Tagishsimon (talk | contribs) →RFC: Scope of "result" included in the infobox: :::Oh for fuck's sake, Keith, give it up. It's either a Victory, or a Decisive Victory. Repeatedly dragging all discussions back to your insistance that we should not specify that the Germans won, in fa |
|||
Line 799: | Line 799: | ||
: Wait.. is this ''still'' somehow indirectly about the "Decisive victory" thing? 'Cause if so, and if it were up to me, I'd deal out sanctions for disruption. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
: Wait.. is this ''still'' somehow indirectly about the "Decisive victory" thing? 'Cause if so, and if it were up to me, I'd deal out sanctions for disruption. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
::I suggested that an RFC was pointless and the recent comments bear this out. My point is that bullet points are unnecessary, since "See Aftermath section" is sufficient as per [[Template:Infobox military conflict]] and the RS. All I get for my pains are threats, Youtube abuse and one-sided judgements. I suggest that everyone steps back for a period of reflection. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
::I suggested that an RFC was pointless and the recent comments bear this out. My point is that bullet points are unnecessary, since "See Aftermath section" is sufficient as per [[Template:Infobox military conflict]] and the RS. All I get for my pains are threats, Youtube abuse and one-sided judgements. I suggest that everyone steps back for a period of reflection. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Oh for fuck's sake, Keith, give it up. It's either a Victory, or a Decisive Victory. Repeatedly dragging all discussions back to your insistance that we should not specify that the Germans won, in favour of your See Aftermath section is, by common consent, on the wrong side of the border for getting you topic-banned from this article so that the rest of us can get our lives back. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you don't think bullet points are necessary, then you should step back and reflect, since you appear to be the one who initiated the whole dispute by removing the bullet points which had previously remained stable and took it to ANI. |
:::If you don't think bullet points are necessary, then you should step back and reflect, since you appear to be the one who initiated the whole dispute by removing the bullet points which had previously remained stable and took it to ANI. |
||
::I suggest that your timeline limits the validity of your judgements. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
::I suggest that your timeline limits the validity of your judgements. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:51, 18 October 2016
Battle of France was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Reluctance of Reynaud to surrender
I found a citation for that; it's a newspaper clipping: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19660921&id=AtoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5224,3352623 I am horrible at editing wiki pages, so please add.
Lead/infobox
It's still cluttered with extraneous material. See here Template:Infobox military conflict
result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
- Fall of the French Third Republic, establishment of Vichy France
- Second Armistice at Compiègne
- Establishment of the Free French Forces
shouldn't be under result and the victory was not decisive, only half of the anti-German coalition was defeated; decisive does not mean big. Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Frenditor (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- The details would be better in the lead, first paragraph (I should have used infobox as the title, apols). I knew we'd discussed it before but I couldn't remember when so thanks for that. Perhaps we could use the weekend to wait for opinion?Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've just looked at the discussion in the archive, would that our eloquence had found its way into the article rather than just the verbosity ;O)) Does anyone know if the GA review is going to be renewed? I see that I decided to wait on it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was involved in another discussion on this which I initiated on exactly this issue. But it way predates this. I removed decisive and I got hammered by a couple of other editors. Just couldn't seem to grasp the point I was trying to make. I can't for the life of me remember when, or the venue, but I had just started on here. Would fully support any move away from the very dodgy and misleading "decisive" Keith and Frenditor. Simon. Irondome (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've just looked at the discussion in the archive, would that our eloquence had found its way into the article rather than just the verbosity ;O)) Does anyone know if the GA review is going to be renewed? I see that I decided to wait on it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, we're saying the Battle for France wasn't decisive because it defeated only France? Seriously? (And a few other countries were defeated also, but they don't count?) Regardless, our opinions don't matter; sources do. From what I've seen, they tend to compare it to 1914, and tend to say it was decisive. But I'm willing to be convinced by new sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are several definitions of decisive; in the Clausewitzian sense, decisive means a battle with a political result (i. e.) a peace treaty; the Germans only made peace with one of the two belligerents. For other people decisive is an analogue of big so they don't see the point of using it technically. The sources I listed above vary in their verdicts, so aren't that helpful.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that this conflict had already been resolved. In any case, claiming otherwise to the fact that the battle was not decisive in completion of its strategic objectives is complete nonsense, to say the least. KevinNinja (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Then you are mistaken on both points.Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, I believe you are mistaken on the meaning of "decisive" in the context of strategic warfare (not to mention that your argument against the fact is the leading cause of your assertions, including me being "mistaken" on both points). It is only you trying to further the complexity of this argument, without due cause. Using the word "decisive" is indeed correct in the further context of the entire topic at hand. Pointing to an Aftermath section, when the result of the battle could not be clearer in both historical and strategic terms, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I would suggest we keep the result as it is, because it is the closest result to the fact. KevinNinja (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly you are historically and linguistically illiterate. Keith-264 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are counterproductive.
- The clausewitzian definition of "decisive" is not the common one for the average reader, and neither is the straw man suggestion of it meaning merely "big". Most uses, per dictionaries, are closer to "conclusive". To me, it's hard to see how the Battle for France, which ended with France being conquered, could have been any more conclusive. Saying it wasn't decisive since it didn't also conquer all other Allied nations is odd, because than means that no battle in WWII was decisive, since the final Axis surrender was triggered by the dropping of the atomic bombs, which wasn't a battle. In fact, based on this view, all wars that had any small resistance after the last major battle could have no decisive battles no matter what happened in them.
- But, as has been suggested, we should focus on sources, not personal opinions. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- It may not be common among average readers but it is in the sources and I'd avoid terms like straw man because personal attacks are counter-productive. Your opinion is as irrelevant as mine, it's the opinion in the RS that matter. You use the term Battle for France but want to use a criterion that would work better (slightly) if you used Battle of France. By using for you show that the campaign was bigger than France. I suggest that you also misunderstand the nature of the Clausewitzian term because decisive means a battle with political consequences. Such a battle would be that of Smolensk in 1941 because that was where the Germans lost the ability to win by military means; decisive doesn't mean the last battle but the one that determined the course of the war, something that must be based on hindsight. Midway might also qualify for the Pacific War. I won't call your claim a straw man but I might be tempted to suggest that you are disingenuous. Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You couldn't be anymore duplicitous in your discourse! Indeed, whoever said the Clausewitzian definition is the one to which we abide? All one needs to research is the definition of "decisive", in any context, it is the production of a definite result. Therefore, the Battle of France is indeed decisive in concluding that Germany completed, by definite result, all of its strategic objectives. With your way of going about this, we may as well mark every decisive battle (except the final battles of a war) as indefinite in deciding a victor! KevinNinja (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the WP:AGF; it isn't a matter of our opinion or its constant and rather boring reiteration, it's what the RS say.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Recent edits
Template:Infobox military conflict please refer to this before editing the infobox.Keith-264 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that the previous edit is not only more detailed and correct; but it is much cleaner indeed. The territory changes in your version are overly complicated and paragraph like. I don't see a reason to change it, if it has been like this for a long time (and has worked just fine). Indeed, the wikipedia tutorial states that the territory section "should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement."
- Perhaps a combination of our styles would be of order. I can see how the pointers in the result field may be missing context, but it doesn't serve the purpose any better by cramming everything into the territorial changes section.KevinNinja (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your beliefs are of no consequence, Template:Infobox military conflict is. Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- On reflection I have rm the territory criterion because it falls between two stools.Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot just revert a section after months of discussion of the topic, proving you to be wrong on your assumptions every single time. I am trying to create a dialogue where we can jointly agree on the outcome of this matter, but you seem not to be joining. Wouldn't it be quicker for us to create something that has elements from both of our styles? Because, replacing the entire lower part of the infobox with an aftermath section, when the outcome of the conflict is clearly known, is absurd to say the least. Also nonsensical is removing the territorial changes section. KevinNinja (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, are you French? It is almost as if I sense bias in your actions, because there is no other logical explanation for your edits that I can think of. KevinNinja (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- All things aside, I think it would be much better for us to focus on fixing things from the GA review instead of wasting our time engaging in wasteful rhetoric. KevinNinja (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please refrain from bluster and read
- result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
- territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.
How can these requirements be reconciled with the bloated edits you keep reverting to or the personal abuse in your talk page comments? Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- If the debate is still open, instead of having fizzled out weeks ago, we will have to rehearse the matter again, during which the infobox shouldn't be edited.Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, let's talk! But i've reverted it to what it was originally, not your simplified version, because that only makes sense. Please point out, specifically, why you think an Aftermath section is better than what is currently there? Please refrain from reusing your arguments, which point only to battles that "win the war" (ie final battles..) as decisive.
- 1. result - "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome"... this does not apply to the article as the outcome is clearly known. Use common sense.
- 2. territory - not sure why you've decided to remove this. Worked all along.
- Monsieur, this time, please care to rebut my arguments instead of re-circling. KevinNinja (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have a question to ask you: do you think that the battle was decisively won by Germany? The answer is most probably negative, and I'd like to know why. KevinNinja (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yet again I remind you that this is a matter for the RS. They were exhaustively trawled and show no consensus so the matter should be described in the Analysis section.Keith-264 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi everybody. First of all, if we're gonna keep things sane while we talk and preempt any need for admin tool usage - lets keep the infobox the way it was before the disputed, non-consensus edits were made.
Second, full disclosure, I was invited here by KevinNinja on account of my previous involvement in this non-issue.
Third, this is a non-issue. And bothering people with it is imo an abuse of dispute resolution mechanisms. The Battle of France is the Battle of France - not the entirety of WWII. It was a decisive victory for the Germans. I have no complaints about adding a link to the Aftermath section, but lets not use that as a red herring in debating whether "German victory" should be in there, that's borderline comical. -- Director (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, this is silly and you made it worse, I suggest you change your approach. Keith-264 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
RS on result
If we must go through this again, I suggest we poll the RS
[Copied from Archive 4 7 October 2015]
The War in France and Flanders (Ellis 1953) Ch XXIII, pp. 315–328: Conduct and Consequences of the Campaign
The loss to the Allied cause implied by the conquest of France, Belgium and Holland cannot be measured exactly.... For them the immediate effect of the campaign was to...consolidate the foundations on which were built the forces of final victory. Ellis, pp. 327 & 328
To Lose a Battle (Horne 1969) Ch 21, pp. 646–666: Aftermath
Soon Hitler's astounding achievements in France would turn to dust.... Britain would remain at war, inviolate. And as long as Britain was there, it was inevitable that sooner or later the immense power of the United States would be brought in to. Horne, pp. 653 & 654
on the other hand
Before the decisive battle opened.... Luftwaffe... constituted a decisive factor at this stage of the Second World War. Horne, pp. 656 & 658
The Blitzkrieg Legend (Frieser 2005) Ch 11, pp. 347–353: Summary and Epilogue
....This is where [Sedan] the Germans in 1870 and 1940 had been able to win two of their most significant victories....In contrast to World War I, swift, operational, battles of decision now again seemed possible [but] the generals forgot who really won the Second Punic War. Cannae was only a passing operational success.... Frieser, pp, 349 & 350
Clearly room for discussion even in these three examples from a crowded field of candidates. What do the other RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?
I invite interested editors to contribute from their sources and abide by NPOV. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Survey cont.
