Talk:Siege of Dunkirk (1944–1945)

Confirmation needed

Info from a forum [1]: "Here some general info on the Festung Dünkirchen

Heer 279 Officiere 1603 U.O. 6190 Mann mostly from the 49th- and 226th Division and the H.K.A.A. 1244 Marine 42 Officiere 346 U.O. 1355 Mann mostly from the M.A.A 204 , 2 Raumboot Flotille , 35 Minensuch Flotille Luftwaffe 18 Officiere 144 U.O. 519 Mann mostly from the Schwere Flak Abteilung 252 , Leichte Flak Abt. 415 and 765

128 Rohre ab 7,5 cm Seefront Marine 8 Heer 8 Landfront Marine 27 Heer 89 105 Granatwerfer 22 K.W.K. 52 Pak 96 Flak

l.MG 476 s.MG 259 M.P. 225 Panzerfaust 1975 Ofenrohr (Bazoeka) 205"

Needs to be confirmed, with sources. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1st Czech Brigade

The vertical spacing, (or lack of it) of this list, gives the impression that the 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade (from 9 October until surrender on 9 May 1945):

1st Czechoslovak Tank Battalion

2nd Czechoslovak Tank Battalion

1st Czechoslovak Motorised Infantry Battalion (two companies)

Field Artillery Regiment (two battalions)

Anti-tank battalion

Armoured Reconnaissance Squadron

Field Engineers Company

7th Royal Tank Regiment

2nd Canadian Heavy Anti-aircraft Regiment

109th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery

125th Light Anti-aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery

Two Free French infantry battalions (formed from the FFI)

was about the largest formation in the Allied forces (including some Divisions) !

Is this list correct?

RASAM (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 1st Czechoslovak Armd Bde formed a brigade group, with British, Canadian and French units attached, under Maj.Gen Liska's command. It's in the source, but I've clarified it in the text. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Siege of Dunkirk (1944–45). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160122215657/http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/95/a8553495.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/95/a8553495.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Siege of Dunkirk (1944–45). 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/20110714154719/http://www.nasenoviny.com/DunkirkEN1944_45.html to http://www.nasenoviny.com/DunkirkEN1944_45.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714154719/http://www.nasenoviny.com/DunkirkEN1944_45.html to http://www.nasenoviny.com/DunkirkEN1944_45.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Dunkirk (1944–45). 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/20071202110544/http://www.army.cz/avis/areport2005/ar11str.pdf to http://www.army.cz/avis/areport2005/ar11str.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation needed

Why would the results of this be indecisive? It is a siege. Dunkirk was declared a fort. The Garrison not only successfully defended the fort against Canadians and the Cheks, and withstood the siege, but they came out of the fort, attacked the Allies, and pushed them back 10 kilometres!, They didn't surrender till after the war was over! Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC) So if the basic aim of a fort was to withstand a seige, they did that, and more. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC) moved to eop; by Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Result Comment

@ShanganiPatrol: Template:Infobox military conflict

Result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

my bolding. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My opposition to this mainly stems from the fact that the siege was not indecisive, that it ended with German surrender and defeat, because the conflict continued up until the surrender and only ended with the surrender, and thus the immediate aftermath was a German defeat. Maybe a "see the aftermath" section would be more appropriate? I don't know if there are more sources available to describe the aftermath though, and there really isn't an aftermath section. Regards ShanganiPatrol (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@ShanganiPatrol: "The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." Your view is WP:OR Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: The immediate aftermath is a German surrender and defeat. You should not cast aspersions, or flamebait others. Regards ShanganiPatrol (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@ShanganiPatrol: OR and failure to WP:AGF, note that aftermaths are immediate, the phrase immediate aftermath is pleonasm. I don't know what flamebait (sic) is. Regards Keith-264 (talk)

@Keith-264: But this isn't OR, I am summing up the article. I could accuse you of the same failure to assume good faith, especially because you were the first to declare my work as OR. Same for "pleonasm". Regards ShanganiPatrol (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@ShanganiPatrol: Do you have any RS that call the result Allied victory? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I concede that I do not have an RS, but there is no RS (that I know of!) on it being indecisive either. Another problem I have is that the infobox does not reflect the article details, and nowhere does it explicitly say the result was indecisive, so I am worried people could be confused by the differences between the two if they only check the infobox. If you could point me to a quote from a source from the article, though, I would be willing to concede my point. Regards ShanganiPatrol (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@ShanganiPatrol: Thanks for being frank, without RS your opinion is an opinion. There's no point in worrying about hypothetical people, they don't exist, better to rely on other people venturing their opinions, like you have but Wiki isn't a free for all, the Wiki policy is set and the criterion for altering something is a better description of the RS, not an opinion. I will have a look at the sources cited and see what they say. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Thank you for taking a look at the sources. One clarification, when I talk about people, I mean outside (non-registered) viewers who may be interested in this article without much Wiki experience or knowledge of our guidelines. Thank you for reminding me about needing sources to back up opinions though. Regards ShanganiPatrol (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)