Talk:1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division Hermann Göring

were they in the Spanish Civil War?

I wonder if Goering's elite soldiers were fighting in the Spanish Civil War, along with the Legion Condor? Especially because the German Luftwaffe played a very important role there. - Does anybody know the facts? 79.193.0.83 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Destruction

Hmm, there seems to be something wrong about the 1944 history. The article states that the division arrived to the area in mid-September, roughly 1,5 months after the uprising started. Yet, it also claims that it took part in the fights against the Soviet offensive that was halted... on August 3rd. //Halibutt 16:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

an answer:[1] --83.5.145.57 09:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Attack near Königsbrück on April 22, 1945

The text stated the Polish 1st Division was destroyed by the HG PzDiv in mid-April, 1945. This cannot be true, because the Polish 1st Division (Polish People's Army = LWP) was near Berlin at that time, and the HG PzDiv was in the vicinity of Dresden. However, from April 22-24, the HG was in the 4. PzArmee, which attacked the inter-army boundary of the Polish 2nd Army (LWP) and the Soviet 52nd Army. Penetrating the boundary, the HG and one other division enjoyed two days of overrunning the communications and logistics trains of the two opposing armies. Finally, on April 24, the German attack was stopped by the Soviet 5th Guards Army. As far as I can determine, no divisions of the LWP were destroyed by the Germans, the closest thing to this sort of event being the heavy casualties taken by the LWP 1st Division at Lenino in late 1943. Postscript: See the main article citation for Hans von Ahlfen, detailing the Soviet and Polish units the Germans believed to have strongly damaged or destroyed. I believe the article's original reference to the "Polish 1st Division" was a confused reference to the Polish 1st Tank Corps (LWP). PPS: Correction to above. According to a thorough Polish reference on the LWP in World War II, Polish losses in this battle were indeed severe. See the citation in the main article for details. W. B. Wilson 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

war crimes

the fourth citation is confusing, as it is claimed in the article to verify alleged war crimes. but when one reads the citation it says nothing about human shields but simply states how many Polish soldiers were killed. can someone who has the "source" clarify this?

--Jadger 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

· The numerical notation is confusing; looking in the edit text for the page, this note actually refers to the external link http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/uprising.html Professor Peter K. Gessner State University of New York at Buffalo - the fourth (non-external) citation that you saw about Polish casualties was referenced earlier in the text when the fighting of April 1945 was discussed. W. B. Wilson 12:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks, that is weird, it says #4 in the text, but it is the 3rd external link. I understand why I confused the two now.

--Jadger 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PGDA - FPD HG.jpg

Image:PGDA - FPD HG.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 ensure 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) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Fallschirmjager Regiment in Tunisia

The Order of Battle of the Hermann Goring Division through November 1942 detailed at this article does not indicate it included the 5. Fallschirmjager Regiment. That regiment did in fact fight in Tunisia, but there is no indication it was part of the "Hermann Goring Division" (operating then as Kampfgruppe Schmid commanded by Generalmajor Joseph Schmid). See extensive history of its role in the battle here: 5. Fallschirmjager Regiment in Tunisia, Part 1, November-December 1942. If it can be established that the 5 Fallschirmjager fought under Kampfgruppe Schmid in Africa the claim may be restored. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Problematic content

Almost none of this extensive article is cited (tagged since 2013), except for the sections on Eat Prussia and Alleged war crimes. I'm going to check it for the obviously dubious content and remove it. The rest I will comment it out in the next few days unless there are other editors interested in providing WP:RS citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The recent IP edits restored the dubious claims and POV language (all unsourced from 2013), including what sounds link 1940s propaganda:

• "unswerving loyalty"
• "acquitted themselves well"
• "captured and neutralised by Fallschirmjäger'" (unrelated unit, the only connection is that some personnel previously served in the division)
• "regiment again acquitted itself well"
• "During this battle, the regiment gained a reputation for steadfastness under fire." (tagged since 2008)
• "was thrown back into the line"; "thrown back into combat"
• "Despite valiant breakout attempts..."

I have reverted the IP editor once, but another one came along are reinstated the dubious content. Can other editors have a look at these edits? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved anywhere. Obvious opposition towards moving it to the original request and there has been no consensus on the 2nd idea, even after a relist. (non-admin closure) (closed by a page mover). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring → Parachute Panzer Division Hermann Göring – Common name in Eglish language literature; please see Google books search result. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting to keep discussion about "1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division Hermann Göring" potentially open. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Actually, the requested title has a total of 13 hits. A loose search of the words in the existing title comes up with 785 hits, although admittedly a significant proportion of them are not English sources. Nevertheless, this is a sloppy RM, with the claimed "common name" unsupported by two simple Google Books searches undertaken in good faith. Please take more care when requesting moves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, better known by German name. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am curious of why we should translate fallschirm (parachute) and not panzer (armour). For consistency all Panzer division should be translated to Armoured division, in which article we read: A panzer division was an armoured division of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS of Germany during World War II. --Robertiki (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as Panzer goes, it is the common word used when discussing German Armor; akin to the use of U-Boat. Kierzek (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your position against Fallschirm translation is coherent with your position. I was asking to the other side. --Robertiki (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Consistency doesn't trump WP:UCN. Panzer is far more common in sources in English (when referring to this or other units with Panzer in the title) than Armoured/Armored. That applies to this division, panzer divisions and panzergrenadier divisions both during WWII and since. A simple Google Books search will confirm that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment the removal of the ordinal in the requested title also betrays a lack of knowledge about or disregard for the Wehrmacht ORBAT and this division's final title. There was a 2nd Fallschirm-Panzergrenadier Division Hermann Göring, which was grouped with this division in the Fallschirm-Panzerkorps. The similarities between the two titles creates a greater need for clarity. On that point, the existing title of this article is a little clunky, and perhaps should be at "1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division Hermann Göring", which reflects the common use of ordinals in English when referring to military formations (eg 1st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). The placement of the numeral in the current title reflects the German placement and usage, not the English one, and consistency with other Wehrmacht divisional titles should be considered to some extent. They are almost all at "(ordinal) name of division" or similar, some more complex than others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I agree with your suggestion. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A correct full translation should be something as airborne armoured division or airborne division. Some examples are: 101st Airborne Division, 1st Airborne Reconnaissance Squadron, 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment RAC. But recognizability would be lost. So, better keep full original name: Fallschirm-Panzer-Division 1 Hermann Göring. But the problem is deeper: the unit is NOT airborne, but a ordinary armoured division which happens to be under the control of the Luftwaffe. So translating with parachute or airborne would only add confusion. --Robertiki (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, for a (literal or titular) translation it would not be airborne. Airborne, airmobile and parachute etc are all used by the Bundeswehr, however not by the Wehrmacht. Parachute would be the correct translation.

Oppose, as per above points and as it was a unique unit and the name should perfectly reflect that (Hermann Göring 2 was Panzergrenadier, not Panzer). As for the other parachute units the naming sceme is pretty devided between translation and original ... GELongstreet (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Undid my slightly abrupt closure, as I think a conversation about retitling this to 1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division Hermann Göring was ongoing. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.