Talk:Luftwaffe

Perhaps instead of "This chain extended from North-Norway all the way through Europe along the Iron Curtain ending in East-Turkey." it would be more accurate to state :

" This chain extended from northern Norway all the way through Europe, along the Iron Curtain into Asia, ending in eastern Turkey."

The original version might be mis-read to imply that eastern Turkey is in Europe.

=============================

An event in this article is a February 26 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

Soviet aircrafts in German airforce

The last Soviet MiGs were retired in II/2004.

That is correct. All 23 surviving MiG-29 have been sold (at the symbolic price of € 1) to Poland where they now serve in the Polish Airforce. The fighter wing "Steinhoff" in Laage has since switched to Eurofighter Typhoons.

Wrong, 29+13 still remains at airbase Laage as an exhibition feature. One MiG29 was lost (29+06) makes 22 MiGs (4 trainer 18 single seater) that were sold to Poland, not 23 !

Question

Why would Germany, who keeps attempting to distance himself from her actions during World War II, would keep the same name for her airforce? Is their version of the boyscouts still called Hitler Youth?

Because "Luftwaffe" ("air weapon") is no special name for the German Airforce. It simply IS the german word for "airforce"! (well, the exact translation would be "Luftmacht", like the Royal Netherlands Airforce "Luchtmacht", but that would sound strange in german)

Because that's what it is called. The army is the Heer and has always been the Heer. The Navy is the Marine and has always been the Marine. So there is no need to change that. The Armed forces as such are called Bundeswehr like in Reichswehr and not Wehrmacht. That is enough distance 82.83.24.192

As this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the name of the article be German Air Force? Surely we cannot have articles using the "indigenous" names for institutions as that would lead to mass confusion ... Elf-friend 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good lord, no. Even plebes know who the Luftwaffe is. -Joseph (Talk) 14:54, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Indeed no. This article should stay at Luftwaffe. Note that a redirect German Air Force exists. And most certainly it shouldn't be at Luftwaffe (German military aviation)! Lupo 14:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop it? It's obvious that if you don't know how redirects work, perhaps you shouldn't be moving pages around. In addition, I continue to vehemently oppose any name for this article other than "Luftwaffe." It is the most common name, is instantly associable, and is unambiguous. This is a polite request to cease and desist. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:09, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

OK, point taken! Luftwaffe it is! Christopher Crossley 01:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking of "polite requests to cease and desist", here is mine: please cease and desist from making unhelpful comments within the body of the article itself about what organisation(s) the term "Luftwaffe" has been applied to. Maybe Lufthansa HAS laughingly been referred to as the "Luftwaffe" (by whom, exactly?) and I don't mind a good joke, but please write them HERE and not in the article - OK? LOL Christopher Crossley 16:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking of Luftwaffe usage, shouldn't the WW1 page(s) correctly use Luftstreitkräfte? Or am I nitpicking? Trekphiler 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Topics of this article

IMO the article should concentrate more on the Luftwaffe of today and not SO MUCH on the history of the Luftwaffe. Some things of the Luftwaffe's history should be moved to "History of the Luftwaffe", because it's more important what the Luftwaffe today is than what good ol' Luftwaffe was in WWI/II. Deutschger

I've heard that the Luftwaffe even had some naval vessels. Can anybody confirm this?

No, but the German navy has some aircraft - 217.237.149.163 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In WWII, the Luftwaffe had its own ships for weather observation. Christian Rödel

The GDR Air Force has never flown the Soviet Sukhoi Su-7 jet fighter. It had only some Su-22 Jet Bommber, beginning in 1984.

Other Luftwaffes

I didn't realize this, but there are other German-speaking countries that have an air force called the luftwaffe (e.g. Swiss Air Force). Shouldn't some mention of this be made in the intro? -Lommer | ^talk 05:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. As stated in the above section "Question", Luftwaffe is just the generic term for air force in German. You could easily and correctly reference the US air force in German as the amerikanische Luftwaffe, although this is rarely done (instead die Airforce is more often used). In Switzerland the air force is indeed called the Schweizer Luftwaffe, whereas in Austria the air force is called Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte. And Liechtenstein doesn't have an air force, as far as I know :-) ... MikeZ 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction

The article said this:

"However, the fact that the English Channel was between occupied France and Norway (since Luftflotte (Air Fleet) V under Generaloberst Hugo Sperrle operated from Norway) did as much to save the UK from invasion as the unexpectedly fierce resistance from the squadrons consisting of pilots of many nationalities, not just British.

