text:
Tommy and Tuppence

Tommy and Tuppence are two fictional detectives, recurring characters in the work of Agatha Christie. Their full names are Thomas Beresford and his wife Prudence (née Cowley). Tommy and Tuppence first appeared in Christie's The Secret Adversary (1922). They started out their career in search of adventure and money, and the detecting life soon proved profitable and very exciting.

Books

 * The Secret Adversary (1922 novel)
 * Partners in Crime (1929 short story collection)
 * N or M? (1941 novel)
 * By the Pricking of My Thumbs (1968 novel)
 * Postern of Fate (1973 novel)

Characters
Tuppence appears as a charismatic, impulsive, and intuitive person while Tommy is less imaginative and less likely to be diverted from the truth (as their first adversary sums him up: "he is not clever, but it is hard to blind his eyes to the facts") which is why they are shown to make a good team. It is in the first book The Secret Adversary that they meet up after the war (World War I), and come to realise that, although they have been friends for most of their lives, they have now fallen in love with each other.

Unlike many other recurring detective characters, including the better known Christie detectives, Tommy and Tuppence aged in time with the real world, being in their early twenties in The Secret Adversary and in their seventies in Postern of Fate. In their early appearances, they are portrayed as typical young people of the 1920s, and the stories and settings have a more pronounced period-specific flavor than other stories featuring more popular Christie characters. As they age, they are revealed to have raised three children – twins Deborah and Derek and an adopted daughter, Betty. Throughout the series they employ a man named Albert, who first appears as a lift boy who helps them in The Secret Adversary, their hapless assistant at a private detective agency in Partners in Crime, and subsequently, as a now married pub owner, renders vital assistance to the pair in N or M?. By Postern of Fate he has become the Beresfords' butler and has now been widowed. In Postern of Fate the Beresfords also own a small dog named Hannibal.

Biography
Thomas "Tommy" Beresford is introduced as a young redheaded Englishman who fought in the Great War, wounded twice. Prudence L. "Tuppence" Cowley is introduced as a young woman with black bobbed hair. She is one of several children of a conservative archdeacon, and served in the Voluntary Aid Detachment during the Great War.

With the Great War over, jobs are scarce and both characters are unemployed. They are childhood friends and reunite after the war. They agree to start their own business as The Young Adventurers. They are soon hired by Mr Carter, a British intelligence leader. They are asked to search for Jane Finn, a survivor of RMS Lusitania's sinking who disappeared along with documents of a secret treaty.

Following the successful conclusion of their first case, Tommy is chosen as the heir of a rich uncle. Having fallen in love during the case, Tommy and Tuppence are engaged to marry.

Their second recorded case has them hired by Mr Carter again, on behalf of a government intelligence agency. They are placed as the new owners of the International Detective Agency, a recently cleaned-out spy stronghold. Their real mission is to intercept enemy messages, but in the meantime they handle their agency's cases.

The two successfully apprehend No. 16, a Soviet spy, and then decide to give up the agency. At that point, Tuppence reveals to Tommy that she is pregnant.

Their third recorded case takes place during World War II, and the couple has reached their middle age. They had retired from British intelligence long ago, and they were feeling sidelined. They are recruited by British intelligence again, to hunt German spies and fifth columnists. Their years out of service mean that they are unknown to traitors within British intelligence.

Their fourth case takes place when the two are a mature couple. Tommy's aunt Ada dies in the retirement home Sunny Ridge, and Ada's acquaintance Mrs Lancaster disappears soon afterwards. Tuppence is determined to locate the missing woman, and in the process learns of an unsolved series of child murders. Tuppence slowly realizes that she may be the killer's next victim.

Their fifth and last case takes place when the couple are elderly and at least in their 70s. They have reached their retirement years, and purchase an old house in a quiet village in order to live out their retirement in peace. But an old book within the house contains a coded message, concerning the "unnatural" death of Mary Jordan. The elderly couple decide to investigate a cold case.

Adaptations
In 1953 the BBC adapted Partners in Crime as a radio series starring Richard Attenborough and Sheila Sim.

The Tommy and Tuppence characters have been portrayed on television by James Warwick and Francesca Annis, first in the feature-length The Secret Adversary (1982), and then in the 10 episode series Agatha Christie's Partners in Crime (1983).

The novel By the Pricking of My Thumbs was adapted in 2005 by the French director Pascal Thomas with the title Mon petit doigt m'a dit.... The film casts André Dussolier as Tommy (renamed Bélisaire) and Catherine Frot as Prudence Beresford. The action is transposed to Savoie in France. A second film Le crime est notre affaire, came out in 2008. Le crime est notre affaire is named after Partners in Crime and stars the Beresfords, but its story is based on 4.50 from Paddington, which was originally a novel starring Miss Marple. A third film Associés contre le crime is very, very loosely based (to the point of being unrecognisable) on one of the stories in Partners in Crime.

An adaptation of By the Pricking of My Thumbs appeared in 2006 as an episode of the Granada television series Marple even though Christie did not write Miss Marple into the original story. In this version, Tommy and Tuppence were played by Anthony Andrews and Greta Scacchi respectively, but, unlike in the book, Miss Marple and Tuppence play the detective roles while Tommy is away on intelligence (MI6) business.

In 2015 BBC television aired Partners in Crime, it starred David Walliams as Tommy and Jessica Raine as Tuppence.

title: Tommy and Tuppence


text:
Pityusic Islands

The Pityusic Islands, often referenced simply as the Pityuses (Pitiüses, Pitiusas; from the Greek πιτύα pitýa, pine tree), or commonly but informally (and ambiguously) as the Pine Islands, is the name given collectively to the Balearic Islands of Ibiza (Catalan: Eivissa), Formentera, S'Espalmador and other small islets in the Mediterranean Sea.

Geography
The islands are situated approximately 100 km southwest of the island of Majorca, and approximately 80 km east of the Cap de la Nau in the Iberian Peninsula.

History
The first known name of the islands was the Ancient Greek geonym Πιτυοῦσσαι Pityûssai ("covered in pine trees").

From about 200 BCE, the islands were used as a base by Cilician pirates. They and a renegade Roman general, Quintus Sertorius, who had formed an alliance with the pirates, were driven out by a large Roman fleet, commanded by Caius Annius Luscus.

The two largest of the islands, under the names Ebyssus (Ibiza) and Ophiusis (Formentera), were listed in Claudius Ptolemy's Geography (2nd century CE). Ptolemy noted that Ebyssus had a town by the same name.

Administration
The Pine Islands are sometimes grouped together as part of the Balearic Islands, or else considered separate with the Balearics proper being Mallorca and Menorca (which together with their islets form the Gymnesian Islands). Politically, they are part of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands.

Initially, they were administratively part of the same insular council (of Ibiza and Formentera), but since 2007 they are now separated between the insular council of Ibiza and the insular council of Formentera (each one is also assimilated to a single comarca), which are two of the four main administrative subdivisions of the province (and autonomous community) of the Balearic Islands.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pityusic Islands


text:
Spitalfields

Spitalfields is an area in London, England and is located in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It is in East London and situated in the East End. Spitalfields is formed around Commercial Street and Brick Lane. It has several markets, including Spitalfields Market, the historic Old Spitalfields Market, Brick Lane Market and Petticoat Lane Market. The area has a long attracted migrants from overseas, including many Jews, whose presence gained the area the 19th century nickname of Little Jerusalem.

It was a Hamlet (autonomous area) of the large ancient parish of Stepney in Middlesex, and became an independent parish in 1729. Just outside the City of London, it formed part of the County of London from 1889 and was part of the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney from 1900. It was abolished as a civil parish in 1921.

Toponymy
The name Spitalfields appears in the form Spittellond in 1399; as The spitel Fyeld on the "Woodcut" map of London of c.1561; and as Spyttlefeildes, also in 1561. The land belonged to St Mary Spital, a priory or hospital (a lodging for travellers run by a religious order) erected on the east side of the Bishopsgate thoroughfare in 1197, from which its name is thought to derive ("spital" being a corruption of the word "hospital".) An alternative, and possibly earlier, name for the area was Lolsworth.

Administrative history
The area was a part of the manor and ancient parish of Stepney before the Domesday Book of 1086.

Parish areas originally had only ecclesiastical (church) functions; but the monasteries which had provided extensive charitable work on a voluntary basis, were dissolved by Henry VIII, creating increased hardship. The government responded by making parish areas take on civil functions, primarily a new Poor Law intended to fill the gap left by monasteries.

Stepney was a very large and populous parish, and by the late 17th century it had devolved its civil parish functions to autonomous areas called Hamlets (in this context meaning territorial sub-divisions, rather than small villages), of which Spitalfields was one.

In 1729, the Hamlet of Spitalfields became an independent daughter parish. The area's parish church was Christ Church, Spitalfields, with St Stephen Spitalfields (demolished in 1930) added later.

In 1855, the parish became part of the Whitechapel District within the Metropolitan Board of Works area. Spitalfields Vestry nominated twelve members to the Whitechapel District Board of Works. The Board of Works was an unelected body, responsible for certain infrastructure functions.

Spitalfields became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney in 1900 and was abolished as a civil parish in 1921. It became part of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in 1965.

The area was part of the historic (or ancient) county of Middlesex, but military and most (or all) civil county functions were managed more locally, by the Tower Division (also known as the Tower Hamlets), a historic ‘county within a county’, under the leadership of the Lord-Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets (the post was always filled by the Constable of the Tower of London). The military loyalty to the Tower meant local men served in the Tower garrison and Tower Hamlets Militia, rather than the Middlesex Militia.

The role of the Tower Division ended when Spitalfields became part of the new County of London in 1889. The County of London was replaced by Greater London in 1965.

Representation
Nearly all (except a tiny area north of the railway, in Weaver's Ward) of the district is part of the Spitalfields & Banglatown ward, which elects two councillors to Tower Hamlets Borough Council. Spitalfields is in the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Rushanara Ali of the Labour Party.

The Spitalfields Neighbourhood Planning Forum, which is constitituted of Spitalfields residents, business operators, community organisations and other local interests, is intended to help local people influence neighbourhood planning policies.

Roman era
The Romans had a cemetery to the east of the Bishopsgate thoroughfare, which roughly follows the line of Ermine Street: the main highway to the north from Londinium. The cemetery was noticed by the antiquarian John Stow in 1576 and was the focus of a major archaeological excavation in the 1990s, following the redevelopment of Spitalfields Market.

In 2013, Janet Montgomery of Durham University undertook lead isotope analysis of tooth enamel, identifying the first person from Rome known to have been buried in Britain. She was a 25-year-old woman, buried in a lead-lined stone sarcophagus around the middle of the 4th century A.D., and accompanied by grave goods of jet and glass.

St Mary Spital
In 1197, a priory, The New Hospital of St Mary without Bishopsgate, latterly known as St Mary Spital, was founded by Walter Brunus and his wife Roisia, and built on the site of the cemetery. It was one of the biggest hospitals in medieval England and had a large cemetery with a mortuary chapel and stone charnel house. The chapel has been uncovered by archaeologists and preserved for public viewing. The priory and hospital were dissolved in 1539 under Henry VIII. At the time of the dissolution, the hospital had beds for 180 sick poor.

The inner precinct of priory hospital was adjacent to the area that later became the Hamlet and parish of Spitalfields, in the tiny extra-parochial area called the Liberty of Norton Folgate. Although the chapel and monastic buildings were mostly demolished in the time of Henry VIII, the Liberty remained an autonomous area outside of any parish. The adjacent outer precincts, to the south, were re-used for artillery practice by the gunners of the Tower of London. The area, known as the Old Artillery Ground was placed under the special jurisdiction of the Tower of London as one of its Tower Liberties.

Other parts of the priory area were used for residential purposes by London dwellers seeking a rural retreat and by the mid-17th century further development extended eastward into the erstwhile open farmland of the Spital Field.

Huguenots

Spitalfields consisted mainly of fields and nursery gardens until its development in the late 17th century. The main local industry at that time was weaving, and many of the weavers were Huguenot refugees from France. Spitalfields' historic association with the silk industry was established by French Protestant (Huguenot) refugees who settled in the area after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. By settling outside the bounds of the City of London, they hoped to avoid the restrictive legislation of the City guilds. The Huguenots brought with them little, apart from their skills, and an Order in Council of 16 April 1687 raised £200,000 to relieve their poverty. In December 1687, the first report of the committee set up to administer the funds reported that 13,050 French refugees were settled in London, primarily around Spitalfields, but also in the nearby settlements of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, Whitechapel and Mile End New Town.

The late 17th and 18th centuries saw an estate of well-appointed terraced houses, built to accommodate the master weavers controlling the silk industry, and grand urban mansions built around the newly created Bishops Square which adjoins the short section of the main east–west street known as Spital Square. Christ Church, Spitalfields on Fournier Street, designed by the architect Nicholas Hawksmoor, was built during the reign of Queen Anne to demonstrate the power of the established church to the dissenting Huguenots, who had built ten chapels in the area. More humble weavers dwellings were congregated in the Tenterground. The Spitalfields Mathematical Society was established in 1717. In 1846, it merged with the Royal Astronomical Society.

Spitalfields Market was established in 1638 when Charles I gave a licence for flesh, fowl and roots to be sold in what was then known as Spittle Fields. The market currently receives around 25,000 visitors every week.

Huguenots of Spitalfields is a registered charity promoting public understanding of the Huguenot heritage and culture in Spitalfields, the City of London and beyond. They arrange tours, talks, events and schools programmes to raise the Huguenot profile in Spitalfields and to raise funds for a permanent memorial to the Huguenots.

From the 1730s Irish weavers came, after a decline in the Irish linen industry, to take up work in the silk trade. The 18th century saw periodic crises in the silk industry, brought on by imports of French silk – in a lull between the wars between the two rivals; and imports of printed calicos. The depression in the trade and the prices paid to weavers led to protests. In 1769, the Spitalfield riots occurred when attempts were made to disperse protest meetings by weavers during the downturn in the market for silk. The riots ended in an Irish and a Huguenot weaver being hanged in front of the Salmon and Ball public house at Bethnal Green.

Price controls on amounts master weavers could pay journeymen for each piece were established, removing incentives to pay higher wages during good times. During bad times workers had no work. As the price was per piece, there was no incentive for using machinery, as the master would have to pay for the machine and still pay the same price per piece to journeymen. By 1822 labour rates were so above market labour rates, that much of the employment in silk manufacture had moved away. Remaining manufacture focussed on expensive fashion items, which required proximity to court and had higher margins.

In 1729, Spitalfields was detached from the parish of Stepney, and became an independent parish; by this time parish areas had both civil and ecclesiastical (church) functions. The area's parish church was Christ Church, Spitalfields, with St Stephen Spitalfields added later. The church of St Stephen Spitalfields was built in 1860 by public subscription but was demolished in 1930. The adjacent vicarage is all that remains.

Victorian era
By the Victorian era, the silk industry had entered a long decline and the old merchant dwellings had degenerated into multi-occupied slums. Spitalfields became a by-word for urban deprivation, and, by 1832, concern about a London cholera epidemic led The Poor Man's Guardian (18 February 1832) to write of Spitalfields: "The low houses are all huddled together in close and dark lanes and alleys, presenting at first sight an appearance of non-habitation, so dilapidated are the doors and windows:- in every room of the houses, whole families, parents, children and aged grandfathers swarm together."

In 1860, a treaty with France allowed the import of cheaper French silks. This left the many weavers in Spitalfields, as well as neighbouring Bethnal Green and Shoreditch, unemployed and indigent. New trades such as furniture and boot making came to the area, and the large windowed Huguenot houses were found suitable for tailoring, attracting a new population of Jewish refugees drawn to live and work in the textile industry.

By the later 19th century, inner Spitalfields became known as the worst criminal rookery in London and common lodging-houses in the Flower and Dean Street area were a focus for the activities of robbers and pimps. In 1881 Flower and Dean Street was described as being "perhaps the foulest and most dangerous street in the metropolis". Another claimant to the distinction of being the worst street in London was Dorset Street, which was highlighted by the brutal killing and mutilation of a young woman, Mary Jane Kelly, in her lodgings here by the serial killer, Jack the Ripper in the autumn of 1888. The murder was the climax of a series of murders that became known as the Whitechapel Murders.

The renewed focus on the area's poverty helped prompt the decision to demolish some local slums in 1891–94. Deprivation continued and was brought to notice by social commentators such as Jack London in his The People of the Abyss (1903). He highlighted 'Itchy Park', next to Christ Church, Spitalfields, as a notorious rendezvous for homeless people.

Modern Spitalfields
In the late 20th century the Jewish presence diminished and was replaced by an influx of Bangladeshi immigrants, who also worked in the local textile industry and made Brick Lane the curry capital of London. By 1981, at least 60% of households were of minority ethnic origin.

Another development, from the 1960s onwards, has been a campaign to save the housing stock of old merchant terraces west of Brick Lane from demolition. Many have been conserved by the Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust which has led to gentrification and a large increase in property prices. In the 21st century, large office blocks were built between Bishopsgate and Spitalfields Market, affecting the character of the area. Conservationists secured the preservation of Old Spitalfields Market and the provision of shopping, leisure amenities and a plaza (urban square) beside the blocks, but permission was granted to developers, to demolish the Fruit and Wool exchange on the edge of old Spitalfields market, in order to erect office buildings.

Since 1998 the area has formed part of the Spitalfields and Banglatown electoral ward. The name reflecting the areas strong links with Bangladesh. In September 2015, a demonstration against gentrification in London took the form of a protest at Cereal Killer Cafe, a hipster café on Brick Lane which serves cereal.

