Talk:Volkssturm

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / World War II 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: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Germany C‑class High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The general tone of this article is too sympathetic veering into subjectivity. No clear separation between Nazi beliefs/propaganda and quotations. Also missing particularly from the lede, are general evaluations of this force, size, casualties, overall impact, whether it was more similar in culture and behavior to Nazi units or Wehrmacht, etc. Participation in mass slaughter of innocents is tucked away in the very last paragraph, without any prior mention.

Many sections read like a Nazi-sympathizing apologist piece. I think a neutrality flag needs to be placed on this entry. AforBaheer (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Nazi apologism in this article as its contents have been drawn from RS, but you are not wrong that it is not entirely complete. Simple expressions of the experience from members of the Volkssturm do not appear as deliberate exculpation in the cited sources. Nor do stories of Volkssturm members fighting for their country make them equivalently responsible for the Holocaust as the SSrect organs where perpetration of crimes is well documented. Most of its members did not participate in such actions. The Volkssturm was not classified as a criminal organization explicitly culpable by the Allies during their investigations, so stressing that too much would not be an accurate historical representation of the organization and its activities during the Second World War as a whole. If you mean the Gardelegen Massacre, that is tied to the Mittelbau-Dora facility evacuations covered in the article.

However, your comments are not taken lightly, especially since the Volkssturm also likely participated in cruelties tied to the death marches of Hungarian Jews in Austria during the Spring of 1945. Unfortunately there are little definitive details available regarding their level of participation. Nonetheless, some of your concerns have been addressed with the recent changes to the lead. Good catch to that end. When I added the info recently about the Dora-Mittelbau atrocity, I failed to update the lead. If you think additional content should be added, feel free to edit accordingly using RS. In the end, most members of the Volkssturm fought a futile battle during the dying days of the regime and the typical experience was not one of criminal atrocity. However, that does not excuse those members who willingly acted in this manner. Let's work carefully to determine how best to represent that reality. Hopefully my recent change to the lead helps alleviate at least some of your concerns. --Obenritter (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To support your efforts to highlight any criminal actions by the Volkssturm, I have created a separate section and will edit it accordingly when time permits. Feel free to do likewise.--Obenritter (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE--Info added to the article about atrocities and other expansions should have addressed the concerns expressed.--Obenritter (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mis-link, via a redirect. Does anyone know if this is the the correct term in translation, and whether we have an article under some other name to the formation in question? Alai 09:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In additional to standard Wehrmacht arms and captured equipment, the Volksturm had numerous arms (mainly experimental) created for it. Perhaps there should be a section added addressing this point.

Didn't Goebbels play a large part in the formation of the volksstrum? Gavin Scott 08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the word 'storm trooper' carry a bit too much meaning? I mean these were mostly youngsters, elders and people who did not want to be there not the elité troops you expect when you read 'storm trooper'.

It was the name of the unit. We can't change that, the article explains the nature of the Volksstrum. Gavin Scott 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Storm trooper” wasn’t the name of the organization—“storm trooper” is at best a generic term for members of the SS; Volkssturmhad little if anything to do with the SS and its name means little more than something like people’s assault [group]; Sturm means “storm” in the sense of an assault, but members of the Volkssturm were hardly storm troopers, all of them being civilians and either young kids, old men, or men unfit for normal military duty. What’s the source for rendering Volkssturm “storm troopers”? If none can be cited, or the only sources for the statement are unreliable, the statement should be removed from the article; see

WP:ATT. —–Jim_Lockhart 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the current picture is misleading and inappropriate. It is misleading because it implicates that Volkssturm members were fanatics that rather died than surrender (to US troops). For the Eastern Front it is true most people rather fought to the death than surrender (which would likely mean death as well), on the Western Front this was exceptional (AFAIK). The article also doesn't emphasize enough the last-resort function of the Volkssturm. German wartime propaganda already stated the best weapon of the Volkssturm was their will to fight, and even in reality this was true, again mostly for the Eastern Front. I think it should be emphasized Volkssturm members fought more to save what was left of their country from the Soviets than being Nazi-fanatics, apart from simply being conscripted. Wiki1609 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why people always want to translate Sturm with storm. It sounds absurd because it is. Try to graps the idea that the same word could be used in different context with entirely different meanings. Volkssturm was not about the weather, it was about combat, so why would assault not be obvious?

Also, "folk" seems to be a bit fancy where "people" is a much better fit. I might be wrong here, but I don't think so. --91.55.254.174 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the concept of "The German People" was then often summed up (at least in Germany) as "folk" (Volk). The Volk of that place and era isn't quite the happy-go-lucky term of --say-- 60's American "folk music". Volk was more like spirit of the Vikings than of Peter, Paul, and Mary. Volk was a specific sub-set of ways to say "people" --different from say Leute or Mensch (just as, I suppose, one could say "the people", "the masses", "the street", or "a mob" and have slightly different nuances of meaning each way). Literally, Sturm is "storm" (musical Sturm und Drang etc) but it was used the same as "assault" in military terminology. Thus Sturmabteilung is equally-often called "storm" as "assault" detachment/section. Both ways work; one way is a more literal transliteration while the other rephrases toward a perhaps more satisfying English translation. One tends to hear of German "stormtroopers" but not so much of "assault-troopers". Overall, I've usually thought it best (or at least most educational) to list both ways: the literal transliteration of the word parts and also the rephrased English understanding of the term. I'd say "Luftschiff (zeppelin, air ship --literally 'lift ship' in the aerial sense of 'lift')" but that's just how things go in my version of an ideal world. Cramyourspam (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam[reply]

Well we translate Sturmgewehr as "assault rifle", not "storm rifle". --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm could also be rendered as "unit" as in the SA rank Sturmmann. Similar to Schutz being a rank/unit/gun/gunner(shooter). The Volkssturm could be rendered Peoples Units. Maybe compare it a unit like the Khyber Rifles where rifle is both the weapon and the unit.--

talk) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

How does the Walter Doenicke suicide picture have any bearing on this article? I can not see where the article loses anything without it. I also notice that articles of important Nazi functionaries, i,e, Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf_Hess, et al do not have them but they are available. If there is no obection I will remove it soon.--100.34.75.219 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again as it adds nothing to the article. PaPiker (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the aforementioned Walter Doenicke suicide picture. Where does it add to the article?--100.34.53.78 (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)ouou[reply]

Thank you--

Removed the previously removed Walter Doenicke suicide picture as it does not add anything to the article.--108.36.244.16 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

- adds nothing to the article. 100.11.77.202 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply