Talk:Western Front (World War I)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Eastern v Western Front / world perspective

I have noted, and I am no historian, that in these English language pages, the Western Front in WWI and WWII is seen as the France/German Front, while the Rusky/German Front is seen as the Eastern Front.

But from the 'Allies' point of view the France/German Front is the Eastern Front, the Rusky/German Front is seen as their (the Russian) Western Front.

Could it simply be the very famous German perspective film, 'All Quite on the Western Front', or is it more subtle. Did WWI British/French military/soldiers even use the expression, Eastern / Western Front?

In Europe, there were four main fronts: The Balkans Front, the Italian Front and two others, one of which was east of the other. W.S.Churchill's book, The World Crisis 1911-1918, finished in 1938 though written from his own memory and from records of the 1911-18 period, refers to 'The Eastern Front (page 467). His usual phrase when referring to the Western Front is 'The West', e.g. Volume I, Part II, chapter I. (RJP 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

I see your point, but I am betting that it is the Westernfront, because on a map/globe France is to the West and Russia to the East. say1988 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introductory sentence may need some work in order to make it sound like an introduction to an encyclopedic entry:

"The Western Front line for most of World War I extended relatively statically from the English Channel to the Swiss frontier, most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and a few important industrial regions of France remained under German control."

Firstly, perhaps it should be explained that the Western Front was a line of battle (or battle line), and not a clothesline extending from Switzerland to the North Sea. Secondly, the words "relatively statically" are a) too hazy and ambiguous for an introductory sentence (the introduction is about hard facts), and b) somewhat subjective, considering that the Western Front was quite fluid until the German Army advance was halted. Furthermore, the phrase "and a few important industrial regions of France remained under German control" is not grammatically correct. The introductory sentance should be split into several sentances e.g.: "The Western Front was a line of battle that extended from the English Channel to the Swiss frontier for most of World War I. It crossed through most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some north-western regions of France."

Considering that Germany, its opposing allies, or the strategic importance of the French North west are not mentioned in the first sentance, it would seem clumsy to mention them at that point. Roger2dc 13:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The first point is valid. It is easy to forget that the terminology is new to some people. The comma after frontier should be a full-stop. However, the Western Front did not extend from the English Channel but from the North Sea. It did not pass through most of Belgium but through the western extremity. It passed through neither Luxemburg nor north-western France.

It is difficult to refine an introduction like this so as to be both unambiguous and brief but on the whole, I think it is not far from right as it is.

How about:

During nearly all the First World War, the lines of the opposing armies on the Western Front extended essentially unchanged, from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier with France. Most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some important industrial regions of France remained under German control.

In response to the massively heavy casualties and virtually static front lines, the western front saw the introduction of new military technology, including poison gas and tank warfare. Although few territorial gains were made outside the first and last few months of the war, this front would prove decisive. The inexorable advance of the Allied armies in 1918 persuaded the German commanders that defeat was inevitable and their government was forced to sue for an armistice.(RJP 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

The version above is a definite improvement over its predecessor. I would consider putting the part about "extended essentially unchanged" into the second introductory sentence in order to leave the first as simple and "introductory as possible". There is more than enough space to comment on the static nature later on. Something like this:

For most of the First World War, the battle lines of the Western Front extended from the North Sea to the Franco-Swiss border.

Perhaps Franco-Swiss is not the ideal way of putting it, but the first sentence must assume that the reader knows very little about World War One (even if (s)he does); it should be aimed at the lowest common denominator. As for the second sentence, there one should comment on the static nature of the front and where it ran through (e.g. Belgium and Luxembourg). For the second paragraph, perhaps the historical significance should be addressed (much like it has been already): Why was it considered more important than the Eastern Front? What about casualties? What about geography? What about its significance on the outcome of the war?

I am not sure about the current second sentence, and its place within the introduction. "Most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some important industrial regions of France remained under German control." This is perfectly valid, however it comments on German territorial gains without a) Relating them to the context of the western front and b) even introducing the contestants Germany, France and Britain. I think that the latter should be done first (while simultaneously commenting on static lines and geography):

(Second Sentance) "This front comprised the static trench lines of Germany, France and Britain, end extended through most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some important industrial regions of north-east France". Roger2dc 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the front did not extend through most of Belgium nor any of Luxembourg. Germany took the (Grand Duchy of) Luxembourg over before the war had really begun.

By not specifying British and French involvement, we avoid the diplomatic problem of needing to list all those involved: Belgium & Portugal for example as well as those who were there under the headings of British or French empire.

Someone had written the introduction in such a way as to save the question of what constituted the industrial areas of France for discussion later. The 1871 and 1919 borders left the industrial area of Lorraine for example, in respectively different countries.

As to what was an important front; opinions will vary. The Italian front was important to cohesion of the relatively new country. The Balkan front rumbled on in fits and starts and was important in forming Russia's attitudes. If you lived in Warsaw or Pinsk, you would probably have thought the Western Front less important than the fear around you.

The Western Front has more written about it in English because it was nearer home for English-speaking people. But also, by the time the war ended, the Austrian resistance in Serbia was collapsing, the Eastern Front was not a factor and effectively, all land warfare was in the West. The Western Front was where the final decision was to be made. When writing History, the outcome has a strong influence on what is seen as important. (RJP 12:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

If Belgium and Luxembourg were all part of the German conquest, then it should not be mentioned at all in the second introductory sentence. Considering that this is a long and content-rich article, there should be several introductory paragraphs (in order to do the subject justice). Belgium and Luxembourg should be included later on. Perhaps instead of Belgium and Luxembourg, there should be a mention of key battles or cities (Verdun, the Somme, Ypres), or some of the key events during the long battle. German territorial gains are by comparison not quite as important.

I don't really see a diplomatic problem with stating who the main contestants of the Western Front are. One should name those that were actively involved in the battles on the western front; a mention of the allies and entente members should follow later on in the introduction. It is important to name those combatants because it is one of the fundamental concepts in the article.

I am aware that a broad range of cultural views exist, and that we serve to present a neutral point of view. However, facts such as casualty numbers, technology employed, or number of men and material present speak for themselves. As stated above "The Western Front was where the final decision was to be made". This should be addressed in the introduction. (Roger2dc 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

I performed a re-write of the header section, attempting to incorporate these suggestions and expanding the content. Hopefully this is now somewhat more satisfactory. Thank you. — RJH 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask for someone authoritative to fix this sentence in the main text: "The German planes were swept from the skies, achieving air superiority." Clearly, the German planes did not achieve air superiority by being swept from the skies, yet that is what the sentence is telling me. - anonymous

See how it looks now. (RJP 10:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Commonwealth

All references to the commonwealth should be removed, as the British commonwealth was from in 1926 (WWI was a cause for a push by the dominions for more independance). Proper terms are British Empire when refering to the entirety (which the commonwealth was) or Dominions and/or colonies when reffering to just the overseas parts of the Empire. Just as a note, in the info-box British Commonwealth even links to British Empire. I have removed all references to British Commonwealth, but some of the terms I have used may need to be changed. say1988 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad layout

Entire parts of this page need to be changed, such as the Heading "Commonwealth offensives". Notwithstanding the fact that commonwealth is the wrong term, that section has a paragraph about a Messine ridge, then a paragraph about gas shells, followed by a paragraph about Americans, and ended with a paragraph about Passchendael. now under that heading only the first and last paragraphs fit. elsewhere in the article are other problems like this.say1988 03:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed?

France suffered heavy damage in the war. In addition to loss of life, the industrial north-west of the country had been devastated by the war. (Once it was clear that Germany was going to lose, Ludendorff had ordered the destruction of the mines in France and Belgium...

I searched the depth of the internet and have found no details regarding this. I myself am not a fan of a single account - of "American Heritage" opinion - dating to 1964...--Hohns3 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

German casualties

Not even an estimate in the infobox? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Several good estimates can be found, such as in Laurence Stallings's book The Doughboys; many sources actually have lower casualty estimates for the Germans than for the Allies, contrary to statements made in the article. Some discussion of competing estimates is probably needed before a changes is made to the infobox.

I had a look a while back, but I couldn't find a good source specifically for this front (as opposed to the entire war.) But then I don't have access to a good university library any more. If you could put in a sourced value, it would be a good comparison. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tranlation issue

I don't know if this is really an tranlations errror, but it says in this article: "The operation was codenamed Gericht, German for "place of execution"." In general, "Gericht" is used in German to describe a (jurisdical) court, e.g. jurisdiction. I have to admit, that in the context of what Falkenhayn intendet, it isn't unsuitable, that it was meant similar to "execution". But it is wrong in my opinion, to say that Gericht is German for "place of execution", it is very misleading. Perhaps the sentence should be extendet to something like: ...codenamed Gericht, German for jurisdiction, but in this very contex should be interpretet as "place of execution". As english is not my first language and I am lacking practice in using it, someone else should do the rewrite. HellRaiser I rewrote it. Could not stand this mistake.--Kajaktiger (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker and study German as a second language; I agree that "place of execution" is a woeful mistranslation. It seems to me that "judgement" might be a more accurate translation of the idea here. Fourmajorman 20:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

I thought it was standard practice to lock articles from editing while they were displayed on the front page of the main site. Why wasn't that done with this one?Michael Dorosh 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, admins are specifically enjoined from protecting the featured article of the day. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and the amalgamated policy summary written by the featured article director. - BT 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

edit: air warfare

Changed the line:

"...German engineer Anthony Fokker, who soon developed a significant improvement - a timing system in which the propeller would be temporarily stopped when the machine gun was firing"

to:

"German engineer Anthony Fokker, who soon developed a significant improvement – an interrupter gear, which allowed the machine gun to fire in between the blades by preventing the gun from firing at certain times."

Just nitpicking really, but the system that Fokker introduced worked by stopping the machine gun from firing, not the propellor from spinning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.52.124 (talk • contribs)

Good catch! Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Made a small change, adding that the E.1 was the first true fighter. I wonder if it's appropriate to include something about Trenchard's tactics of offensive, here; he demanded constant offensive patrols over German lines, which increased losses since the tactical advantage went to the Imperial German Air Service (what's that in German, someone...?), which could use railways to move squadrons in & achieve local superiority, plus which wind blew in favor of the Germans.... I'd add this, but I'm not sure so much detail is apt in a more general article; if this was "Airwar WW1", I'd say, "Put it in." Comment? Trekphiler 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S. My source here is a bio of Trenchard, Johnny Johnson's book, a book on WW1 aircraft production I've read twice but can't find the author & title of just now, & a handful of WW1 documentaries I've seen...)

I suggest that it is best to think broadly of this article as being the place for stating that things happened and to use a specialist article to explain how they happened. On the one hand, the fighter plane was developed; on the other, so and so did this and this, which was the process by which the fighter plane was developed. (RJP 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

British Empire

I see below that there were previous mentions of the commonwealth countries that were inappropriately labelled.

I find it difficult to see what they were. According to the article as it stands the only peoples that fought on the Western front were German, French, British, American, and Canadian. There is a single mention of the ANZACs but without any explanation of who/what they were.

Surely at this point of the British Empire peoples from all over the world would have been fighting in the war. Consistent referrals to these peoples as British is I think more misleading than future Commonwealth.

I am not a historian and can provide no information but the article would be improved by information on who made up the British Empire forces.

Cheers SAW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.139.222 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I know for certain that Indian, Canadian and ANZAC units played roles on the western front. (E.g. ANZAC ==> Battle of the Somme (1916), Canada => Battle of Vimy Ridge; India => Battle of Neuve Chapelle.) The national participants are listed on the specific battles, as well as in the global template at the bottom of the page. They could probably be mentioned briefly on this page as well, but I think this should be primarily a high-level overview of this front. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Social and political attitudes have moved on ninety years, so it is now difficult to appreciate differences in attitude between ours and those of the recorders of events at the time. Most of the recording done at the time was by Europeans for Europeans. The Moroccans, Algerians and so on, were generally listed under French forces while the Indians (as defined at the time), West Indians, East Africans and Chinese, for example, were British. Some were mainly labourers some were fine soldiers but since they were largely non-Europeans, they did not get much publicity. Nonetheless, go to french military cemeteries and you will find plenty of non-Christian symbols, which in those days, Jews excepted, meant casualties among overseas imperial troops. Even at the time, the qualities of the Ghurkhas and Sikhs as soldiers of outstanding quality, were recognized, though less publicized than those of Scottish regiments for example. The Scots had been romanticized for a hundred years before, partly perhaps, because of their idiosyncratic dress code, partly because of writers such as W. Scott and R.L.Stevenson. What the Chinese labourer behind the Western Front needed if his contribution was to be noted, was one of his own to write interestingly about him for a European readership. This did not happen because Chinese labourers did not write well in English or French.

Conversely, and for the same reason, the Dominions' forces sometimes receive more publicity than the English units who shared their experiences. To some extent, it is a matter of who has the best writers. It is another angle on the fairly obvious observation that among English-speakers, there is little knowledge of the Württemberg regiments. (RJP 08:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Okay, I added a reference to the table that includes a brief list of nations that sent forces to this front. Please feel free to edit the reference and add other nations as appropriate. Would it also make sense to have a separate page with more detail on the nations that served on this (and possibly the other) fronts during the war? — RJH (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather se the references put next to both the British EMpire and France and list their colonies that sent significant nubers of troops. say1988 17:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be committing an enormous faux-pas here, but in my opinion, the Battle box looks messy with all the dominions listed individually. More importantly, it is misleading - it makes it look as if all these countries were allied against Germany, when in actuality the British had declared war on their behalf, and they were always under British command. given that all these countries were under the umbrella of the British Empire [the commonwealth not being in existence at the time] would it not make more sense just to put 'British Empire' in the Battlebox? It's factually correct, and reflects the attitudes of the time. Just a thought.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Psidogretro (talk • contribs)

I agree that cell of the Battle box is getting very cluttered. Also it's unclear why Italy and Russia were added, as they fought on different fronts. Did they contribute troops to the western front? Perhaps the list should be cut down to those countries that contributed a division or more, and the remainder include via a note? — RJH (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This still isn't right. Britain is not listed in the box! It only gives what appears to be a heading, British Empire, and then lists the various Dominions. Furthermore, as I understand usage at the time, Britain would not necesarily be regarded as part of the Empire - you see references to "Britain and the Empire". Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional references and resources

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to make the "see also: literature" link a bit more prominent. Or maybe I am looking to have a 'histories' section added right above the 'dramatizations' section. Doing this would allow some short description of the individual titles (in the references section) as well as references to other works which may not be cited. Most prominent in my mind is Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August which is not referenced at all here. Anyway, the printed histories really are where any serious inquiry should start. Just looking for other perspectives before I go changing a featured article. ;) Matthew 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The main World War I page already has a fairly comprehensive list of literature. I didn't think it made sense to duplicate it here. — RJH (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The influence of the events on subsequent film and literary works is something which is bound to arise from a subject like 'The Western Front' but I think it is better treated as an article to itself. All too easily, it would be possible to find that the tail is wagging the dog and this dog is too important to be subsidiary to the media used for reporting it. (RJP 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Christmas Truce

Anyone think the Christmas truce deserves a mention? 217.154.66.11 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably not at this level of detail. But there is a Christmas truce page to cover the topic. — RJH (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Italian and Russian flags?

