Talk:Battle of France/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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

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.

• 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.

• 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).

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.

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".

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

and the Second Army had made no effort to improve them.

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.

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.

References

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

References

Tooze next. Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as you're having fun. -- Director (talk) 22:19, 22 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've started the historiography article -- it's mostly copied from here thus far with some new citations. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 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)

hey thanks for the help! The usual title these days is "Historiography" which includes not just historians but military analysts, political scientists & the like Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 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)

Scholarly opinion is divided on the contents of the British reply, Hokey cokey.Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyle Plan

I suggest that Doughty is a better source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But always check the details in May (2000) :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:57, 29 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)

It's been 24 hours, I'll wait for another 24 to see if the decisivists have withdrawn their objections. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 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)

I simplified the lede a bit and dropped lots of useless links. We do not want to tempt readers to jump to another article before they get the overall picture in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your prose is abysmal, ill-considered and narcissistic.Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

do you have any specific complaints? Is there a sentence you dislike most? Rjensen (talk) 11:55, 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)

French war planning 1920–1940

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)

Thanks, it's more a question of brevity than exclusion. I'll do it and see what the punters make of it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 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)

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/Archive 3#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)

The controversy seems to have been a pretty dispiriting experience for everyone. It appears that no-one wants another edit frenzy and I respect that, hence only rv the bullet points.Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 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)

Why did Italy join the invasion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why did Mussolini send forces to invade France when the fighting was already almost over? It would have made much more sense if he had invaded British-held Malta in June 1940. (AntePavolic (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

The question answers itself. The campaign was won, or, as far as Mussolini could tell, the war was won. Perfect time to make an easy grab of some spoils. Why bother attacking a tough nut like Malta if the British were considered likely to surrender or at least make peace anyway?

Aside from that, the italians had zero force-projection capability to attack Malta. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Taking Malta would have been far more useful for Mussolini's stated aim of building an Italian empire in North Africa and the Mediterranean, and it would have made the British government more likely to negotiate with the Axis. Wasting resources on an unnecessary invasion of France was pointless. (AntePavolic (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

With respect, I suggest you misunderstand Italian reasoning and capability. From where they were sitting in June 1940, France (regarded as the most powerful military force in Europe) was collapsing. That was a stunning turn of events. The British were apparently collapsing alongside them (and there were elements of the British upper class who were perfectly willing to make a peace deal with the Nazis-one of them almost became PM). They thought they could make a quick grab of some prizes without paying much for it. Politically it wasn't pointless at all. They wanted to get in on it before the war was over. Also, frankly, how was the Italian Army ever going to set foot in Malta? Their amphibious capability was exactly zero. This discussion probably belongs elsewhere. This isn't a forum for Italian strategy. DMorpheus2 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They could have just bombed Malta from the air day and night. (AntePavolic (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC))

Again, this is not a forum on Italian strategy. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of why Italy joined the invasion. Churchill had become Prime Minister on 10 May and publicly pledged to continue fighting no matter what. If the Italians had overrun Malta it is likely Churchill would have been ousted as premier after only just over a month, and his successor would have been more likely to accept Hitler's peace offers. (AntePavolic (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC))

There's an entire article, Italian invasion of France, that is linked right now in this article. The rest of your comment is baseless speculation. And again, there's no way the Italians could have taken Malta or even suppressed it. The Germans tried and failed. Might want to take this whole discussion over to Italian invasion of France. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Germans never made a serious attempt to take Malta. (AntePavolic (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC))

I didn't say they did. They tried to suppress it via bombing and failed. I don't know why you think the Regia Aeronautica could have accomplished a mission that the Luftwaffe couldn't. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Germans should have focused on Malta instead of fighting the Battle of Britain. (AntePavolic (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC))

And they would have won the war? :) So what if Rommel occupied Egypt, what of it? Doesn't change much about the war. Lets get crazy and assume he provides a southern thrust in Operation Blue over the virtually-impassable Caucasus mountains - Uranus still defeats the Germans and (if everything goes along as it did) they lose the war.

In actuality the threat of an invasion on Britain was pretty effective in helping things on the African Front, since much of the meager British resources needed to be home. And in general, there are only two things that save the Germans: #1 Barbarossa in 1940, and/or #2 immediate and relentless focus on the South of the USSR after the Battle of Kiev. Push on in the South immediately, grab the Donbas industry before its shipped away, and then charge on Stalingrad, with luck securing the region completely by Spring 1942. The Red Army is cut off from its oil, and the industry in the Urals can now be bombed.. By 1943 Russia would most likely have been smashed.

A sad mi molim te objasni zasto se zoves Ante Pavolic, jer cu te prijavit. (And now please explain why your username is Ante Pavolic, because I feel like reporting you) -- Director (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How would invading the Soviet Union in 1940 have made any difference? Germany and Italy wasn't ready immediately after the Fall of France, by which time it was already nearly July. (81.159.7.156 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Scope of "result" included in the infobox

The consensus is against including "Fall of the French Third Republic", "Establishment of Vichy France", "Establishment of the Free French Forces" and "(more...)" in the infobox's result parameter. Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• 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, 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)

• Let me make this perfectly clear: The person that starts an RFC may opine or take part in polling. All RFCs must be neutral. By any standard, this RFC is neutral, simple, to the point: what an RFC is supposed to be. Hijiri88's comments to date have added an interesting interpretation that in no way breaches any policy or protocol, and may be taken in consideration or ignored by anyone, including the closer. You might want to stop bludgeoning editors, Keith-264. You've had your say, let other give their opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This I hope so, 'cause if this goes on I'll end up sanctioned for trolling is bludgeoning. Keith-264 (talk) 21:43, 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)

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)

See also Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

More? Are there any adults here? Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Your odd indentation style has been making it very difficult to figure out what you are responding to. Since I'm essentially the only one in this thread to have used the word "more" in this thread, it appears you are talking to me. I am an adult. But it really isn't clear what you are trying to accomplish with the above post, and why you waited three days before posting it. You've already bludgeoned this RFC beyond all usefulness after about a half dozen users entertained you on ANI and I went to the trouble of opening this RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I find indents that meander across the page to be close to illegible so I alternate : with :: or add <nowrap>od</nowiki>. I think that your contributions could be improved by refraining from one-sided inferences. You can do this by asking why before rushing to judgement and mind your manners while you're doing it, which would set a good example to other people on this page who have sworn at me and added mocking you tube videos. I was referring to the infobox which has been amended to add See Aftermath to the unnecessary bullet points. I have bludgeoned no-one and nothing; I have been on the receiving end and yet you have the effrontery to lay blame on me for your own choices. I commend The Mote and the Beam to your attention. Given your conduct and my boredom, I withdraw from dialogue with you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you think my comments could be improved by me not having an opinion and not calling you out for making odd non-sequiturs. Thank you. I will take your advice and put it in a box marked "Good advice", and then promptly ignore it because it really isn't. Your own commenting in the RFC was at least as unnecessary as mine, since your opinion on the matter was already clear, and your constant inserting of off-topic commentary about how you are right and your "opponents" are wrong has now made this RFC TLDR and it will likely see no further input from uninvolved third parties. The only thing I posted in this RFC beyond the original question before you started attacking me was about how I didn't think your overly literal reading of some honestly pretty disastrous wording of the template documentation (if it were in fact meant to be prescriptive, why would so many FAs violate it?) was useful. As Dennis Brown already pointed out to you, this is a valid opinion. You are the only one here who thinks you have been "on the receiving end" of a bludgeoning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And I sincerely urge you either to use standard indentation on talk pages or to clearly indicate whom you are addressing -- otherwise, it is impossible to tell who you are talking to beyond "Ctrl+F"ing the content of what looks like a quote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've withdrawn from dialogue with you, Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, per the template documentation and common sense. Many of us are really getting tired of this particular WP:OTHERCONTENT argument-to-avoid, the "I know of an FA that does something wrong, so this article can, too" stuff. It's a special pleading fallacy that as long as some FA has let a problem squeak by (probably something that was added after that article's FAC, or before there was any rule addressing it or consensus about the issue in question) that the rest of the editorship can just sod off and the rules do not apply to the clique trying to control the present article. All those other articles mean with regard to this RfC's question is that more articles need to be cleaned up to stop abusing infoboxes as a "try to shove every detail in the article into a box" mechanism. If you actually go ask the FAC regulars, you'll find that they strongly oppose trying to do that anyway. I would bet good money that if asked about the other articles someone above tries to cite as "precedent", that FAC, too, would support removing misused infobox parameters from them. Infoboxes are compressed summaries of only the key points, in a programmatic fashion. The socio-political repercussions that arguably can be laid at the feet of the outcome of the Battle of France are main-article-body material, with context and sourcing; they are not infobox material, and treating them as such does not at all serve reader interests, but is misleading. To wit: including them there is counter-factual. The outcome of the Battle of France was not any of those things. Those were secondary effects of (in part) the battle's outcome, not the battle outcome itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I commend your contribution and think that the absence of comment for two days is eloquent. I wouldn't put the infobox back to normal though, I'd suggest that the stuffers be given time to reflect first. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• No The lead should explain what the outcomes were. Infoboxes aren't for writing essays about everything that happened afterwards. All that needs to go in the infobox is "German victory". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That's Decisive German victory, sir. -- Director (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• No By Peacemaker rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamagosh (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. Fall of the French Third Republic, Establishment of Vichy France, and Establishment of the Free French Forces... these were political decisions made by the French. They could have kept the Republic and run it from Algiers. They decided not to. Sure, losing the battle had indirectly caused these events, but... why not add "Establishment of the European Union", which after all also is an eventual and indirect result of the of the Fall of France and quite possibly wouldn't have happened if France had not fallen? Herostratus (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes technically unless one side in a campaign kills every single person in an enemy country, anyone from that enemy country could exercise radical freedom and continue on. The reality is that losing the Battle of France did cause the Third Republic to Fall, and the rise of the Vichy/Free French. Obviously the European Union example is a strawman since it's too remote of a result, and no one is seriously arguing for including results in the infobox that are irrationally remote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. I feel like for infoboxes where the topic covered is a war or campaign as opposed to a single battle, additional bullet points are warranted if there are important, directly related political results as warranted by coverage in reliable sources. The Battle of France did directly lead to the Fall of the Third Republic, and the establishment of the Vichy regime/Free French, all of which were very important in French history. My preference would be to have a bullet point for Fall of the Third Republic, and merge the Establishment of Vichy/Free French into one bullet point with the (more) placed after that bullet point. At the very least, there should be a bullet point for the Fall of the Third Republic. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• No. I personally have no problem with the placement of the results in the result section, despite the obligation to only place "Victory" "Decisive Victory" et cetera. I do however have a problem with the specific content being placed into the infobox. They are not direct results of the war, but rather tremor-like aftereffects that did not actually spawn from the result of the war itself. Example is the fall of the 3rd French Republic. The parliament had the opportunity to revive the 3rd French Republic but rather decided to create the 4th French Republic (Note that it was based on a vote, voluntarily, the war didn't force them to become the 4th French Republic). Would also like to note that WP:IAR may come in handy here for the Infobox template "standard" Funkyman99 (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• No. The fall of the Third Republic was the result of a thousand causes, the nazi invasion being only one of them, the rest of the bullet points are even more disconnected. The Battle of France leaded to the occupation of mainland France, full stop. Bertdrunk (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties section

