Talk:West German rearmament

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the West German rearmament article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German / Cold War

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Section sizes

Section size for West German rearmament (7 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,240	1,240
Background	5,856	5,856
Bundeswehr formation	4,462	4,462
Bundesmarine formation	1,999	1,999
Effects	1,374	1,374
References	31	31
Sources	2,268	2,268
Total	17,230	17,230

Untitled

We need a better title for this, how about "West German rearmament"? PatGallacher (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence doesn't make sense. This didn't have anything to do with building up West-Germany. --197.228.6.25 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense because it's a sequence of sentences that make little sense in English, not just because of the content fallacies.2.25.32.77 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing coverage of moral deliberations and social conflict

The article fails to cover both the continued social and medial debate preceeding and acompanying the rearmament (See Wiederbewaffnung) and the moral and social principles developed as basis for the new German army's self-conception (see Bundeswehr, Innere Führung and Staatsbürger in Uniform) --Azrael aaaaa (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on unclear/confusing phrases

Initial paragraph: "They could not function outside an alliance framework" (Meaning?)

Section on intelligence buildup: "Eventually the operations were set to the ground as well" (Meaning?)

Section on 1951 conference: "The EEDCCD was held in Paris" (What is the EEDCCD?)

Confused on these phrases and not confident enough to edit or delete them. What to do? Starkenborgher (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the first and removed the second and third. Did a bit of layout work and copy edit. I'm not up to sourcing and translating though. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2020

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: Page moved to West German rearmament. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiederbewaffnung → German rearmament after World War II –
I am proposing a move of this article, from Wiederbewaffnung (German: "rearmament") to a natural, descriptive title in English; perhaps German rearmament after World War II. (See related move request at Talk:German rearmament.)

The term Wiederbewaffnung is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the post-WW II rearmament of Germany in reliable English sources, and is absent from major English dictionaries. I don't believe there is any single, commonly recognized, WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, term in English sources that unambiguously specifies the post-WW II rearmament of Germany in fewer words than that. If you look into the sources listed in the article, they do use briefer phrases inside the book ("German rearmament", "rebuilding the military", and so on) which are unambiguous in context given the post-WW II topic of the book, but they would be ambiguous standing alone.

None of the sources in this article have the German term in the title. Rather, they use any of various descriptive expressions to specify the time period, usually in one of two ways (emphasis added):

by naming an interval in their titles, such as "...the Build-Up of the German Federal Navy, 1950-1960" (Snyder), or
by specifying a political unit that implies the era: (as in "West German Rearmament"; Onslow), or a leader that does so (as in, "Rearmament in the Adenauer Era"; Large).

When there is no common name in English, article title policy calls for the use of a natural, descriptive title. I propose "German rearmament after World War II", "German rearmament after the Second World War", or "Post-World War II German rearmament".

Note that there is a related discussion going on at Talk:German rearmament. Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at WT:GERMANY, WT:MILHIST. Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support West German rearmament, concise and unambiguous. Oppose all of the titles proposed by Mathglot as they are ambiguous with East German rearmament, which is a separate topic. b uidhe 21:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:buidhe has a very good point. It may not be the COMMONNAME, but no matter, per NDESC and CONCISE, I think it wins. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Notifying top contribs plus a trusted historian: @Ezeidler, Reidgreg, Stonewall161, K.e.coffman, Starkenborgher, Ulf Heinsohn, Tobby72, and Rjensen:. (Note: the anon creator has been inactive since 2005.) Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Buidhe We need to distinguish between the rearmament of the two Germanies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support West German rearmament. West Germany was a political entity by the time the rearmament started, and it existed for a short enough period for the name to be unambiguous. Some German sources do use the term "Die Politik der Wiederbewaffnung" but I think it's in a generic sense – all nouns in German are capitalized – and it translates as 'rearmament' (Collins). If there's going to be an overall dab page for German rearmament, Wiederbewaffnung should probably redirect there. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reidgreg, German has a different name for the interwar rearmament which is called "Aufrüstung" or "de:Aufrüstung der Wehrmacht". de:Wiederbewaffnung is apparently unambiguous as it has no hatnote. b uidhe 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the de.wiki article Aufrüstung der Wehrmacht translates as Armament of the Wehrmacht. (The Wehrmacht [Nazi armed forces] didn't exist before, so it was an armament, not a rearmament.) That could be German rearmament as easily as Wehrmacht armament. It's generic/descriptive, not a proper name. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support West German rearmament - As nicely described above, English sources do not use the German termm which itself simply means "rearmament" (and nouns in German are capitalised by default so this doesn't make it anything significant); so we should prefer a descriptive and accurate title, in English if possible, which this suggestion is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support West German rearmament --I agree with above comments. Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support West German rearmament per others above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support West German rearmament - Agreeing with above comments. Starkenborgher (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support West German rearmament Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (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.