Talk:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:NOR

I believe that the following statement is unsatisfactory at present: "The greatest failure in terms of technological development was not to develop a long-range bomber and capable long-range fighters during this period leaving the Luftwaffe unable to conduct a meaningful strategic bombing campaign throughout the war".

According to whom? I could live with "According to AJP Taylor..." as a referenced opinion for a claim like this, but to state it in prose like this is unencyclopedic in my opinion and looks like dumbing down to me. Any suggestions? --John 17:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation has been added. Discourse is over.Dapi89 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. --John 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The source does.Dapi89 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As you seem to have a big problem inspite of the added source, then i will add more ShortlyDapi89 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC).

With respect to omissions and failures I'd like to point the editors to the following book.

Isby, David C. The Luftwaffe Fighter Force The View from the Cockpit. Greenhill Books, 1998. ISBN 1-85367-327-7

The book is a collection of German fighter leaders' views (mostly interrogation reports of 1945) of different elements of their part in World War II. Among the pilots/leaders are men like Adolf Galland, Hubertus Hitschhold, Heinrich Bär , Walther Dahl, Klaus Neumann, Gordon Gollob just to name a few. In this book is a chapter called "The Most Important Mistakes of the Luftwaffe as Seen from the Standpoint of the GAF" by Adolf Galland. Galland makes a much more differentiating statement about what went wrong. His break down consists of five elements.

• Mistakes in Organization and Planning
• Mistakes in Development and Technical Equipment
• Mistakes in Choice of Personnel and Training
• Mistakes in the Training of Formation Leaders, Unit Commanders, and Staff Personnel
• Mistakes in Strategy and in Operational Tactics

I strongly recommend the reading of this book. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think this should come into the article? Dapi89 (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not add a section of "Omissions and Failures"? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will do this in due course. Perhaps you would like to start it off. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If so, then why not quote the book and reference the "mistakes"-section properly? Sorry, but as it stands it reads like original research and what people believe to be common knowledge. While I don't disagree on all parts, I do so for the technical equipment part. For example discontinuing production of the Bf 109 was not an option: By the time the aircraft began to become inferior to its Western Allied counterparts in 1943, Germany was committed to total warfare and production interruption would've resulted in a shortage of fighter aircraft for at least a few critical months. On top of that the late K-series was about on par with contemporary American and British fighters. More importantly however, Soviet planes were still inferior in many aspects as late as early to mid '44 and the 109 operated with good success on the eastern front throughout the entire war (except for the last 5 months). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.113.82 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR.

Firstly, there is a citation for this section. The information comes from Adolf Galland.

Soviet aircraft were not inferior in many aspects. The LaaG's were excellent fighters and the Soviets possessed the Red Banner units, which were a group of highly trained fighter pilots.

The Bf 109 was significantly inferior to the later Spifire's and P-51 Mustangs. I suggest you read Erich Hartmann's accounts of combat with the P-51, he defines it as a superior aircraft, and the Bf 109K was only produced in small numbers, roughly 1,500 out of 33,000 by May 1945. As a result this was not available when production should have been assessed in 1941 anyway.

Phasing out the Bf 109 WAS an option. The point is that the Fw 190 should have been given priority in 1941, and that the RLM should have made more of an effort to phase the Bf 109 out by 1942, while the Luftwaffe wasn't "desperate for fighters". More of an effort should have been made to ensure the Me 262 entered production in 1942, rather than 1944.