- ...Germany won the campaign.... ...fall of France.... ...unexpected collapse.... p. XV ...collapse.... p. XVI ...swiftly defeated.... p. 350
Doughty Breaking Point (2014)
- Few defeats have been as unexpected or as sudden as France's collapse. Few have altered so fundamentally the status or standing of a nation within the community of nations. p. IX ...the resulting debacle.... p. X
Doughty Seeds (2014)
- In a matter of weeks the French army surrendered and the British army slipped across the Channel. p. 306 In May 1940 Gamelin had also thrown the dice in an all-or-nothing gamble – and lost. p. 332 Germany's defeat of France was a triumph, but Hitler realized its significance would shrink the longer the war went on. Time remained a real player. p. 342
Maiolo Cry Havoc (2010)
- Germany's victory over France gave it a remarkable position of power over the Continent of Europe. p. 393 In the weeks following the French collapse, Hitler clearly did hope that Britain would react to the loss of its major continental ally by accepting Germany's offer of an Imperial partnership. pp. 393–394 Despite the Wehrmacht's triumph in France, British recalcitrance exposed the fundamental problem of German strategy. Hitler had unleashed a war with Britain without a coherent plan as to how to defeat that country. p. 395 Defeat of France in a few short weeks.... p. 661
Tooze Wages (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The defection of France meant the ruin of the strategy so laboriously planned in the previous year. p. 209
Butler Grand Strategy (1957)
- The Germans' unease over the "Miracle of Dunkirk" was limited, however; the rapidity of their victory over France served as sufficient consolation. p. 85
Megargee High Command (2000) Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The result in May 1940 of these technological, tactical, doctrinal, and organizational developments was a bold operational approach that produced one of the most crushing military victories of the twentieth century.... pp. 374–375 In short the advances in land warfare that defeated France and pushed the British off the continent....p. 375
Murray & Millett Innovation...Interwar (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Army of the Third Reich was a failure....it conquered Poland in twenty-seven days....France in thirty-nine....The first transient victories.... pp. VII–VIII In June they took Paris, defeated France, and turned their attention on Great Britain. The impression made on contemporary minds by these fast and devastating victories was immense.... p. 113 But it was to the south that the decisive stroke was mounted....The campaign in the west had lasted just forty-six days and had been decided, effectively, within ten...a decisive attack in which manoeuvre and organisation counted for far more than men and weapons. The speed and decisiveness of the German victors.... pp. 217–218
Cooper German Army (1978)
- You can cherry-pick 20 more sources you interpret as vaguely supporting your position - and this affair would be no less ridiculous. These sources do not support you - this article is about the Battle of France, a specific conflict, not World War II. And no respectable historian in their right mind would claim it wasn't an Axis victory. Moreover its a German victory if there ever was one, by your argument no battle the Axis powers ever engaged in was a "victory". Oppose.
- And look, if you actually start edit-warring again over your opposed edits - I will at once request assistance for the community. This is absurd. -- Director (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are you serious? The change from Analysis to Vichy isn't opposed it's a separate matter, unless you object specifically. Change it back if you must but there isn't a shred of analysis in it.Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Have you even realised that "German victory" is a term I would support? The disputes here have always been about whether it was decisive. You are conducting gang warfare and your assumption of bad faith and edit warring is as self-serving as it is ignorant. I suggest you lay off the personal abuse too, I'm better at it than youKeith-264 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The personal attacks really should stop. It'll be a lot easier to gain consensus that way. FWIW the suggestion that the battle of France was non-decisive ignores the strategic reality. The Germans needed to avoid a two-front or prolonged war. The fact that they were able to put away the western allies in a short campaign was massively important for them. And while Britain was undefeated, Britain and Germany were mutually unable to put the hurt on each other. The influence on the development of the rest of the war was massive. There was no land combat in an important western theater until mid-1944. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I should add the perhaps obvious point that the single most important US Army operation of the entire war - the invasion of France- was in part aimed at reversing the outcome of the Battle of France. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "The supreme effort of the Western Allies in Europe" - US Army official History, Cross-Channel Attack, p.1.
- Erm, don't you think it was an Allied attack? The point I've been making all along is that it's not for us to judge, it's not NPOV. I made a start and it would be nice of everyone chipped in with their sources. Thanks for your well-mannered comments. Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're removing "G victory". The victory was "decisive" in that it decided the war on the continent. Again - the scope of the Battle of France, and this article(!), is the war on mainland Europe in May and June of 1940. In that respect, the battle was a swift and decisive victory for the Germans. It decided the war in France. IT DID NOT "DECIDE" WORLD WAR II, yes - but this article isn't titled "World War II"! Its not titled "Battle of Britain" either - but Battle of FRANCE.
- Lay off the narcissistic posturing, you're not at home. Following your capital example, it Was A German Victory but the RS are not consistent in calling it decisive. Didn't you read my last comment? My view has been that it can be described either as a German victory or 'See Aftermath Section' as per Template:Infobox military conflict and you are still agreeing with me and then slagging me off. You are substituting opinion for NPOV as per the RS in a foul (and sadly typical) mouthed way.Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- My comment above includes both "US Army" and "Western Allies" and is sourced. Ironic that the article we are discussing does not actually address the major consequences of the battle - the loss of an entire theater of operations; the (very big) French Army & Navy taken off the table (their air force seems to have taken themselves off the table during the campaign...); the shock amongst leaders of other armies to see that modern combined-arms operations could accomplish what they did, the effect in eastern Europe, which was now vulnerable to a German ONE-front war, etc. Instead it leads with the establishment of the Vichy regime, which is way down the list of major consequences IMO. The US Army formed its armored divisions and tank destroyer force directly as a result of the French campaign. There are a lot of things missing from the consequences/aftermath section. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to "the single most important US Army operation of the entire war" this. Do your sources describe the Battle of France as decisive or not?Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well said. I honestly don't care very much whether the info box uses the word 'decisive' or not. I am saying several things though:
- a) Any suggestion that the campaign was non-decisive, unimportant, or not dispositive of a great many issues is a nonserious argument.
- Well said. I honestly don't care very much whether the info box uses the word 'decisive' or not. I am saying several things though:
- b) Regardless of the info box, the article could use improvement in terms of describing the aftermath/result whatever we would like to call it.
- I agree, the article needs work on lots of sections and the section that I labelled analysis is anything but; when I looked at it again and reverted myself for carelessness, I got slagged off.Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- c) These consequences include all the things I noted above, plus other things I haven't got the brains to think of right now.
- I was recently rather chuffed to find a cheapo edition of Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster to go with The Breaking Point which is why I have returned to editing the article, to add something new rather than go round in circles here. How are you getting on with your survey of the RS? Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I ask again that folks refrain from personal attacks for crying out loud. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- My suggestion, therefore, is that we all redirect our energies to a much revamped Aftermath or Effects section. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Quite agree; it that how we left things last time? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but for the purposes of explanation. It is not to say that we should redirect users to an Aftermath section, when the outcome is clearly known. The scope of the aftermath section is different to all other sections in that its scope encompasses what happened after the battle. You will notice that this is not the case for the infobox. KevinNinja (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Will you agree to "German victory"?Keith-264 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I have a cunning plan. I think this deserves an article of its own. I believe it can be richly sourced. Tooze is an excellent start. The economic consequencies of the German occupation of France Tooze argues, (damn I dont have my copy to hand) that actually the German occupation actually cost German resources. In other words the occupation was a net loss. That, and/or a radical restructuring of the aftermath section. I belive old Keef is on to something, but we are getting bogged down in narrow defs. Sure it was a military victory, but it is much more highly nuanced than that, imho. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd agree to "German victory", with the bullet points which sit beneath the current "Decisive German Victory". There seems to be very considerable ambiguity as to what constitues a decisive victory and I think it right to remove that word. Equally I think there's broad agreement that the Germans won the battle, and so replacing "Decisive German Victory" with "See aftermath section" was not a good call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've been willing to settle for either all along... I think that see Aftermath is good, because the reader can go straight to the minutiae. When I looked at the Analysis I realised that it isn't an analysis (i.e. a survey of RS verdicts on the BofF showing variations caused by passage of time, schools of thought, new evidence, translations of French and German sources, Tooze (2006) etc). I took the list out of Territory because I had re-read the criteria for inclusion and copied them into the talk page, I shouldn't have put them there in the first place. With a decent analysis section the territory section (if used at all) need only have the territorial changes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The notion of bullet points may be good but let's ensure we have the right ones, i.e., the most important consequences of the campaign. The creation of the free french forces is certainly not in the top three. The Free French were a *tiny* addition to the Allied OOB until much later in the war and then only with US lend-lease.
- DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed; I'd be happy to see that one go. The first two look sound. Keith, the very strong argument against "See aftermath" is that there was an unambiguous German victory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- We should not go too far on the Tooze argument; the strategic consequences of the campaign were HUGELY in Germany's favor. It was a massive, cheap and enduring victory. That their occupation then may have been a net loss economically doesn't change that. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also agreed. Per Ferguson and The Pity of War, the Germans won WW1. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The notion of bullet points may be good but let's ensure we have the right ones, i.e., the most important consequences of the campaign. The creation of the free french forces is certainly not in the top three. The Free French were a *tiny* addition to the Allied OOB until much later in the war and then only with US lend-lease.
There has never been a despute about it being a German victory. Enduring I'm not sure four years counts. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure 4 years "counts"? The Germans eliminated an entire theater, quickly and at low cost. By the time land combat resumed in western Europe the war had less than a year to go. Of course it was enduring; the time span covers most of the war. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Four years is a third of the thousand-year Reich, It hardly endured.Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Have I misunderstood your point? It seems to me to be potentially perverse to rejection of one of the best RS of the last fifty years. Describing his view is a valid use of a source, because we can't make a synthesis out of RS, only describe what they say. I've listed ten sources so far on what the Battle of France meant, not judged them against an a priori opinion.Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- No idea what your comment means, sorry. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Tooze is one of the best RS of the last 50 years. You can't ignore him because his findings contradict preconceived ideas. Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. Nowhere do I say 'ignore Tooze'. And please do not attempt to read my mind by suggesting why I might want to ignore him - which, again, I did not suggest.
- For the second time, I ask you not to insert comments in mid-thread, it makes it very difficult to sort out. I am not the only editor to make this request of you, Keith.
- Four years is most of WW2. I am having trouble taking this seriously when I have to point this out, but, it happens to be important. Germany's strategic problem right from 1871 was the problem of two-front wars. In May-June 1940, against all expectations including their own, they solved that problem. They did not have to worry about their western front for four years. Sounds pretty decisive to me, according to the wiki definition. Again I am far less concerned with the infobox, which was the original point of dispute, than I am with having a really well-done Aftermath section that lays this out.
- Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You wrote this We should not go too far on the Tooze argument, what did you expect me to think? It looks like OR and if you resent me trying to read your mind, show me a little empathy for the abusive comments I've been receiving from other editors and explain it to me.
- For the second time, if you are going to make points in a list, number them so I can comment underneath without losing the thread. Commenting under each point is a common practice in GA reviews and is not bad manners here.
- No it wasn't, this is a myth, Germany's problem was in being confronted by bigger coalitions, not the number of fronts. The Germans worried about the Western Front all through the war and began to make military sacrifices in Russia in the second half of 1943 to reinforce it as they had earlier in Italy. Wiki isn't a source; especially one not cited and a stub.Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. Could we now go for "German victory" and the first two bullet points, without opening new fronts on Tooze and interleafing comments, so that the article can be unprotected. (Also ffs, tbh.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I heartily agree with ffs; I'm reminded of the suggestion in Arkell vs. Pressdram nearly every time I look into the talk page. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Full Protection for One Week
Due to edit warring, I've full protected the article for one week. Work it out, find consensus, instate the consensus view after a week. If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- While this week passes - might be a good idea for all editors to read archives 1, 2 and 4 for this article. All of these issues we are rehashing now were initially hashed then. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
New "Aftermath" section proposal
I suggested above that we rework the aftermath section rather than edit war abut the results info box.
I am just going to list a few major consequences of the campaign; I haven't yet sourced them but I will. Just trying to get a more productive discussion going here.
Major immediate effects:
- Defeat of France et al resulted in the loss of an entire theater of operations
- Large, modern French Army & Navy taken off the Allied order of battle
Indirect effects:
- Demonstration of modern combined-arms operational success leads to major force restructuring in US Army
- ? Effects on British Army force structure? I honestly do not know.
Political Effects:
- Germany offers peace proposal to Britain
- Occupation of northern France
- Italy enters WW2
- Establishment of Vichy regime
Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
-- Reformatting -- Keith, PLEASE stop inserting your comments into mine. It makes it very difficult to track who wrote what. Thank you. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you number them I won't need to.
--
- It can't have been, Britain continued the war but of course what matters is what the RS say.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Split between majority Vichy and minority Free French so even worse than that, when Operation Catapult went off.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Red Army reforms after the Finland fiasco, Khalkhin Gol triumph and the French debacle
- Maiolo made the interesting point that the British and the Red Army perfected the French model of methodical battle and that the pirouettes of the German ubersoldiers and their continuous battle was futile and exposed in 1941. The main effect on the British army was to deprive it of much of the equipment manufactured in the 30s and lead to decisions for quantity over quality.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Economic effects
- Germany remained inside the British blockade and France joined it, the French economy declined by about 50% in 1940 and shrank for the rest of the war
- The British boss class chose to be a US protectorate rather than a German satellite and threw economic rectitude out the window
- Dependence on Russian appeasement meant that Germany would decline compared to the USSR, hence the rush to invade
- Anticipation of the Anglo-American air fleets under construction increased Hitler's need to steal the USSR and its commodity output
- The anti-German coalition that began to form in 1938 after Munich quickened with US rearmament (Two-Ocean Navy Act, Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 etc)
- The US decision to back the British empire with guns and moneyKeith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016
- 1 Yes, Britain continued the war - but in other theaters of operation. The western European theater was shut down for four years. And of course, with the exception of the Atlantic (naval&air) theater, these were much less important theaters. Again, I reference the US Army official history on that.
- 2 Free French forces were practically nonexistent in June 1940. They became significant much later and I don't think we can attribute that directly to the French campaign.
- 3 The Red Army was re-re-forming anyway. Trying to return to their more advanced state of, say, 1936.
- 4 I wonder when the British Army began forming their armored divisions and tank brigades? They had only one division in 1940. Honest question: were the additional divisions formed as a result of 1940?
- Agreed there were major effects in the USA.
- Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- 1. No it didn't, Bomber Command was the principal offensive force against Germany
- 2. I know that's why I put minority
- 3. The Red Army was galvanised by the sensation in France
- 4. There was one (1st) armoured division in Britain and one (7th) in Egypt but the result of the French gig led to an emphasis on tank production to form new units, which overtook German production in 1941. In 1944 the Second Army was the most armoured army in the world. Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely my point. If Bomber Command was the main effort, frankly that ain't a theater of war, its just a theater.
- You're correct Britain had two armored divisions before the French campaign, not one as I wrote. The 1st Armoured Division was, like most of the French armored divisions, so recently formed that it was ineffective as a unit. In Normandy, correct, the 2nd Army had a huge number of armor units, which was intended for their breakout that never happened. I don't know enough about the history of the formation of British armored units; I can't tell if they were forming lots of units in 1940-41 as a result of the French campaign or if that is simply an artifact of the whole Army expanding.
- Please consider this my third request for a bit more civility. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't need the first one, what have you taken offence at?
- 1Theatre of war and theatre...? Don't know what that means.
- 2The Second Army had three armoured divisions and (eventually) eight armoured and tank brigades. Breakout? It was always planned to come in the west. The British armoured divisions showed what they were made of in the dash from the Seine to the Dutch border and the dash from the Rhine to the Baltic.
- 3The army had been intended to be an armoured and motorised supplement to the big French army, after Dunkirk the target size was increased and the armoured element was too, hence the push for a big increase in production.Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just a brief note to reinforce the last comment. Per David French's research, the British Army started the armoured division concept supplemented by motorized territorial divisions in the late 30s with the intention of breaching and breaking through. Per Buckley, by Normandy these division were intended as Keith mentioned and instead were utilized as bulldozers in every operation against their express intention and design. More later, on topic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to jump in here after my day or two absence. I agree with your first suggestion (which Keith misunderstood): " I suggested above that we rework the aftermath section rather than edit war abut the results info box."
- Here is my reasoning, as explained in the previous post as well: "It is not to say that we should redirect users to an Aftermath section, when the outcome is clearly known. The scope of the aftermath section is different to all other sections in that it may encompass what happened after the battle. Indeed, it should! You will notice that this is not the case for the infobox." KevinNinja (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- What have I misunderstood? What is your evidence from RS that the result is clearly known? Keith-264 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- We won't play the RS game when you cherry pick sources. Since we all know that Germany won the battle, we must focus on the problem here, which is scope. The info box has scope on the battle. The only part in the article where this differs is the aftermath section.
- Add your own sources or explain why you can accuse me of cherry-picking and it not be a failure of AGF, WP:game. Unless I've missed something.... have you looked at RS and realised that you don't have a leg to stand on? That aside, will you agree to "German victory"> Yes or no?Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You misunderstood in the fact that he was suggesting a revamp of the aftermath section, not removing all context and pointing to the aftermath section. You are the only one who is making an issue of this, and its senseless. KevinNinja (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Cherrypicking In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. Put up or shut up Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I won't get into the Aftermath section issue, but permit me to reiterate my strong opposition to removing "Decisive German victory" from the infobox. This was a devastating blow that definitively ended all operations in France and the Low Countries for three years, knocked France out of the war for good (its called "Battle of France"!), and very fundamentally affected the course of World War II. These are basically BLUE facts that are being challenged (again!) by what's essentially OR. No reputable historian in his right mind would contest that this was a decisive defeat for the good guys - probably the most significant of the entire war.
And I will be frank, 'cause that's kind of my thing: I believe this entire annoying issue (Aftermath proposals included) being pushed again for the fiftieth time - is solely about the British flag being there in the infobox under the "Decisive defeat" result heading. The "BoB" is something of a national myth in the UK nowadays, blown way out of proportion in terms of both scope and significance, and I think that's what causes disruptions to this article on a regular basis. "Defeated??! We?? What with the RAF not being destroyed?? Poppycock!" :)
Next we'll be hearing how the Malayan Campaign "wasn't really decisive" since the front just moved to Burma... -- Director (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OR Everything you have written is irrelevant, un-WP:Civil and here solely about the British flag is fatuous if it's aimed at me, I'm. an. anarchist. How would you like it if I wrote that you were an illiterate, American ignoramus? Why not show that you are serious about writing a good article, by going through your sources to see which ones have decisive German victory and those that don't? I suggest that it is a more productive activity than blustering and calling me names. Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Director, that was pretty funny.
- I think when we try to magically figure out the motivations of other editors we stray into thing we cannot know and that will just hurt our ability to work together.
- I don't care whether the info box says "German Victory" or "Decisive German Victory" - either is OK with me....I think adding 'decisive' is certainly accurate and citable and Director expressed the reasons why very well (although I think he meant 4 years ;). But if it's going to cause constant reverts it's simply not worth it. Sometimes you can see these things coming. Look at the old talk pages. We've been here before and we have better things to do.
- The Aftermath section as it stands now, regardless of this infobox argument, is pretty bad. That's why I suggested a rework to solve both problems at once. A well-crafted aftermath section will make it damned clear that the Germans achieved a yuuuuge victory that had really massive effects on the course of the war, even on nonbelligerents (the USA at the time). DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't, I think it's embarrassing but I agree that writing a better aftermath is a good idea. I'm working on an analysis section and will add it to the talk page, rather than waste my time here wondering where all the grown-ups have gone. Morpheus, no-one has shown a RS that deprecates the magnitude of the German victory, it's only the word decisive that is tendentious and I'm the only one who's cited a RS that uses the term. Did it really change the course of the war though? Germany was weaker than the 1940 coalition, had a big, unlikely victory but still lost, only managing to take longer. As for the neutrals, you might find Tooze quite supportive. I have a few more sources to look at but there are some really good ones in the bibliography that I don't have. Is there a reluctance to join in because it might show that I've got a point? Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keith, this is a good example of a snarky comment that makes it difficult to edit with you. Calling other editors children is incredibly corrosive to cooperation. Maybe some are 'reluctant' because: a) You insult them frequently, and b) You seem to be seriously arguing whether the fall of France fundamentally changed the course of the war. That is nonserious. Maybe step aside and let other people edit this article without you? After June 1940, the Allied "coalition" consisted of ....who exactly? Britain-on-the-ropes and....? A couple battalions of exiles?
- I am going to disengage now, this was silly a long time ago. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Morpheus, OK, Director, that was pretty funny, "OK Keith that was snarky I'm bailing out", not exactly even-handed is it? I have resorted to retaliation against the provocation of serial abuse (which I shouldn't) and all you can see are my retorts. Thanks very much, you haven't even complimented me on how stylish they are. As for your view about the war, like mine it's irrelevant to Wiki, we aren't RS. Why is this so difficult? Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I was channeling General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, KCB.
"Three years".. ok two and a half years.. I was thinking of Case Anton :). -- Director (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Parked
* {{cite book series=Stackpole Military History |title=The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940 |last=Doughty |first=R. A. |authorlink= |year=2014 |orig-year=1990 |publisher=Archon Books |location=Hamdeon, CT |edition=Stackpole, Mecanicsburg, PA |isbn=978-0-8117-1459-4}} [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)<br /> * {{cite journal |editor-last=Childress |editor-first=P. W. |last=Mansoor |first=Peter R. |date=June 1988 |title=The Second Battle of Sedan, May 1940 |Journal=Military Review |publisher=United States Army Combined Arms Center |location=Fort Leavenworth, KS |volume=LXVIII |number=6 |pages=64–75 |pdf=http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll1/id/514/rec/1 |accessdate=17 September 2016 |other=PB-100-88-6 |issn=0026-4148}}Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
RS on the nature of the German victory
I have copied the list above to separate it from commentary [Copied from Archive 4 7 October 2015]
The War in France and Flanders (Ellis 1953) Ch XXIII, pp. 315–328: Conduct and Consequences of the Campaign
The loss to the Allied cause implied by the conquest of France, Belgium and Holland cannot be measured exactly.... For them the immediate effect of the campaign was to...consolidate the foundations on which were built the forces of final victory. Ellis, pp. 327 & 328
To Lose a Battle (Horne 1969) Ch 21, pp. 646–666: Aftermath
Soon Hitler's astounding achievements in France would turn to dust.... Britain would remain at war, inviolate. And as long as Britain was there, it was inevitable that sooner or later the immense power of the United States would be brought in to. Horne, pp. 653 & 654
on the other hand
Before the decisive battle opened.... Luftwaffe... constituted a decisive factor at this stage of the Second World War. Horne, pp. 656 & 658
The Blitzkrieg Legend (Frieser 2005) Ch 11, pp. 347–353: Summary and Epilogue
....This is where [Sedan] the Germans in 1870 and 1940 had been able to win two of their most significant victories....In contrast to World War I, swift, operational, battles of decision now again seemed possible [but] the generals forgot who really won the Second Punic War. Cannae was only a passing operational success.... Frieser, pp, 349 & 350
Clearly room for discussion even in these three examples from a crowded field of candidates. What do the other RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?
I invite interested editors to contribute from their sources and abide by NPOV. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Survey cont.
