Talk:Imperial German Army

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National / European / German C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Lack of information regarding genocide, war crimes and atrocities made by this German military

The article lacks information about war crime and atrocities comitted by German Empire's Army, for example the Herero Genocide,Pogrom of Kalisz, Massacres of Belgian civilians. --Molobo (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers?? (Strength?)

How many soldiers where there in the German Army?? I couldn't find any useful numbers.Johnny2323 (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on when. In July 1867, the army of the North German Confederation had a peacetime strength of 302,633. This did not include the armies south of the Main - those of Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt (except for the part of Hesse north of the Main).

After the mobilization at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the total strength of the field army, including the southern states, was about 850,000. To these would be added several hundred thousand more in the replacement army and fixed commands.

The constitution of the German Empire provided for a peacetime strength of approximately 1% of the population. In October 1893, total peacetime strength was 22,391 officers and 534,100 men.

By 1914, this was, according to one source, 34,870 officers and 663,578 men (the number of officers may be a little high; as of the October 1913, that should have been 30,029). On mobilization in August 1914, the army grew to 3,840,000 of all ranks. Of this, about 2.1 million were in the field army. At the end of 1914, the field army grew to 3 million men. At the end of 1915, this was 3.8 million and at the end of 1916, 4.5 million. There were about 8 million total around the end of 1917 and beginning of 1918, but I'm not sure of the breakdown between field army and home army. 13 million men served in the German Army in World War I. Airbornelawyer (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The german's atrocities

I would like also to clarify the fact that there are genocide of Maji Maji of 1896 to be specified but also highlight the fact that the German imperial army was involved, apart from in some cases, in exemplary fashion, and that the Belgian massacre of civilians was a horrible massacre and unjustifiable but we have to denote how you can not remember only the negative aspects but also those of positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.11.106.46 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added

I added source and wikilinks.--Molobo (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What it was like for conscripts.....

My grandfather left Germany in 1891 for Cleveland, Ohio. His parents, 5 siblings, and in-laws joined him through 1899. My family said that being dragged into the army back then was a brutal affair. It wasn't for the three years in and 4 years reserves that this article says, but for many more years at poverty wages. Low ranking men were trapped in a system for years on end where they could not even afford to marry, so many men fled Germany rather than face conscription.

Which version is the more accurate - my grandfather's or this article's? Is there no truth at all in the immigrants' viewpoint?

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody home? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Army (German Empire) → Imperial German Army – The title "Imperial German Army" is more likely WP:COMMONNAME than German Army (German Empire) 49.150.100.127 (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lede was changed to start "The Imperial German Army" from "The German Imperial Army" with this edit of 12 March 2014; it was changed to that from "The German Army" with this edit two days earlier. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course "German Army (German Empire)" is not a common name, but the question is how to disambiguate from other German Armies. Since the lede starts "The Imperial German Army", and WP:QUALIFIER says that parenthetical disambiguation is the technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title, natural disambiguation should be preferred. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Normally I support parenthetical national disambiguators for military formations, but there just isn't a decent one here. The proposed name works better than some complex disambiguator to distinguish one German Army from another German Army, just as British Indian Army (which also wasn't its official name - it was just the Indian Army) does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the parenthetical disambig is unneeded when a more natural name exists. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ghost Article

There was an Imperial Navy, but there NEVER was an "Imperial Army". Only ignorant Anglo-Saxons can claim such a nonsense. --Reibeisen (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engagements

would it be possible to add a section of the article or heading on the engagements faced by the German military? There is already an article covering total conflicts involving Germany however there is nothing on here showing the actual engagements undertaken by the imperial German army. Could an engagements section be added? CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]