Talk:Großdeutschland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] War crimes
Ok, it really worries me when a non-logged in user with no user history absolves Grossdeutschland of war crimes -- especially as Grossdeutschland fought on the Eastern Front, alongside the Einsatzgruppen. However, anonymous is apparently right that Grossdeutschland wasn't part of the SS, and the bit about the book seems factual. But still, I'm suspicious. Can anyone shed light on this? orthogonal 10:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, Grossdeutschland was an Army unit, one of only three known by name that I'm aware of, the others being Feldherrnhalle and, in France in 1944, Panzer Lehr. It was an elite unit with an unusually large establishment strength, probably as large as a regular panzer division and panzergrenadier division combined, especially considering it was more likely to be up to strength. It began in 1939 as (mostly sure, not entirely sure) as an all-volunteer motorized infantry regiment, so-called because recruited from all over Germany and, unlike most Army units had no territorial attachment. It became a division in 1942 and a panzergrenadier division in 1943. Although I haven't looked, I don't recall seeing any specific mention of Grossdeutschland in Eastern Front atrocities. It was probably as culpable as the rest of the regular German Army, which means it may very well have carried out the Commisar Order and participated in small-scale massacres of civilians. But as for Einsatzgruppen-type stuff, no, almost certainly not. The question isn't really, "Was GD like the SS and the Einsatzgruppen because only they committed atrocities," but rather what did ordinary soldiers in the regular Army do? I'm sure there are books with info on this. --ArminTamzarian 01:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- re "an Army unit", does know whether GD was a Heer unit, or an OKW unit? — B.Bryant 22:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kleindeutschland, Grossdeutschland and Greater Germany
GeneralPatton and I appear to be having a somewhat time-delayed edit war about whether the content about the historical concept of an Austrian-dominated Germany should be in this article or at Greater Germany. I brought it up on his Talk: page in August and got no response, nor have I had anything on my Talk: page.
My logic is that, if we have an article at Kleindeutschland and the two concepts are usually discussed as "Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland" together, that the article belongs here. Equally, I believe that there is no reason that the two article-chunks shouldn't be in the same article. I even put a manual TOC in, to increase the prominence of the Wehrmacht division article-chunk, which I hoped would make the remerger less contentious.
I think we could do with forming a consensus on the matter. I'm happy to accept arbitration, if that would help. But can we discuss the matter here before continuing this edit war? :o) — OwenBlacker 15:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Is "Greater Germany" really the correct translation? I'd prefer Great Germany rathermore, elsewhere it would have been called Grösser Deutschland --Shandris 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's common usage to translate German Groß-foo with "Greater Foo" in English. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The stub says Template:World War II stub; Grossdeutchland is a pre-Imperial German term as the article says
It was also one of the official names of the WW2 german state. Thus, a WW2 article as well as a 19th century article. -Alex 12.220.157.93 11:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nazi Greater Germany
This needs to be expanded upon the idea of Greater Germany of National Socialist; this reference may come in handy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