- ...Germany won the campaign.... ...fall of France.... ...unexpected collapse.... p. XV ...collapse.... p. XVI ...in subsequent days the Germans won one of the most decisive victories in military history. pp. 349–350Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Doughty Breaking Point (2014)
- Few defeats have been as unexpected or as sudden as France's collapse. Few have altered so fundamentally the status or standing of a nation within the community of nations. p. IX ...the resulting debacle.... p. X
Doughty Seeds (2014)
- In a matter of weeks the French army surrendered and the British army slipped across the Channel. p. 306 In May 1940 Gamelin had also thrown the dice in an all-or-nothing gamble – and lost. p. 332 Germany's defeat of France was a triumph, but Hitler realized its significance would shrink the longer the war went on. Time remained a real player. p. 342
Maiolo Cry Havoc (2010)
- Germany's victory over France gave it a remarkable position of power over the Continent of Europe. p. 393 In the weeks following the French collapse, Hitler clearly did hope that Britain would react to the loss of its major continental ally by accepting Germany's offer of an Imperial partnership. pp. 393–394 Despite the Wehrmacht's triumph in France, British recalcitrance exposed the fundamental problem of German strategy. Hitler had unleashed a war with Britain without a coherent plan as to how to defeat that country. p. 395 Defeat of France in a few short weeks.... p. 661
Tooze Wages (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The defection of France meant the ruin of the strategy so laboriously planned in the previous year. p. 209
Butler Grand Strategy (1957)
- The Germans' unease over the "Miracle of Dunkirk" was limited, however; the rapidity of their victory over France served as sufficient consolation. p. 85
Megargee High Command (2000) Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The result in May 1940 of these technological, tactical, doctrinal, and organizational developments was a bold operational approach that produced one of the most crushing military victories of the twentieth century.... pp. 374–375 In short the advances in land warfare that defeated France and pushed the British off the continent....p. 375
Murray & Millett Innovation...Interwar (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Army of the Third Reich was a failure....it conquered Poland in twenty-seven days....France in thirty-nine....The first transient victories.... pp. VII–VIII In June they took Paris, defeated France, and turned their attention on Great Britain. The impression made on contemporary minds by these fast and devastating victories was immense.... p. 113 But it was to the south that the decisive stroke was mounted....The campaign in the west had lasted just forty-six days and had been decided, effectively, within ten...a decisive attack in which manoeuvre and organisation counted for far more than men and weapons. The speed and decisiveness of the German victors.... pp. 217–218
Cooper German Army (1978)
- By that logic the 1927 Yankees sucked too. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
all contributions welcome. I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- ...the conquest of France by the Germans in 1940 seemed at first to be a major disaster. But this was not a new experience for the French, and there were precedents to suggest that, although this might well be a lost battle, it was not necessarily a lost war. p. 3 ...and the Germans had realised that their great victory in France had misled them into believing that the world lay at their feet. p. 4 The decisive German victory of 1940.... p. 245
Warner Battle of France (2002)
- ...an armistice following its amazing victory. p. 2
Smith Fighting Vichy (2010)
- ...general collapse. p. 32 ...military defeat, even defeat on the scale the French had suffered. p. 33.
Ousby Occupation (1999)Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Germany's seeming preparations for an such an offensive were deceptive manoeuvres intended to pin down Allied forces and prevent their deployment in other, potentially decisive theatres such as Scandinavia or the Balkans. p. 8. ...it is more accurate to say that France lost a war in 1940, then later took part in another war that ended differently. p. 451
May Strange Victory (2000)Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Remarkable as it now seems, in 1939, and even in 1940 and 1941, British leaders were confident of victory.... So much so, that even without a great ally, France, they could see the way not just to avoiding defeat but to victory. p. 2 The defeat in the east was a devastating blow which weakened the Empire's capacity to fight Germany and Italy very considerably. The new necessity to fight on two fronts made the Empire dependent on the United States, which only now emerged as what Britain had until recently been, a great global power.... The dependence on the US was not a straightforward matter of subservience to a greater power, but an attempt through a division of labour to maximise the exploitation of common resources. pp. 4–5
Edgerton War Machine (2011)
- Once again Keith, we turn to discussing scope. A majority of your sources explain why defeating France put Germany in an uncomfortable position with England, which is true. But, that's not what this article is about. Let me reiterate.
- What the infobox is NOT about:
- The infobox is NOT about the Aftermath of the battle.
- The infobox is NOT about the significance of the battle in the grand scheme of the war.
- The infobox is NOT about anything that occurred after the battle.
- The infobox is NOT about the Battle of Britain.
- The infobox is NOT about describing the position Germany was put in after the battle.
- What the infobox IS about:
- The infobox IS about describing the result of THE BATTLE.
- Finally, this article IS about the BATTLE OF FRANCE.
- Everything in the "NOT" section can be placed into the Aftermath section, which is where you should keep your ideas. Also, you'd probably be very welcome at Battle of Britain. They'd like you there!
- You may also notice, the people who have decided to leave this discussion are simply tired of your weird historical biases, stubbornness without agreeing to anything except your own positions, and misunderstanding of scope. And no, your positions are not proved by your RS, because, like I've explained, you're just disproving yourself, and providing resources that only point to Germany's position after the war, not during the battle.
- THE END. KevinNinja (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- For information Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Right, well, cordially, I've changed "this article" to "the infobox". And, like I've said, this discussion was never about RS, but it was about scope. A majority of your sources explain why defeating France put Germany in an uncomfortable position with England, which is true (Congrats on proving something!). But, that's not what the infobox is for. The infobox is about describing the result of the battle, not the implications that the result had. That, my friend, is what the aftermath section is for.
- Further, since this is a discussion about scope (and sources?), here is my source: Template:Infobox military conflict.
- result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. - I think you will find that this refers to the sources which describe the outcome of the battle, which are very obvious anyways. What sane historian would say that Germany didn't decisively win the battle? It's just a well known fact - sources not needed. Germany totally destroyed the allied resistance in France in a swift campaign, the likes of which had never been seen before in modern history. Thus, they decisively won the battle. Where I would agree with you for the needing of sources is in describing the aftermath or implications of the battle on the entire course of the war, which are the sources you are listing. Feel free to include those sources into the aftermath section. But, they don't belong in the discussion for the infobox, which just describe the basic result of the battle. This discussion is just so trivial. KevinNinja (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do you agree to "German victory" because it's true and the RS say so or do you want to editorialise with OR? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- You missed this bit In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. out for some reason.... All constructive contributions welcome. I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Kevin, if your claims are true, where are the RS to back them up? Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Most sources about the battle don't even consider the fact that someone would weirdly question the fact that Germany won the battle decisively. Most just explain how they won so decisively. This is because, yes, it is a fact (You might want to look at some high school history books, they might tell you who won?). I omitted the last section of that because "Decisive German victory" describes the result perfectly. KevinNinja (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Kevin, if your claims are true, where are the RS to back them up? German victory and "See the 'Aftermath' section" are the only ones which fit, unless you can quote RS that say different. Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- He's still on...
- The standard terms most certainly do suffice. This was not a strategic defeat, nor a defeat in any sense, for the Germans. This was both a strategic and tactical victory - you could put this thing in the dictionary next to "strategic victory". We do not require sources to explicitly use the term "decisive victory" in order for us to judge that is the standard term for use to use in this parameter. Short of the First Battle of Kiev (possibly), this is the most devastating defeat of Allied forces in the ENTIRE WAR.
- You have no consensus, your proposal is laughable - move on. Stop parroting the same phrases like they mean anything, and please stop disrupting the talkpage.
- @Kevin, all that can be said has been said, I don't know what purpose there is in continuing this charade. If he holds WP:CONSENSUS in such contempt as to yet again introduce his edits in spite of universal opposition, I don't know.. I'll ask for sanctions or something. Tb maybe. -- Director (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Civil, AGF Dead Horse etc. Me, Enigma, Irondome and Morpheus will settle for German victory. Why won't you acknowledge this or offer RS to support your claims? Keith-264 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- As it happens I've found a reliable source that actually uses the explicit term 'decisive' German victory. Will post later when I have more time. But I may need to join my comrades in the 'decisive victory' camp after all.
- Regarding the aftermath, the campaign also led directly to the creation of the Canadian Armoured Corps.
- DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Splendid, so did I and despite my "cherrypicking" I added it but it's still about 15:3. Apropos, if you stop indenting every sentence when you comment, I'd be obliged, thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it's 12:2, the decisives are losing. Could there be anything more conclusive of the difference between RS and OR?Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not remotely conclusive. Let's not even bother going down such a silly path. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CivilKeith-264 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Sources on 'Decisive' Victory
The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean. West Point Military History Series, published by the history dept of the United States Military Academy. P.15 "Destruction of the enemy forces in quick, decisive, offensive battles, accordingly, remained the keystone of German strategic and tactical doctrine." P. 45: "By Feb 1940, Case YELLOW had been drastically revised and now had a decisive objective: to cut off and destroy Allied forces north and west of Sedan." (obviously this decisive objective was achieved-DM2). P.48, Rundstedt's breakthrough labeled "decisive". p. 50, "In six weeks, the Allied armies in Western Europe had been shattered and pursued with a vengeance reminiscent of Napoleon." p. 51 Hitler sued Britain for peace.DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Decision in Normandy, LTC Carlo D'Este, p. 18-19: "....the pressing need to defend the British isles against invasion made any thoughts of a quick return to the continent of Europe fantastical. British priorities lay in simple survival; indeed it was evident....that immediate American aid was essential if Britain were to hold out against Hitler." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Berlin, Roman Jarymowycz, p. 89, "The Battle of France in 1940 had demonstrated the decisive power of massed armor." p. 107, discussing objectives for the Normandy campaign, "Above this hovered the political and military expectations that the Allied armored force would effect a rapid and decisive victory that would parallel, if not overshadow, German victories in 1940." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Sources on Aftermath
The sources below support the bullets I outlined above regarding the effects of the battle on force structures in the German, US and Canadian armies. Essentially, these sources support the idea that previous usage of tanks in WW1, Spain, Poland etc. had not shocked the world's armies into changing their thinking. France did. Both the US and Canadian armored forces were formed directly as a result of the French campaign. The Germans concluded they were on the right track and continued to expand their armored forces. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean. West Point Military History Series, published by the history dept of the United States Military Academy. p. 51: "The 1940 campaign in the west was the first German experience against a numerically equal enemy with modern equipment. Evaluation of this campaign convinced the Germans that tactical concepts for the conduct of mobile warfare were correct."DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century, Jonathan House. P.114 "Yet the Germans defeated the Allies so rapidly that they seemed to validate the concept of blitzkreig in Germany and abroad...." p. 117, "The sudden collapse of France in 1940 caused professional soldiers in many armies to reassess their organizations, training, and doctrine." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Battleground: The Greatest Tank Duels in History, Steve Zaloga, p. 10: "Tank-versus-tank combat was a rarity until the 1940 battle of France." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Berlin, Roman Jarymowycz, p.60, "As late as 1939, after blitzkreig had savaged the Polish army (which had more tanks than the U.S. Army) into submission, the Chief of Infantry (all US tanks were under the Infantry branch- DM2), General Lynch, went on record as saying the US Infantry did not want any "Panzer Divisions"." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- p. 71 "It was the third time Chaffee had proposed an Armored Force.....His recommendations had been regularly dismissed, but this was June 1940: the Germans had just crushed both the British Expeditionary Force and the French Army . Chaffee now preached to interested ears." The US Armored Force was created on July 10, 1940 p. 71. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- P. 75 "German aggression brought the (Canadian-DM2) government to its senses and it reacted remarkably quickly. On 13 August 1940, after the fall of France, the minister of national defence ordered the creation of an Armoured Corps."
- P. 83 "The Battle of France in 1940 had been an epiphanic experience. if Poland had been dismissed as a lucky victory against a second-rate opponent, then no one could deny the triumph of panzers over both the French Army and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF)". "....the campaign in France at once legitimized mechanization..."DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Effect of the French campaign (but not Poland) on US defense spending: History of the United States Army, Russell Weigley, p. 424-425: early 1940, FDR proposes an Army budget of $853 million. "....the fall of France suggested that the French and perhaps soon the British fleet might pass into German control." Revised US Army budget after the fall of France: $ 1,585 million. I.e., the Army budget nearly doubled in the space of a few months when the USA was not at war; the increase was not due to the outbreak of the European war but due to the French campaign. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Why the Allies Won, Richard Overy. p.137-8 : The Victory Plan, which was the overall plan for rearmament in the USA written in July 1941, "...was based on the assumption that at some time western forces would need vast army and air equipment for re-entry to the European continent." I.e., the major assumptions underlying the massive US economic effort in WW2 include the goal of reversing the French campaign. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Postwar: "Britain and France, the key actors in 1919, found their postwar international position fatally weakened by their inability to stop Germany in 1940. Without allies there would have been no way that Britain could secure her empire, let alone defeat her enemies, once the French Army was out of the contest. After 1945 Britain and France became powers of the second rank."DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, could you add the publication dates? Keith-264 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Truly thou art akin to the foundation of a sturdy sequoia, DMorpheus2. Reading your posts is therapeutic: the patience, the zen.. Reading Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird, VC, DFC and Bar over here just makes me want to use the word "gobbledygook" more often in conversation.
- I'm not even kidding, kudos for actually verifying for this gentleman the fact that the Battle of France was a serious defeat. I know I could never do it. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've changed from Decisive victory to serious defeat, I think that's a fair summary of the RS. I was talking to your friend General Melchett about differences of opinion yesterday and he congratulated me for my ripostes,
Well, I hope so, Blackadder-264. You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!
thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thing is, all I have in this box of standard entries for the parameter is "decisive victory".. it'll have to do for the most serious Allied defeat of WWII. (I was hoping we could use "Wooble", but no luck...) -- Director (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- A fair summary of the RS, including most of the ones posted by K-264, leads to at least 'German Victory' if not 'Decisive German Victory'. I had said before I could live with either but, thinking more carefully and looking at other comments, if this wasn't decisive then nothing in WW2 was decisive except maybe atomic bombing. We should, all together now, draft a better aftermath section also. There's some good stuff here.
- RS's must not only be counted but weighed. Two of the sources I listed are textbooks used to train Army officers. IMO they have a lot more weight & rigor than popular histories. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- If we apply a qualitative criterion, it has to be derived from the RS, not our subjective assumptions about the value of each source. On that bombshell, Doughty The Breaking Point looks like a good place to start. Are you still under the impression that I don't agree with German Victory? I've always been willing to settle for it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Decisive is the word you're missing for a victory so crushing, that it sent Allied forces running for some boats on the beach at Dunkirk. With 1.9 million captured, it was a decisive victory that proved combined arms combat as a superb military technique and made military tacticians around the world question their own strategies. Kieth, Sources explaining the devastation of this historic decisive victory have been posted for you, and as such I believe that this discussion is over. KevinNinja (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Top three bullets in infobox?
This might be a good time to ask for opinions on the top three bullets to be included in the infobox, based on some of the discussion above. I suggest at least these two:
- French surrender
- Allied loss of western front until 1944
Other contenders for top three bullets might be:
- Italian entry into WW2
- Strategic shift in favor of nazi Germany
Other opinions???? DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Initial thoughts:
- French Surrender
- Axis gain French Atlantic seaboard
- Italy enters WW2 as an Axis power
I think these are the main takeaway points from the result. I think strategic shift would be better covered in an improved aftermath section, as it's a bit complex for a bullet. I would suggest adding the Atlantic seaboard because it became the best Axis opportunity to win the war in the west, enabling the Battle of the Atlantic to begin in earnest. The Italian entry bullet also I think is critical, and can be better handled in bullet format, and expanded in aftermath. Irondome (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only points which fit the Territory criterion can go under territory, no bullet points are acceptable under result, for obvious reasons. If you want them mentioned you must replace German victory with See Aftermath section. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're totally wrong about that. Who told you bullets can't be used? They are used good articles around Wikipedia. Absurd. KevinNinja (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Civil Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. (my bold).
- Examples of articles with bulleted results in infobox:
- American Civil War: "Union Victory", four bullets
- Battle of Kursk: "Decisive Soviet Victory", two bullets
- Battle of Berlin: "Decisive Soviet Victory", two bullets
- Battle of Stalingrad: "Decisive Soviet Victory", two bullets
- Battle of the Bulge: "Allied Victory, German Operational Failure", three bullets
- Battle of Dien Bien Phu: "Decisive Viet Minh Victory", two bullets
- Hundred Years' War: no explicit result, just four bullets
- Examples of articles with bulleted results in infobox:
- So, whether we agree this is policy or not, it is certainly common practice on some rather prominent articles. Nothing in the policy excludes this. Common sense applies. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are you going to follow the rules or not? Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, (and as always I am willing to be corrected), there is no rule that says "no bullets may be used in infoboxes". The rule that K-264 keeps repeating is silent on this issue. When I am attempting to show is that, whatever the rule may be, the actual practice is that bullets are often used. WP:COMMON DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Edit conflict
- OK, here goes: result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". this shows what can go in so there's no need to show what can't. I think you'll need a lot more examples of A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner. non-standard infoboxes, before you can justify often. Notice the class ratings of your seven examples too, how many of the errant bullet points will survive scrutiny for higher class reviews? WP:Game WP:Dead horse Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno, Keith. Let's ask:
- Battle of Svolder
- Battle of The Cedars
- Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)
- Battle of Bosworth Field
- Battle of Gonzales
- Battle of Khafji --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno, Keith. Let's ask:
- Kieth, you keep quoting that section from the Wikipedia help page, without understanding what it actually means. The text reads that "see aftermath" should only be used so that contradictory or confusing terms like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat" are not used. In this case, "decisive German victory" describes the outcome perfectly. The bullets, which are used in many good articles in Wikipiedia, are just there for extra context or information that might be important about the result, and do not in any way apply to this contradiction of terms. KevinNinja (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note, the example used -- "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat" basically describes Operation Barbarossa. That is one case where, yes, see aftermath can be used. KevinNinja (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- My name is K e i t h. Keith-264 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Digging a hole....Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are we though, K e i t h? KevinNinja (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am reminded of that old saying, "when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table."
- By my reading I suggest we are close to consensus for the current "Decisive German Victory" and should put some effort into 3 short bullets plus a really good aftermath page. This is an important article. Let's do it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) By my reading there was already an explicit consensus for "decisive ger victory", long-standing in fact, and Keith has failed to build one for any changes.
- At the end of the day, @Keith-264: even if you still believe sources are on your side (which they really aren't), be aware that on this project WP:CON effectively trumps other policies (like WP:V). That's just how it is, sorry, see here for my ravings on the subject. I've been where you (think you) are now, but if you revert again I'll ask for a week's block. Lets move on here. -- Director (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Doughty
Melvin
In a chapter of The Battle of France and Flanders: Sixty Years On (2001), Mungo Melvin wrote that German writing on the 1940 campaign sought answers to various questions,
How brilliant was the Manstein–Hitler operational idea, strategically? Was it realistic in its objectives to "force a decision on land", to crush the enemy and end the war in Germany's favour? Was the French defeat a foregone conclusion to German eyes? Would the defeat of the BEF on the sands of Dunkirk have decided the war in Germany's favour?
— Melvin[1]
and that contemporary writing in accounts and diaries show apprehension rather than confidence. German army officers were astonished by the swiftness of victory, the French collapse and the British escape. Later historians have hindsight and British writers could make much of Dunkirk but German writers take the view that it was a big operational and perhaps strategic blunder, this could not be blamed on a German failure to have formed a concept of the war; Dunkirk might not have been decisive but was a fatal blow to German strategy. Melvin called the German victory a "stunning operational success", that the Germans had exploited Allied mistakes and recovered from theirs, despite the tensions in the German command.[2]
- ^ Melvin 2001, p. 221.
- ^ Melvin 2001, pp. 221–222.
- Melvin, Mungo (2001). "The German View". In Bond, B.; Taylor, M. D. (eds.). The Battle of France and Flanders: Sixty Years On. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-0-85052-811-4.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Alexander
In his chapter in The Battle of France and Flanders: Sixty Years On (2001), Martin Alexander wrote that many writers had followed Marc Bloch in Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940 (1940). Bloch questioned why French people accepted and even welcomed the defeat of the Third Republic. Andrew Shennan had written in The Fall of France, 1940, a survey of the writing on the campaign and concluded that it was of interest mostly to specialists in strategic and military history and held little interest for the French. In The French Defeat of 1940: Reassessments (1997), Stanley Hoffman had written that there was no "1940 syndrome" counterpart to the "Vichy syndrome" discovered in the 1980s by Henry Rousso and with the "colonial syndrome" caused by the exposure of French atrocities in Algeria. French historians had shown little interest in the military events from April to June 1940, being more interested in the consequences, particularly the establishment of the Vichy regime in July 1940. Overlooked accounts of the campaign by participants portrayed brave, puzzled French soldiers but the definitive history of the war fought by the fighting men had yet to be written. Alexander called the British and French in 1940 "neighbouring nations conducting a war in parallel rather than as one unified endeavour" and wrote that the relationship between the national histories was similar and parallel myths and literatures had come about and that sixty years on it was the same.[1]
- ^ Alexander 2001, pp. 199–201.
- Alexander, M. S. (2001). "The French View". In Bond, B.; Taylor, M. D. (eds.). The Battle of France and Flanders: Sixty Years On. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-0-85052-811-4.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) - Hoffmann, S. (1997). "The Trauma of 1940: A Disaster and its Traces". In Blatt, Joel (ed.). The French Defeat of 1940: Reassessments. Providence, RI: Berghahn. ISBN 978-1-57181-109-7.
Doughty
In 2014, Doughty wrote that in 1956, J. F. C. Fuller called the military operations on the Meuse in 1940, the Second Battle of Sedan. Fuller had called the German operation an attack by paralyzation but Doughty wrote that what some writers later called blitzkrieg, had influenced few German officers except for Guderian and Manstein and that the dispute between Guderian and Kleist that led Guderian to resign on 17 May showed the apprehensions of the higher commanders about the "pace and vulnerability" of the XIX Panzer Corps. Doughty wrote that the development of the German plan suggested that the intention of sending armoured forces through the Ardennes was traditional Vernichtungsstrategie (strategy of annihilation), to encircle opposing forces and destroy them in a Kesselschlacht (cauldron battle). Weapons had changed but the methods were the same as those at Ulm (1805), Sedan (1870) and Tannenburg (1914).[1]
Fuller had also written that the German army was an armoured battering-ram, which covered by fighters and dive-bombers, working as flying artillery, broke through at several points. Doughty wrote that the XIX, XLI and XV Panzer corps had been the vanguard of the advance through the Ardennes but the most determined resistance at Bodange, the mushroom of Glaire, Vendresse, La Horgne and Bouvellement had been defeated by the combined attacks of infantry, artillery and tanks. The XIX Panzer Corps had only acted as a battering ram against the French covering forces in the Ardennes but it was long after 1940 that the importance of German infantry fighting and of combined operations south and to the south-west of Sedan was recognised. Doughty also wrote that Fuller was wrong about the role of the Luftwaffe which had not operated as flying artillery, German ground forces depending on conventional artillery. German bombing around Sedan on 13 May had managed to deplete the morale of the French 55th Division and ground attacks had helped force on the ground advance but French bunkers were captured by hard infantry fighting, supported by direct-fire artillery and tanks, not destroyed by bombs and only two tanks of the French Second Army were reported destroyed by aircraft.[2]
Doughty wrote that recent information suggested that the German offensive had been more complicated and at times chaotic, rather than an armoured rush through the Ardennes and across France. French strategy had left the Allies vulnerable to a breakthrough the Ardennes and the army failed adequately to react to the breakthrough and the massing of tanks; tactically the German tanks and infantry had defeated French defences that were rarely formidable. French military intelligence also failed to identify the main German attack and even on the morning of 13 May, thought that the main attack would be in central Belgium. The French had made the grave error of concentrating on evidence that supported their assumptions rather than assess German capacity and give credence to reports that the Germans were not conforming to French expectations. The French had based their strategy on a theory of methodical battle and firepower against a German theory of manoeuvre, surprise and speed. French centralised authority was not suited to the practice of hasty counter-attacks or bold manoeuvres, sometimes appearing to move in "slow motion".[3]
Doughty wrote that methodical battle might have succeeded against a similar opponent but was inadequate against the fast and aggressive Germans, who seized the initiative, were strategically, operationally and tactically superior at the decisive point, defeating the French who were unable to react quickly enough, deep German advances disorganising French counter-moves. Experience in Poland was used to improve the German army and make officers and units more flexible, a willingness to be pragmatic allowing reforms to be made, which while incomplete, showed their value in France. The French had been overconfident and after the fall of Poland had speeded the assembly of large armoured units but failed to re-think the theory that guided their use. After the defences at Sedan had been criticised, Huntziger had written,
I believe that no urgent measures are necessary to reinforce the Sedan sector.