"Ultimately, the inability of the Luftwaffe to control the skies in what became world famous as the Battle of Britain (so-called after Winston Churchill made a radio broadcast announcing the end of the campaign in France) formed a key point in the war. Ostensibly, Hitler's decision to shift the focus of operations to bombing industrial targets in cities instead of British airfields was a tactical mistake. German air power, which suffered increasingly from a shortage of aviation fuels, raw materials (especially aluminium) for the construction of aircraft and frequently flawed leadership by Göring (who managed to deflect blame onto others like Udet), diminished further with the entry of the United States into the conflict in December 1941.

"Unlike the Germans, the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF), under the command of General Henry H. Arnold, developed a strategic bomber force. The USAAF bombers , along with fighters such as the P-51 when fitted with drop tanks, were capable of very deep penetration into Reich territory and maintained daylight bombing of industrial targets, while their RAF colleagues continued with the offensive by conducting night operations."

The loc of the Channel had damn all to do with Ger defeat in the Battle. "Ostensibly"? The shift saved FC, & HCTD knew it; 2 more wks, FC'd be finished. Between Göring, Hitler, & incompetent intel, it's a wonder the Battle lasted as long as it did. And the Ger shortages? RAF BC was so incapable of hitting precision targs, crippling Ger elec pow ind was impossible until 1944, when the 1941 tonnage could've done the job, if applied correctly. Instead, Harris, Portal, & Churchill, & Spaatz, Eaker, Marshall, & FDR (yes, they all take a share of blame) threw 50000 Empire & about 50000 American aircrewmen at German cities, for nothing. Castigate Haig for Verdun? Castigate them; it was no different. LR escort Fs should have been in service in 1939, & intel from China, or Britain, should have made the need crystal clear; USAAC wrecked the P-38 prototype on a stupid publicity stunt flight & set the program back 2yr, denying Br & US her benefits. Attacking cities was stupid; there was slim chance of "breaking morale". Bombers lacked the precision to hit factories, & prewar trials should have developed techniques & technologies to make it possible; faulty USAAF training in near-perfect conditions led to fantastical expectations of accuracy over Germany. Bomber Command's faith in their navigators was no less fantastical, & its falsity should also have been revealed prewar. So? B-26s or Mossies with guided bombs in 1940, able to hit powerstations & bring Ger war production to a halt? Why not? Trekphiler 20:26 & 21:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

why not guided bombs in 1940? umm...maybe because the technology used in guided bombs hadn't been created yet? or it was so rudimentary that it wouldn't have been usable, i.e., room sized computers don't so well fit inside a 500lb bomb. 69.133.157.123 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're at least two wars behind. Azon, Razon, Felix, Fritz-X & others were all guided bombs. They weren't "smart" bombs, which is what you're thinking (tho Felix might qualify; it was an IR homer, & radar-homing weapons were developed), but remotely controlled. The first guided bomb was used against Roma in 1943, by the Germans; IIRC, she was sunk. And U.S. guided bombs were used successfully against bridges in CBI in 1944-5. I repeat, why not? Trekphiler 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

75.165.64.244 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Hello. I dont recall seeing anything stating that the British bombed German cities first. The Luftwaffe first bombed only military targets untill then. they switched to a city bombing campaign only in retaliation to British attacks.

Credit due

Can someone confirm Bär's score as a jet ace, & include it here? I've seen 16, but I'm uncertain (& maybe confused with McConnell). Trekphiler 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His 16 aerial victories acquired while he flew the Me 262A place him as the 2nd ranking jet ace of WWII (behind only the legendary Kurt Welter). Detmold 19:35 24th April 2006

Thanks so much. (Boy, am I up to date, huh? ;D)) Trekphiler 12:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Luftflotten and your diverse locations 1939-45

hi -- can someone take a look at this article and at least come up with a new name for it? As I said on its talk page, with no response, it appears to have come through a computer translation. My locations in 1939-45 are not in question. I'm not sure how best to translate "luftflotten"; perhaps Luftwaffe wing positions during World War II would be more appropriate? thanks. bikeable (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The literal translation for "Luftflotte / Luftflotten" is "Air Fleet / Fleets" the Allied equivalent in WWII was "Air Force" (like in 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force or 8th US Air Force). However, an article about Luftflotten locations doesn't seem to make a lot of sense; the information about Organization of the Luftwaffe in WWII should either be integrated into "History of the Luftwaffe", or you undertake the work of tracking each and every individual wing and squadron ("Geschwader" and "Staffel", btw), which seems a little bit over the top for Wikipedia purposes.

I have moved this article to German Air Fleets in World War II and intend to convert it to the table scheme, allowing a lot more information to be presented, in an effort to make it more useful. Andreas 08:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Guernica, 1939-1940

Why so much about Guernica and so few about 1939-1940? There happened something before the BoB. Xx236 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Language and Imperial Air Force

I am (as a native German speaker) somewhat unhappy with the "literal" translation of German terms, as they seem to sound rather clumsy in English, and do ignore existing closely related English equivalents. "Luftwaffe", imho, should be translated as "Air Arm" (as in Fleet Air Arm), while "Streitkräfte" is the equivalent of "Armed Forces" in every context. So "Luftstreitkräfte" ar the armed forces of the air. The artificial constructs "air weapon" and "air fighting forces" don't make too much sense.

This leads to a second point. As far as I know, an organisation called "Kaiserliche Luftstreitkräfte" did not exist. Like in most countries, the first air units were integrated into the existing organizations of Army and Navy. The squadrons that were part of the Army were referred to as "Fliegertruppe" ("Flyers' Corps", if you must, akin to RFC). Manfred von Richthofen, e.g., started the war as Cavalry officer and retained his rank of "Rittmeister" (cavalry captain) after being transferred to a newly formed warplane squadron. chlange001 20:12 CET, 12/01/06

Found some more: "Kampfgruppe" should perhaps be "Combat Group" as "Kampf" means "fight" or "combat", and "Fighter" designates an entirely different concept in English, "Hunt / hunter" sounds very awkward for "Jagd / Jäger" in this context - the contemporary English/American equivalent was "Pursuit", as "P" in P-51. The Air Force of the GDR was not simply named "Luftstreitkräfte", but "Luftstreitkräfte / Luftverteidigung der NVA".

Thanks, this is good information. Since you brought up the topic I will add my opinion that it really is helpful and appropriate to translate (idiomatically) terms such as those you mention. Doing so adds information about the culture and thought processes of the people who used those words. For one small example, both French and Germans (and probably others) had ground and air units called chasseurs or jaeger. This little bit of local color is partly lost if one leaves the terms untranslated, and entirely lost if they are simply replaced with their anglo-american counterparts (in this case rangers or special forces.) Stacy McMahon 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Split WWII section

I split the World War II section into History of the Luftwaffe during World War II, since it was big enough to warrent an article of its own.--Kross^Talk 21:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even my limited knowledge is enough to know that the section "Luftwaffe in WWII" is incredibly POV towards a particular interpretation of the Battle of Britain and even more of the bombing campaign against Germany. Phrases such as "faulty strategy" and even more "futile" and comparing Arthur Harris and the senior commanders of Bomber Command to General Hague in 1916 are extreme expression of a particular POV on this issue. I'm aware that some reputable historians and air warfare experts hold these views, but so equally others disagree. This section should either confine itself to a simple summary of the history (what actually happened, with a minimum of analysis and interpretation) or give both sides of the debate. I am not an expert in this period, so i will not attempt it myself- but it needs doing! Ian, 02.25.06