Did significant Italian and Russian forces serve on the western front? I was curious as to why these flag was listed among the combatants. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had no success finding a reference that showed significant Italian forces serving on the western front (as opposed to their own front.) So I'm going to remove that entry. — RJH (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

History notes

These comments appeared in the history:

Deletion of some myths- Germany was not bankrupt, she could afford the reparations, but evidence shows she refused to pay. And; Germany was not isolated commerce-wise.

Changing wording of an earlier edit. The person who asked me to 'prove it'- have a search for it yourself, and feel free to citate it- I'm not great with computers!

Shouldn't it be incumbent upon the person making significant edits of this nature to be able to demonstrate, through citations, that the revisions have merit? The burden should not just be tossed upon somebody asking for a demonstration of proof. Otherwise it is appropriate to revert to an older, previously validated edition. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish forces

Hi, As far as I know, some Polish troops also fought on the Western Front: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Army Regards, Grot PL 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a state of Poland did not exist until after the war might be an issue. Technically they had been annexed by Russia, so this could be used to argue instead that Russian troops served on the western front. (Which would address another topic above.) — RJH (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Apparently the user Signaleer disagree quite strongly about the lead image. He believes the Image:Canadians_Troops_going_Over_the_Top_in_1916.jpg is iconic and the harsh, overly contrasted, pixilated quality of the reduced image is representative of the period. I feel that a trench scene Image:Trencheswwi2.jpg is equally iconic, and the picture is less abrasive in terms of quality. (Perhaps due to reduced contrast?) My sense is that the lead image should draw the reader into the article by appearing visually attactive and interesting. I'd appreciate some other input on this as the lead off image is important as a representative of the remainder of the article. There are good quality images of this front available, and I'd be happy with another visually-appealing image that is suitably representative. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is exceedingly rude to edit another person's comments. I have restored my original text. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly feel that the lead image should be changed from it's current image, to this one: Image:Canadians_Troops_going_Over_the_Top_in_1916.jpg which is a well-known and mass published iconic image of World War I and represents the trench warfare at it's best with it's dynamic and upward action photograph. The The user RJHall however disagrees and feels that the harsh, overly contrasted, pixilated quality of the reduced image. I however, strongly feel that the original image is as nearly well-known and presents a very dull and bland scene with no real substance. There is no contrast or action to this image, which would leave the viewer glancing and moving on where as the Canadian troops image presents a more colorful and contrasting image. -Signaleer 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the second image doesn't look good on a computer monitor. I favor keeping the first (original), at least until another contender comes along. We are in the right ballpark with any kind of trench pic. Haber 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify, it's the Canadian photo that looks bad on computer monitors. I think the only reason it catches the eye is because it takes a few seconds to figure out exactly what it is. Haber 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of my research, I have stumbled upon a higher resolution and better quality image than both images Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg, I feel that this image is the epitome of the current lead image and therefore should be used, additionally this image has been a featured picture of the day. -Signaleer 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Approve. Haber 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Miles vs. kilometers

Since this article is about a battle front in Europe, should kilometers be the primary unit of length (with miles in parentheses)? C.f. WP:MoS#Which_system_to_use — RJH (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced modification & entropy

This page has undergone a lot of modification since it went FA; much of it unsourced. It may be getting close to no longer meeting the FA requirements and may need to be reviewed with that in mind. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1) I was unable to corroborate this statement with a reference:

The original terms of the treaty would cripple Germany as an economic and military power, so the military delegation refused to sign.

It has been removed from the text and replaced by a summary statement. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2) There are a number of concerns I had with the following paragraph, so I temporarily replaced it with a summary:

On the Entente side, the front was occupied by the armies of the allied countries in lengths according to their respective manpower. From the coast in the north, these were Belgium, Portugal, British Empire and France. As the war progressed, however, units were moved to strengthen the efforts of other nations, mainly on the long French front. Here British divisions were fairly prominent and smaller units from Russia and Italy were engaged partially as an expression of political solidarity. For example, British infantry and Italian artillery cooperated with French V Army in the Ardre valley during the Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918. At this later stage in the war, American forces too, were available to be employed in a similar way, though usually in larger units.

First of all it is outside the chronological flow of the text. Remarks about Italian and U.S. forces wouldn't be relevant to 1914. In addition it is completely unsourced and makes a number of statements that need to be confirmed in a FA-quality article like this. I'll try to find some references and work the statements into the text at appropriate locations. No offense intended to the original editor, of course. — RJH (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I)

Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) seems not to be working properly; its contents have spilled all over the top of the article. I'd fix it but I'm no good with templates. -Oreo Priest ^talk 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"1917—British Empire takes the lead" ???

I don't understand the title of the section concerning 1917. What's the meaning of "British Empire takes the lead" if the British offensives, like the Nivelle's one on "Chemin des Dames", result in only very minor ground gains for huge human losses ? This title seems to propose a British POV for this year of the WWI, which is inappropriate for me as en.wikipedia.org is an encyclopedia in English but not an "English-side of the history" encyclopedia.

In remplacement I would prefer :
- "A war without end" to indicate the continuation of the military stalemate on the western front in 1917
or
- "The war in question" (as proposed by the french historian Pierre Miquel in "La Grande Guerre") in order to emphasize the consequences of the continuing stalemate : the mutinies. Moreover the mutinies concern all the armies on both sides, with the french ones the largest ; this fact does not appear in this article.

At last, the following sentence "The French would go on the defensive for the next year, leaving the burden of attack to Britain, her Empire and other allies, and subsequently the United States" is excessive. If the first term is true, the latter "leaving the burden of attack" is clearly wrong simply because the French and British commanders are attacking on their own in their sectors, without much of a coordinated action until mid 1918.

(Sorry for the syntaxic errors, I'm not a complete English speaker)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.223.15 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The title was meant to indicate that British forces took the lead in the Allied offensives, rather than to imply that they made much progress (other than at Cambrai). It is a fact that the morale problems caused the French to go the defensive; ergo the title is true, rather than PoV. If you don't like it, then suggest a better one. Perhaps "1917 - The French mutiny, British Empire offensives"? In the sentence you point out, it might make sense to change the word "attack" to "major offensives".—RJH (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, if we mean British offensives then Empire needs to come out - Empire does not include Britain. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UT)

This is stupid to speak about "weak French morale": during the whole war, France was involved in all the offensives and always made the bulk of the "job" (even if Britain did its part).

This is completely "british biased point of view" to say Britain would have led the offensives.

Who was the Allied Supreme Commander? Maréchal Foch.

The French did their part even if their morale resistance was harshly checked in 1917 but it didn't collapse.