— Huntziger[4]
and the Second Army had made no effort to improve them.[5]
The German tradition of delegation, sometimes known as Auftagstaktik (mission command), in which leaders were trained to take the initiative, having been told of the commander's intent and make decisions to accomplish the mission. The German system worked better than the French emphasis on obedience, following doctrine and eschewing novelty. Auftragstaktik was not a panacea, as the argument between Kleist and Guderian demonstrated but Guderian's refusals orders would have been intolerable in a French officer. On 14 May, Lieutenant-General Jean-Marie-Léon Etcheberrigaray refused to order the 53rd Division to counter-attack, only due to a lack of time; Major-General Georges-Louis-Marie Brocard commander of the 3e DCr, could not attack for lack of supplies and was sacked for the failure to supply and move the division. Command from the front was possible for German commanders because their chiefs of staff were accustomed to wield executive authority, managing the flow of units and supplies, tasks which in the French army were reserved for the commanding officer. Guderian had been free to move around during the fighting at Sedan, while Grandsard and Huntziger remained at their headquarters, unable to hurry on units and override hesitant commanders.[6]
Dought wrote that the 55th, 53rd and 71st Infantry divisions had collapsed at Sedan under little pressure from the Germans but that this was not caused by decadence but because soldiers are individuals within a group which fights according to doctrine and strategy in the spirit by which they are led. The French divisions suffered from poor organisation, doctrine, training, leadership and a lack of confidence in their weapons, which would have caused any unit to fail. From Luxembourg to to Dunkirk the XIX Panzer Corps had 3,845 (6.99 percent) casualties, 640 (1.16 percent) killed and 3,205 men wounded (5.83 percent) of about 55,000 men. Of 1,500 officers, 53 (3.53 percent) were killed and 241 (16.07 percent) were wounded. The French Second Army had 12 percent casualties, from 3–4 percent killed and from 8–9 percent wounded. The German force had a far greater number of officer casualties and were able to keep fighting because other officers were capable of taking over. The contrasting methods of command flowed from the rival armies' theories of war, the French system being a management of men and equipment model and the German system relying on rapid decision and personal influence at the decisive point in a mobile battle. By 16 May the French army had been brought to the brink of collapse.[7]
References
- ^ Doughty 2014, p. 341.
- ^ Doughty 2014, pp. 341–342.
- ^ Doughty 2014, pp. 342–343.
- ^ Doughty 2014, p. 344.
- ^ Doughty 2014, pp. 343–344.
- ^ Doughty 2014, pp. 344–346.
- ^ Doughty 2014, pp. 346–349.
This is the first stage of the Analysis rewrite, when I've finished it I will add Frieser and then think about editing them together. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Frieser 2005
In 2005, Frieser wrote that the Prussian-German general staff had tried to fight quick wars to avoid long two-front conflicts because of the vulnerable geographical position of the German state. The campaign of 1940 had not been planned as a blitzkrieg and study of the preparations for the campaign, especially of armaments show that the German commanders expected a long war similar to the First World War and was surprised by the success of the offensive. The war in the west occurred at a watershed in military history when military technology was favourable to the attack. The way that German armoured and air forces operated, led to a revival of the operational war of movement rather than position warfare, which made German command principles unexpectedly effective. By accident the German methods created a revolution in warfare, that France and its allies could not resist, still using the static thinking of the First World War. German officers were just as astonished but because of their training in mission tactics and operational thinking, could adapt much quicker.[1]
The unprecedented operational success of the Manstein Plan could only occur because the Allies fell into the trap, over and again, German success depended on forestalling Allied counter-moves, sometimes only by a few hours. Nazi and Allied propagandists later created a myth of an unstoppable German army, yet the Allies were superior in strength and in Case Red managed to adapt to German methods, although too late to avoid defeat. The German generals had been lukewarm about the Manstein Plan, Army Group A wanting to limit the speed of the attack to that of marching infantry. The breakthrough on the Meuse at Sedan created such an opportunity that the panzer divisions raced ahead of the infantry divisions. OKH and OKW occasionally lost control and in such unique circumstances, some German commanders ignored orders and regulations, claiming the discretion to follow mission tactics, the most notable being the unauthorised breakout from the Sedan bridgehead by Guderian. The events of 1940 had no relation to a blitzkrieg strategy ascribed to Hitler. Far from Hitler planning world domination by fighting a series of short wars, Hitler had not planned a war of any kind against the Allies.[2]
German rearmament was incomplete in 1939 and it had been France and Britain that had declared war on Germany; Hitler's gamble failed and left Germany with no way out, in a war against a more powerful coalition, with time on the Allies' side. Hitler chose flight forward and staked everything on a surprise attack, not supported by an officer corps mindful of the failure of the 1914 invasion. Allied generals did not anticipate the "daring leap" from the Meuse to the Channel and were as surprised as Hitler. Stopped the panzers short of Dunkirk was a mistake that forfeited the intended strategic success. The German campaign in the west was an "operational act of despair" to escape a dire strategic situation and blitzkrieg thinking occurred only after the Battle of France, it being the consequence, not the cause of victory. For the German army the triumph was hubristic, leading to exaggerated expectations about manoeuvre warfare and an assumption that victory over the USSR would be easy.[3]
Tooze
In 2006, Tooze wrote that the German success could not be attributed to a great superiority in the machinery of industrial warfare. German rearmament showed no evidence of a strategic synthesis claimed by the supporters of the blitzkrieg thesis. There had been an acceleration in war spending after 1933 but no obvious strategy or realistic prediction of the war Germany would come to fight. The huge armaments plans of 1936 and 1938 were for a big partially-mechanised army, a strategic air force and an ocean-going fleet. In early 1939, a balance of payments crisis led chaos in the armaments programme; the beginning of the war led to armaments output increasing again but still with no sign of a blitzkrieg concept determining the programme. The same discrepancy between German military-industrial preparations and the campaign can be seen in the plans formed for the war in the west. There was no plan before September 1939 and the first version in October was a compromise that satisfied no-one but the capture the Channel coast to conduct an air war against Britain, was apparently the purpose determining armaments production from December 1939.[4]
The plan failed to offer the possibility of a decisive victory in the west desired by Hitler but lasted until the Mechelen Incident of February 1940. The incident was the catalyst for an alternative encircling move through the Ardennes proposed by Manstein but it came too late to change the armaments programme. The swift victory in France was not the consequence of a thoughtful strategic synthesis but a lucky gamble, an improvisation to resolve the strategic problems that the generals and Hitler had failed to resolve by February 1940. The Allies and the Germans were equally reluctant to reveal the casual way that the Germans gained their biggest victory. The blitzkrieg myth suited the Allies because it did not refer to their military incompetence and it was expedient to exaggerate the excellence of German equipment. The Germans avoided an analysis based on technical determinism, since this contradicted Nazi ideology and OKW attributed the victory to the "revolutionary dynamic of the Third Reich and its National Socialist leadership".[5]
By contradicting the technology version of the blitzkrieg myth, recent writing had tended to vindicate the regime view, that success was due to the Manstein Plan and the fighting power of German troops. Tooze wrote that although there had been no strategic synthesis, the human element could be overstated. The success of the German offensive was dependent on the mobilisation of the German economy in 1939 and the geography of western Europe. The number of German tanks in May 1940 showed that output of armoured vehicles had not been the priority of the German armaments effort since 1933 but without the tank production drive of autumn 1939, the position would have been far worse. After the Polish War there were only 2,701 serviceable vehicles, most being Panzer I and Panzer II, only 541 tanks being suitable for a western campaign. Had these tanks been used according to the October 1939 plan, the Germans would have been lucky to achieve a draw. By 10 May 1940, the Germans had 1,456 tanks, 785 Panzer III, 290 Panzer IV and 381 Czech tanks. None of the German panzers were a match for the best French tanks and no anti-tank gun was effective against the Char B but German tanks had good fighting compartments and excellent wireless equipment, making the tanks the Germans did have an effective armoured force.[6]
The Manstein Plan contained no revolutionary new theory of armoured warfare and was not based on faith in the superiority of German soldiers but the Napoleonic formula of achieving superiority at one point; the plan combined materialism and military art. With 135 German divisions facing 151 Allied divisions, concentration and surprise, the principles of operational doctrine, were indispensable and the German success in achieving these explains the victory, not better equipment or morale. The Germans committed 29 divisions to the diversion in Belgium and the Netherlands, which were countered by 57 Allied divisions, including the best French and British formations. Along the Rhine valley, the Germans had 19 mediocre divisions and the French garrisoned the Maginot Line with 36 divisions, odds of about 2:1 against the Germans. The Germans were able to mass 45 elite divisions in the Ardennes against 18 second-rate Belgian and French divisions, a ratio of 3:1 in favour of the Germans, multiplied in effect by deception and speed of manoeuvre. No panzer division was held in reserve and had the attempt failed there would have been no armoured units to oppose an Allied counter-offensive. The daily rate of casualties was high but the short campaign meant that the total number of casualties was low.[7]
By keeping much of their air forces in reserve the Allies conceded air superiority to the Luftwaffe but operations on 10 May cost 347 aircraft and by the end of the month the Luftwaffe had lost 30 percent of its aircraft and another 13 percent were badly damaged. The intensive and costly air operations were committed to the support of Panzer Group Kleist, which had 1,222 tanks, 545 half-tracks and 39,373 lorries and cars, enough to cover 960 miles (1,540 km) of road. On the approach to the Meuse crossings, the panzer group moved in four 250 miles (400 km)-long over only four roads and had to reach the crossings by the evening of 13 May or the Allies might have time to react. Huge risks were taken to get the columns forward, including running petrol lorries in the armoured columns, ready to refuel vehicles at every stop. Had Allied bombers been able to pierce the fighter screen, the German advance could have been turned into a disaster. To keep going for three days and nights, drivers were given Pervitin stimulants. Tooze wrote that these expedients were limited to about 12 divisions and that the rest of the German army invaded France on foot, supplied by horse and cart from railheads, the same as in 1914. The Channel coast provided a natural obstacle about 150 mi (240 km) away, a distance over which motorised supply could function efficiently, over the dense French road network, living off the highly-developed French agriculture.[8]
Tooze wrote that the German victories of 1940 appeared to be of less significance than the changes they caused in the US, where hostility to German ambitions had been manifest since 1938. On 16 May, the day after the German breakthrough on the Meuse, Roosevelt laid before Congress a plan to create the greatest military-industrial complex in history, capable of building 50,000 aircraft a year. Congress passed the Two-Ocean Navy Act and in September, for the first time the US began conscription in peacetime, to raise an army of 1.4 million men. By 1941, the US was producing a similar quantity of armaments as Britain or Germany and financing the first permanent increase in civilian consumption since the 1920s. The British post-Dunkirk strategy was a gamble on access to the resources of the US and the empire and that the US would supply weapons and materials even when British had exhausted their ability to pay. Unless Britain was defeated, Germany was confronted by a fundamental strategic problem, that the US had the means to use its industrial power against the Third Reich.[9]
References
- ^ Frieser 2005, pp. 347–348.