Yes, this section is amongst the most unbelievably POV pieces of writing I have seen on wiki for a long time. It needs deleting completely and starting again from scratch. Whoever wrote it clearly has no understanding whatsover of what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. If this is indicative of the article at the time of nomination, then I am in no way surprised that the FAC failed. Appalling. Badgerpatrol 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Added neutrality and verifiability tags. Material must be a) balanced; b) directly referenced. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a soapbox. Badgerpatrol 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the fashionable trend of slapping {{npov}} on articles where a single editor or a small group of editors disagrees with the content. Let's retain some perspective here and not use that tag on the whole article, since some of you are calling into question a single section. I think this tagging should have been more thoroughly vetted in the first place. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Forklifted from User talk:N328KF, since it really belongs here:

I noticed your comments on the Luftwaffe talk page- are you suggesting that the tag was not merited at all (I think this tagging should have been more thoroughly vetted in the first place.), or merely that the tag was not merited for the entire article? If the latter, you are right- the reason I placed a tag at the top was because a) the outrageous POV in the WWII section potentially compromises the whole page (it is, I suspect, far and away the key part of the story in most people's estimations); b) to ensure that it is noticed on the day the article was linked from the main page. I considered placing the tag at the section in question myself, and I expected someone to move it quickly anyway- but if you are seriously suggesting (your comment is somewhat ambiguous) that you can't see POV in the WWII section then I am absolutely flabbergasted. Anyway, I have no objection to moving the tags. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the tag was not merited. I am suggesting that I don't believe that most of the article is biased, and yet the entire article was tagged as such. Also, people have been npov-tag-happy as of late. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag on the WWII section is entirely justified! The rest of the article seems (to my limited knowledge) ok, but this section seriously needs balance or simplification! As i said, I don't feel qualified to do so myself, but if there is no alteration soon i will have a go, as leaving as it is should not, IMHO, be an option. Ian, 03.02.06

I removed the POV from the WW II section, after replacing the IMO unacceptable info there with the intro I have written for the split Luftwaffe in WW II page. I have also completely rewritten the split page, added sources, and hopefully neutralised it to a degree to become acceptable. Comments welcome. Andreas 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Luftwaffe in WWII" article is very good! Thankyou. Personally, I feel you should maybe have slightly more info on this period in the main article- but i don't know what wikipedia policy on this kind of thing- duplication etc- is. Thanks for your work- this article is much better now. Ian, 03.12.06

Thanks for the compliments, it was a lot of work, but I learned a lot myself while doing it. Personally I would rather like to see less duplication, since it makes it tricky to keep things up to date on pages where the duplicated info is. But as you I am not sure what Wiki policy is. Andreas 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the Lufttransportgeschwader

Hello.

Do you know, what Lufttransportgeschwader is?

And i haven't seen anything about the eurofighter, the Tiger(UHU) or the NH-90.

LTG = Air transport wing --Denniss 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Luftwaffentransportgeschwader translates to: (German) Air Force Transport Squadron, thus its meaning should be clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.179.50.50 (talk • contribs) 10:13 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no Luftwaffentransportgeschwader only Lufttransportgeschwader and this translates to air transport wing, as Dennis already said. Squadron in German is Staffel.

The Tiger (UH Tiger or UHT, from Unterstützungshubschrauber TIGER, support helicopter Tiger) is an attack helicopter of the army and therefore it is correct not to mention it in the Luftwaffe article. The NH90 is mainly for the army but will also be flown in a still-to-be-created Hubschraubertransportgeschwader. So indeed NH90 is missing here, if you want to show future aircraft at all. --Wschroedter (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About the Deutsche Luftwaffe

Why does the German Luftwaffe have "Dutch" in it?

Deutsche = German, not Dutch --Denniss 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Bundeswehr templates

There are two Bundeswehr templates, the one at the intro and one at the foot of the page. I'm not sure which, but I think one of the templates should go. Mark83 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the slim one, which now was on top, too. De728631 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism

First problem in this article: "The Luftwaffe were responsible for many 'accidental' bombings in Ireland... etc. etc. ..in the USA before they were spoke about in Ireland."

Important for the people of Ireland at the time but does it warrant five lines in a synopsis of the Luftwaffe in WW2? It doesnt even appear in the main article!!

Alongside that point, and demonstrating a major failing of the main article, there is no mention of the words "National Socialist", "Nazi", or "political"!! lol!! No mention of Hitler Youth gliding schools, Sehleisheim school, or Nazi Flying Corps. Not a word on the ideological training. An oversight? Yet how can it be when these are well known aspects of the Luftwaffe? Even from 1935 Generalleutnant Walther Wever, first head of later Luftwaffe General Staff: "Officer Corps will be National Socialist or it won’t be at all" Are basic (BOOK based) histories on the subject being read or is it a cut and paste from around the wiki and eulogizing websites?

As they both stand now, this article and its main represent a snowjob/whitewash and dont detail basic facts. Maybe there is a reason why these two articles avoid examining the Luftwaffe as the only branch of the armed services that could be described as "National Socialist" in total confidence? Dee Mac Con Uladh 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add what's missing, then? Tschild 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the wikipedia way. I was trying to indicate that the article does not need additions, it needs rewritten. Rewritten by someone who has an indepth knowledge of the origins and operation of the organization, not someone who has read a few of the 1950s-1970s "I was there" memoirs or their spinoffs. I placed a frame from a Luftwaffe training document in the WW2 article to illustrate what im talking about. The Luftwaffe were not Udet like "Knights of the Sky" they were committed nazis. I dont have time to rewrite the article and defend it against being rewritten. Examining books on the subject is what I can suggest. Dee Mac Con Uladh 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole WWII section needs scrapping. Case in point: "The leaders of the Luftwaffe was Hermann Goering. He was an obese man and did not really care about the Luftwaffe. He rarely attended important meetings to go to fancy parties." This is 3rd grade writing and does not belong in an encyclopedia. The mix of topics is also amateurish, combining concepts like Blitzkrieg, engine design and the death of three girls in Ireland (in a war that claimed millions of lives) within one paragraph. It would be better to just have a WWII stub or nothing at all than that.

Sheesh. What's next, "See Dick fly"? This is written like a gradeschool essay. I deleted

"The Luftwaffe were responsible for many 'accidental' bombings in Ireland one of which occurred on 26th of August 1940, this took place in Campile co Wexford. A total of 5 bombs were dropped and the blasts killed 3 local girls who worked in the creamery which was bombed. The bombing was covered up by the government for 4 hours until details were released. Details of the blast were actually broadcast in the USA before they were spoken about in Ireland."

It may be true, but isn't on point. I also deleted

"Opposite Goering was Erhart Milch. He was the former director of Lufthansa (German Airline Company) He would spend sleepless nights pouring over aircraft designs and war tactics. Both men would participate in endless fighting to gain Hitler's support."

as achingly juvenile. If somebody wants to put in something substantive about Milch... (I'm going to look for my copy of Bekker.) Trekphiler 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A future war

"there existed the need to train its pilots for a future war in secret" ...so, the evil germans were already planing WWII in the early 20's? ¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.202.180 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

military units are (should) always prepared for war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.252.161 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft flown

"Transport: A400M" - quite euphemistic, never flown yet. --89.53.9.147 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deutsche Luftwaffe

I just checked the Luftwaffe's site, Deutsche Luftwaffe is never used as a title, "deutsche" (note small cap) rarely as a description (Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 45 from bundeswehr.de for "deutsche luftwaffe"."). I'm a native speaker, and I never heard it called "Deutsche" before. So if this is some official title mentioned in some papers hidden in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard', it better should be sourced and mentioned as obscure. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Luftwaffe as a generic Term

The article said:

In German usage Luftwaffe is also a generic term, so die britische Luftwaffe means "the British Air Force."

I think this is very obscure, and Google agrees: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,240 German pages for "britische Luftwaffe". vs. Results 1 - 10 of about 164,000 German pages for "Royal air force". (My emphasis)

Note that other contries' results might be less compelling, but it should still be clear that Germans tend to use the native names for foreign air forces. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

No, that's a correct statement. Luftwaffe is both a specific term for the air arm of the Bundeswehr but also a generic term for any other air force. --Denniss (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't.

(You probably missed the fact that you just repeated the statement which I showed to be wrong. Feel free to open a conversation any time.) --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Now this is fun.

• The article claim fact A.
• I am familar with the subject matter and claim otherwise
• Google supports my claim (30:1, guys!)
• I am reverted, the reason given is: "A is fact"
• I rerevert pointing out that the revert is against policy.
• I'm reverted again, this time without any reason given.

Hm, what to do next? --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Try signing you own posts the first time for starters, so I don't keep getting an edit conflict from you and Sinebot. Per the Be bold-Revert-Discuss guideline, you should have not reverted the first time. That is why I reverted you without comment for being disruptive. There is no right version of a page in a content dispute, which this is. If another editor reverts you, leave it alone this time. Otherwise, you'll be close to violating WP:3RR, which I know you're familar with since you left a warning on User talk:Denniss's talk page. Btw, User:Denniss is German, so I imagine his view on this issue is as good as your's or Google's. Some of my blood is German, but it didn't include a genetic knowledge of the language, so I'm not commonting on the issue itself, just your mishandling of it. - BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Try getting your comments done the first time for starters, so I don't keep getting an edit conflict from you.

Thanks for the reply!

I might have left it unreverted if Denniss has given any reason why he disagrees with me. Repeating the very fact I dispute is worthless. So this was not a discussion, just a quick shot to get rid of an IP. Take me seriously and AGF.

Deniss is one single German, Google has 30:1. Where do you think this comes from if it is as common as the article claimed? --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Denniss is a respected editor who has earned his respect - you are an unknown IP who is apparently using his anonimity to be disruptive. I'm sure Denniss will respond to you objections in time, if he so chooses. But in the meantime, I respectfully suggest that you revert yourself, not that I expect you to. You only seem to respect yourself, in spite of what you claim. Reverting anyone simply because they reverted an IP is NOT respecting WP's policies. And Denniss did give you an explanation - he affirmed his belief in the original quote. You may not like his answer, but it WAS an answer, so please stop pretending otherwise. - BillCJ (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me introduce my reply with a note about yourself. You stated that you have no intention to give respect for anything I do; I don't think you are should participate in this discussion as long as you are in open violation of AGF.

Also, please stop the personal attacks. Step back and calm down a little.

I reverted Denniss because his revert broke Wikipedia policy, as pointed out elsewhere. You pointed out another, conflicting policy (good, I hear people die all the time for lack of policy), but that's no reason not to AGF if I revert a policy-breaking edit.

Denniss indeed entered some text; as pointed out before, he was not disussing anything, nor did he gave a reason for anything. He just repeated the wrong statement that I removed. How on earth could this possibly resolve anything?

I am a native german speaker and I know what I'm speaking about. As I said Luftwaffe means Air Force, nothing more. It may be used for any air force of the world (like spanische Luftwaffe = spanish air force) or for the specific branch of the Bundeswehr. Do not base you assumption on a google search as those results may be highly misleading. --Denniss (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker, too. This is however irrelevant. I didn't just claim that the stated fact would be wrong, I delieverd evidence.

As I demonstrated, the use claimed in the article (in the intro no less) is obscure at best. I don't remember that I ever heard the expression "Britische Luftwaffe", so I checked with Google, which backs up my thought. What's your evidence?

I think the problem here is the example that was given. The Royal Air Force is very famous and is well-known by that name, even in other languages. However, perhaps if our example were something like the Iraqi Air Force... "Irakischen Luftwaffe" is way more common on German pages than "Al Quwwat al Jawwiya al Iraqiya" is. TomTheHand (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think the problem here is the example that was given."

Maybe, I pointed out that possibility right from the start. I wouldn't mind to add a neutral statement to that effect somewhere in the article. However, I got reverted and now I'm somehow disruptive.

Here is what happened:

• I changed the article, giving evidence for my version.
• Nobody mentioned a shred of a hint of a puff of evidence why my version was bad.

Now I get attacked. Please explain why. Please abstain from personal attacks if you can't prove them. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

To the other editors here: I apologize for rising to the IP's bait. He seem's to be misunderstanding everything I say. Whether or not this is intentional on his part, I see no reason to continue with this line. I can't add to the actual content under discussion here, so I bow out. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So if an IP changes an article (giving evidence), he is a troll? --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Luftwaffe as a generic Term, 2nd attempt

The article says:

In German usage Luftwaffe is also a generic term, so die britische Luftwaffe means "the British Air Force."

I think this is very obscure, and Google agrees: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,240 German pages for "britische Luftwaffe". vs. Results 1 - 10 of about 164,000 German pages for "Royal air force". (My emphasis)

Note that other contries' results might be less compelling, but it should still be clear that Germans tend to use the native names for foreign air forces. Please provide a more neutral alternative if you think the sample is biased. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Please provide reasons why this statement should stay in the article. (NOTE: Repetition of the statement in question is not a reason.) --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Being a native German speaker, I would like to confirm the above statement that the word Luftwaffe is indeed used as a generic term. Google hit counting is never a good argument, as the sheer quantity of a statement, either correct or incorrect, is not equivalent to the quality or correctness of the same statement. A much better argument is the definition of the Duden: Luft|waf|fe, die: für den Luftkrieg bestimmter Teil der Streitkräfte eines Staates, Landes. - That's pretty clear, don't you agree? I really do hope that this point is now settled. - Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. While a Google hit counter is not the ultimate argument, it should not be dismissed outright, and it was all we had a moment ago. In this case, Google shows a compelling 30:1 relation, which would be foolish to ignore.

As argues elsewhere, I don't think that a translation is necessary here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it should certainly not be given in the intro. Please make a suggestion without the (still, sorry) obviously wrong example favored by Dennis and BillCJ‎, and at a better place.

The native speaker thing is neither here nor there by the way, I'm also one, and I certainly don't ever call the RAF Britische Luftwaffe. Do you? --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Well, yes, I would actually prefer to say britische Luftwaffe instead of britische Air-Force in German. In my personal opinion this would be using a "better" German compared the mix of German and English terms in the later variant. Using the name Royal Air Force is definitely better than britische Air-Force, but that is not the point. You are mixing the arguments whether to use the name RAF or the description britische Luftwaffe. If we would discuss this same topic with the example of a non-English air force, this would get clearer: Would you ever say Die Türk Hava Kuvvetleri flog Angriffe auf kurdische Stellungen?

But, let's briefly come back to the Google hit count argument you did like to reopen. If you would search for amerikanische Luftwaffe instead of britische Luftwaffe Google would give you ...

194.000 Seiten auf Deutsch für amerikanische Luftwaffe, versus

120.000 Seiten auf Deutsch für amerikanische Air-Force (and this result includes the various spelling variants like Air Force, airforce, Air-Force,...)

In fact, quite the opposite result to your own quantitative justification. - This just underlines the point of my earlier post that Google counting is completely irrelevant, no matter how "compelling" a certain ratio seems to be. (MikeZ (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Part 1)

"Amerikanische Airforce"? Why didn't you just search for "Amerikanische Luftforce"? It must have been clear from the start that mixed-language expression are more rare than either originals or plain translation, so this doesn't prove anything. --87.189.90.31 (talk)

But to come back to the main point of discussion, whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used as a generic term in everyday usage of the German language, I compiled the following examples. This is just the result of a very brief research on some German language sites, which I would consider as representative to the actual use of German: FAZ, Tagesschau, etc.:

Die amerikanische Luftwaffe hat schon vorab gepanzerte Limousinen, Minibusse und elektronische Ausrüstung des amerikanischen Sicherheitspersonals nach Israel transportiert., Source: [1]

Die US-Streitkräfte haben gestern erst ihre Luftwaffe eine der größten Attacken im Irak seit dem Sturz Saddam Husseins fliegen lassen., Source: [2]

Bombenangriffe der israelischen Luftwaffe auf Gaza-Stadt am helllichten Tag [...], Source: [3]

An den Weihnachtsfeiertagen hatte die türkische Luftwaffe mehrere Angriffe auf vermutete Stellungen kurdischer Rebellen im Nordirak geflogen., Source: [4]

Ein Tornado-Kampfjet der britischen Luftwaffe ist in Schottland nur wenige hundert Meter von einem Atomkraftwerk entfernt abgestürzt., Source: [5]

It should be very easy to come up with numerous additional examples of the usage of Luftwaffe as a generic term in German. - In total, it was clearly shown the discussed statement is true and it's relevant, therefore I'm strongly in favor of keeping it in the article. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Part 2)

Indeed, a very short search on Spiegel and FR did not show a single hit on the original. Probably because it's not in the news right now, but plenty of foreign luftwaffes show that the word is indeed used as you suggest.

So it's just the example that's wrong. Since I hope that you aren't strongly in favor of the example: What do you think of my new intro?

Two other points one could make: Swiss Air Force; de:Luftwaffe redirects to Luftstreitkräfte.

I'm sorry for the confusion, which would have been short and to the point if the two thugs wouldn't have attacked me. Now let's see that we can bring Bundeswehr to a similar conclusion. --87.189.90.31 (talk)

As a side remark: I even found the word Luftwaffe used in an English article with reference to the Swiss airforce: 54-85 Tiger II fighters are variously reported to remain in service with the Swiss Luftwaffe. Source: [6]. MikeZ (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Literal Translation

I added this information (with some links):

German lit.: air weapon

Denniss removed it with following edit summary:

there's no literal translation into air weapon, only if you separate Luftwaffe into Luft Waffe

Now in case you don't know German all compounds are written as one word in German. Some examples from de:Komposition (Grammatik):

Brief + Träger > Briefträger, Abfahrt + Zeit > Abfahrtszeit, kaufen + Haus > Kaufhaus, Fußball + Stadion > Fußballstadion

(My translations would be postman, departure time, department store, football stadium.)

I therefore think that Denniss explanatory statement cannot stand; the seperation which he states as reason to reject my change is always done, simply because English has not nearly as much compunds as German. I therefore reverted the change; Denniss reverted again. This is were we are.

Please tell me your opinion about this. --87.189.88.78 (talk)

It is obvious that Denniss is ignorant of the German language but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Necessary Evil (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the above, “literal” translations—of compounds or simple words: witness those who like to write that Ger: Sturm (assault) maps to Eng: Storm ergo Volksturm=“people's storm”—are usually useless and often confusing unless the purpose is to teach language learners how compounds are formed in the target language. But even then, care is needed to map the components to their correct cognitive meanings for the context: Luft : air + waffe : force(s) = air force, See : sea :  + waffe : force(s) = navy, Panzer : armored vehicles, tanks+waffe : force(s) = armored forces/arm, etc.

Nonetheless, I see no reason—including the defense that “Wikipedia is not a dictionary”—for not including that “Luftwaffe is also the generic German term for air force” without going into any further detail or providing examples like die britische Luftwaffe (or how about: die scheiss Amis, ihre Luftwaffe) to confuse things. Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that bad translations are a reason to avoid good ones.

I think we established that the translation makes sense (Mike convinced me): Luftwaffe is both the name of the military formation and a general term; stating the general term (aka translation) helps to avoid mix-ups.

Now, I also think that the literal translation is useful information, as it might help to explain the mindset behind the organisation. I'm not even sure that Luftwaffe is the strongest case which could be made for this, but it is interesting that a relatively aggressive name is used where the related term Verteidigungsministerium/Ministry of Defense is only a small step away from Ministry of Peace. --87.189.117.216 (talk)

WWII: more technically advanced?

I've tagged the statement that the Luftwaffe began WWII with "aircraft much more advanced than their counterparts" as requiring a citation. Certainly, the Luftwaffe dominated the skies, had skilled pilots and high numbers, and had a much better grasp of air tactics at the start of the war, but they had dud models just like the RAF did at the start of the war, and most of the differences in the better planes were tradeoffs — for example, the ME-109 could dive more quickly than the Spitfire (also designed in the 1930s) because of its fuel-injected engine, but many people argue that the Spit was more powerful and manoeverable. How can you determine that one is more technically advanced than the other? You could also spend a long time debating the merits of the ME-109 vs. the French D.520, though the French couldn't produce enough of those in time. In any case, I don't have the expertise to decide this (and it would be Original Research if I did), but we do need a credible citation if we're going to keep that statement. David (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Swiss LUFTWAFFE

Swiss air force is called Luftwaffe too!!!!!