Saying the French ceased heavy firefights and let it to the British/Empire troops is nonsenses and a large manipulation of History facts.

What about the large British mutinies in Estamples (1916)?

Try and be more balanced in next times, please.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.130 (talk • contribs)

Well, your comment is rife with bias and therefore seems hypocritical. We shouldn't be covering up the facts to satisfy French apologists. The facts are that French divisions did revolt and the French morale did have an impact on Allied war plans. Balance requires that we cover this and not gloss over the impact. It is also made clear subsequent to that section that French forces did continue on the offensive. (See "Final allied offensives".) If there was a notable French-only offensive after the revolt, then you are always free to add it to the text with citations.—RJH (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of schoolkids/general readers reading this discussion, France did conduct some limited but highly effective offensives in late 1917, Petain having licked them back into shape by then (the counterargument is that part of their success was due to German troops and guns being pulled onto Haig's front, and the same may have been true of Nivelle's successful counterattacks at Verdun in late 1916). The British (& Empire) forces more and more took over as the "cutting edge" of the Allied offensive from mid-1917 onwards, but France was still conducting a much greater percentage of the fighting than tends to be remembered in British accounts, especially in the May-July 1918 (Bluecher and the Second Marne) period between Michael/Georgette and the Hundred Days. OTOH, about 30% of total German Western Front casualties were inflicted by the BEF throughout the entire war. One of these days I'll plough through Doughty Pyrrhic Victory, the best book in English on France's role in WW1 (the separate wiki article on that topic needs some serious work), and post some stuff, but it's not going to be at this instant.Paulturtle (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

health and rats

Hey, as I was reading through the article, I realized that the health and conditions of the trenches are missing from the article, such as the large amount of rats found, frogs, and the spread of diseases, shouldn't his be mentioned? Deavenger (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is covered to some degree on the trench warfare page. I'm not sure how specific the topic is to the Western Front.—RJH (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Allied Victory

Should it not be called an Entente Victory vs. an Allied Victory because technically the Central Powers were called the allies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.19.215 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. However, I don't believe the Entente included the United States or Italy, and the central powers originally called themselves the Triple Alliance. See also Allies of World War I.—RJH (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Central Powers were allies, but it is the Entente nations and those that subsequently joined them that are referred to as "The Allies." While we're on the subject, Wkipedia (and many other sources) say that the term "Central Powers" describes the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary. How and when did it originate, and was it used by the Central Powers themselves? Hengistmate (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Who suffered great cost?

The Hundred Days Offensive beginning in August proved the final straw, and following this string of military defeats, German troops began to surrender in large numbers. As the Allied forces broke the German lines at great cost, Prince Maximilian of Baden was appointed as Chancellor of Germany in October in order to negotiate an armistice. From this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Front_%28World_War_I%29&oldid=315107416

Okay, please clearify this to me. Was it the Allied who suffered great cost? --Lindberg (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's strange - read literally it's the Allies, which makes little sense - hence I thought it best to just take the statement out, since it doesn't add much anyway. otherwise someone would need to go back to the cited source and see what it actually says. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

casualties

the german wounded exceed the overall german wounded.... change please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There's only one value for German/AH wounded in the infobox. What are you comparing?—RJH (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

the overall german wounded for world war 1. the german killed/wounded ratio on this infobox would imply much better medic system than allied. the number is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.146.174 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We need a source for your speculation. The current value has a reference, but if you can find a better one then we can use that. It was pretty difficult to come by the current values, so help would be appreciated. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

go through the wordl war 1 casualties article.... . its obvious that the numbers now are wrong "or" different wounded count —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.141.45 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No I'll have to say that's not good enough. I know from experience that wikipedia is often a lousy source for wikipedia, and I don't know where you're drawing your suppositions. Unsourced facts don't make things obvious. We need good academic sources for the numbers; not some made up values that some anonymous editor decided to doctor one day.—RJH (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

the make it obvious.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.167.134 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not exactly being helpful. Bye.—RJH (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_I_casualties#german_wounded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

change now?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.61 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can go to New York Public Library Main Branch and verify your source for German wounded. I suspect the figure of 4.7 million MAY BE total wounded, including the Eastern Front. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you guys trying to ascertain? --Woogie10w (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

wounded german on the western front... the number now is bigger than the number on the "world war I casualties" article for all fronts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I went to New York Public Library Main Branch to check the source that was cited. The figure for wounded that was previously on the page included the Eastern Front. The figures now tie out to official German data. I always check any figure posted on Wikipedia. For any Doubting Thomas, I have the source The Journal of Military History, and can be contacted by E-mail.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and the reference.—RJH (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is protected by copyright, we can't post it to Wikipedia. Send me an E mail.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean by "The source is protected by copyright, we can't post it to Wikipedia" ? Copyright doesn't prevent using a fact quoted in a text : facts are by their nature public domain - copyright protexts the creative effort in the text i.e. the exact form of words used in creating a narrative. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You can view the source, I have enabled my E mail.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ok wait , there must be a mistake the numbers now are to low . the number for KIA must be wrong... WIA seems to be ok missed/pow 2 but —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.111 (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No mistake, those are the official German figures. British & French estimates of casualties they inflicted were used for many years in the English speaking world not the official German figures that you see posted. Send me an E mail and you can see for yourself!! German figures are for the period 8/1914-7/1918, there is no German data on Western Front for the period 8/1918-11/1918. German figures cited here for wounded include those who later died of wounds. The final and corrected figure published in 1934 for wounded,less died of wounds,on all fronts during the war was 4,215,662. German figures do not include lightly wounded and are not comparable to UK and French data. In a nutshell the German casualty reporting system during the war gives us the following data on a monthly basis for the Western Front from 8/1914 until 7/1918. A. Killed; B. Missing C. Wounded (evacuated); D. the number of lightly wounded and sick in local field hospitals and E. Total strength. After the war the General Staff reconciled the figures to adjust for those who died of wounds, those missing and presumed dead and those missing who were held alive as POW. In 1934 the final report was published that provided this data. This final summary does not give us a breakout between Western & Eastern fronts. 3/4 of the total German casualties reported were on the western front. My own Guesstimate is that the final total in the West was 1.5 million dead and 3 million wounded. We need to find a reliable source to back this up. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the article cited for German casualties, it occurs to me the person who posted the data either did not understand the article or selectively chose his data. The German Killed, wounded and missing data is off German Sanitats, or frontline reports. These report immediate casualties but do not get updated, so men who were wounded but later died are not included in the killed category, nor are the MIA who later turn out to be KIA make their way to that section. As a result the data is flawed when breaking down casualties in regards to KIA/WIA etc, however it does provide a good overall total casualty category. I am going to change the data to fit with the authors conclusion, but he only concludes on TOTAL casualties, not making a more detailed breakdown because the Sanitats do not allow for that to be done accurately. For uniformity going to include the Allied casualties as well from the paper, though I am not very good at wiki editing and need someone to put a citation next to the numbers to show it is from the same article. Wokelly (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What might make sense then is to post both: the total number plus a break down of the frontline reports. Alternatively, the latter could be listed in a footnote.—RJH (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is the front line reports are wrong since they were never updated, so including the frontline breakdown is simply adding a statistic we know is incorrect into the casualty table. The author includes that info because the total casualties reported are likely accurate and include lightly wounded, but he is clear in stating it is not accurate when it comes down to specifics as it is was not updated. Including the data despite the authors opinion on the issue smacks of "wiki historianism" (PS not accusing you of that for suggesting it), you are including a table he happened to include yet does not agree with on certain respects. A footnote does not make them correct, it just details the fact we know it is wrong. This is the reason for the total casualty conclusion he has at the end, the Sanitats are not accurate for specifics but good for overall casualties. The overall casualty figures provides a good comparison of Allied and German losses on the western front anyways, and is largely devoid of such lovely issues of not including lightly wounded or not updating who died after an initial report. It is less prone to controversy in my opinion and fulfills the issue of showing the theatre was bloody, the allies lost more men (ie Churchills conclusion) and so on. Wokelly (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011