The Casualties section needs looking over by someone with patience and knowledge. It has "Belgian losses were 6,093 killed and wounded; ... Belgian wounded amounted to 15,850" and different estimates of French losses are ascribed to the French Defence Historical Service. Nedrutland (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Been a while.. but I agree. The sources for casualties are a bit all over the place. It is tough though, when not a lot of records exist for the figures. KevinNinja (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

misleading?

"The Luftwaffe now "ran riot". Its attacks were focused on the direct and indirect support of the German Army."

For me this sounds a bit misleading. Some people might think there is a mistake, and it should be "French Army".--F.Blaubiget (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone could mis-read it in that way. However, 'ran riot' is unencyclopedic and should be changed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC: "Decisive" included in the parameter result

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the infobox's "result" parameter include the word "decisive"? Bertdrunk (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't decisive. Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• (additional) The RS say German victory as per the exhaustive survey compiled here by me and several others some time ago. Decisive is unwarranted.Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources say? This RfC needs some more meat on its bones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, Decisive - The template for military conflict guidance for result is: 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.

Briefly looking at the references and content I don't think there is doubt of it being an Axis victory or not decisive in nature -- I see words like 'Fall of France', 'unexpectedly swift', 'complete domination' of the air, virtually total destruction or capture of the opposing force, 'surrender', 'capitulation', 'humiliation'. And comparing to the articles of Invasion of Poland and Battle of Britain I see they used 'Decisive' for less lopsided results. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s. For the template alternative "victory" and "decisive victory", one can refer to Decisive victory "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage. ". Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• No . Reliable sources need to be presented which state "decisive" victory, instead of victory, to justify the word decisive. What was decided? What is the scope of the decision? The word decisive can be subjective and vague. Decisive does not mean big or fast victory, it means something was decided by the battle. For the battle only it could be a decisive victory, where the result is decided the Germans won the battle. For the battle as part of the war, the battle did not decide the war, and the German victory result was temporary. "Decisive" is contentious in history, for example historians have different viewpoints in the 451AD Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your assumptions on the scope of military outcomes are decidedly incorrect. A battle can be decisive without deciding a war. KevinNinja (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