Community
Spitalfields has a very strong sense of local community, with the Spitalfields Community Group aiming to represent the people who both live and work, this is to build a better sense of community as well as improve the quality of life of its members and their neighbours in Spitalfields. and the Spitalfields Music who strengthen the local community through musical events. The Spitalfields Housing Association also works closely with residents by providing good quality community services. A community garden, Nomadic Community Gardens, is a social project based in an area once an area fenced off and overgrown and is popular among a diverse range of people such as locals without gardens, and is made up of found materials, street art, sculpture and allotments. Nomadic Community Gardens is a temporary project or "meanwhile use" run by a private limited company on behalf of the property developer Londonewcastle, which leases the site to the garden operator for a peppercorn rent and provided start-up funding. Londonewcastle gained planning consent for a development of "affordable housing, townhouses and apartments" on the site in November 2015. Construction on the Fleet Street Hill Project was intended to commence in 2016 but, as of June 2019, no work has begun on the site.

Culture
Dennis Severs' House in Folgate Street is a "still-life drama" created by the Severs as an "historical imagination" of what life would have been like inside for a family of Huguenot silk weavers. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings has its headquarters nearby, at 37 Spital Square, a Georgian terraced house once inhabited by Huguenots and Russian Jewish leatherworkers. In 2009, Raven Row, a non-profit contemporary art centre, opened to the public at 56 Artillery Lane. Constructed in a pair of 18th-century silk merchants' houses, onto which London practice 6a Architects added two contemporary galleries, it stands on the part of the street known until 1895 as Raven Row. Whitechapel Art Gallery is at the bottom of Brick Lane.

Amongst the many well known artists living in Spitalfields are Gilbert and George, Ricardo Cinalli, Tracey Emin and Stuart Brisley. TV presenter, architecture expert and Georgian fanatic Dan Cruickshank was an active campaigner for Spitalfields, and continues to live in the area. Writer Jeanette Winterson turned a derelict Georgian house into an organic food shop, Verde's, as part of the Slow Food movement.

Spitalfields figures in a number of works of literature, including A New Wonder, a Woman Never Vexed (performed 1610–14; printed 1632) by William Rowley, a dramatisation of the foundation of St Mary Spital; The People of the Abyss (1903), the journalistic memoir by Jack London; Hawksmoor (1985) by Peter Ackroyd; Rodinsky's Room (1999) by Iain Sinclair and Rachel Lichtenstein; Brick Lane (2003) by Monica Ali; and The Quincunx (1991) by Charles Palliser.

19th-century Spitalfields is the setting for the film From Hell, a fictional retelling of the story of Jack the Ripper.

In December 2009 an anonymous Spitalfields resident started a blog called Spitalfields Life, writing under the pseudonym "The Gentle Author",  and promising to post 10,000 daily essays. , the writer had posted over 4,000 articles about life in Spitalfields, and the surrounding areas within walking distance.

Economy
The economic makeup of Spitalfields is primarily centred around its four marketplaces. Old Spitalfields Market is the main one where traders sell antiques, food and fashion items, while Petticoat Lane Market mainly sells general clothing.

Notable people

 * William Allen (1770–1843), scientist and philanthropist
 * Inga Beale (1963–) British businesswoman, the CEO of Lloyd's of London 2013-18. Beale is Lloyd's first female CEO in the insurance market's 325-year history.
 * Dan Cruickshank (1949–), art and architectural historian
 * Nicholas Culpeper (1616–1654), botanist, herbalist, physician, and astrologer was born at the Red Lion Inn, when the area was still semi-rural.
 * Joan Dant (1631–1715), entrepreneur
 * Tracey Emin (1963–), artist, resides in Fournier Street.
 * Sandra Esqulant (1948–), landlady of The Golden Heart, is listed among the 100 most influential people in art.
 * Anna Maria Garthwaite (?1688-1763), designer of silk fabrics; blue plaque at 2 Princelet Street
 * Mark Gertler (1891–1939), painter, lesser member of the Bloomsbury Group, in love with Dora Carrington whom he met at the Slade School of Art. Born in Gun St of Polish Jewish parents.
 * Gilbert & George (1943–, 1942–), artists, reside in Fournier Street.
 * Samuel Gompers (1850–1924), founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), was born in Spitalfields in a Jewish family of cigarmakers originally from Amsterdam until emigration to New York in 1863.
 * Thomas Helwys (c. 1575), religious reformer who fled to Amsterdam in 1607/8, but returned in 1611 to found first Baptist congregation on British soil in Spitalfields. Died in prison for public advocacy of religious liberty for all, regardless of creed, even Jews, Muslims, and atheists.
 * Basil Henriques (1890–1961), for whom Henriques Street (formerly Berner Street) is named.
 * Jack the Ripper: all of his victims or presumed victims lived in Spitalfields and two (Chapman and Kelly) were murdered there (the others being murdered in nearby Whitechapel):
 * Annie Chapman (c. 1841–1888), resided at a common lodging house at 35 Dorset Street. Her body was found at 29 Hanbury Street
 * Mary Jane Kelly (c. 1863–1888), lived and was murdered at 13 Millers Court, just off Dorset Street.
 * Martha Tabram (1849–1888), resided at a common lodging house at 19 George Street.
 * Mary Ann Nichols (1845–1888), resided at a common lodging house at 18 Thrawl Street.
 * Elizabeth Stride (1843–1888), resided at a common lodging house at 32 Flower and Dean Street.
 * Catherine Eddowes (1842–1888), resided with her partner John Kelly at Cooney's common lodging house at 55 Flower and Dean Street.
 * Keira Knightley (1985– ), actress, lived for a while on Wilkes Street.
 * Joe Loss LVO OBE (1909–1990), born locally, founder of the Joe Loss Orchestra.
 * Wolf Mankowitz (1924–1998), writer, playwright and screenwriter, of Russian Jewish descent, was born in Fashion Street.
 * Keith Mansfield, writer and publisher, lives locally.
 * Samantha Morton, actor, lived on Wilkes Street.
 * John Nicolson, one time journalist and broadcaster and a former MP for the Scottish National Party (2015-2017); owns a house on Fournier Street which he has restored and renovated himself.
 * George Peabody (1795–1869), established the Peabody Donation Fund, which continues to this day, as the Peabody Trust, to provide good quality housing "for the deserving poor" in London: the fund's first block of dwellings opened in Commercial Street in 1864.
 * Sian Phillips, (1933–), actress
 * Jonathan Pryce, (1947– ), actor and singer
 * Lutfur Rahman, first directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets and former ward councillor
 * Raphael Samuel, historian, lived at 19 Elder Street from the early 1960s until his death in 1996.
 * Dennis Severs (1944–1999), lived at 18 Folgate Street 1979–1999.
 * Jack Sheppard (1702–1724), highwayman and multiple absconder, born in New Fashion Street, now known as White's Row.
 * Obadiah Shuttleworth (died 1734), musician
 * Sir Benjamin Truman (1699/1700–1780), brewer.
 * Arnold Wesker (1932–2016), playwright, author, poet, born in Mother Levy's Maternity Home, Underwood Rd. With his family took refuge during WW2 in "Mickey's Shelter" below the Fruit & Wool Exchange.
 * Jeanette Winterson (1959–), writer, lives on Brushfield Street where she also runs a delicatessen.
 * Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797), early feminist, born locally, possibly at 21 Hanbury Street.
 * Joe Wright (1972–), film director, bought a house on Wilkes Street but in 2013 sold it to actor Jonathan Pryce

Railway
Spitalfields has no connection to the London Underground. Historically it had a station on the Great Eastern Main Line called Bishopsgate (Low Level) that opened on the 4 November 1872, but closed on 22 May 1916. Shoreditch tube station, the northern terminus of the East London Line, technically lay within the boundaries of Spitalfields, but principally served Shoreditch: it closed in 2006. Liverpool Street station (mainline and underground), Aldgate East (underground) and Shoreditch High Street (London Overground) are all in close proximity to Spitalfields.

Road
The area is formed around Commercial Street (on the A1202 London Inner Ring Road).

title: Spitalfields


text:
Ibiza (city)

Ibiza (Eivissa, commonly also Vila d'Eivissa or simply Vila) is a city and municipality located on the southeast coast of the island of Ibiza in the Balearic Islands autonomous community.

Overview
The name of Ibiza in Catalan is Eivissa and its sometimes called Vila d'Eivissa or simply Vila ("Town"). It is divided into two main parts: the old town, called the Dalt Vila (literally "Upper Town"), located on a little mountain by the sea, and the modern part, called the Eixample ("Extension").

The city, which has a population of 50,643 (2021), is the capital and most populous settlement of the island and of the Pityusic Islands group, which includes Ibiza and Formentera.

Nightlife
Ibiza is widely known and visited for its exciting nightlife. Some of the island's most notable nightclubs include Pacha, Amnesia, Space, and Ushuaïa. These four nightclubs are regularly in the top three of DJ Magazine's annual top 100 global clubs' chart.

Sightseeing
Sights include the cathedral of Santa Maria d'Eivissa (14th century), located at the top of the Dalt Vila, and the Punic necropolis of Puig des Molins. Nearby is also the monument of Christ, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a 23 m statue inspired by Christ the Redeemer, which is 3.1 mi north of the city.

Climate
Ibiza has a hot semi-arid climate (Köppen: BSh), bordering on a hot-summer Mediterranean climate (Csa). The average annual temperature of Ibiza is 18.3 C, being mild and stable throughout the whole year. The climate of Ibiza is typically warm, sunny and dry, with low variation between highs and lows. The sunshine hours of Ibiza are 2700-2800 per year, while the yearly rain amount goes from 400 to 450 mm. The average high temperature is 22.2 C, while the average low is 14.3 C. Winters are slightly rainy and mild, from November to April normally the whole island turns green for the seasonal rains. Summers are hot and fairly humid, but with very little rainfall. The few rainy days are often accompanied by thunderstorms. During the coldest month, January, the average high temperature is 15.7 C, while the average low is 8.1 C. In the warmest month, August, the average high temperature is 30.3 C, while the low is 22.2 C. Freezes and extreme temperatures are rare due to the influence of the sea. Ibiza has never been above 39 C or under -3 C since temperature records began in 1952. The average temperature of the sea around Ibiza is 19.7 C.

title: Ibiza (city)


text:
Talk:Bundeswehr

MIG29 photo issue
Its the only vehicle with 2 photos and it was nt a very big nor a very iconic part of the Bundeswehr. Wouldent it be better to exchange one picture of it for another vehicle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.95.55 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

General issue
Not well known but the Bundeswehr does consist of the military part and a civil administration and procurement part. Please refer to the German page for details. In this article only the military part is mentioned.

afghan news item
please incorporate the following news item into this article. Kingturtle 02:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think the afghan news item is true anymore. German magazine Spiegel Online reports on a Bundestag decision to continue the Afghanistan mission on October, 24. I think this will include the KSK elite troops. So, please don't work that news item in, maybe the article should reflect the continuation (and territorial extension) of the Afghanistan mandate by the Bundestag. -- till we *) 18:30, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Successor of the Wehrmacht (?)
Naja Stauffenberg hat schließlich das Attentat gegen Hitler begangen und wurde dafür hingerichtet. Die NVA hat genug Wehrmacht Traditionen übernommen (Art des Marschierens, Aussehen der Uniform etc.) Die BR Deutschland ist übrigens nicht Rechtsnachfolger, sondern noch derselbe Staat. Die Bundeswehr hingegen, hat nichts mehr mit der Wehrmacht gemeinsam.

Well, to say that the KSK is a "terror-commando" implicates, that you are not aware of, for example, the rules of engagement, or what a combatant is. Do terror-commandos wear the flag of their country? Are they wearing their weapons openly? Are they shooting on civilists? Civilists? Do you know what the DSO is? I guess not, but please give me prove of your belief, then we can discuss. Or do you have experience in serving in the Bundeswehr? (t-6)

 * I do not think that after this statement there is any further need for discussion. I very well understand that you do not want to post your opinion in English since everybody could understand that it is NPOV. Calling Stauffenberg a war criminal tells enough about your biased position. You are in fact well aware of it, otherwise you would not permanently hide your identity.--KuK 11:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * According to the Federal Constitutional Court, ruling from 1973, "die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist nicht 'Rechtsnachfolger' des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat 'Deutsches Reich'". To KuK: We are not interested in rubbish talk in this article. The Bundeswehr is the successor of the Wehrmacht and the earlier Reichswehr in the sense that it is the military of Germany, and this needs to be explained to English readers who are not familiar with military history of Germany. The socialists in Germany may have a different opinion, but we should stick to historical facts and not rewrite history.

Navigation Panel
I tried to insert the Navigation Panel from the german Wikipedia.

But the lower table makes trouble. Maybe somebody who understands this, can insert it in the 5 articles. --Pixelfire 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

I wanted to add the yearly budget to this article, but I noticed it's already in the info box and just doesn't show on the article page. I tried fixing it, but didn't succeed. Maybe someone else has more luck... --142.104.118.91 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

German problems with NPOV
It is very disturbing that some German participants want to dictate our English-language Wikipedia. That the Bundeswehr as the military force of Germany is the successor of the Wehrmacht and the earlier Reichswehr is an obvious fact. Denying that the Wehrmacht and the Reichswehr were the military forces of Germany in previous times and that the current military force of Germany is the Bundeswehr is a really odd POV which does not belong in the article. Casual English readers are not always so familiar with the complicated history of Germany that they know what the military force in previous time was called, and this information is hence necessary. Some German participants here are behaving extremely arrogant and silly. I haven't yet seen an answer above and will continue to revert POV-pushing attempts.

 * The question is: What can be called a successor. It is obvious that the Bundeswehr is the military force of Germany. Also the Wehrmacht was a military force of Germany, however, there was no organisational continuity. The first Bundeswehr formations have been founded after 10 years without German military. They are not allowed to maintain the tradition of former Wehrmacht or Reichswehr formations. The official lines of traditons have been explained in the article but have been erased again and again during this edit war. These lines of tradition are based on official Bundeswehr regulations.

 * The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany as the German State is in legal continuity of the former Reich does not imply that all its institutions also are direct successors of former state institutions. Nobody will claim that the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) is the successor of the Volksgerichtshof or the police detectives are successors of the Gestapo.

 * To sum up again: Neither in terms of organisation nor in the lines of traditions the Bundeswehr is a successor of the Wehrmacht. This is a fact of German history that is important to English readers as some of them might not expect such a radical interruption in the military tradition of a nation that is widely described as militaristic in parts of the British media. That the German military during WW II had been called Wehrmacht is probably known to 99 pct of all English readers. It is of no informational value.

 * To remove any ambiguity I have changed the text now in an way that everyone can understand that the former German military was called Reichswehr and Wehrmacht. But also there is the fact that the Bundeswehr does not consider itself as their successor. That can not be disputed. Someone else might have a different opinion but that does not change the official position of the Bundeswehr.

>>Thats like the new Iraqi-Goverment would be the decendent of Saddam

 * To the anonymous author who wants to enforce his position without disclosing his identity: Your (German) claim that the Bundeswehr is following NS-traditions and naming installations by war criminals while the former East German NVA did abstain from this is not correct: As I already once tried to explain to you you can not call Stauffenberg a war criminal. And it was the NVA to consciously keep Wehrmacht-Traditions (uniforms, rank insignia, "goose-stepping"). They claimed to follow real German military traditions while the Bundeswehr was just coping the U.S. military. When you than call my understanding of history socialist it gets more than absurd.--KuK 13:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Dear unknown User. It was very confusing to read, that some bad Germans dictate your Wikipedia. I thought everybody should work at the wikipedias,... Not only Germans at the German Wiki and English at the Englisch Wiki. Have you ever noticed that there is no US Wiki, or Austrian Wiki. That would be a very racist view of the Wikipedia. In my eyes, you try to dictate your own opinion to this article. --Pixelfire 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry bout that. Just like the American leftists who have nothing better to do than messing up Bush administration related articles, some of their German equivalents engage in similar anti-state, anti-military, anti-everything activity. Whether it's PC or not to admit that the Bundeswehr is the successor to the Wehrmacht, it is pretty obvious that it is. And to the guy above who pointed out that saying so would be silly since other institutions of today's Germany (like the justice system) aren't successors to their Third Reich counterparts, you do know how many Nazi judges just went on working for the new government, don't you? :-) --84.58.44.174 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The question is: would you call the knigths of Charlesmagne precedessors to the German Bundeswehr? And is it NPOV to tell (inter alia) what an institution says about itself, or isn't it?-- till we ☼ ☽ | Talk 21:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You will certainly admit that the relationship of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr is much more obvious, seeing that one immediately followed the other, they're somewhat similar in structure and even employed the same people. But I'm fine with the current version of the article. It only baffles me why people always have to fight over PC crap like that. --84.58.50.161 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If you closely monitor this article you will find out that we already have been through this phase of the discussion. The fact that the Wehrmacht has been the German military organisation before the Bundeswehr is so obvious that it can't be questioned. The text only says that the Bundeswehr does not regard itself being the Wehrmacht's successor. This is based on a number of intended discontinuities between the two forces. Bundeswehr personnel has been educateded not to accept the Wehrmacht as such as a source of tradition due to the moral failure of this organisation in view of the Nazis' organised crime. That does not mean that individual members of the Wehrmacht cannot be part of the Bundeswehr military tradition. To make it short: it is not very reasonable to call an organisation that came into being ten years after another organisation its successor if it is strongly disconnecting itself from the previous organisation.--KuK 21:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, the vandalism on this page has reached a new quality with our old IP-vandal hiding as a sock puppet under the user names BoroughJohn and Witakone. I have marked the respective user pages accordingly.--KuK 13:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I hate to tell you but the Bundeswehr IS the successor of the Wehmacht Many Nazi germany soilders and officers made up the army. And there's even a ship named the Rommel is'nt there?

There has been a ship named "Rommel", you´re right, it is out of service for a few years now. And yes, you´re right, there were a lot of former officers and soldiers of the wehrmacht who helped to build up the Bundeswehr. But please think about one question: would you name the National People´s Army of the GDR (hope, it´s the right abbreviation, I mean the DDR/Eastern Germany) a succesing army of the wehrmacht, too? The army of a communist state? The soldiers of that army were wearing almost the same uniform like the Wehrmacht. Its soldiers had no right to refuse orders. Its soldiers were parading in goose-step. And - perhaps you will be surprised about it - a lot of former wehrmacht soldiers built up this army - for a communist system. If there ever was a German army after 1945 which succeeded in the traditions of the Wehrmacht - it was the NVA of the GDR, and not the Bundeswehr. The soldiers of the Bundeswehr got new uniforms which differed a lot from the Wehrmacht. The soldiers of the Bundeswehr are educated to be "Bürger in Uniform (Citizens in uniform)" with a lot of rights to avoid a total duty to obey even illegal orders. I hope, you can imagine the problem: of course former wehrmacht soldiers helped to build up the Bundeswehr - who else should have done? They were well trained, had a lot of experience and they were available - time was short in the 1950s. Even the communist leaders of the GDR recognized that problem, too. But the fact that former Wehrmacht officers helped to made up the Bundeswehr doesen´t mean automatically to take over the Wehrmacht´s traditions. Beside the fact that it was difficult enough for Chancellor Adenauer to make the war-tired German people accept this new army with new ideals, it mustn´t be forgot that Germany was an occupied country at that time. The western alliies would have never allowed Wehrmacht traditions and ideals to take place in the new German army. And the former Wehrmacht soldiers were very well chosen to avoid them being involved in war-crimes or being active nazis. Lots of them were former members of the military opposition against Hitler. The traditions which are looking to you as if they had been taken over from the Wehrmacht are the basic German (and not nazi!) military traditions which have been traded over hundreds of years. And of course the Wehrmacht used (and often misused) them, too. I hope, this arguments can help to make clear my point of view. I would be glad and thankful for further opinions and statements! Greetings Ogbader 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well said Ogbader! I fully agree.(Khanada 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I just stepped by and i have to say: boys what is that all about? Cant you listen to each other?!? Oh my, get straight on what you are talking about before accusing each other of POV. As far as i can see there are two opinions what can be called a successor: a) Wehrmacht was a German army, Bundeswehr is a german army no matter what differences in Germany herself or the army there are that makes one the successor of the other. b) There was a ten year gap between the two armies and the rules which apply to both of them were completly different. Bundeswehr really despites organisation, rules of engagement and phiolosophy of the Wehrmacht and therefore can hardly be called a successor. So i as far as i understand these are the two ways to see the problem. Now my two cents: In the direct translation of the word "successor" to the german "Nachfolger" there is a strong componend of continuity. Usually you would asumme that a "Nachfolger" is basically happy with the stuff that happend beefore him. Well now my question is wheather this is true in english as well. If so you simply can not call the Bundeswehr a successor. Even though they used same personal of the old military they do have a completly different philosophy. Well on the other hand the english successor might just emphasise that one was created after the other (i do not know for i am no native speaker) So just to stress this: Please agree whether you understand successor as a chronological thing or as a causal thing. 138.246.7.21 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Manpower- Availability: Why males only?
I have noticed that in the table stating the manpower availability, only males are considered. This applies to all countries except for Israel and the United States. Why is this? In Germany, women are allowed to serve in all positions men are allowed to serve, while in the U.S., women are not allowed to be combat troops. So, if anything, it should be the US table that ignores females.
 * I guess this is done because there is a draft for men only. Women _can_ serve in the Bundeswehr if they want to, men _have_to_ serve. It is not allowed to draft women even in the event of a war, so they are not counted as potential forces. As for other countries, for example the U.S., there is no draft (at least not at the moment), so the potential is calculated differently. But you are right that there should be a change in the counting method if women are not allowed in combat troops, but only as support. --Chrysalis 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer of a German: Since 2001 Females are allowed to serve in the Bundeswehr and in the combat troops too!

"In 2000, the European Court of Justice opened the previously all-male (besides medical divisions and the music corps) Bundeswehr to women."

This is wrong. the Eurpean Court just stated that women should be allowed in more branches and it is unjust to simply forbid women from serving with guns. This meant that the german constition (Grundgesetz §12a) had to be changed. But it was decided by german officialls to lift this ban for all branches including infantry, paratroopers, spec. forces, submarines, armor etc. . January 2006, five years after the ban was lifted, 12250 women serve in the Bundeswehr that is 6,5% of all professional soldiers. -Janice, 20.05

State of Defence
There has been a number of changes from "state of defence" to "war", claiming that "state of defence" is not a military term. Firstly, it is a the fact that "state of defence" is being officially used in Germany and an existing term in the Bundeswehr. Therefore, no one can deny its existence.

Secondly, it is a legal term of the German Basic Law. See Article 115a: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Official English translation, as a PDF file.--KuK 12:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * "State of defense" is an euphemism, i.e. it's POV. The neutral military term for armed hostilities between two or more countries is called a state of war. The article shall not present the German POV (which is suggesting that any country Germany is in war with is the aggressor just because the Germans say so), but describe the military in a neutral way!

 * The term "state of war" is not a question of language but of facts. The "state of defence" is defined in the German constitution as a situation where Germany is under attack or an attack is deemed imminent. Only in this case the "state of defence" can be declared and the chancellor will then become commander-in-chief of the Bundeswehr. If Germany participates in any other type of armed conflict the state of defence cannot be declared and the chancellor will not become CINC of the Bundeswehr. So, the text "the Chancellor will become commander-in-chief when Germany is in a state of war" is wrong, especially if someone defines any armed conflict as a war - a definition that can be disputed. But by this definition the Kosovo conflict had caused the chancellor to become CINC which was not the case.--KuK 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I see there is a difference, and that the Chancellor not becomes commander-in-chief when Germany is at war, only when according to the German POV another state is attacking. As for the war against Yugoslavia, Germany surely was the aggressor in 1999 as Yugoslavia did not attack Germany. User:83.109.128.241, 21:07, 22 January 2006
 * Nice joke, it looks like you see the world through different eyes than most of the world around you ... Please stop vandalizing the Bundeswehr article. --Denniss 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the whole issue: the term "state of defense" (Verteidigungsfall, article 115a) was chosen intentionnaly to point out that the Federal Republic of Germany CANNOT, under any circumstances go to war (i.e. attack any country, article 26): "Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören, insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen." My translation "Actions, that could or are taken to disturb the peaceful coexistance of the people (of the world), especially leading a war (of aggression) are unconstitutional. They [those taking the actions] will be prosecuted and punished." Please be aware of the fact that a 100% correct translation is impossible. (That is why the official translation does not exist anymore.) Concerning Yugoslavia: It was not the Bundeswehr that attacked, but a joint NATO force consisting of, among others, German troops. But this is not an issue here. Nicofs 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hopefully this will end all discussions. --Harald Meier (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Images
It might be not easy to explain this so I won't try it, but it's completly forbidden for these german soldiers to aim at humans, not important if their weapon is loaded or not. This image shouldn't be used because it's a completly untypical situation which would have serious follows for the commanding officers. --Saperaud 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is this written? On training scenarios you have to aim at humans. Its only forbidden to do this for fun. --Pixelfire 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Training scenarios which include to aim at humans (especially their comrades) are few and it's not really a written law, anyhow it's a matter of safety to forbid "9 month soldiers" (propably these are) to aim at humans in any non-critcal situation (especially training them to do so). It's not necessary for these soldiers to train scenarios like these and it's dangerous to leave such soldiers with armed weapons later on (f.e. guard services). To my knowledge that's only done with soldiers training for an abroad mission and as a follow untypical for others. --Saperaud 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i've never heard of this. You don't let W9's aim at other people at this distance with loaded Weapons, but I don't see there any problems with unloaded ones. And a well trained Corporal (OR-4) or above should know he does with his weapon. --Pixelfire 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the description of the picture stands, that the two soldiers prepare to raid a room, that is marked on the ground. The left one ist just at aiming position, because of possible enemies coming out of the room. And he looks down to watch the right one. The thumbnail is missleading, yes. Matthias Rötsch --217.225.60.81 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is strange and misleading to show a image of Hasso von Manteuffel in a wehrmacht uniform as the first picture in the article. Manteuffel may have been the one to design the word Bundeswehr, but that fact doesn´t make him so important to show such an image of him. I have removed it because of that. Greetings Ogbader 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, I have moved him farther down. Ve3 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever thought he could be aiming at the ground near the soldier to the left slightly? X360 07:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you (Saperaud) served in the Bundeswehr? I did. And Pixelfire is completly right with his statement. In training situations we shoot with blank cartridges on members of other platoons. If you look on the pic you can see that both G36's have MPG's on the muzzles (A divice for blank cartridges. With this device it's impossible to shoot real bullets. If you would try, your barrel would explode). And X360 ist right, too. The left soldier aims on the bottom. This is how I was trained when holding a rifle. The only reason the left soldier could get problems is that he wears no helmet and his trousers are not rolled inside (they are over the boots) :-). B-Man 04:37, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could not aim at humans, what would the AGDUS (MILES-equivalent) be there for? And yes that is trained with 9 month soldiers.--93.135.57.193 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One caption says that Germany joined NATO in 1955. That would be West Germany. Typisch Wessi. East Germany was in the Warsaw Pact.74.197.51.115 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehrmacht tradition
"Critics also claim that the Bundeswehr was too slow to change the names of barracks and other facilities bearing the names of prominent Wehrmacht and Reichswehr officers"

That suggests that all barracks named after Wehrmacht or Reichswehr soldiers should be renamed (since there are barracks and other institutions "still" named after Wehrmacht or Reichswehr officers). That's POV. 129.13.186.1

 * Your changes really improve the article, thanks. And it is true that the German Wikipedia has huge problems with leftwing POVs. 129.13.186.1 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

New version
I hope the new version will satisfy everyone. It now simply states that the Bundeswehr "replaced" the earlier organisations (instead of "is the successor of", and instead of the POV and nonsense claim that it "is not the successor").

Here I want to agree, because the Bundeswehr is a fully new army than the wehrmacht. From 1945 to 1955 Germany had no army. Some Wehrmacht-Generals may served in the early Bundeswehr but just because the NATO did not accept 18-year-old Generals (Cauncelor Adanauer said this). I believe every country would hold their traditions - even in the army. some traditions like the Zapfenstreich exist since the "Thirty Years' War" (1618 - 1648).

Semi-protection
This article is subject to frequent vandalism by IP-vandals, sock puppets, and some other individuals like user:Mr.Do! who is playing his games also in the German wikipedia under the Name "Eins". If this does not stop one possibility to protect it is to ask for semi-protection.--KuK 15:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes by User:Ve3 and User:KuK
As you have noticed I have changed some of your edits for various reasons. --KuK 07:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The data for the stablshment of the different services were removed as this is already part of the history section, and once is enough. Also the year for the army (1955) was incorrect, all classic three services came into being in 1956.
 * The establishment of the Joint servise Support Command is also mentioned later in the organisation chapter. So, there is no need for it in the first sentence which is to give general information and no details that only can be understood within a broader context.
 * The info about the incorporation of the East German Volksarmee is incorrect. Nobody was demoted, but a major number of personnel was employed in the Bundeswehr in a lower rank than previuosly held in the Volksarmee. That might seem to be the same but there is a big difference. The remnants of the Volksarmee did not become part of the Bundeswehr but every single man got a new contract of employment including a Bundeswehr rank. He was free to accept or to stay out. Demotions are punishments but nobody was punished. The main reason for employing people in a lower rank was their qualification. Promotions in the Volksarmee came much earlier than in the Bundeswehr and people with the same rank had very different experiences and qualifications.
 * There was no official renaming of Bundesmarine and Bundesluftwaffe. Both names have never been official. In fact, the name Bundesmarine had been used semiofficially, but was never really correct. Therefore the Navy decided not to use it any more after unification as there was no more need to distinguish from the East German Volksmarine. The name Bundesluftwaffe never has been used in the same way as Bundesmarine but only on few occasions. It basically disappeared after 1990 without any higher decision on this subject becoming known.
 * I removed the picture of Manteuffel as his role in the creation of the Bundeswehr is of lower importance. His name giving function is mentioned in the text. And he did this in his civilian function as member of the Bundestag and not as a Wehrmacht general.
 * I also removed the Bundeswehr template as it is in German only and in a totally wrong position in the centre of the article. With the already existing general template in the beginnig and the wikilinks to the services in the first sentence there is no need for this template.
 * And finally, one has to consider which information has to be placed in which chapter. Important things first, details into well structured later chapters. Thats what I am working on.

 * Some of your points I agree with some are wrong. For example, you deleted the entire history section on the 21st century which can have no justification. Other points are less serious- I agree we need a newer picture of manteuffel (for that time period). Ve3 11:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not agree with your point that the information of the 21st century section has been deleted. In fact all this information is somewhere in the article, mainly under "Organisation and Command Structure". This includes all the institutional changes that were in the 21 c. chapter. Also the info on women is available however in a much shorter form. All the Tanja Kreil story is a detail without nay further meaning nowadays. This person, by the way, never showed up to join the Bundeswehr. There would be many maore details of much higher interest that also have to be left out to keep the article short enough. Therefore I have deleted the duplications as mentioned. I recommend you read the article in toto before you start to revert again!
 * I have again deleted your uncommented revert to the wrong information about demotions of NVA people (see my comment above). --KuK 12:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue was the lawsuit that changed the law, not her later choices. Nor does that change that the 21st century section is needed- nor can it all be found elsehwere. Ve3 13:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The earlier to two sections are back now, mainly I disagree with deletion of the 21st centry section, external links, and some formating issues. Ve3 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Information about the NVA is incorrect. You are wrong Ve3. --88.73.203.102 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which information? I never disagreed with most of your information on the NVA in the first place, and the entire section you wrote on unification is the one in the article now. Ve3 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I did not interfere with your work after I had made my comments. Unfortunately you again went the normal way, first reverting everything, then work a little bit on some details. Didn't you notice that with the revert you also deleted a number of minor corrections in language and style, people had been adding? I only quote the comment another user wrote with respect to another article on your talk page:
 * First of all, your edits tend to add information that is already contained within other parts of the article, making them much longer than they have to be, without adding to them at all. When someone goes ahead and cleans it up, you simply add it back without saying why, and when questioned about it, you either claim that the information is not duplicate, or that you added it as a summary or introduction.

Unfortunately this is also true for your work here. I will now step by step delete double information and restructure this article again. I will describe it step by step during the next minutes.
 * First step: Deleting double information about the founding date of the Bundeswehr and reimproving the style in some points.
 * Providing a summary of something in a introduction, then covering it in greater detail later on is not repetition but a way of organizing a article. The introduction cannot cover all details, it must be expanded and further explained later. However, that explantion must preface the more in depth details with some of the same information or it has no context. Ve3 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Second step: Restructuring Information on the latest developments of the Bundeswehr so far part of the chapters "21st century", "Organisation", and "Mission" as this is not history but actual information.
 * Third step: First I remove a duplication "of Germany", Ve3 just has built in again! Then I will rstructure personnel information including women in the Bundeswehr.
 * Fouth step: Cleanup of pictures, links etc. Remember wiki-policy: Wikipedia is not a web directory! One link to the Bundeswehr home page is enough. The services home pages can be found under the respective articles. And some questionable pictures have to go as also templates with German language. This is the english wiki!

Having completed my work I hope you can live with the results. If not I expect that you work more deliberately than before. Stop your general reverts, do not again duplicate and do not build in all the mistakes in grammar, style and content I just have tried to remove. I am not willing to do these long explanations again, but I will revert mistakes without further notice!--KuK 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with some of it, much of it I never disagreed with in the first place. However, you again you deleted entire sections. My reversions of your wholesale deletions of sections and links were not general the first time, but I will certainly take greater care to be more deliberate as you ask. Ve3 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you miss something just add it, but I think that all information that was in there is still in the article but only once and possibly in another place than before. I appreciate that you waited until I was finished.--KuK 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

British or American English
Judge373 was so kind to help us mostly German contributers to improve the style of this article to native language. At the same time he (she?) also changed the text to American English. I don't know whether there is a general policy on this in the English wikipedia. But, as we Germans mainly were tought British English at school and as we are Europeans we normally prefare to use this version. Is ther any opinion by English speaking or German users?--KuK 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with KuK . British spelling is used by most Europeans, and the guideline says: "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect." Leibniz 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It's my pleasure to help with the page, and as a student of German, I'm sure you guys would do the same if I were to write a page in your language! I'm a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, but I think that interpreting "region/dialect" as to include a spelling usage is an overly broad interpretation. Furthermore, the Manual of Style states that "with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic". As this particular article concerns a German topic, I think that American spelling should apply. I'm sure you Germans don't want people mistaking you for Brits, do you! Oh, and btw, KuK, I'm a dude :-) Judge373 07:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think that we want to be mistaken for Americans??--KuK 10:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just making a tongue-in-cheek joke. See, like this: :-P Judge373 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I would not agree completly. I've learned british enlish in school (as all germans do). But I improved my english after school with american english (american movies, american books, american websites, etc.). And most germans use american enlish. E.g. only few germans write "colour" - they write "color". And this is american english (I hope that's right now. :-)). In my opinion american english is easier to learn - so it's better. And for my ears british english sounds terrible (I really don't want to attack any Britain). I completly prefer the american style. Especially because I'm an engineer for IT/ET - technical english is always american enlish.
 * Long lives the USA!!! (This is meant without irony!)
 * @Judge373: I would be very nice if could have a look at my articles. My english is far away from perfection. B-Man 04:51, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most Germans seem to use a mixture of British and American English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.194.151 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Armee der Einheit
In general, the unification process of the military - under the slogan "Armee der Einheit"/"Army of Unity" - is publicly seen as a major success and an example for other parts of the society.

I've neither heard of "Armee der Einheit" before, nor being a "major success and example for other parts of the society". Are there any sources for this?--84.56.237.68 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Innere Fuehrung and Military Courts
i miss info on the "inner leadership doctrine" of the german army. it should be added to the own tradtions developed by / for the new army which make it very different from the reichswehr as well as from other armies in the world. if there is no "expert" who can do this i will try to translate the concerning section from de.wikipedia.

another interesting difference, i find, is that the german army has no military courts comparable to other armies, at least not in peace time, which also sets it apart from its predecessors. Sundar1 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The "inner leadership doctrine" means that a soldier has to refuse an order from a higher rankng soldier, if the order would penetrate violate laws (especially the constitution and human rights). If an order only penetrates violates administrative guidance the lower ranking soldier has to perform the order, but he has the possibility to file a complaint to higher commands and the soldier who gave this order will be punished. In the first case you have to file a complaint (there is no choice). In the second case you have the choice.
 * This doctrine intends to prevent soldiers from operating like "robots". The Bundeswehr wants to have soldiers who think about orders, not executing them without any doubt. B-Man 5:13, 07 April 2007 (UTC) (corrected your grammar for better understanding - Marcika (talk))

Bundeswehr Training
Why does it not say anything about the training of the bundeswehr? the training has alot to do with the effectivness of a fighting unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.236.189 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other Hand, what is there much to say about it? Although I have no first-hand experiences, the Information I got from people who served suggested that there isn't much special. I guess that the content of the military training of most armies today is rather similar. A paragraph explaining the organisation of AGA (basic elementary training), SGA (specialised elementary training) and so on should suffice. But this might even be better suited in Recruit training

84.133.68.51 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view the military training clearly differs from other nation's military training. Look at the officer training of the Bundeswehr for instance. Every officer has to absolve non-military studies and normally achieves a Master's degree. The whole officer formation until the officer is in his officer position in his unit lasts about 6 1/2 years (later courses like company commander course, further language courses and so forth not included). I also have made the experiences, that the German NCOs are way better educated and trained than the those from other countries (all Feldwebel normally have at least the Mittlere Reife and mostly get an industrial professional training). Furthermore the preparation courses for operations abroad are really excellent. The Bundeswehr invests a lot of money in that as they see their missions more as stabilization and reconstrucation than combat. And so every soldier who comes in contact with the population needs a high level of knowledge about the country, its population's beliefs and habits and so on.. Basic training of course is not very different from what you know from other countries. And normal conscripts (as they serve only 9 months) not get much more in addition to basic training...perhaps the specialised training of their branch and some weeks of driving school if they're lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syslord2k (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * A reason may also be that training contents are VS-NfD, that is, "restricted - for use on duty only", that means it is not allowed to anyone who has been trained himself to explain any training content, if he is not 100% sure that his explanation does 100% not interfere with German security. (99,9 % are not enough!) --84.154.81.219 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit
the military age is 17. I edited it. R. Grasemann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.244.211 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation
User:Denniss recently reverted my removal of the translation given in the intro. Here is evidence from the two most prominent en/de dictionaries for my claim that the translation given is wrong:
 * LEO
 * Beolingus

Please provide evidence that the translation given (Federal Defense Force) correct. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Well, the same LEO dictionary contains the translation Federal Armed Forces if you would search for "Bundeswehr" instead of the truncated "wehr". Please see. Additionally, as a native speaker of German (as I suppose you are as well, based on your IP address) I would agree to this translation. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Which one, the one given by Leo or the one reverted by Denniss?
 * I think we have different expectations from Wikipedia. For me, Wikipedia is not a regular dictionary, so any translations given should be different than what a dictionary would offer. Now, Bundeswehr = Federal Armed Forces ist just wrong as a translation, else you would have to apply it to the Brazilian Military (the only other federal republic I can think of). Bundeswehr = German Federal Armed Forces is not wrong, but neither is it a translation; it's just an explanation. Consider this sentence: The Bundeswehr (German: German Federal Armed Forces) are the Federal Armed Forces of Germany. Do you like it?
 * Anyway, thanks for giving reasons to reconsider! --87.189.110.108 (talk)
 * New IP, new explanation. I don't think that Wikipedia should offer straight translation. Whether or not "Federal Defence Force" would be a good translation, the article is about to explain that the Bundeswehr is the Federal Defense Force of Germany, so what's the point? Translations are only useful if they are literal, since this is something a common dictionary should be wary to do.
 * I couldn't find "federal defense force" on either bundeswehr.de nor bmvg.de.
 * I requested an Auskunft from bundeswehr.de. Let's see what they have to say. --87.189.90.31 (talk)
 * From a language point of view federal defence force is a very close translation of Bundeswehr. As agreed by everyone Bundes- equals federal. -wehr is derived from the German verb wehren or sich wehren, to defend or defend yourself. There are other word connections with -wehr such as Feuerwehr (firebrigade), Brustwehr (a wall as part of fortifications with the hight of the human breast (Brust) to cover a defender), or Landwehr (a former light homeland defence force and also light town fortifications outside the wall and ditch systems, to be manned by Landwehr soldiers). So, -wehr is always a defence installation of different kind.--KuK (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer from Bundeswehr.com: Die Bundeswehr hat keine offiziellen Namen (Übersetzungen) in anderen Sprachen, sondern trägt die weltweit anerkannte und bekannte Bezeichnung BUNDESWEHR. Sie können bei Bedarf (zur Erläuterung) den Begriff Bundeswehr wie folgt übersetzen: (German) Federal Armed Forces.

So, do we need the translation zur Erläuterung, or is the rest of the article enough to erläuter the Begriff? --87.189.88.78 (talk)

Along the lines of translation, the deustch version of this page, has for instance an organizational chart which would help the English version of this page. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Age
FAQ [www.bundeswehr.de] : Alter - Bundeswehr ''Ab welchem Alter kann ich zur Bundeswehr gehen? Sie müssen mindestens 17 Jahre alt sein. Bewerben können Sie sich jedoch bereits im Alter von 16 Jahren.''

Q: What is the age I'm able to go to the bundeswehr?

Answer: You need to be 17 years of age. But you can send an application at the age of 16.

213.191.70.179 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Equipment
There should be a section about the equipment. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.198.84 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.184 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

added links to the branches sites on which is a full list of equipment--L8mare (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Title
Why does this article have the foreign language word "Bundeswehr" as it's title while virtually every other article about a nation's armed forces has a title after the pattern of "Military of Xxx" or "Xxx Armed Forces"? The French armed forces for example are found under Military of France and not under "Armées françaises", the Malaysian armed forces are found under Military of Malaysia rather than "Angkatan Tentera Malaysia" and the Spanish armed forces are found under, well, Spanish Armed Forces and not "Fuerzas Armadas Españolas". What's the reason for this exception? --DavidDCM (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Because "Bundeswehr" is the international standard denominator. As someone already quoted in the above topic 'Translation', Bundeswehr.com writes:

"Die Bundeswehr hat keine offiziellen Namen (Übersetzungen) in anderen Sprachen, sondern trägt die weltweit anerkannte und bekannte Bezeichnung BUNDESWEHR. Sie können bei Bedarf (zur Erläuterung) den Begriff 'Bundeswehr' wie folgt übersetzen: (German) Federal Armed Forces." Translation: "The Bundeswehr has no official name (translation) in other languages, but is referred to by the internationally accepted and familiar designation BUNDESWEHR. If required (as explanation) you can translate the word 'Bundeswehr' as follows: (German) Federal Armed Forces."

As far as I know, there are very few similar designations for other national forces (France's nuclear Force de Frappe is an example). Furtheremore, it is customary in international military jargon (for example NATO's) to use the term 'Bundeswehr'. Accordingly, this wikipedia-article can be labelled 'Bundeswehr', as an explanatory 'translation' of the term is given in the first sentence so that nobody gets confused... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.74.253 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapons
Could sb change the G22 as a group of countrys into the gun "G22" which is a Arctic Warfare (I think so).--84.161.98.151 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Federal Defence Forces of Germany
Shall this be the translation of "Bundeswehr"? Very strange.--WerWil (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bundes-" means Federal, "wehren" (Verb) means to defend. "Of Germany" is added for explanation. And Force is used in English. --84.154.81.247 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess ther is no better Translation, but "...wehr..." is used in various ways where the Translation as defence would be wrong. It can also mean "Weapon" or "capabilitiy to fight".--WerWil (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to split the word in two parts and to translate them individually. In most cases this goes wrong. The translation may not be perfect but in the end both wordings are essentially the same. --Denniss (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though I can not truly judge the konnotaion of "Defence Force" in english, I can say as a nativ speaking German, that in this Case the meaning of "Wehr" is not primarily "defend". IMHO "Armed forces" would be more correct.--WerWil (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. “sich wehren” is to defend oneself, particularly in a “Notwehr”-situation. The “Feuerwehr” doesn't exactly use fires offensively either—they defend other people's property against them. Just as the Bundeswehr was conceived as a federal armed force for defensive purposes. Quite frankly, being a native speaker myself, I have absolutely no idea what other translation you may have had in mind. Cheers, —mnh·∇· 23:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I can not speak for the whole meaning of english words, but as far as I can see "Wehr" is used in different ways than "Defend". For example "Gewehr", "Wehrpflicht" or "wehrhaft" are not only or primaryly used in relation to defense. "Wehr" is also a word for Weapon (f.e. in Poetry "In Wehr und Rüstung) or capability to fight. It might be a difference of taste or social kontext, but in my opinion most people in Germany don't use "Bundeswehr" in the Meaning of "Defence" Force but as "Armed" Forces.--WerWil (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts
The article says: "There was a discussion between the United States, the United Kingdom and France over the issue of a revived German military. In particular, France was reluctant to allow Germany to rearm in light of recent history (Germany had invaded France three times in the previous 80 years)." I know that this shall express the POV from the french but it is historical not correct. Germany invaded France 2 times in the previous 80 years.. in the first and second world war. You can't blame germany for the invasion of france in 1871 since france had declared war on germany, not germany war on france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.115.173 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless France was invaded, regardless of who was to blame. Also I think the causes of the Franco-Prussian War were more complicated than who declared war on who first. It should be remembered that Bismarck manipulated the Ems Dispatch in a way that he knew would not preserve peace.--Britannicus (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Absence of conscription
It's necessary to write in the article that conscription is already de facto cancelled in Germany. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is wrong. Still young men are being drafted, even if it is easily possible to escape conscription. There are a number of people who want to serve for a short period for different reasons, e.g. to bridge the time prior to further education, or for feeling the obligation to serve the country once in a lifetime. Since the number of conscript posts in the Bundeswehr is not very high there are still sufficient people to fill them.--KuK (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision of the Cold War History Part
I've edited a section in the Cold War History part of this article, referring to the Franco-German enmity. In the previous version it was stated, that Germany (or it's predecessors) have invaded France three times in the last 80 years, what is wrong in some extend. The invasion in WWI and II is not part of the discussion but the implied invasion in the Franco-German war of 1870/71 is not an invasion per se. France declared war on Prussia in 1870, what caused the other German states to respect their Defence Alliance with Prussia and to join them. This war resulted in a total defeat of the French Army, the collapse of the Second French Empire of Napoleon III, and the unification of the German states in the (second) German Empire under the lead of emperor Wilhelm I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.54.153 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

no orbat?
could someone add the known orbat for the Bundeswehr? Akinkhoo (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation-2
Wehr in German does not necessarily mean defense force, it means military or armed force. The German for defense force would be Verteidigungskräfte or something similar — verteidigen being "to defend." The last three incarnations of the German military forces have included wehr in their names: Reichswehr (Weimar Republic), Wehrmacht (Third Reich) and Bundeswehr (West Germany; reunited Germany). The second one was decidedly offensive in character. Accordingly, I have changed the translation to "Federal Armed Force."

Sca (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to contradict, bur Wehr does mean defence. Sich wehren means to defend oneself. The fact that the Nazis misused the term for an offensive force does not mean that Wehr has an offensive implication in German. Therefore, I will revert this change. --KuK (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I defer to the native German speaker ... und hab was neues gelernt. Sca (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bundeswehr in film
Have their been any feature films about the Bundeswehr (besides Kein Bund fürs Leben) or has the Bundeswehr provided any soldiers for producers? I have read Germany refused the use of Bundeswehr troops for The Longest Day and the Transformers film, is their a prohibition on their use in feature films?Foofbun (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there is no official prohibition but the german population is very sensitive about depictions of the Bundeswehr that might be interpreted as a glorification of war. I remember public discussions about a short video of german troops fighting underlined with rock music. 77.116.247.27 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By underlined I of course mean that it was playing in the background. Is underlined a proper word to say that? 77.116.247.27 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation

I've been out of the british Army for a while, I admit, but from this article in UK Wikipedia I learn it has apparently adopted the American army's ranks. I wonder if it knows? Just to be on the safe side, even if it has, could Wikipedia give us British rank equivalents? I'm blowed if I'm going to adjust myself to working out exactly what flavour of warrant officer might be the equivalent or not of a Master Sergeant.Delahays (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, what this article tries to do is provide translations for the German ranks. So, the UK has a lance-corporal and the USA have a Private 1st class, which are equivalent. However, "lance-corporal" sounds higher than does "private 1st class", so we use "private 1st class" as a convenient translation of Obergefreiter and "lance-corporal" as a convenient translation of Hauptgefreiter.
 * Likewise, where NCOs are concerned, we have, in German, the ascending row
 * OR-5: Unteroffizier, Stabsunteroffizier
 * OR-6: Feldwebel, Oberfeldwebel
 * OR-7: Hauptfeldwebel,
 * OR-8: Stabsfeldwebel,
 * OR-9: Oberstabsfeldwebel.
 * Now we find that the English degree Sergeant is used, by the Americans, for the OR-5 and by the British for OR-6. Logical conclusion: We use it for the upper half of OR-5 - noting that the rank of Stabsunteroffizier used to actually be called Sergeant long ago, and that the importance of the Feldwebel ranks is a peculiarly German thing which is not unaptly appropriated by calling them higher' ranks.
 * Hence, Sergeant is the word used for Stabsunteroffizier. A word like junior sergeant, even though unusual in English, might then serve as an apt translation for Unteroffizier (meaning the rank). Or the currently used "Lance-Sergeant", though the actual meaning equivalent of a lance-sergeant is more a sort of Oberstabsgefreiter. The mentioned great importance of German Feldwebels will again justify that, when the British call their OR-7 soldiers and the Americans their OR-6 soldiers "Staff Sergeant", to use that word for the German OR-6 soldiers, even the lower half. Hence, "Staff Sergeant" is the translation for Feldwebel. The problem with using British ranks now is that all the further ranks are called "warrant officer", which is a concept rather different from that in German use (though it might aptly be used to describe the ranks Fähnrich, Oberfähnrich, Stabsfähnrich, Oberstabsfähnrich of the erstwhile GDR's People's Army). Hence, if we don't want to say "warrant officer", and we don't, then all left to us is again lean on the American system for a translation.
 * It is rather difficult to find a translation for Oberfeldwebel. One could invent one, say, Senior Staff Sergeant, on the understanding that it is a lower rank than "Sergeant First Class". Or one could practice a little "getting ideas above one's station" and take the American "Sergeant First Class", which the Americans take to mean OR-7, to use for the upper half of OR-6, on the understanding that "the rank above Staff Sergeant is called Sergeant First Class". The present translation as "Technical/Flight Sergeant", while very apt Air-Force-wise, is extraordinarily wrong, as this rank does not have to do anything necessarily with flying or technics.
 * The Hauptfeldwebel is the equivalent of a British Staff Sergeant (we have used up that name already) or a US Sergeant 1st Class (which depending on our choice for Oberfeldwebel we also have used up). So, we translate it as "Sergeant 1st class" or, if we already used that, as "master sergeant" (consoling us with the fact that at least in the US Air Force, master sergeant is an OR-7 rank).
 * The Stabsfeldwebel is the equivalent of a British "Warrant Officer of the second class" (though he is not a warrant officer) or a US "master sergeant" or resp. USAF "senior master sergeant". We translate that name hence either as "master sergeant" or, if we have used up the name already, as senior master sergeant.
 * The Oberstabsfeldwebel, the equivalent of a British "Warrant Officer of the first class" is not called a warrant officer which he is not; hence, a sergeant major.
 * The name First Sergeant is not used for the ranks, as it means a specific thing the closes equivalent of which is the (really rather important) Kompaniefeldwebel which is in many, probably the majority of cases an OR-7, not OR-8 appointment.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:91A1:633F:1952:4EBA (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bundeswehr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151231193129/http://www.janes.com/article/54292/germany-italy-may-increase-submarine-fleets to http://www.janes.com/article/54292/germany-italy-may-increase-submarine-fleets
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322031908/http://www.janes.com/article/54636/dutch-mechanized-brigade-to-be-integrated-into-german-panzer-division to http://www.janes.com/article/54636/dutch-mechanized-brigade-to-be-integrated-into-german-panzer-division
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127005113/http://www.terrwv.bundeswehr.de/ to http://www.terrwv.bundeswehr.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bundeswehr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130106080254/http://www.readersipo.de/ to http://www.readersipo.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Why italics in the intro?
Why is "Bundeswehr" written in italics in the intro? No other article (aside from Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) does this. See Spetsnaz. Italics are used to denote a foreign word, but the Bundeswehr is not exactly such (it "is", but there is no purely English variation like there is for the Vergeltungswaffe).--Adûnâi (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Today?
On the page at the present time, there's a sentence that goes "Today, after a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1994 the term "defence" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany, but also crisis reaction and conflict prevention, or more broadly as guarding the security of Germany anywhere in the world."

Why is the word "Today" being used in such a way? The sentence isn't in quotation marks. 73.121.68.13 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Radical right
The Bundeswehr had and probably still has problems with radical-right soldiers. Nothing here. There are hundreds of sources.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Coordination with European Partners
The section is obsolete, the government has changed, the Russian war has changed the context. German political leadership in NATO and EU is weak. The Bundeswehr declares to have limited arms. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Equipment - circular reference
Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Reserve
I'm tired of it because I've changed it two times for now, but every time someone changes it again. The official website of the Bundeswehr states a reserve of 930,000 men. But it seems that Wikipedia knows how many reservists it has better than the Bundeswehr itself. https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ueber-die-bundeswehr/die-reserve-der-bundeswehr/auftrag-der-reserve-der-bundeswehr Danys (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bundeswehr