I understand that the current data is not ideal. The form was used in an attempt to be consistent with the broken-out statistics for the Entente. However, personally I have no issue with just listing a single data point, even though it appears less useful.—RJH (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, but the Entante casualties data was not even cited. I agree the data is less useful than a further breakdown, but the Sanitats won't give you correct breakdown data and official German casualty lists wont include lightly wounded. At least according to the author, his conclusion is more uniformed with how the Allies recorded casualties, so it provides a more fair comparison of total losses even if it can't specify where the casualties fit in. Wokelly (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Query

Can anyone explain why the term Western Front is almost universally used by British and allied commentators. The front was only Western from a German point of view. It was Eastern from the British and French point of view. Can anyone cast any light on when this became a standard description ? I have held a view that the reason may have been due to Ericque Maria Remarque's superb novel "All Quiet on the Western front", but have no evidence to back this up.

Apologies if this is considered an inappropriate post for this page. 86.21.121.174 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is from the perspective of the Triple Entente, which included Russia?—RJH (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The term reflected the strategic situation. As you say, from a German point of view the fronts were in France to the West and Russia to the East. To the Allies the Front in France was more westerly than that in Russia. Remarque's book was called in German Im Westen Nichts Neues (Nothing New in the West), and was published in 1930. At first, British sources referred to it as "the Front" (because it was the only one on which the British were engaged at the time) and, sometimes, the Flanders Front. The official record of the proceedings of the British Parliament shows a reference to the "Western front" in a statement made in March, 1915. It was in widespread use by June of that year. Hope this is useful. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also from the British and French pov it was more "western" than Salonika, Gallipoli, Sinai or Mesopotamia, all of which were competing with the WF for resources.Paulturtle (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note on FA standard and Alt text

A current convention for featured articles is to implement WP:ALT. I don't believe this has been applied to this article yet, so at some point we'll need to include this so it can remain at FA quality. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for all the edits. I'm trying to bring the article up to snuff in terms of the current FA standard. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm finished.—RJH (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:French bayonet charge1918.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:French bayonet charge1918.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tactical developments in 1917

I have some material on this which is in the pages for the Battle of Pilckem Ridge and the Battle of the Menin Road Ridge but which has overloaded the pages somewhat. Any objections to me moving it here?Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) On second thoughts I think it would be better to add this link Tactical development on the western front in 1917 to the WF page. OKKeith-264 (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this page just covered the higher level events of the front. Thus it should cover the Battle of Passchendaele, but only mention the key events of that offensive. The battle's article would then cover the tactical actions. Is that okay with you? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've decided to put the material on a separate page and a link here to it, (Main article: Tactical development on the western front in 1917) is that ok? I'd be interested in your opinion of the 3rd Ypres (Passchendaele) page, as we've brought it closer to contemporary historiography and made it less Anglocentric, hence the amendment here pointing out that Messines wasn't a breakthrough attempt gone wrong but a linited attack gone well. I envisage the new page expanding to cover early 1917 with sections on Arras and the Hindenburg line and links to the existing pages plus perhaps air warfare, propaganda and anything else that occurs. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that Talk:Battle of Passchendaele is a better place to discuss the revisions to that article. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was mainly explaining the small changes I made on this page and how they came about. Have you seen the P'daele page?Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Antiaircraft fire

A line from the "Air warfare" section: Contrary to the myth antiaircraft fire claimed more kills than fighters.

I don't understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. First, what is the "myth" here, and what does "claimed more kills than fighters" mean -that it didn't shoot down as many fighter planes as believed, or that it killed people not in planes? A rewrite would be helpful. 71.205.174.204 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor Nations' Involvement

Per the articles Siam during World War I and Brazil during World War I, both sent small contingents of soldiers to the Western Front and suffered casualties. Do they warrant inclusion in the infobox? Capt Jim (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference to "Karar Abdul" is suspicious.

The page says: "attacking toward Sarrebourg-Morhange in Lorraine planned by Karar Abdul." This seems inaccurate to me. Maybe someone added the reference to "Karar Abdul" maliciously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.169 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for spotting this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Belligerent Sides

Not all of the Entant was on the Western front. The Russians should have been on the Eastern front. Can someone help clean this up? (Note: part of the infobox) --Echoblast53 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I made further research and I saw that even the US didn't participate in strength (I thought they did). Only France, Britain, and Germany were involved. Should the infobox be updated to show the actual powers struggling across the Western Front? --Echoblast53 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)#Gas warfare section

The allies made more use of gas and gas attacks than the Germans, mainly because the wind in this part of Europe was more favorable for the Allies. No mention at all is made of the use of gas by the Allies, thus framing the Germans as the only ones using this weapon. This seems to be historically not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaap Jan Brouwer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've included British and French in this section. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisation of proper nouns

By convention (and specifically by our our "house style" as detailed at MOS:MILTERMS) the word "army" can be part of a proper noun - e.g. the name of a military unit - as in "the 4th. Army" or part of a general descriptive noun "the French army" (referring to the French forces as a whole rather than any particular unit). The same rule applies, of course, to other military unit names (platoon, company, brigade, division etc.) - they are capitalised or not depending on whether, in context, they are proper or common nouns. I raise this here because it seems to have caused some confusion to at least one well-meaning editor. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Quoting MILTERMS: "the American army, but the United States Army". The United States Army is a proper noun. So is the German Army, etc. Yes, "German" could be an adjective, but there is a unique entity named the German Army. We have no reason to suppose it's meant only in some general way. The sources are using it as the proper noun. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

With no counter response, I've changed the proper nouns for German Army and French Army to be capitalized per MOS and MILTERMS. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)example

The trouble is that that isn't what the the MOS says. Many points in ANY Manual of style are debatable, that's the whole point of having a manual of style (or MOS) at all - to keep things consistent and so that we don't have to argue the point out every time we rub up against a particular instance that raises a question. The current MOS may not be ideally worded - in fact you may well feel it is ambiguous or unclear (for instance even I am a little confused by the rule to capitalise "United States Army" - but the place to query this is at the talk page for the MOS, not at each article that is supposed to following the rules concerned.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Openly declaring MOS is debatable, needs better wording, is ambiguous, unclear, and confusing, are all solid indications of not knowing how to follow it, and sound like WP:IDNHT. We cannot chose to ignore parts of MOS that we disagree with; going contrary to any part of MOS cannot be justified while citing MOS. If MOS needs to be improved, take it up at MOS. The French Army and the German Army (German Empire) are articles on proper nouns, per their titles, just like United States Army, specifically quoted in MOS to make that very point; it is in no way unclear. As proper nouns, per MOS, they are capitalized in their respective articles, and so must be capitalized here. Disagreeing with these being proper nouns is best discussed at their respective articles, not here. Editing something currently under discussion is usually considered disruptive. Editing against long-established consensus demonstrated in MOS and multiple other articles is close to the definition of disruptive. None of the points presented apply to this article. Without something new to discuss, I'll move to follow the current MOS and the noted proper noun articles. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm...This isn't even an MOS issue. This is basic English. If it's a proper noun, then capitalize it; if it's a common noun then don't.