YES and how many times are we going to do this? This has been discussed ad nauseum. If the French campaign was not decisive then no campaign of WW2 was decisive. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick check of the archived talk shows this has been discussed in Nov '16, Sep '16, Oct '15, and May '07 at least. What a waste. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this a straw poll or a soapbox? Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like a POV-pushing waste of time. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which call the BofF decisive? Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See archive 5, which you have read before. I am not wasting my time on this nonsense. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for forgetting to ask for new ones, you're still outnumbered. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes -- clearly decisive as far as the campaign went. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• "As far as the campaign went" is a caveat.Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Fall of France is widely regarded as the greatest military victory in the history of warfare. (MikeyFinn (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC))

• No . per CuriousMind01 "Reliable sources need to be presented which state "decisive" victory, instead of victory, to justify the word decisive. What was decided?" 'Decisive' isn't a synonym of 'clear cut'/'fast'/'total', the word has a meaning, which is that something substantial was decided, usually the final outcome. Stalingrad was more decisive in that sense, even though Stalingrad was messy, long and hard won. Stalingrad decided something, the direction of the coming years. This battle was certainly a humiliating defeat for France and UK, but that is not the same thing as a 'decisive victory' for Germany. Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• No The point is that both approaches are valid. The sheer amount of discussion and the opinions here prove that, so one option shouldn't top the other. What isn't usually catch is how no one pretends to downgraded it as a simple skirmish as some people seems to imply simply to disband the argument. Without pretending to say who is right or who is wrong, this long discussion should be in the main narrative, explaining both valid historians opinions, not pinpointing a WP:PEACOCK right in the top and pretending it's over. If anything is going to be put in this article about its decisiveness, and I don't think it should be, it should not represent just one point of view, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. In the end no one can agree how much "decisive" it was, not even if it was "decisive" at all. It really doesn't belong there. It probably does belong though at the aftermath section. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• A discussion in the aftermath section is obviously necessary, because of the changed views of the gig since 1940. When we listed sources, particularly secondary ones, there was a majority against decisive. Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• YES - The battle was clearly decisive........There has been so much discussion about this and the case has already been settled multiple times. I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Only an illegitimate historian would be foolish enough to claim that the BoF was not decisive. It is one of the most decisive battles in military history. KevinNinja (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Civil WP:PopinjayKeith-264 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the disagreement here seems to be about what the word "decisive" should mean in the infobox. Should it mean a complete or lopsided victory in the battle itself? Should it mean a victory which gave a large advantage of substantial duration to the winner? Or should it mean that the battle decided the final outcome of the war? If the definition of "decisive" can be agreed on, agreement on how the definition should be applied to the Battle of France should be fairly straightforward.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Clearly one of the more decisive battles in history. If anyone cares, it cannot be that hard to find a source that actually uses the word "decisive", but we don't need that. Any good sources on this indicate that it was decisive; we don't need one using the exact word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • See archive 4 onwards for an exhaustive list of sources roughly 12:5 against decisive. "Any good sources on this indicate that it was decisive;[tautology] we don't need one using the exact word"WP:OR.Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Layout

Does anyone else agree that the items in the prelude are background and that the strategy sections of the background are part of the prelude? I've added a few headers to label material and moved some planning narrative from the Phoney War into the strategy section.Keith-264 (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel as if the Background section should be expanded. I had titled it "Prelude" since it seemed to be a word better fit for a smaller scope of background (or one with less details). KevinNinja (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To add, I think a new Background section should, along with Poland, highlight (in no particular order):

• Hitler's political ambitions in France
• Avoiding a two front war, prelude to the Eastern front
• German-Franc relations before the war

What do you think? KevinNinja (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I think so, they seem strategic so the description of the contending forces would be tactical. I'm inclined to think that the war plans, Phoney War, blockade BEF build-up etc would be prelude, along with the Mechelen incident. I'm not sure I'd keep the Manstein Plan section separate, that would depend on how good the specific article is. In a general article like this I think the background, prelude and aftermath seem the most important and need considerable detail; the battle sections a paragraph or two and a link to the article, because the battles of the 1940 campaign are all there and most are very good. I'm trying to get the 3rd Ypres pages sorted out before 31 July so am trying to avoid taking on long articles but I need a change periodically so keep this one in mind. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had another look and think that perhaps the grand strategical factors you mention should be in the background and that would make it easier to decide the placement of other parts of the article. I wonder if the Fall Gelb section should be the main heading and the Manstein and Mechelen bits treated as an evolution of the plan, perhaps with fourth level headers? The Fall Gelb article is the place for the minutiae.Keith-264 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's a good idea Keith. Irondome (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I had another look at Fall Gelb and think it could do with some expansion and editing first. regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Embark in or embark on a ship?

I've changed the former to the latter. Am I right?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Economic blockade

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hitler's main objective in invading France was to force an end to the blockade of Germany, and ultimately therefore an end to the war itself. (31.50.130.108 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)) Provide a source.Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Every biography I have read of Hitler says his main objective was to force an end to the war and to the British naval blockade. Almost every book I have on World War II says defeating France and forcing Britain to negotiate an end to the war was the main aim of the invasion. (81.153.133.198 (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)) Without a source it can't go in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarity is everything.

The thing about writing an article, or anything for that matter, is that we cannot assume that the reader will know what it is that the various writers are thinking. When we write articles here, we must make it clear to add the who, the what, the when, the where and the why. Take this opening sentence in the article under a sub section:
At 21:00 the code word "Danzig" was relayed to all army divisions. The secrecy of the operation was so high that many officers, due to the constant delays, were away from their units when the order to initiate was sent.[41] Fall Gelb began on the evening of 9 May, when German forces occupied Luxembourg virtually unopposed.[85]
I'm pretty sure we're talking about 1940 in that statement and I only know this because I'm familiar with the war. Those who have no idea about it at all will not know what year the article is talking about. Inserting a bunch of stuff about troops and artillery in a previous section then skipping forward again to the code word is confusing. Questions one may be asking is:

• Whose army divisions got the Danzig message? (obviously it's Germany because this is mostly about Germany, which we'll come back to in a minute, but you get the idea)
• What is Fall Gelb?
• 9 May of what year?

Switching up subjects only confuses the readers. By going from Army stats directly into the Battle you need to remind the reader where they are in time and who the author is speaking of. Don't get me wrong, the article is a really good one but this article needs some strict and serious editing for clarity. While I'm on the subject, I see this from a German only view. I do hope that we all remember that France was in that battle too. Where are the French Army stats? Where are their battle plans? I'm trying to gently remind everyone that this is not an article on HOW Germany won the Battle of France. This is an article on THE Battle of France. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What does "switching up subjects" mean? Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Arras

The information on the British tank strength purportedly from Frieser's book (14 light tanks and 74 Matilda IIs) conflicts with several other sources. I haven't been able to find a copy of his book to verify what he actually says.

According to Dr Leo Niehorster's detailed WW2 site, 1st Tank Bde's tank strength on 10 May was 12 Vickers VIB light tanks (4 RTR was 2 tanks short) and 100 Matildas, of which only 23 were Matilda IIs. The figure of 23 Matilda IIs is supported by David Fletcher's book "The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour in the Second World War - Part 1" (see wiki article on the Matilda II).

Of course this just deals with the strength 11 days before the battle. It is possible that the light tank strength might have been brought up to establishment by the time of the battle. However, in a combat environment it is more likely that a unit would have suffered losses due to breakdowns and enemy action. Indeed, this is loosely supported by the quoted figure of 74 Matildas involved at Arras - it is possible that some elements were detached and thus missed the battle. According to Major Ellis's book "The Counter-Attack at Arras", the 74 Matildas comprised 58 Mark Is and 16 Mark IIs (see wiki articles on the Matilda I and the Battle of Arras).Glevum (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Tank strengths in Frieser are consistently wrong as he based himself on outdated sources. These numbers should not be used here.--MWAK (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Owzat?Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Frieser preferably used academic sources, as is advisable for one defending a revisionist hypothesis. Of course these academics didn't care for accuracy in tank numbers. That's a geek thing. Since the fifties a lot of research has been done, by geeks, to the extent that presently of even minor engagements each individual tank can be identified. We can no longer in good faith hold that Frieser is a reliable source in this matter. So we should either use the modern more reliable numbers or vague indications.--MWAK (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I read excepts of the Brigade log last night; looks like there were 16 Matilda IIs at Arras. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/Les-pertes-de-la-campagne-de.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514184605/http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=66711 to http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=66711

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox errors

I saw that someone had sorted out the inaccurate Infobox entries but then realised that the Result criterion is still wrong. Must we put up with this amateurish standard? Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)