- ^ Frieser 2005, p. 348.
- ^ Frieser 2005, pp. 348–350.
- ^ Tooze 2006, pp. 372–373.
- ^ Tooze 2006, pp. 374–375.
- ^ Tooze 2006, pp. 375–376.
- ^ Tooze 2006, pp. 376–377.
- ^ Tooze 2006, pp. 377–379.
- ^ Tooze 2006, pp. 402–403.
Tooze next. Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Question
I have thus far only managed to get to the "Sources on 'Decisive' Victory" section considering the huge amounts of information posted. Based purely on the information read up until the subsection mentioned above, Keith has essentially been called a demented old fart ( ;) ) by several editors for pointing out, that per WP:RS, the infobox should reflect what the sources say and - per his scorecard of 15:3 - most do not use that term.
So my question: What is the big deal, and why is so much effort being wasted over a single word? I note that another editor, in the exact same debate months ago, agreed with Keith's point and noted "The result is way too complex and nuanced for a single word". Why is there so much hostility to the removal of this one word (and an apparent fallback to gain consensus against sources!)? Thus far, I have seen no one say that Germany didn't win the battle so what is the big deal over a single word? At any rate, some perspective questioning while I attempt to read through the remaining vast trove of information and snarky comments. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I got the impression the whole thing started with keith replacing 'Decisive German victory' with 'See aftermath section', which led to a revert war and the freezing of the article. As to the 'decisive' element, my impression is that a number of those opposed to keith's change feel that a battle which led to France being put out of the war pretty much entirely is decisive, even if the cost thereafter of running France was high and Germany eventually lost the war. keith, as far as I can make out, believes that as rainbow-striped dancing unicorns did not descend from the heavens, the German victory did not count, or should be explained away. Something like that. I paraphrase. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your impression has been created by not looking far enough back through the list of edits. The term decisive has a lay connotation of big and a technical military/strategic meaning of war determining. The Template:Infobox military conflict criteria make it clear what can go in the result criterion (if anything) and the only ones that fit are German victory and see Aftermath section. Some of the 208 page watchers and some of the 47 of them following these exchanges disagree, most of them have yet to venture an opinion about the objective criteria in the template. Some of my critics appear to be taking it personally, resorting to insults and gaming which has diverted attention from the mediocre sections of the article, crying out for improvement. You appear to have joined them, sad that. PS, I think it's 15:5 nowKeith-264 (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Meh. Ironically, it turns out the germans did indeed see rainbow-striped dancing unicorns, even if keith didn't - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/25/blitzed-norman-ohler-adolf-hitler-nazi-drug-abuse-interview --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I added descriptions of relatively recent writing because Doughty discusses Sedan, Frieser discusses the campaign and Tooze the economics. I added a couple of survey essays on the history of the history writing because this shows our other editors the lines on which I envisage the Analysis section that needs writing. I'm not sure if I want to put a shortened version into the article or take themes from them instead; any thoughts? I thought Morphy had a point in trying to sketch the framework but then realised that it was replicating the infobox controversy and so started doing the opposite; don't worry though, I don't want anyone to say thank-you for doing the leg-work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree the Battle of France was a decisive German victory I'm dismayed to see the way Keith-264 has been treated here. As Dr. Jensen states, this is a historiographical issue. If all parties could just settle with status quo ante and let the issue get sorted out I think we'll all be much happier with the outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for upholding Wikiconduct; I think we need the opinion of all 208 page watchers and the 47 editors who have been following the exchanges. Now that the edit block has been lifted, I propose to return the result to either "German victory" or "See Aftermath section" and to eliminate the extraneous bullet points. Yet again I offer the wiki criteria in Template:Infobox military conflict for
- result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
and
- territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.
The bullet points do not conform to result so should go forthwith and the RS have decisive as a minor note to German victory consensus (unless anyone has copies of the books in the bibliography not listed here). Any objections? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nope DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Historiographical debate
We are having the historiographical debate here and there should be a new article about it: the Historiography of the Battle of France. There already is enough material on this talk page to cover the topic, and much more can be added. Basically, we have complex long-standing debates among scholars that comprise a topic all its own, & is far too long-winded and detailed to stick into this operations article. Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there is too much material to transplant into the article but the evidence is still in favour of German victory or See Aftermath section for the infobox and the removal of extraneous bullet points that don't conform to Template:Infobox military conflict: result and territory (notice that both are optional so can be omitted if preferred). I'd move the title from [[Historiography of the Battle of France]] to [[Historians on the Battle of France]] or some such because historiography is the philosophy of the study of history, not the history of the history of history (or it was when I was at college). If the survey is by historian, there will be a lot of overlap and repetition so I'd do it by theme, which will complicate the article's writing. I'll help of course because this thing is my bag. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's another deviation from linguistic rectitude that I don't follow. Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Germans on drugs?
I dropped a paragraph based on a newspaper interview with a novelist that says German soldiers relied on stimulants. They did in fact use "pervitin" (methamphetamine)-- it gives a very quick high that lasts a few hours--ideal for pilots--but within a day or so the recipient is in terrible physical shape. The standard history says: (p 112) "A soldier going to battle on pervitin usually found himself unable to perform effectively for the next day or two, suffering from a drug hangover and looking more like a zombie than a great warrior, he had to recover from the side effects...." Some soldiers turned very violent, committing war crimes against civilians, and attacking as well, their officers. Not a war-winning formula. Lukasz Kamienski (2016). Shooting Up: A Short History of Drugs and War. Oxford University Press. pp. 111–12.
- Tooze mentioned Panzershokolade in his economic history, given to lorry drivers etc on the advance through the Ardennes but yes, the Graun is as bad as The Times these days; I wouldn't wrap chips in it. Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Infobox frenzy
No-one has replied to my enquiries about the infobox so I propose to remove the bullet points and leave decisive alone. Any objections? Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a helpful change and I don't think it is supported by community practice.
- Helpful: The BoF resulted in the fall of France; that's a big enough thing to wish to convey in the infobox (and contrasts with a battle won where the result was minor - the gain of some little territory, for instance). I'm less wedded to the second & third bullets.
- Community practice: I listed above six of so FAs with bullets, and I note an otherwise uncontested exchange at Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Result starting with bulleted list ... I see no intervention there to suggest that the Module:Infobox military conflict description of the use of Result is strictly binding.
- So, do it if you must, but without my support and against my advice.
- Meanwhile, in writing this answer I flicked again through the Aftermath section of the article: I'm bound to say that I think the Analysis subsection is entirely misplaced and does not seem to relate to my concept of aftermath. Are we sure that section is in the right place? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- A list of articles where Template:Infobox military conflict has not been followed is not a precedent, since we don't know if they were included by accident or design. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide Analysis: It's a description of May's explanation of the Battle of France, where else would it go? Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've rm the bullet points but think that it would be prudent to leave decisive in in the hope that the revert frenzy doesn't start again. If anyone else is minded to change it to German victory I will support the edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there's no discussion about the german victory conclusion, but the sources do not agree on the adjective to be used, if any, it's pretty obvious it should be explained in the article and not taken face value in the infobox. Uspzor (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I've added some bullets and used the style presented in some other GA's. Let me know what you think. I also included a link to the aftermath section, as a replacement to linking the armistice. KevinNinja (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- RV Template:Infobox military operation have you learned nothing? Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll ignore your rude and uncooperative behaviour as nothing is mentioned against my prose. To the contrary, many good and featured articles use bullet points in their result sections. I asked you what you thought. What I didn't ask for is for you to come here and fight all the other editors like you usually do. KevinNinja (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox military operation, Template:Infobox military conflict and WP:Gaming I had thought that a pragmatic solution had been arrived at but see now that I overestimated your good faith. You failed to give notice of your intent to interfere with the infobox, which after all that's happened would have been an elementary courtesy and jumped in with allegations, while I was replying here and accused me. This is very poor stuff Kevin, very poor indeed. You have had plenty of time to read the guidance in the Infoboxes and have instead used failures elsewhere as a spurious justification. I think it's a sad and lonely way to spend your Saturday night. I will wait for 24 hours in the hope that wiser counsels prevail. Keith-264 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're just waiting here to create some sort of conflict, aren't you? The issue was never about the pointers, it was about the inclusion of 'decisive' in the result section. And now that you've lost that argument on consensus (and common sense), I suppose you're trying to create an issue out of something that was never an issue in the past, probably in order to assert some sort of weird edit dominance you feel you have.. KevinNinja (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Civil Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Style suggestion
Hi! I have been following the article for a while now - a complex and delicate topic. You guys are doing a great job, though. I think most of you are focusing on the content and remaining controversies....However, there are a few formal issues i think could be taken care of. The first sentence in the lead goes: "The Battle....was the invasion." This is a bit unfortunate. How about: "The Battle of France.... is the term for the military engagement (or course of action etc.) that ensued/arose/resulted from the invasion...". There are few more minor issues, though (e.g. in section Background..."In the dawn of..."). Anyway, i just wanted to have your feedback, rather than presenting you with bold incursions. All the Best Wikirictor (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the trouble. I think that the article is basically OK but shows the effects of being written by divers hands, being stylistically inconsistent. I think your suggestion makes sense (In some of the Somme articles I started, I even forgot to mention that there was a war on....).Keith-264 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your prose is abysmal, ill-considered and narcissistic.Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I refer you to the comments appended to my revert. I wash my hands of you.Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- a glance at google will prove that the RS commonly refer to the "stunning" German victory, and to the "miracle at Dunkirk." 1) Joel Blatt - 2000 - "Why the stunning reversal of fortunes? In this volume thirteen prominent scholars reexamine the French debacle of 1940." 2) Kenneth C. Davis - 2015 "Following the stunning fall of France...." 3) "Richard Holmes - 2009 - "After the stunning victories of May it took Hitler's armed forces scarcely a couple of weeks more to finish off their campaign. No one had imagined that France...." 4) Mordecai Lee - 2012 -"given the stunning fall of France"; 5) Gordon Prange, 2014 - "The course of European events in 1940, in particular the stunning fall of France" 6) William Safire 2005. " was called by Churchill “a miracle of deliverance,” 7) Anthony Tucker-Jones - 2014 - "ch 9: Dunkirk. –. Churchill's. Miracle." 8) Robert Jackson - 2012 - "the great exodus that would go down in history as the miracle of Dunkirk." 9) Taylor Downing - 2011 - "Hundreds of these 'small ships' helped to get men off the beaches in what was now called the 'miracle of Dunkirk'." etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery --MWAK (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- You could of course call the victory "unexpected". That would be true, imparts some real information and is probably not puffery. The term "Miracle of Dunkirk" could be attributed to Churchill but such quotes are generally out of place in the lead.--MWAK (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- "stunning" is the consensus of RS in 1940 and ever since. and "miracle" is standard terminology in the RS. "puffery" happens when an editor invents the terms--not when an editor follows the consensus of scholars. Downgrading the importance of a major event is a serious flaw that we should avoid. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- We should not follow the sources in their loaded language. E.g. there might well be consensus among reliable sources that a certain politician is a narcissistic mendacious buffoon but it would be quite wrong to use those qualifications in the first lead sentence. There is of course no objection to mentioning that at the time the victory was generally seen as highly surprising and afterwards was considered a classic example of armoured manoeuvre warfare.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
We're supposed to describe what the RS write, not copy every linguistic infelicity, pop-history solecism and catch-penny, commercial publishing, hack-work example of hyperbole. Notice also that it was only a classic example of armoured warfare until people began to study what happened, instead of what some of the the participants said happened (according to sources since Cooper 1978).
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide has [1]
War
The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:
- Name of the war (including alternate names).
- When did it happen?
- Who fought in it?
- Why did it happen?
- What was the outcome?
- What was its significance, if any? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Helpful info
Hi! Following your debate i think i can help a little bit by looking in the article in WP/German: here. It is a featured article and as everybody might guess it is - and must be exceptionally NPOVish.