• "German Army" - proper noun.
• "the Germans mobilized their army" - common noun.
• "The German 4th and 5th Armies" - proper nouns.
• "Two full armies from the Germans" - common noun. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, except for the minor point of "The German 4th and 5th Armies"; I think "Armies" is correct, but other editors don't, and MOS isn't clear on the capitalization of proper nouns when plural. See this current discussion. Basic English is, unfortunately, not always agreed upon, which is why WP has MOS. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The word "army" is only a proper noun when it refers to a specific unit (e.g. the "4th Army"), or (perhaps) the entire body of all military units of a specific nationality. "The German Army" is logically NOT a specific military unit unless we are talking about the entire (German) military organisation. German troops, for instance could well be simultaneously fighting on several fronts. On each front it would be correct to describe the German troops fighting on that front as "the German army". Common noun, since there are (in this sense) several German armies at any given moment. We could perhaps say "the entire French Army was in a state of mutiny" (although this was of course not actually the case) because in this context the "French Army" refers basically to the every soldier in French service. We could say "The British Army adopted the Vickers Gun as its standard machine gun" on the assumption that this covers all British troops (that were equipped with machine guns). In the instances that have caused confusion in this article however "British army", "French army" and "German army" mean something like "the British (French or German) forces available for (or involved in) a particular offensive (counter attack, advance, retreat etc.)". There is no doubt in my mind that this (standard and common sense) usage is the clear intent of the current wording of MOS:MILTERMS. Again, it seems that a dispute over this would involve many other articles, and needs to be settled at the talk page for the relevant MOS page! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this involves many articles, and can't be changed on just this one. Overwhelmingly, WP articles refer to the German Army and French Army as proper nouns. If that's "wrong", it must be clarified in MOS first, and then changed in those several dozen articles, not just changed in this one article in defiance of the main articles on these subjects, against consensus; that's just disruptive. Per WP consensus, I'm restoring the last edit revert (which includes many changes outside this issue anyway). --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, spend some time and look at all other articles that use German Army and French Army. They use it as a proper noun, meaning the official military establishments of those nations. Here, as in all those other articles, that proper noun is the actor performing the actions described. The sources cited for these sections use them that way. There is zero support to think that all the cases here mean "an army of the Germans". If you have some sources that say otherwise, I'd like to see that. Insisting on your interpretation of MOS that no one else holds is insufficient. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course "German Army" can be a proper noun in some contexts. For instance, as you quite rightly state, when it refers to "the official military establishment" of a particular country. But was the whole "official military establishment" of any country involved on the Western Front (possible exception of Belgium)? In the instances where this question has arisen in this article the phrase "the German army" is indeed shorthand for "an army of the Germans". In fact, to give credit where it's due, that's quite a neat way of putting it, actually. This may be "my interpretation", but it's also what the MOS says. "No one else" seems to support your view either - we certainly haven't established a consensus here. Incidentally, the only time when the spelling or usage of a source is binding on us is when we are directly quoting that source. A source using "German Army" in a context where it is a proper noun probably does capitalise it - so what? The question is, in a context where it is a common noun. I refuse to participate in your edit war - but I will be back with something authoritative on this one, if possible, because while a fairly minor point it should be done correctly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We have established consensus. You are edit warring against it. Four editors agree with "Armies", only you say "armies". And that's just this article. If you truly believe "German army" and "French Army" is virtually always wrong, you have a lot of other articles to correct. Please go try -- unless you're afraid you'll get even more opposition. But if you succeed, come back here, and I'll relent. Agreed?

To your last point, we absolutely do follow the sources on this. If a source says "the German Army" attacked, that means they are referring to the proper noun of the military organization that is the German Army. So our section on how the Germans attacked will use that same proper noun -- the "German Army". We cannot say how some "German army" attacked, because that's not what the source says. We'd be reinterpreting the intent of what the source "really" meant, which is prohibited by WP:SYNTH.

Seriously, going against MOS, sources, other articles, and now consensus? How do you expect this to end? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured article review

Can this article avoid being taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review? It's currently tagged for citation needed in 20 places. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Defense in Depth — origin ?

Presently this article states — in the section "1915—Stalemate", subsection "Continued Entente attacks" —

"In May the German Army captured a French document at La Ville-aux-Bois describing a new system of defence. Rather than relying on a heavily fortified front line, the defence is arranged in a series of echelons. The front line would be a thinly manned series of outposts, reinforced by a series of strongpoints and a sheltered reserve. If a slope was available, troops were deployed along the rear side for protection. The defence became fully integrated with command of artillery at the divisional level. Members of the German high command viewed this new scheme with some favour and it later became the basis of an elastic defence in depth doctrine against Entente attacks."

References cited for this paragraph are:

• Herwig, Holger H. (1997). The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914–1918. St. Martin's Press. p. 165.
• Lupfer, Timothy T. (July 1981). The Dynamics of Doctrine, The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War (PDF). Leavenworth Papers. Fort Leavenworth, Kan: US Army Command and General Staff College.

PROBLEM: Neither reference mentions any capture of any French documents by Germans in 1915 in a town named "La Ville-aux-Bois".

• You can search Herwig here: https://books.google.com/books?id=4fTCAgAAQBAJ
• You can search Lupfer here: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/lupfer.pdf (On p. 11, Lupfer mentions: "In 1915 a captured French document described a defensive system consisting of successive echelons: a front line of thinly held outposts, a scattering of strongpoints, and shelters for reserves." Lupfer cites Wynne, p. 85, as his source. Even Wynne doesn't mention "La Ville-aux-Bois".)

More importantly, it would be a bit tricky for the Germans to learn about the doctrine of defense in depth from the French in May 1915 because the Germans were already applying aspects of it in February 1915.

From Jonathan Krause, Early Trench Tactics in the French Army: The Second Battle of Artois, May–June 1915 (first printed: 2013, Ashgate Publishing; reprinted: 2016, Routeledge), p. 51:

During the battle of First Champagne, which was begun on 16 February 1915, the French Fourth Army discovered that the Germans had constructed a second trench on the reverse slope behind the first (foremost) trench: "The first [trench] had been sited on forward slopes to maximize the visual and firing range of German infantry. The second line, by contrast, was sited primarily on either reverse slopes or in dense woods, which were prepared by the Germans to enhance their defensive capabilities by funnelling French attacks into predetermined fields of fire."

As early as 1906, French general Hippolyte Langlois had discussed defense in depth in his book: Hippolyte Langlois, Questions de Défense Nationale [Questions of National Defense] (Paris, France: Berger-Levrault & Cie, 1906). He had studied the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905; and he had drawn correct conclusions. On p. 27, he mentions that French fortresses are connected by " … un très grand nombre de tranchées du moment, en simple fortification de campagne; ces tranchées, très peu visibles, sont protégées par un immense réseau de fils de fer, qu'on peut disposer aujourd'hui sur une très grande surface en fort peu de temps." (… a very great number of temporary trenches, simple field fortifications; these trenches, [which are] hardly visible, are protected by an immense network of barbed wire, which can be laid out nowadays over a large area in very little time.) Also between the fortresses are artillery batteries, some of which are located on the reverse slope: " … d'autres batteries, en arrière des crêtes, bien masquées aux vues de l'adversaire, sont armées de canons puissants ou d'obusiers (canons courts) qui peuvent agir pendant tous les phases du siège par un tir indirect bien préparé; … " ( … other batteries, behind the crests, well hidden from the view of the enemy, are armed with powerful cannons or howitzers (short-barreled cannons) which can act during all phases of the siege by well prepared indirect fire; … ") On p. 30, he concludes that fortresses are obsolete; instead, one should rely on trenches and defense in depth: "Le temps n'est pas éloigné où l'on comprendra qu'aux forts bétonnés et cuirassês il sera préférable de substituer de grands ouvrages offrant de longues lignes de tranchées de profil léger, s'étayant mutuellement en profondeur, bien protégées par de grandes surfaces de défenses accessoires, bien appuyées en arrière par un grand nombre de bouches à feu masquées. Il y a là une évolution très nette qu'on méconnait lorsqu'on réclame des millions pour des cuirasses et des bétons." (The time is not far away when one will understand that it will be preferable to substitute, for fortresses of concrete and armor, large [field] works consisting of long lines of trenches with a low profile, [which would be] mutually supporting in depth, well protected by a large area of accessory defenses, well supported from the rear by a great number of hidden guns. There is [in the case of fortresses] a very drastic change [in progress], which is not considered when millions are demanded for armor and concrete.) Instead of relying on walls for defense (since modern artillery can penetrate walls (p. 18)), defense must rely on fire power. From p. 27: "En un mot, le moyen principal de la défense est devenu le feu." (In a word, the principal means of defense has become fire power.)

As early as 1892, then Colonel Langlois depicted — in his book L'Artillerie de campagne en liaison avec les autres armes [Field artillery in liaison with other arms] (Paris, France: Librairie Militaire de L. Baudoin, 1892), vol. 1, p. 474 — a defense in depth that would become commonplace in World War I: "L'infanterie, en très petit nombre, occupe une série de points d'appui échelonnés en profondeur … ; en arrière, toute l'artillerie est en batterie, masquée aux vues de l'ennemi, mais prête à entrer en action ; la première ligne d'infanterie a un champ de tir de 2,000 mèt., l'artillerie a champ de tir de 3,000 mèt. ; la profondeur de notre ligne est de 1000 mètres. En arrière, des réserves locales d'infanterie sont prêtes à sauter dans les tranchées-abris encore inoccupées et à recueillir au besoin les deux premières lignes d'infanterie ; plus loin, des réserves de secteur, plus loin encore, des réserves générales dans la main du chef sont prêtes à manœuvrer." (A very small number of infantry occupies a series of strong points distributed in depth … ; to the rear, all the artillery is arranged in batteries, hidden from the enemy's view, but ready to join the action ; the front line of infantry has a field of fire of 2,000 meters, the artillery has a field of fire of 3,000 meters ; the depth of our line is 1,000 meters. To the rear, local infantry reserves are ready to jump into the trenches with shelters that are still empty, or to receive, if need be, the infantry of the two first lines ; farther back, the sector's reserves ; farther back still, the general reserves under the control of the commander are ready to maneuver.)

Considering that as early as 1892 (and probably even earlier), French army officers had been publicly discussing defense in depth, it seems unlikely that the German army would suddenly learn about it in 1915 — especially after the Germans had already implemented some aspects of it. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

CE

Did a brief CE of the article, which has become somewhat ragged and untidy but it could benefit from a drastic revision now that so many of the battle articles had been improved. The battles can be cut back and the room saved devoted to themes. The eastern and southern fronts need a few cameo appearances too, for context.Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As a reader, I am interested in much more than a simple chronology of battles. I want to know how the stalemate evolved and how tactics evolved. A analysis of the tactics and counter responses. Strategic aims - as much as it is portrayed as a slugging match over the same small patch of ground. Social-political issues affecting both sides. @Keith-264, if these are the sorts of things you mean by themes, then I would fully agree. Little appears to have been said about how the Germans occupied the high ground. They made voluntary withdrawal to superior positions early in the war and forced the Allies to adopt an offencive posture against ground of their oponents' choosing. What was the German strategy. I believe, for the most part, it was to maintain control of the vital ground. At times, the Germans made other voluntary re-alignments and, by doing so, placed the Allied lines-of-communication across the mire that was no-mans-land, while at the same time, placing their own L-o-C in unravaged country. Just some thoughts Cinderella157 (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see no point in retaining a big section narrating battles, I'd prefer much shorter entries on battles and links to their articles and which relate to the themes mentioned in the other parts of the text on such things as the industrial battlefield, the growing importance of air power, wireless and medical services. The strategic dilemmas of the Allies in needing to make an impression on the Germans while they were bogged down in the east needs explaining to show why unprepared armies attacked in 1915 and 1916. It's a western front article but that front was symbiotically liked to the eastern front. Plenty to do, oh and some of the citations and references are to websites, rather than to books. Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

By scale, it is not an overly large article. You can perhaps see better how it may be parsed wrt the battles but it can certainly be expanded wrt themes. And yes, it can't be viewed in isolation from the whole - as Gallipolo evidences. My knowledge is specific an my resources limited but I will watch and add what I can. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Comparison of casualties from
some Western Front battles

Battle	Year	Allies	German
Frontiers	1914	363,097	305,594
1st Marne	1914	263,000	256,000
1st Ypres	1914	58,155	46,765
2nd Ypres	1915	87,000	35,000
3rd Artois	1915	109,943	51,100
Verdun	1916	315,000– 542,000	281,000– 434,000
Somme	1916	618,257	434,000– 600,000
2nd Aisne	1917	187,000	163,000
3rd Ypres	1917	244,897	217,000
Spring	1918	851,374	688,341
100 Days	1918	1,069,636	1,172,075
Total	1914– 1918	4,167,359– 4,394,359	3,650,375– 3,968,875

Please feel free to post your questions or comments. Ask me anything, my email is berndd11222@gmail.com, I can provide jpgs with additional data. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"The Western Front or Western Theater was the main theatre of war during World War I"

Two things in this first sentence need citation or removal:

1. Who says that it was the "main" theatre, and by what criteria?
2. Who calls it the "Western Theater"? I have never heard this term and cannot find it used anywhere on the web other than Wikipedia mirrors (when referring to this conflict).

@keith-264 says that these details are in the text. But while prepared to be persuaded, I don`t think they are. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You could be right, the article was well overdue for a spring clean. I'll see what I can do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, my more strategic sources are elsewhere but I've found one source to paraphrase. Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you find a decent source, especially for the claim that it is known as the "Western Theatre"? Bagunceiro (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well we need the cn tag back for that then.