So I don't agree, and neither do most of the sources I have. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LW-post.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BF-110s.jpg

The image Image:BF-110s.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:DO171940054.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe during Invasion of Poland

Hi! I am generally editing Polish Campaign related topic. Can you please give the source of Luftwaffe losses in Poland? This is first time that I see nr of 250+ aircraft lost. Most of sources I've seen give the number of circa 460 aircraft lost (including accidents at malfuncions). Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe general quartermaster report of October 5 1939 with data as of September 28, 1939: 285 aircraft total loss, further 279 aircraft damaged with 10% or more and were usually written-off (cannibalized and scrapped perhaps). The loss report list losses of all branches including the marine units. --Denniss (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your correction seems fair :) Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you deleted numbers and given yours but no reference given. Here are 2: On 1 September Luftwaffe units attacking Poland included 2565 aircraft (775 level bomber, 303 diving bombers, 507 fighters, 384 reconeissance, 39 assault, 506 transport, 51 naval) 'Gliederung, Einsatzbereitschaft, Ausrustung der Verbande am Morgen 1.9.1939' B.K Kroener pg 718-719, 2565 aircraft with combat readiness Sep 1st of total 2795 of total listed in units for invasion. Total Luftwaffe: 3751combat ready, whole number: 4127 (remainder was placed in Western Front) So according to source whole Luftwaffe consisted of 4127 aircraft, so I am not claiming that whole Luftwaffe was over Poland.

The other source: E.R Hooton, p85 : 2315 aircraft

Consider: if 1500 planes were over Poland and 270 lost and the other 250+ damaged this is percentally 1/3 of whole fleet... Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, your source is wrong as it seems to count all forces operating near Poland including fighters set to air patrol defending the Reich. The numbers I gave were the actual forces commited to operations in/over poland. Those numbers are from the same book which gives the exact losses during the operation. --Denniss (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok so please include your opinion into article Invasion of Poland - there are misunderstandings regarding the number of German aircraft; in majority of publications the number I've presented is given. Majority of Polish publication refer to 'Gliederung...' stats so it will be interesting to confront it. Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing: were transport aircraft included into Luftflotte 1 and 4? If not then final number is correct. I do not think all the 500 Ju-52s were used over Poland. (Some were to supply Pz divisions) Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My source mention transport aircraft only wiht nine transport groups associated to or under direct command of Ob.d.L (Luftwaffe general command). See also here for a detailed setup of the Luftwaffe on September 1st 1939. The truth may ly between the two numbers as units may have been moved/tranferred to take part in the polish invasion. --Denniss (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of my figures agree with Denniss. But it seems Denniss, you have missed further numbers that were used "in and over" Poland. A further 333 Recon machines were used, but under Heer operational command. I have divided the individual strength of the Luftflotte's and separated the Home Defence for that the Luftwaffe retained against Polish air attack on German soil. Dapi89 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems my source only had planes under direct Luftwaffe command not noting aircraft under Heer command. --Denniss (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok here another source by Polish historian: Adam Kurowski 'Polish Air Force 1939' (Lotnictwo Polskie 1939), for Lftwe he used German Dep. of Supply of the Luftwaffe source:

• 897 bombers (Heinkel 111 Dornier 17)
• 219 diving bombers(Junkers 87)
• 30 assault bombers (Henschel 123)
• 216 fighters (Me 109 and Me 110)
• 474 transport and recce

285 destroyed, 279 damaged.

so it gives the number: 1836 + naval not included here

Polish Air Force

* 129 P11c fighters (+ 43 reserve)   
* 30 P7 fighters (+ 85 reserve)   
* 118 light bombers(P-23 Karas)   
* 36 bombers (P37 Los)   
* 84 recce planes (RXIII and RWD14 Czapla) [115 in reserve].   
333 shot down, 116 evacuated to Romania.   
   

BTW I ordered Hooton and Emmerling "Luftwaffe over Poland" :) Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The numbers of the Bf 109s are seriously out of whack. It was more like 1,000. I'll check Hooton. Dapi89 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Łukasz Rzepiński. Actually I did not read you properly. Indeed the fighter figures seem accurate. Hootn gives a total of 240 Bf 109s and Bf 110s. Luft 1: 90 Bf 109s and 67 110s. Luft 4: 48 109s and 35 110s. For Ju 87s, Luft 1: 172 and Luft 4: 194 for a total of 366. Dapi89 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2008

By curiosity I started digging deeply in Luftwaffe in Poland topic and it seems that Hooton uses old sources. Luftwaffe losses are questioned by Marius Emmerling in his Luftwaffe over Poland book as an effect of 15 years in Bundesmilitar Archives. So the report of 285 destroyed and 279 damaged include planes lost in combat action during campaing. But many of them were later found somewhere in Poland. First Emmerling corrects the number of 35 lost recce planes to 53 so it gives 303 100% lost aircraft. But Emmerling says that this report includes ALL THE LOSSES of Luftwaffe including western front. He corrects the number to 247 planes lost on Polish front including 91 lost due to accidents. 56 were lost on Western Front and 40 accidents in Germany. Also report was created just after campaing so some planes were found on Polish territory and repaired later. Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If Emmerling includes all losses in Poland and in "the west", and if he does not include a breakdown, then he sources cannot be considered. Did the report include lost aircraft recovered and repaired? Are you saying Hooton has cited German losses to be heavier than they were? Just some questions. I don't agree on "old sources". Shores is reliable fullstop. Schmidt, Zaloga and Madej are pretty reliable authorities on the Polish campaign, no? Dapi89 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently I agree with figures 285 destroyed and 279 damaged. But simply just wanted to add that there is quite reliable researcher like M.Emmerling questioning them. Anyway his numbers are not that different: 247 planes but damaged NOT INCLUDED.

The most considerable difference is number of aircraft lost to Polish fighters. Officially Polish post-war commision confirmed 126 shotdowns in air combats. Emmerling confronts it with German documents and his hypothesis is that this number is not bigger that 50. Polish scientist dr Cynk gives the number of 91 shotdowns.

Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to this discussion & editing, however I have some information about Luftwaffe losses in Poland that correspond to what some have said above.

Losses-destroyed: 255 total as follows: 78 bombers; 31 Ju-87; 67 recon aircraft; 12 Me-110; 67 Bf-109. Plus another 279 damaged. However, I would think that the 40 on-hand Hs-123 attack aircraft of II Gruppe (Schl.)/LG2 would have had some losses, and that maybe those are counted in the bomber or recon totals. The majority of the bomber losses would be He-111 & Do-17. The recon losses are probably mostly those supporting the ground forces (He-45, He-46, & Hs-126). It may include losses to strategic recon (Do-17E), however that is much less likely.

I also have information about which Luftwaffe units participated in the invasion of Poland. I have created a spreadsheet that takes the published Luftwaffe Order of Battle for September 1, 1939 and cross-indexes it with aircraft types, locations, numbers, participation-yes, no, or unknown. I gathered information about the numbers and these units from various sources. This leads me to some interesting points. Can you tell me the best way to attach this spreadsheet for your review?Bold text

Some of the points: Currently there is not one accurate & complete source for all the details. My analysis leads me to believe that the Luftwaffe used for the invasion of Poland: 44 Bf-109 C/D; 128 Bf-109 E-1; 95 Me-110: Total fighters 267 (more than the commonly reported 210 or 216) 235 Ju-87 A/B-1; 40 Hs-123; 34 He-45 & He-46; 108 Hs-126; 658 He-111 & Do-17 bombers. I think the bomber breakdown is as follows: 170 Do-17E; 167 Do-17Z; 239 He-111P; 82 He-111H.

Note: My numbers are based on the on-hand strength of the participating units, not the serviceable numbers. Of course, we will never know if every serviceable aircraft was actually flown in the operation.

Other points: The Luftwaffe was in the process of converting, upgrading, and renaming many of its units at the same time as it was growing in size. In bombing units, the Do-17E was beginning to be replaced by the Do-17Z and in a few cases by the He-111H. It is not clear if the He-111P was being replaced by the newer He-111H. The He-111H could have been used mostly to fill out the new Kampfgeschwader units. The He-111J was used on the Baltic in maritime strike units. Also, almost all bomber gruppe were assigned at this time (as it appears) 4 staffeln not three. This was also the case with the Jagdgeschwader units as well. Not all Geschwader had the (later standard) three gruppe organization. Most were still forming up into three gruppe, but were not there yet. Among the 14 then active Kampfgeschwader (not counting LG bombers), only KG27, KG4, KG53 & KG77 had all three gruppen plus the stab (staff). Among the five active Sturzkampfgeschwader (not counting LG stukas), only St.G2 had three gruppen. The rest had only one each.

