps you will be surprised about it - a lot of former wehrmacht soldiers built up this army - for a communist system. If there ever was a German army after 1945 which succeeded in the traditions of the Wehrmacht - it was the NVA of the GDR, and not the Bundeswehr. The soldiers of the Bundeswehr got new uniforms which differed a lot from the Wehrmacht. The soldiers of the Bundeswehr are educated to be "Bürger in Uniform (Citizens in uniform)" with a lot of rights to avoid a total duty to obey even illegal orders. I hope, you can imagine the problem: of course former wehrmacht soldiers helped to build up the Bundeswehr - who else should have done? They were well trained, had a lot of experience and they were available - time was short in the 1950s. Even the communist leaders of the GDR recognized that problem, too. But the fact that former Wehrmacht officers helped to made up the Bundeswehr doesen´t mean automatically to take over the Wehrmacht´s traditions. Beside the fact that it was difficult enough for Chancellor Adenauer to make the war-tired German people accept this new army with new ideals, it mustn´t be forgot that Germany was an occupied country at that time. The western alliies would have never allowed Wehrmacht traditions and ideals to take place in the new German army. And the former Wehrmacht soldiers were very well chosen to avoid them being involved in war-crimes or being active nazis. Lots of them were former members of the military opposition against Hitler. The traditions which are looking to you as if they had been taken over from the Wehrmacht are the basic German (and not nazi!) military traditions which have been traded over hundreds of years. And of course the Wehrmacht used (and often misused) them, too. I hope, this arguments can help to make clear my point of view. I would be glad and thankful for further opinions and statements! Greetings Ogbader 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well said Ogbader! I fully agree.(Khanada 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC))



I just stepped by and i have to say: boys what is that all about? Cant you listen to each other?!? Oh my, get straight on what you are talking about before accusing each other of POV. As far as i can see there are two opinions what can be called a successor: a) Wehrmacht was a German army, Bundeswehr is a german army no matter what differences in Germany herself or the army there are that makes one the successor of the other. b) There was a ten year gap between the two armies and the rules which apply to both of them were completly different. Bundeswehr really despites organisation, rules of engagement and phiolosophy of the Wehrmacht and therefore can hardly be called a successor. So i as far as i understand these are the two ways to see the problem. Now my two cents: In the direct translation of the word "successor" to the german "Nachfolger" there is a strong componend of continuity. Usually you would asumme that a "Nachfolger" is basically happy with the stuff that happend beefore him. Well now my question is wheather this is true in english as well. If so you simply can not call the Bundeswehr a successor. Even though they used same personal of the old military they do have a completly different philosophy. Well on the other hand the english successor might just emphasise that one was created after the other (i do not know for i am no native speaker) So just to stress this: Please agree whether you understand successor as a chronological thing or as a causal thing. 138.246.7.21 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manpower- Availability: Why males only?

I have noticed that in the table stating the manpower availability, only males are considered. This applies to all countries except for Israel and the United States. Why is this? In Germany, women are allowed to serve in all positions men are allowed to serve, while in the U.S., women are not allowed to be combat troops. So, if anything, it should be the US table that ignores females.

I guess this is done because there is a draft for men only. Women _can_ serve in the Bundeswehr if they want to, men _have_to_ serve. It is not allowed to draft women even in the event of a war, so they are not counted as potential forces. As for other countries, for example the U.S., there is no draft (at least not at the moment), so the potential is calculated differently. But you are right that there should be a change in the counting method if women are not allowed in combat troops, but only as support. --Chrysalis 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer of a German: Since 2001 Females are allowed to serve in the Bundeswehr and in the combat troops too!

"In 2000, the European Court of Justice opened the previously all-male (besides medical divisions and the music corps) Bundeswehr to women."

This is wrong. the Eurpean Court just stated that women should be allowed in more branches and it is unjust to simply forbid women from serving with guns. This meant that the german constition (Grundgesetz §12a) had to be changed. But it was decided by german officialls to lift this ban for all branches including infantry, paratroopers, spec. forces, submarines, armor etc. . January 2006, five years after the ban was lifted, 12250 women serve in the Bundeswehr that is 6,5% of all professional soldiers. -Janice, 20.05

[edit] State of Defence

There has been a number of changes from "state of defence" to "war", claiming that "state of defence" is not a military term. Firstly, it is a the fact that "state of defence" is being officially used in Germany and an existing term in the Bundeswehr. Therefore , no one can deny its existence.

Secondly, it is a legal term of the German Basic Law. See Article 115a: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Official English translation, as a PDF file.--KuK 12:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"State of defense" is an euphemism, i.e. it's POV. The neutral military term for armed hostilities between two or more countries is called a state of war. The article shall not present the German POV (which is suggesting that any country Germany is in war with is the aggressor just because the Germans say so), but describe the military in a neutral way!
The term "state of war" is not a question of language but of facts. The "state of defence" is defined in the German constitution as a situation where Germany is under attack or an attack is deemed imminent. Only in this case the "state of defence" can be declared and the chancellor will then become commander-in-chief of the Bundeswehr. If Germany participates in any other type of armed conflict the state of defence cannot be declared and the chancellor will not become CINC of the Bundeswehr. So, the text "the Chancellor will become commander-in-chief when Germany is in a state of war" is wrong, especially if someone defines any armed conflict as a war - a definition that can be disputed. But by this definition the Kosovo conflict had caused the chancellor to become CINC which was not the case.--KuK 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I see there is a difference, and that the Chancellor not becomes commander-in-chief when Germany is at war, only when according to the German POV another state is attacking. As for the war against Yugoslavia, Germany surely was the aggressor in 1999 as Yugoslavia did not attack Germany. User:83.109.128.241, 21:07, 22 January 2006
Nice joke, it looks like you see the world through different eyes than most of the world around you ... Please stop vandalizing the Bundeswehr article. --Denniss 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the whole issue: the term "state of defense" (Verteidigungsfall, article 115a) was chosen intentionnaly to point out that the Federal Republic of Germany CANNOT, under any circumstances go to war (i.e. attack any country, article 26): "Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören, insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen." My translation "Actions, that could or are taken to disturb the peaceful coexistance of the people (of the world), especially leading a war (of aggression) are unconstitutional. They [those taking the actions] will be prosecuted and punished." Please be aware of the fact that a 100% correct translation is impossible. (That is why the official translation does not exist anymore.) Concerning Yugoslavia: It was not the Bundeswehr that attacked, but a joint NATO force consisting of, among others, German troops. But this is not an issue here. Nicofs 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

It might be not easy to explain this so I won't try it, but it's completly forbidden for these german soldiers to aim at humans, not important if their weapon is loaded or not. This image shouldn't be used because it's a completly untypical situation which would have serious follows for the commanding officers. --Saperaud 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is this written? On training scenarios you have to aim at humans. Its only forbidden to do this for fun. --Pixelfire 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Training scenarios which include to aim at humans (especially their comrades) are few and it's not really a written law, anyhow it's a matter of safety to forbid "9 month soldiers" (propably these are) to aim at humans in any non-critcal situation (especially training them to do so). It's not necessary for these soldiers to train scenarios like these and it's dangerous to leave such soldiers with armed weapons later on (f.e. guard services). To my knowledge that's only done with soldiers training for an abroad mission and as a follow untypical for others. --Saperaud 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but i've never heard of this. You don't let W9's aim at other people at this distance with loaded Weapons, but I don't see there any problems with unloaded ones. And a well trained Corporal (OR-4) or above should know he does with his weapon. --Pixelfire 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
In the description of the picture stands, that the two soldiers prepare to raid a room, that is marked on the ground. The left one ist just at aiming position, because of possible enemies coming out of the room. And he looks down to watch the right one. The thumbnail is missleading, yes. Matthias Rötsch --217.225.60.81 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is strange and misleading to show a image of Hasso von Manteuffel in a wehrmacht uniform as the first picture in the article. Manteuffel may have been the one to design the word Bundeswehr, but that fact doesn´t make him so important to show such an image of him. I have removed it because of that. Greetings Ogbader 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I have moved him farther down. Ve3 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever thought he could be aiming at the ground near the soldier to the left slightly? X360 07:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you (Saperaud) served in the Bundeswehr? I did. And Pixelfire is completly right with his statement. In training situations we shoot with blank cartridges on members of other platoons. If you look on the pic you can see that both G36's have MPG's on the muzzles (A divice for blank cartridges. With this device it's impossible to shoot real bullets. If you would try, your barrel would explode). And X360 ist right, too. The left soldier aims on the bottom. This is how I was trained when holding a rifle. The only reason the left soldier could get problems is that he wears no helmet and his trousers are not rolled inside (they are over the boots) :-). B-Man 04:37, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wehrmacht tradition

"Critics also claim that the Bundeswehr was too slow to change the names of barracks and other facilities bearing the names of prominent Wehrmacht and Reichswehr officers"


That suggests that all barracks named after Wehrmacht or Reichswehr soldiers should be renamed (since there are barracks and other institutions "still" named after Wehrmacht or Reichswehr officers). That's POV. 129.13.186.1

Your changes really improve the article, thanks. And it is true that the German Wikipedia has huge problems with leftwing POVs. 129.13.186.1 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

...as well as with rightwing POVs.

[edit] New version

I hope the new version will satisfy everyone. It now simply states that the Bundeswehr "replaced" the earlier organisations (instead of "is the successor of", and instead of the POV and nonsense claim that it "is not the successor").

Here I want to agree, because the Bundeswehr is a fully new army than the wehrmacht. From 1945 to 1955 Germany had no army. Some Wehrmacht-Generals may served in the early Bundeswehr but just because the NATO did not accept 18-year-old Generals (Cauncelor Adanauer said this). I believe every country would hold their traditions - even in the army. some traditions like the Zapfenstreich exist since the "Thirty Years' War" (1618 - 1648).

[edit] Semi-protection

This article is subject to frequent vandalism by IP-vandals, sock puppets, and some other individuals like user:Mr.Do! who is playing his games also in the German wikipedia under the Name "Eins". If this does not stop one possibility to protect it is to ask for semi-protection.--KuK 15:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by User:Ve3 and User:KuK

As you have noticed I have changed some of your edits for various reasons.

  • The data for the stablshment of the different services were removed as this is already part of the history section, and once is enough. Also the year for the army (1955) was incorrect, all classic three services came into being in 1956.
  • The establishment of the Joint servise Support Command is also mentioned later in the organisation chapter. So, there is no need for it in the first sentence which is to give general information and no details that only can be understood within a broader context.
  • The info about the incorporation of the East German Volksarmee is incorrect. Nobody was demoted, but a major number of personnel was employed in the Bundeswehr in a lower rank than previuosly held in the Volksarmee. That might seem to be the same but there is a big difference. The remnants of the Volksarmee did not become part of the Bundeswehr but every single man got a new contract of employment including a Bundeswehr rank. He was free to accept or to stay out. Demotions are punishments but nobody was punished. The main reason for employing people in a lower rank was their qualification. Promotions in the Volksarmee came much earlier than in the Bundeswehr and people with the same rank had very different experiences and qualifications.
  • There was no official renaming of Bundesmarine and Bundesluftwaffe. Both names have never been official. In fact, the name Bundesmarine had been used semiofficially, but was never really correct. Therefore the Navy decided not to use it any more after unification as there was no more need to distinguish from the East German Volksmarine. The name Bundesluftwaffe never has been used in the same way as Bundesmarine but only on few occasions. It basically disappeared after 1990 without any higher decision on this subject becoming known.
  • I removed the picture of Manteuffel as his role in the creation of the Bundeswehr is of lower importance. His name giving function is mentioned in the text. And he did this in his civilian function as member of the Bundestag and not as a Wehrmacht general.
  • I also removed the Bundeswehr template as it is in German only and in a totally wrong position in the centre of the article. With the already existing general template in the beginnig and the wikilinks to the services in the first sentence there is no need for this template.
  • And finally, one has to consider which information has to be placed in which chapter. Important things first, details into well structured later chapters. Thats what I am working on.

--KuK 07:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of your points I agree with some are wrong. For example, you deleted the entire history section on the 21st century which can have no justification. Other points are less serious- I agree we need a newer picture of manteuffel (for that time period). Ve3 11:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with your point that the information of the 21st century section has been deleted. In fact all this information is somewhere in the article, mainly under "Organisation and Command Structure". This includes all the institutional changes that were in the 21 c. chapter. Also the info on women is available however in a much shorter form. All the Tanja Kreil story is a detail without nay further meaning nowadays. This person, by the way, never showed up to join the Bundeswehr. There would be many maore details of much higher interest that also have to be left out to keep the article short enough. Therefore I have deleted the duplications as mentioned. I recommend you read the article in toto before you start to revert again!
I have again deleted your uncommented revert to the wrong information about demotions of NVA people (see my comment above). --KuK 12:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue was the lawsuit that changed the law, not her later choices. Nor does that change that the 21st century section is needed- nor can it all be found elsehwere. Ve3 13:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The earlier to two sections are back now, mainly I disagree with deletion of the 21st centry section, external links, and some formating issues. Ve3 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Information about the NVA is incorrect. You are wrong Ve3. --88.73.203.102 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Which information? I never disagreed with most of your information on the NVA in the first place, and the entire section you wrote on unification is the one in the article now. Ve3 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I did not interfere with your work after I had made my comments. Unfortunately you again went the normal way, first reverting everything, then work a little bit on some details. Didn't you notice that with the revert you also deleted a number of minor corrections in language and style, people had been adding? I only quote the comment another user wrote with respect to another article on your talk page:

First of all, your edits tend to add information that is already contained within other parts of the article, making them much longer than they have to be, without adding to them at all. When someone goes ahead and cleans it up, you simply add it back without saying why, and when questioned about it, you either claim that the information is not duplicate, or that you added it as a summary or introduction.

Unfortunately this is also true for your work here. I will now step by step delete double information and restructure this article again. I will describe it step by step during the next minutes.

  • First step: Deleting double information about the founding date of the Bundeswehr and reimproving the style in some points.
Providing a summary of something in a introduction, then covering it in greater detail later on is not repetition but a way of organizing a article. The introduction cannot cover all details, it must be expanded and further explained later. However, that explantion must preface the more in depth details with some of the same information or it has no context. Ve3 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Second step: Restructuring Information on the latest developments of the Bundeswehr so far part of the chapters "21st century", "Organisation", and "Mission" as this is not history but actual information.
  • Third step: First I remove a duplication "of Germany", Ve3 just has built in again! Then I will rstructure personnel information including women in the Bundeswehr.
  • Fouth step: Cleanup of pictures, links etc. Remember wiki-policy: Wikipedia is not a web directory! One link to the Bundeswehr home page is enough. The services home pages can be found under the respective articles. And some questionable pictures have to go as also templates with German language. This is the english wiki!

Having completed my work I hope you can live with the results. If not I expect that you work more deliberately than before. Stop your general reverts, do not again duplicate and do not build in all the mistakes in grammar, style and content I just have tried to remove. I am not willing to do these long explanations again, but I will revert mistakes without further notice!--KuK 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live with some of it, much of it I never disagreed with in the first place. However, you again you deleted entire sections. My reversions of your wholesale deletions of sections and links were not general the first time, but I will certainly take greater care to be more deliberate as you ask. Ve3 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If you miss something just add it, but I think that all information that was in there is still in the article but only once and possibly in another place than before. I appreciate that you waited until I was finished.--KuK 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British or American English

Judge373 was so kind to help us mostly German contributers to improve the style of this article to native language. At the same time he (she?) also changed the text to American English. I don't know whether there is a general policy on this in the English wikipedia. But, as we Germans mainly were tought British English at school and as we are Europeans we normally prefare to use this version. Is ther any opinion by English speaking or German users?--KuK 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with KuK . British spelling is used by most Europeans, and the guideline says: "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect." Leibniz 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's my pleasure to help with the page, and as a student of German, I'm sure you guys would do the same if I were to write a page in your language! I'm a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, but I think that interpreting "region/dialect" as to include a spelling usage is an overly broad interpretation. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues states that "with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic". As this particular article concerns a German topic, I think that American spelling should apply. I'm sure you Germans don't want people mistaking you for Brits, do you! Oh, and btw, KuK, I'm a dude :-) Judge373 07:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that we want to be mistaken for Americans??--KuK 10:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just making a tongue-in-cheek joke. See, like this: :-P Judge373 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would not agree completly. I've learned british enlish in school (as all germans do). But I improved my english after school with american english (american movies, american books, american websites, etc.). And most germans use american enlish. E.g. only few germans write "colour" - they write "color". And this is american english (I hope that's right now. :-)). In my opinion american english is easier to learn - so it's better. And for my ears british english sounds terrible (I really don't want to attack any Britain). I completly prefer the american style. Especially because I'm an engineer for IT/ET - technical english is always american enlish.
Long lives the USA!!! (This is meant without irony!)
@Judge373: I would be very nice if could have a look at my articles. My english is far away from perfection. B-Man 04:51, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
Most Germans seem to use a mixture of British and American English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.194.151 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armee der Einheit

In general, the unification process of the military - under the slogan "Armee der Einheit"/"Army of Unity" - is publicly seen as a major success and an example for other parts of the society.

I've neither heard of "Armee der Einheit" before, nor being a "major success and example for other parts of the society". Are there any sources for this?--84.56.237.68 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Innere Fuehrung and Military Courts

i miss info on the "inner leadership doctrine" of the german army. it should be added to the own tradtions developed by / for the new army which make it very different from the reichswehr as well as from other armies in the world. if there is no "expert" who can do this i will try to translate the concerning section from de.wikipedia.

another interesting difference, i find, is that the german army has no military courts comparable to other armies, at least not in peace time, which also sets it apart from its predecessors. Sundar1 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The "inner leadership doctrine" means that a soldier has to refuse an order from a higher rankng soldier, if the order would penetrate laws (especially the constitution and human rights). If an order only penetrates administrative offense the lower ranking soldier has to perform the order, but he has the possibility to file a complaint to higher commands and the soldier who gave this order will be punished. For the first case you have to file a complaint (there is no choice). In second case you have the choice.
This doctrine wants to prevent soldiers from operating like "roboters". The Bundeswehr wants to have soldiers, who think about orders, not executing them without any doubt. B-Man 5:13, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bundeswehr Training

Why does it not say anything about the training of the bundeswehr? the training has alot to do with the effectivness of a fighting unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.236.189 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other Hand, what is there much to say about it? Although I have no first-hand experiences, the Information I got from people who served suggested that there isn't much special. I guess that the content of the military training of most armies today is rather similar. A paragraph explaining the organisation of AGA (basic elementary training), SGA (specialised elementary training) and so on should suffice. But this might even be better suited in Recruit training

84.133.68.51 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view the military training clearly differs from other nation's military training. Look at the officer training of the Bundeswehr for instance. Every officer has to absolve non-military studies and normally achieves a Master's degree. The whole officer formation until the officer is in his officer position in his unit lasts about 6 1/2 years (later courses like company commander course, further language courses and so forth not included). I also have made the experiences, that the German NCOs are way better educated and trained than the those from other countries (all Feldwebel normally have at least the Mittlere Reife and mostly get an industrial professional training). Furthermore the preparation courses for operations abroad are really excellent. The Bundeswehr invests a lot of money in that as they see their missions more as stabilization and reconstrucation than combat. And so every soldier who comes in contact with the population needs a high level of knowledge about the country, its population's beliefs and habits and so on.. Basic training of course is not very different from what you know from other countries. And normal conscripts (as they serve only 9 months) not get much more in addition to basic training...perhaps the specialised training of their branch and some weeks of driving school if they're lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syslord2k (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

the military age is 17. I edited it. R. Grasemann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.244.211 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

User:Denniss recently reverted my removal of the translation given in the intro. Here is evidence from the two most prominent en/de dictionaries for my claim that the translation given is wrong:

Please provide evidence that the translation given (Federal Defense Force) correct. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Well, the same LEO dictionary contains the translation Federal Armed Forces if you would search for "Bundeswehr" instead of the truncated "wehr". Please see [3]. Additionally, as a native speaker of German (as I suppose you are as well, based on your IP address) I would agree to this translation. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which one, the one given by Leo or the one reverted by Denniss?
I think we have different expectations from Wikipedia. For me, Wikipedia is not a regular dictionary, so any translations given should be different than what a dictionary would offer. Now, Bundeswehr = Federal Armed Forces ist just wrong as a translation, else you would have to apply it to the Brazilian Military (the only other federal republic I can think of). Bundeswehr = German Federal Armed Forces is not wrong, but neither is it a translation; it's just an explanation. Consider this sentence: The Bundeswehr (German: German Federal Armed Forces) are the Federal Armed Forces of Germany. Do you like it?
Anyway, thanks for giving reasons to reconsider! --87.189.110.108 (talk)
New IP, new explanation. I don't think that Wikipedia should offer straight translation. Whether or not "Federal Defence Force" would be a good translation, the article is about to explain that the Bundeswehr is the Federal Defense Force of Germany, so what's the point? Translations are only useful if they are literal, since this is something a common dictionary should be wary to do.
I couldn't find "federal defense force" on either bundeswehr.de nor bmvg.de.
I requested an Auskunft from bundeswehr.de. Let's see what they have to say. --87.189.90.31 (talk)
From a language point of view federal defence force is a very close translation of Bundeswehr. As agreed by everyone Bundes- equals federal. -wehr is derived from the German verb wehren or sich wehren, to defend or defend yourself. There are other word connections with -wehr such as Feuerwehr (firebrigade), Brustwehr (a wall as part of fortifications with the hight of the human breast (Brust) to cover a defender), or Landwehr (a former light homeland defence force and also light town fortifications outside the wall and ditch systems, to be manned by Landwehr soldiers). So, -wehr is always a defence installation of different kind.--KuK (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer from Bundeswehr.com:

Die Bundeswehr hat keine offiziellen Namen (Übersetzungen) in anderen Sprachen, sondern trägt die weltweit anerkannte und bekannte Bezeichnung BUNDESWEHR. Sie können bei Bedarf (zur Erläuterung) den Begriff Bundeswehr wie folgt übersetzen: (German) Federal Armed Forces.

So, do we need the translation zur Erläuterung, or is the rest of the article enough to erläuter the Begriff? --87.189.88.78 (talk)

Along the lines of translation, the deustch version of this page, has for instance an organizational chart which would help the English version of this page. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age

FAQ [www.bundeswehr.de] : Alter - Bundeswehr Ab welchem Alter kann ich zur Bundeswehr gehen? Sie müssen mindestens 17 Jahre alt sein. Bewerben können Sie sich jedoch bereits im Alter von 16 Jahren.

Q: What is the age I'm able to go to the bundeswehr?

Answer: You need to be 17 years of age. But you can send an application at the age of 16.

213.191.70.179 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)