I'm leaving the question of "main" for now although this is problematic. Without defining the criteria it is a purely subjective term. Many more people were involved, and died, on the Eastern front, for example. It was hardly a sideshow to the main event. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

1915 section

In the opening para for this section: "Since the British had used about one-third of their supply of artillery ammunition, General Sir John French blamed the failure on the shortage of ammunition, despite the early success." It doesn't make sense to blame the failure on a shortage of ammunition if only a third had been used? If this was the case, perhaps it should read "Even though" rather than "Since?". Furthermore, "General" should be "Field Marshal" and French has been introduced shortly before, so neither his rank nor full name should be used, though this is likely to introduce an ambiguity with "the French". A solution might be to delete the earlier reference as I don't think that the article would suffer by the deletion and the only other reference is to French being replaced by Haig and is not ambiguous. Also a note about the British Expeditionary Force. The first reference is in the section "War plans – Battle of the Frontiers" (which also has the first reference to French). There is a hidden note that it was not called the BEF at that time. The next occurrence gives the name in full and the abbreviation. I would edit this first occurrence to indicate the abbreviation except for the note indicating this is incorrect. I am not certain how to deal with these so I am asking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Many of the failings of the article are a consequence of reliance on Anglocentric sources; in 1915 the French and Germans fought huge battles and the British "offensives" were little more than a coda but this isn't the way that old English sources have it. A better structure for the 1915 section would be to sketch the dilemma on the French, an offensive strategy to keep Russia in the war, versus tactical and operational reasons to wait for French industry to equip the army to fight a siege war and the battles that ensued in Champagne and Artois. Keith-264 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264, I am sure you are right but there is a more immediate issue. I can fix most of the issues per above but I'm not certain what to do with the BEF part and the hidden note. Also, I need a confirmation that "Even though" and perhaps "only used" is the right way to go. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Cambrai

See: "Despite the reversal, the attack had been seen as a success by the Allies and Germans as it proved that tanks could overcome trench defences." This doesn't make sense? I think it means to say that for the Germans, massed use of German stosstruppen was a success too? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Despite the reversal during the German counter-stroke, the British attack showed that tanks could overcome trench defences. (The German counter-attack was about as successful as the Battle of Langemarck earlier in 1917.) It's the old version, predicted artillery-fire was the real novelty but the Germans did have to assume they were vulnerable anywhere that tanks could operate, which made a defensive strategy in 1918 even more risky to contemplate. Keith-264 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Keith-264, When you explain what it is meant to mean, it makes sense - what it is trying to say. But reading this in a more detached way, I was trying to work out why the Germans saw it as a success. I have made an edit to clarify IAW your response. Pls check and tweak if you think it needs it. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

hurricane bombardment

This term, used in the lead, is nowhere defined and has no article. 216.8.156.254 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point. "Hurricane bombardment" is a quick but intense bombardment preceding a mass infantry attack, as opposed to the standard deliberate and prolonged WWI bombardments that could go on for days. The intent of hurricane bombardment is to catch the enemy before they run for cover, and to allow the upcoming infantry attack to start before the enemy calls up reinforcements.

I was just going to replace the wording in this article, but I noticed that several other WP articles use "hurricane bombardment", also without explaining it. So the best thing to do is put this explanation in a WP article so we can link to that. But, so far, I haven't found a good home for this. (There's too little info to make its own separate article.) I'm thinking of putting it in Artillery as it has some artillery tactics, but that may be a little messy, since it's currently all modern. Suggestions, anyone? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not difficult to work out, is it?Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If not, then be my guest. At least initially, I'm having trouble because there's no context for it -- nothing else about WWI (or any pre-NATO tactics). Just shoving it in a section for this at some random random place with no other contemporary artillery tactics would stick out like a wart. Well, I'll take a break, and tomorrow re-think and figure something out, unless somebody beats me to it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, finally I found a home for Hurricane bombardment -- one I didn't expect: a subsection of Infiltration tactics. I was sure here's not enough to say about Hurricane bombardment for its own article, but a fair amount to say about it in relation to Infiltration tactics. As I gathered info for this, I eventually found maybe there is enough for a short article, but I've got to get much more and better sources to do that (in [slow] progress). As I started making links to it from other articles, I was surprised to find about 20 times more uses of hurricane bombardment than I remembered (maybe I goofed my original search?). It use was a lot more common than I thought, especially by the British. So I'll eventually have to put in more British stuff to balance the current mostly German info. Sigh. Who started all this work for me?  ;)

But thanks for pointing this out. I'm now surprised that we've gone this long without anything defining hurricane bombardment in WP; I bet a lot of readers have been wondering for quite a while. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your work on this, but can you please add inline citations for the information you have added to Infiltration tactics? This edit adds a lot of great information, but doesn't seem to cite any references. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's in (slow) progress. I should have really made this comments on that talk page instead of here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

List of British Imperial countries

Ridiculous that Bermuda, with a tiny contingent, should be ahead of the UK, with by far the largest British Imperial contingent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.213.117 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Black day of the German army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I)#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGriffiths1986155%E2%80%93156_114-0 I thought this was said by Ludendorff.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:522:7564:E99C:D781 (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is the main belligerent nation of the allied side not represented in the pictures of the infobox?

Is erasing the French from WW1 history a new epic trend or something?

Lmao I came here exactly to write this, then saw your comment! It is the exact same thing on the World World I article itself. You look at the Entente belligerents, the number of troops, the casualties and then the picture in the infobox........ Exclusively British and even American troops in there, not the people who did most of the fighting, dying and killing on the Western Front. This is peak comedy. (Jules Agathias (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC))

The primary purpose of the lede image is to quickly assure the reader they have the right article. Making it serve some balance of nationalities is secondary at most. Of course, editors are welcome to suggest images that are immediately recognizable as iconic for the subject and yet also nationalistically balanced. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

The infobox lists 13 million military casualties. I guess this figure includes wounded, right?

The subsection Casualties lists 3.5 million dead plus 8.3 million wounded, totaling 11.8 million. The difference to the infobox data is 10%. I can see that sources are cited in this subsections. Should the infobox data be adjusted? Tomeasy _{T C} 02:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo Infobox

The center-right image, currently entitled "A young German soldier armed with rifle 98a-Gewehr during the Battle of Ginchy", is also used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Maria_Remarque as a photo of Erich Maria Remarque. I feel like the current caption should be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamCorbettWiki (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Western Front was the place where the most powerful military forces in Europe..."

Untrue... The Russian army was stronger in numbers than the French army... It is true that the front also included the British army, but then again the Eastern Front included the other Central Powers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.135.8 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, what sources are you basing these comments, and your edits, on? - wolf 02:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I am removing unsupported claims, not adding new information. We had a discussion a few years ago about someone adding in the "main theatre" information and decided to remove it. There is no source supporting that the front was more important than the others throughout the duration of the *entirety* of the war. As for the french army being the strongest claim, there is also is not any source connected to it, so that is why it should be dubious. SedarGames (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you link the discussion? (btw- we don't edit content that is currently under discussion) - wolf 19:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not currently under discussion, but a few years ago. Since then this page has mostly died out and now that I checked it out again, somehow the front is labelled as the "main" one again. You can find the discussion if you just scroll up in the Talk/Discussions section. SedarGames (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"American" infantry storming a German bunker? Info box

The info box states that the lower right image is of "American infantry storming a German bunker".

While British and American uniforms were similiar in various ways, the troops look decidedly British Empire to my eye. The entrenchment tool bag hanging from the lower back of the men looks British issue, and not U.S Army. I may be wrong, but this may be worth investigating. I have been unable to track dow an original caption for this image. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The image caption is based on its source [1]. If it's wrong (which it may well be), then this issue should first be discussed at Wikimedia. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Belligerents: Emboldening

In the belligerents list in the info-box some of the entries are in bold. Does this mean something that I am missing (in which case I think it ought to be made clearer) or is it a mistake (and should be removed)? Bagunceiro (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)