They simply state in the first sentence "erfolgreiche militärische Offensive - successful military offensive".
The interesting part are the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Lead section: "Der Westfeldzug ist als „Blitzkrieg“ bekannt geworden, wurde aber nicht als solcher geplant. Eher zufällig führte der operative Einsatz der Panzer- und der Luftwaffe zu einem unerwarteten Bewegungskrieg, der durch sein neues Kriegsbild einen Wendepunkt der Kriegsgeschichte markierte. - The western campaign came to be known as Blitzkrieg, but not planned as such. Rather by coincidence, the operational use of tanks and aircraft resulted in an unexpected war of maneuver with new tactical features that marked a turning point in military history."
ATB Wikirictor (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, that looks like Cooper and Frieser's verdict and the consensus view. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Dyle Plan
I suggest that Doughty is a better source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Anyone object to me pasting in sections of this new article as replacements for the longer versions already here as an instant copy-edit? Keith-264 (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea, provided that no essential information is lost.--MWAK (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, It looks somewhat less brief now but then, this is the main page.Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
RFC: Scope of "result" included in the infobox
Should the infobox's "result" parameter include "Fall of the French Third Republic", "Establishment of Vichy France", "Establishment of the Free French Forces" and "(more...)"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, contrary to the infobox guidance and makes the purpose of the box pointless. Keith-264 (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, per template documentation: "...this parameter may use one of several standard terms: X victory, Decisive X victory or Inconclusive". Additional information should be articulated in the article, not in the infobox. FactotEm (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, per the Template documentation, the template is a summary, the other results can be discussed in the article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is necessary to include key details about what key events happened because of the battle. The Fall of France is pretty important... and it has been standing like this for many years until it recently became an issue for no reason. Also, many other GA's of similar type do the same thing. KevinNinja (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a useful service for readers, and a feature shared by many FAs and GAs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I have already given my [2]suggestions which were 3 specific bullets and an enhanced aftermath section. I subsequently added [3]a minor amendement precisely linking the most relevant section in the Battle of the Atlantic article. That was an age ago and was not discussed at all amidst a massive explosion of dialogue which has gone nowhere. I frankly lost the will to live after that and have not taken any further part. I would suggest participants read my initial suggestions which included 3 of the most vital bullet outcomes and an expanded aftermath section to discuss the concept of "decisive victory". I would like my suggested avenue of approach to be properly discussed. I see no issues with bullet points if they reflect the most carefully chosen critical outcomes and are consensually arrived at. As has been noted, they figure in many promenant articles of GA & FA standard. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- LOL, I feel Irondome's pain, I got sick of this nonsense also. Should there be a couple bullet points? yes. They should NOT include the formation of the Free french Forces; as noted above, they were almost nonexistent until US lend-lease support kicked in a few years later.
- A comprehensive Aftermath section has been described in past talk page comments.
- Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I said I would probably refrain from further comment here, and I am still neutral on whether the longer description should be included, but I have to admit the overly-literal interpretation of the template documentation's wording is not convincing. As long as there is no technical limitation preventing the inclusion of a longer description, the documentation should be treated as descriptive, not prescriptive. It is obvious that on 8 March 2009 when User:Roger Davies wrote that sentence he was speaking generally about how the template is normally used for individual, limited skirmishes (probably the vast majority of articles that transclude the template). The so-called "Battle of France" was clearly a large-scale, long-term invasion that included several of what would more normally be called "battles", and it makes sense not only that we might describe it differently than individual engagements like the Battle of Arras and the Battle of Dunkirk but also that the template documentation might not have taken cases like this into account. Is anyone seriously arguing that the infoboxes in our Boshin War, Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, Finnish Civil War, Iraq War in Anbar Province, Jin–Song Wars Mozambican War of Independence, Nagorno-Karabakh War, Pontiac's War, War of the Fifth Coalition and Western Front (World War I) articles (all FAs) should be cut down because they technically violate the letter of the template documentation? Again, I'm neutral as to whether the article is better or worse for including more details in the result parameter of its infobox, but I don't think relying on the wording of the template documentation is going to do the "no" party any good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri 88 - User:Roger Davies' first sentence in the post which announced that change begins: "To try to reduce some of the disagreements over the "Result" of a military conflict...". That, I believe, is what the template documentation is trying to take into account. It was difficult enough reaching some kind of consensus over just one word in this article's infobox result parameter. I don't think that adding more is going to help. What should the bullet points be? How many? All fertile ground for disagreement, over information that should be properly covered in the aftermath and lead sections. FactotEm (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- That looks like another misreading: the change that was "announced" appears to have been unilateral and to have carried no force as a unilateral change to the documentation of a template. The post you link was proposing a change to WP:MILMOS, and the change never took place, apparently because it was resoundingly overruled in the ensuing discussion. See it archived here. The thread is massive and I don't have the time to read it at the moment, but in the straw poll it was 9-3 in favour of the "freeform" status quo, 8-4 in favour of two-option "X victory"/"Inconclusive", and 6-5 against a three-option "X victory"/"Decisive X victory"/"Inconclusive". Technically, since the accompanying MOS change was apparently shut down in favour of maintaining the "freeform" status quo, the change to the template documentation should probably have been reverted, but I'm not going to split hairs over that. I say "apparently" because as of right now I can't find any reference to any of this in MILMOS. There was no change made to the MOS for over a month after the last !vote in the straw poll, and the next one had nothing to do with infoboxes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not entirely unheard of for me to misread stuff, but in this case I think I got it right. The change was previously discussed and agreed by the project coordinators here. The post I linked to both announces that change and proposes an additional change to WP:MILMOS to reinforce it. The proposed MILMOS change is not identical; it has additional explanatory text. That MILMOS proposal never went through, but the template documentation change remains the current guideline. FactotEm (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken. That said, seven people is a pretty small group to be deciding something that should be a community discussion, even if these seven were WikiProject coordinators at the time (most of them have barely edited in years). Their decision never seems to have been widely applied, as per the articles I linked above. (Note that I found them by "Ctrl+F"ing the Military History FAs for "war". Roughly half of the results included more detailed descriptions, several of those with bullet points. I have no clue how many tiny skirmish articles are FA-class and technically violate the 2009 wording of the template documentation.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The size of the forum that decided that change is something you'd have to take up with the project. In the meantime, the template documentation is all that we have to guide us (I don't believe other articles ignoring it is any justification to do so here). The guideline is quite clear, and it makes no exceptions based on the scale of the conflict. Whilst I can't speak for anyone else, I don't believe that I've read it dubiously or misread it disastrously. I accept that it is not prescriptive, and if the consensus here is to ignore it then so be it, but I see no good reason to do so. FactotEm (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken. That said, seven people is a pretty small group to be deciding something that should be a community discussion, even if these seven were WikiProject coordinators at the time (most of them have barely edited in years). Their decision never seems to have been widely applied, as per the articles I linked above. (Note that I found them by "Ctrl+F"ing the Military History FAs for "war". Roughly half of the results included more detailed descriptions, several of those with bullet points. I have no clue how many tiny skirmish articles are FA-class and technically violate the 2009 wording of the template documentation.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not entirely unheard of for me to misread stuff, but in this case I think I got it right. The change was previously discussed and agreed by the project coordinators here. The post I linked to both announces that change and proposes an additional change to WP:MILMOS to reinforce it. The proposed MILMOS change is not identical; it has additional explanatory text. That MILMOS proposal never went through, but the template documentation change remains the current guideline. FactotEm (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- That looks like another misreading: the change that was "announced" appears to have been unilateral and to have carried no force as a unilateral change to the documentation of a template. The post you link was proposing a change to WP:MILMOS, and the change never took place, apparently because it was resoundingly overruled in the ensuing discussion. See it archived here. The thread is massive and I don't have the time to read it at the moment, but in the straw poll it was 9-3 in favour of the "freeform" status quo, 8-4 in favour of two-option "X victory"/"Inconclusive", and 6-5 against a three-option "X victory"/"Decisive X victory"/"Inconclusive". Technically, since the accompanying MOS change was apparently shut down in favour of maintaining the "freeform" status quo, the change to the template documentation should probably have been reverted, but I'm not going to split hairs over that. I say "apparently" because as of right now I can't find any reference to any of this in MILMOS. There was no change made to the MOS for over a month after the last !vote in the straw poll, and the next one had nothing to do with infoboxes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri 88 - User:Roger Davies' first sentence in the post which announced that change begins: "To try to reduce some of the disagreements over the "Result" of a military conflict...". That, I believe, is what the template documentation is trying to take into account. It was difficult enough reaching some kind of consensus over just one word in this article's infobox result parameter. I don't think that adding more is going to help. What should the bullet points be? How many? All fertile ground for disagreement, over information that should be properly covered in the aftermath and lead sections. FactotEm (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Turning your RFC into an opinion seems inconsistent with your purpose. All the reasons you and some of the others have offered are covered by "See Aftermath section". That's why those who haven't replied with a yes or no have gone from a short, sharp answer to a discursive one full of excuses and obfuscations. Ignoring Template:Infobox military conflict and excusing it with slogans contradicts the consensus of the RS (remember them?). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, someone who initiates an RFC is perfectly entitled to express their own opinion in the comments. It's the question that must be neutral, and I see no problem here. FactotEm (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Keith-264: "Turning your RFC into an opinion" is an outrageous accusation and you should retract it. I made only one, slight, modification to the RFC question, and that was in response to you misreading it. I posted a response to three consecutive "no" !votes relying exclusively on a dubious reading of the template documentation. I don't give a damn whether the result parameter is expanded or not. I just think your reading of the template documentation is a disastrous misreading, is contradicted by the overwhelming precedent of other, better articles written by people who apparently didn't read it that way, and could present a dangerous precedent for those articles to be altered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, someone who initiates an RFC is perfectly entitled to express their own opinion in the comments. It's the question that must be neutral, and I see no problem here. FactotEm (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, by answering the question, Hijiri has created a conflict of interest, negating the purpose of asking it. Apropos, will Hijiri complain that you have an overly-literal interpretation of the template documentation's wording? This is what always happens when you mix criteria with norms. Ouroboros Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did not answer the question. I did not say "The shorter result wording is better" or "The longer result wording is better". I said that you were misreading the template documentation. How on earth can you not see how these are two different things? Kindly take back your bizarre accusations, or I will request that the ANI thread stay open so this user conduct issue can be dealt with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh what nonsense... The results parameter can and has been using bullet points all over the project since I was a wee boy. Its consistent with general usage, and to think its somehow prohibited by the template documentation is absurd pedantry. No offence.
- Wait.. is this still somehow indirectly about the "Decisive victory" thing? 'Cause if so, and if it were up to me, I'd deal out sanctions for disruption. -- Director (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested that an RFC was pointless and the recent comments bear this out. My point is that bullet points are unnecessary, since "See Aftermath section" is sufficient as per Template:Infobox military conflict and the RS. All I get for my pains are threats, Youtube abuse and one-sided judgements. I suggest that everyone steps back for a period of reflection. Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh for fuck's sake, Keith, give it up. It's either a Victory, or a Decisive Victory. Repeatedly dragging all discussions back to your insistance that we should not specify that the Germans won, in favour of your See Aftermath section is, by common consent, on the wrong side of the border for getting you topic-banned from this article so that the rest of us can get our lives back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested that an RFC was pointless and the recent comments bear this out. My point is that bullet points are unnecessary, since "See Aftermath section" is sufficient as per Template:Infobox military conflict and the RS. All I get for my pains are threats, Youtube abuse and one-sided judgements. I suggest that everyone steps back for a period of reflection. Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't think bullet points are necessary, then you should step back and reflect, since you appear to be the one who initiated the whole dispute by removing the bullet points which had previously remained stable and took it to ANI.
- I suggest that your timeline limits the validity of your judgements. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)