Now let's look at the fighters: There were on Sept 1st: 14 active Jagdgeschwader, and five active (in-name only)Zerstörergeschwader. All the Zerstörergeschwader units (ZG1, ZG2, ZG26, ZG52 & ZG76) were to be converted from Jagdgeschwader units (JGr101, JGr102, JGr126, JGr152 & JGr176). These units converted from the older (Jumo-engined 2-blade prop) Bf-109 C/D to the new Me-110C-1. Note: No ZG units used the Bf-109E-1 as a stop-gap. However at the outbreak of war only ZG1 & ZG76 had partially converted (one gruppe each). The first unit equipped with the Me-110C-1 was the I(Z)/LG1. All three of these Me-110C-1 gruppe participated in the Polish invasion.

Also ironically, I/ZG2 (still known as JGr102) participated in the invasion of Poland using its older Bf-109C/D. I'm guessing that Luftwaffe headquarters screwed-up and deployed this unit to the Polish border, not knowning that it had not converted yet. The real irony is that one of its pilots flying a Bf-109D would become the Luftwaffe's first WW2 ace in the Poland fighting (excluding the Spanish Civil War)! Then as a futher twist, this pilot was killed a few months later on take-off in his new Me-110C-1. A side note: the 44 aircraft of I/ZG2 (Jgr102) could account for the previously unexplained increase in fighters used in the campaign.

The Bf-109 C/D models had been completely replaced (or displaced) by the new Bf-109E-1 in the Jagdgeschwader units with the following exceptions: Specific Night Fighter Staffeln, the Maritime fighters of TrGr. 186, and I/JG70 (soon to become I/JG54). There were seven gruppen of the five Zerstörergeschwader that still retained the Bf-109C/D, but I believe only I/ZG2 participated in the Polish invasion.

JG 72 was flying the Ar-68 as night-fighters. Of the 12 active Jagdgeschwader using the new Bf-109E-1 only JG 26, JG53, and JG77 had two gruppen, the rest only one each. However these gruppen were actually operating 4 (not 3) staffeln at this time. After the Polish campaign there was more reorganization, renaming & consolidation of units (example JG21, JG70 & JG76 would form the new JG54).

I'm looking for some feedback on my analysis. Thanks.---Saint77

Graphs

This article would benefit from graphs, showing rise and fall of equipment and personnel. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article lacks information about war crimes and atrocities

The current article lacks information about bombing of hospitals, refugee columns, strafing civilians and medical experiments on prisoners performed by Luftwaffe personel.--Molobo (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need. The Bombing of Guernica, Rotterdam Blitz and British Blitz are all linked to their own articles. Sufficient info is already included in this article about that. Besides, this article is already too big. Also, do seriously believe these were "Luftwaffe only" actions? Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

About "Luftwaffe experiments on prisoners", I seriously doubt that. I would expect a reliable source, and this should be in its own article anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is need. Full-lenght articles are to be linked, but short one or two-sentence summary is in order not just link. There is no mention of bombing of civilians or hospitals at all in Invasion of Poland. The actions of Luftwaffe here are reviewed cleansed completely from mentioning of its atrocities which consituted large part of its image and historical significance.

I am surprised you write about Luftwaffe and didn't hear about medical experiments it performed. Anyway: [1] There of course much more. Luftwaffe's doctors were engaged in several experiments on live test subjects regarding temperature and pressure extremes as it was connected to combat performance of pilots. I added relevant info. --Molobo (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no need. This article is about the combat history of the Luftwaffe. That is not a reliable source, though I can believe it now I can see Luftwaffe uniforms in some of those pictures, it still needs a more reliable source. For a serious epsiode in the Luftwaffe's history, something like this should still have its own article, and mentioned here. As I have already said, further expansion of this article is difficult, and is already liable to be split up as it is. Dapi89 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore it is far more appropriate here: Nazi human experimentation. "Add a section about the abuse of prisoners for the Luftwaffe's benefit there. Dapi89 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) "This article is about the combat history of the Luftwaffe. " This article is named History of Luftwaffe not "Combat history of Luftwaffe". If you desire other name, re-name it by proposing vote for move. Also even if it was about combat history of Luftwaffe-we would need extensive information about how combat for luftwaffe and its tactics were combined with terror bombing, strafing civilans, refugee columns and so on. That is missing from the article. The operations were performed on behalf of Luftwaffe, by Luftwaffe officials, by Luftwaffe's instutions, and for benefit Luftwaffe. Your suggestion that Nazis did the experiments for Luftwaffe presents a distorted picture-the experiments were made BY Luftwaffe notjust FOR Luftwaffe. The current version of the article completely presents distorted vision of the military arm of Nazi Germany, avoiding any mention of human experiments, bombing of civilian objects, strafing of civilians. As such the article is not neutral and biased. Wehrmacht article has large section on war crimes, thus should have one also. We shouldn't present a "myth of clean Luftwaffe" similar to "myth of clean Wehrmacht" that once existed-that is a military organisation seperated from atrocities and war crimes. It was very much involved. Also they were Luftwaffe prison camps-another subject not mentioned in the article. I suggest cutting the needles and extensive miltiary and technical details that take too much place and inserting valid and necessary information about other Luftwaffe actvities so that the article represents all information .--Molobo (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC) "it still needs a more reliable source" Szymon Datner who is the source is respected historian cited by many institutions dealing with description of Nazi Germany's history and its atrocities.--Molobo (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would miss the point, and you have. Move it to an appropriate article, and read my posts properly. I accepted that the Luftwaffe was involved, from the photographs, not the text. A book source should be provided on this subject. This is beside the point anyway, for the reasons I have already outlined above. I completly disagree on removing any "needless" (IT IS NOT NEEDLESS) information on the military history, the is a COMBAT history of the Air Force. It should have its own article, which then should be listed in "Realted articles section", this is pretty straight forward. I don't understand what you don't understand about that. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"A book source should be provided on this subject"

I already included book source which you removed at once. "Move it to an appropriate article" Wehrmacht war crimes and atrocities are within Wehrmacht article. Why shouldn't be Luftwaffe's atrocities and war crimes be in Luftwaffe article ? "the is a COMBAT history of the Air Force" The article is named History of Luftwaffe not Combat History of Luftawaffe. And its history includes medical experiments on prisoners. Also-even limited to combat history it would need details on atrocities during combat.--Molobo (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the article properly. It does not belong here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is named History of Luftwaffe during World War II. History of Luftwaffe during World War II involves combat actions against civilians, undefended targets and medical experiments by Luftwaffe personal. --Molobo (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No id doesn't. I am not going to respond to this question again. Read these threads over and over and over again until you understand that this is not the appropriate place for it. Dapi89 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Why are you saying History of Luftwafe doesn't involve combat operations against civilians or medical experiments ? If you want to restrict this article to pure combat operations rename it. But even then combat actions against civilians have to be mentioned. --Molobo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Significant fact

The first combat operation of Luftwaffe in WW2 was bombing of undefended city of Wieluń. This is notable.--Molobo (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thats absolutely fine. Dapi89 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much technical clutter

There is too much technical clutter that should be moved to such articles as ORBAT's regarding particular campaigns. We need to shorten the article so more is on Luftwaffe policies and tactics rather then pure technical data.--Molobo (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is the page of an Air Force, not a political critique of Nazi Germany, or the regime which the Luftwaffe served, use your brain. Dapi89 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think political critigue of Nazi Germany is needed-everybody knows it was a genocidal state bent on murdering whole nations. However the article on Air Force that conducted numerous atrocities and medical experiments on prisoners should include atrocities and experiments on prisoners the Air Force did. As I explained-they were not done by someone else-they were done by Luftwaffe.--Molobo (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have explained....it doesn't belong here. Create an article about it and link it here to the "Related articels section", or add it to the Nazi human experimentation article, for the xth time. Dapi89 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't belong here." I am of opposed view. The article is about history of Luftwaffe and as such combat actions against civilians and experiments performed by Luftwaffe are integral part of that history. Also articles are made from info in other articles usually, only after information is too much they are split into seperate articles.--Molobo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

100 kg of bombs are important but deaths of hundreds of prisoners aren't ? Article needs to be balanced

Information about murder of hundreds of prisoners in Luftwaffe's medical experiments was removed, yet such trivia as "100 kg of incendary bombs were dropped" are within the article. I think it is more notable that people were being subject to medical tests in which they were murdered by Luftwaffe staff, rather then dropping 100kg of bombs in one incident.--Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake. It was about the most significant battle the Luftwaffe took part in during the Campaign. Of course its relevant. And for the third time, make another article about that, or intergrate it with other articles related specifically to war crimes. Dapi89 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The most significant event was the start of WW2. As such it is notable and needs to be mentioned. To this day people and politicians honour the start of WW2 in Wielun which was undefended and bombed by Luftwaffe and part of its history and thus article. Once again-Luftwaffe is directly connected to the atrocities and war crimes as Wehrmacht. And as Wehrmacht, its article must include them. I don't understand why you demand that they should be removed ?--Molobo (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. I have said "Thats fine" to its inclusion! Dapi89 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Numerous examples of Luftwaffe's pilots literally hunting down civilians by machine gun strafing

Szymon Datner writes that numerous Luftwaffe pilots engaged in hunting down civilians in refugee columns using machine gun fire during Invasion of Poland page 96 "55 dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce". --Molobo (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Air Force, Luftwaffe, Imperial Japanese Army Air Force , USAAF and RAF all did this. It is not a "Luftwaffe only" practice. I understand your a war crimes fanatic, as I can see from your edit history, but it doesn't belong here. All instances of "major" bombing civilians are linked in this article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Air Force, Luftwaffe, Imperial Japanese Army Air Force , USAAF and RAF all did this I am not sure we can portay the racist driven Nazi Germany forces(remember that the official line in this state was that they were fighting creatures lower then animals) as equal to RAF or USAAF forces trying to stop Nazi Germany. However feel free to add content in those articles if you think it is needed. Furthermore pure links without text are not enough. A short one or two sentences are needed. Also before I edited there was nothing about Bombing of Wielun.--Molobo (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed some information of the Strategic bombing article. It belongs here: Terror bombing, please put it there instead. Dapi89 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing information about Nazi Germany atrocities conducted by its military.--Molobo (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I going to remove it again. I am getting tired of trying to explain things to you. There is a subtle difference between Strategic bombing and terror bombing. Dapi89 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC) -

How many civilians died through Luftwaffe bombings in Soviet Union

How many civilians died through Luftwaffe bombings in Soviet Union ? Information about civilian vicitims of Luftwaffe in Soviet Union is missing from all articles about bombing in WW2. I know there was bombing of cities but I would like to know exact data ? --Molobo (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to know. The Russians are not exactly forthcoming with that information, if indeed they do know. In 1941-42, there was so much chaos I don't think the Soviets had time to stop and count dead civilians. Dapi89 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the last time

War Crimes carried out by Luftwaffe personnel should have its own article, or be linked to the ones already suggested. Then add that link to the "related articles" section, at the bottom of this one. There is no room, or justification for that here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have even added a link for you. Dapi89 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am of completely opposed opinion. There is no justification for removal of history of Luftwaffe concerned with atrocities and combat actions against civilians. We can just as well remove all campaigns and leave links.--Molobo (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) This is not an argument.--Molobo (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (