Talk:Battle of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Battle of the Netherlands is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Battle of the Netherlands has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Dutch military history task force
World War II task force

Contents

[edit] Nov 2005 comments

Nice article Sandertje! I'll try to give more background and detail.--MWAK 16:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I did my best, but I did it in about 2 hours or so (scanning of pictures included) so it might need some 'fine tuning' ;) -- sandertje 14 Nov

I'll try to give it just that :o). However those pictures pose a future problem. You scanned them from De Bange Meidagen van Mei '40 ? I fear that means they're not in the public domain and therefore sooner or later will be removed.
Another point. You removed my remark Partly this was caused by a wish not to antagonise Germany, as the Dutch economy was strongly dependent on that of its larger neighbour; partly it was made inevitable by a policy of strict budgetary limits with which the conservative Dutch governments in vain tried to fight the Great Depression, which hit Dutch society particularly hard and replaced with it the hypothesis that the Dutch governments didn't take the threat seriously. Now it's indeed very true many individual Dutch politicians deceived themselves and the public at large; the records clearly show however all successive governments were greatly worried by the threat the new Germany posed; in fact that very fear made them do their utmost not to angry Hitler, to the end they even suppressed anti-Nazi propaganda. You might charitably want to call it a prevailing of a pacifist attitude; but the simple truth is they didn't want to provoke Hitler. And they couldn't afford to: bad relations with Germany would have spelled economic ruin; their "monetary" solution to the Depression made it impossible anyway. Time and again the ministers of defence would demand a much larger budget; each time they were refused as after all the general policy was one of lowering spending.--MWAK 19:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I indeed scanned them from De Bange Meidagen van Mei '40 but no worries , the pictures I've used are all part of the NIOD (Dutch instutution for war documentation) archive and are totally public domain :-)

About the removal of the economy bit;

'Although Dutch economy depended on Germany at the time, Germany tried to keep money inside Germany (see the enormous building projects) as it's economy was still weak. The Dutch didn't depended on Germany so much as they do now, because of the colonies (mainly indonesia) they had back then,whom provided an abundance of rescources.

'I agree they that the main policy was not to irritate Hitler but the political arguments overruled the economical ones.

'Btw; Are you Dutch? --Sander 14 Nov

Why, of course :o). I'm still feeling a bit uneasy about the pictures. Does the fact the pictures are preserved at the archive mean the original holder has lost his copyright?
I agree the economic dependency on Germany is a complicated matter. Would the sentence be acceptable to you if it was changed to:
Partly this was caused by a wish not to antagonise Germany; partly it was made inevitable by a policy of strict budgetary limits with which the conservative Dutch governments in vain tried to fight the Great Depression, which hit Dutch society particularly hard ?--MWAK 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

' I agree with that sentence.Don't worry about the pictures 'da zit wel goe' I'm curious though, did you add the bit about the tankettes?' --Sander 15 NOV

I did :o). It's a little known fact the Dutch army possessed five Carden-Loyd Mk.IV Tankette's (well, they really were Mark VI (b)'s) with the names Poema, Jaguar, Panter, Luipaard and Lynx. They served and perished at Waalhaven.--MWAK 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'Okay then, uhm, could you do something? The article only shows up when you type 'Battle of the Netherlands' (With capital letters) all others show up blank. Is there a way to fix that?'

Yes, you could make redirects of all possible combinations. So you can create the pages battle of the netherlands, Battle of The Netherlands, Battle of the netherlands, Fall of Holland and all make them direct to this article. I would strongly advise against it though: this practice overloads the system, has the danger of creating loops and is completely unnecessary anyway as you can use the Search option which will immediately point out the right article. And battle of the Netherlands already does this automatically, so it's mainly useful for people who aren't courteous enough to write our country's name with a capital ;o)--MWAK 20:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'Okay then :-) ' -- Sander 16 NOV

'What's this satelite map all about?! I that actually true? :-/ ' Sander 22 Nov'05

Well it's true map of the relevant area :o). The landings were of course very extensive: simultaneously paratroopers attacked the three airfields around The Hague and Waalhaven; but also landed on both sides of the Dordrecht and Moerdijk bridges. We could perhaps enlarge the map and focus more on the landing sites themselves; but this would make it much more difficult for most viewers — who typically wouldn't have any knowledge of Dutch geography — to locate them or understand their strategic importance.--MWAK 09:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

' I'm sure that there are actual purpose maps of the landing zones. (ie the German attack plan) ' Sander 23Nov'05

I know it for a fact :o). But free from copyright?--MWAK 09:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Inclusion in World War II series?

Should this article be included in the World War II series? It could use Template:Warbox, as in Battle of France or Battle of Dunkirk, and it should be linked in Western Front (World War II). GhePeU 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In principle I have no objections of course; but it is part of the Battle of France, so linking it in Western front seems unnecessary.--MWAK 09:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I've linked the article in the Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II), because it contains other conflicts that are part of Battle of France, such as Battle of Dunkirk. GhePeU 11:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THE PICTURES!!!!

The pictures HAVE GOT a licence.

It falls within Dutch citation/copy rights which also allows foreign citations/copies withinb limits.The limits are met.

Sandertje 17:41, 9 JAN 2006 (UTC)


Upload them again. GhePeU 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Done. MWAK, could you cut them the way you did last time (those were beautiful) Sandertje 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, someone was kind enough to replace the map under dispute by a superior one of his own making. This will solve at least one problem :o). I think the basic point is that it is not sufficient that the Dutch legal conditions for the allowance of citation are met: if something appears in Wikipedia, it is in principle supposed to be available for anyone for any further use, commercial or otherwise. This has obviously to be explicitely permitted by the copyright holder.
By the way, it wasn't me who adjusted the pictures, so I can't take any credit for that! :o)--MWAK 13:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


God, I wonder how to make such things...

Sandertje 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal Peer Review

Here are my peer review comments. Overall impression, lots of good detail about overall stragety, forces employed, and 10 May actions. Very little on the battle between 11 May and 17 May. Clearly this aspect needs enhancement. Wendell 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific comments:

  1. Lead paragraph says subsequent decision of the Dutch military to surrender. Did the Dutch military or Dutch government surrender?
  2. I count six uses of Entente. Usually I think of this as a WWI reference; which the link confirms. The article uses it as 5 references to the WWII allies of France and Britain; with only 1 clear reference to the WWI powers and stragety. Is there a better link?
  3. Of all operations of Fall Gelb this one most purely embodied the concept of a Blitzkrieg as the term was then understood: a Strategischer Überfall or strategic assault. And like Fall Gelb as a whole it was a gigantic gamble. The gamble would fail, but the Dutch would pay the price. What about the gamble failed? Fall Gelb says For the Germans, the campaign was a spectacular victory.
  4. The last paragraph under the 10 May heading leaves me hanging, and was never mentioned again. Did this Light Division ever attack, cross the river, or do something?
    1. The Light Division, based at Vught, was the only mobile reserve the Dutch Army possessed. It was decided to let it counterattack the German airborne landing on IJsselmonde. Its regiments thus biked over the Maas and Waal bridges and then turned left through the Alblasserwaard, to reach the Noord, the river separating this polder from IJsselmonde, in the evening. There they discovered that the only bridge, built in 1939, was left unguarded by the paratroopers, as the Germans because of outdated maps simply didn't know of its existence. It was however decided to postpone a crossing-attempt till the next day, when the artillery would be ready to support it. Not even a bridgehead was established.
  5. Though there were small Dutch successes, the Germans pushed forward with great speed. Can this be expanded? This reads like a sentence from the Battle of France. In that article, that one line sentence would be acceptable, since the Battle of Netherlands was a mere side show to the German plan. However this is an article about the Battle of Netherlands, so what happened? Any details available?
    1. Note: The sub-section call The situation on the ground in the Bombing of Rotterdam article gives some details about the 13 May statemate.
  6. In the section labeled The End, it says An ultimatum was delivered to the Dutch defenders of Rotterdam shortly after. After what? What time or day was this ultimatum delivered? When was Rotterdam bombed?
  7. When the Dutch officer returned from signing the surrender, suddenly a massive group of bombers appeared; though red flash bullets were shot to warn the planes not to bomb Rotterdam, and one group returned to their base, the other larger group flew on and bombed Rotterdam. DId this officer surrender Rottendam, or all of the Netherlands?
  8. Seems like an aftermath section is needed. Did any units not get the surrender order (except for Zeeland area)? Did the Germans bring in additional occupation troops, or move the invading troops directly into France? After this battle, where there any Dutch resistance elements in 1940? (no reason for this article to focus on the active resistance in 43/44 timeframe)

Wendell 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good questions! I'll try to answer them.
  1. Indeed the Dutch High Command surrendered. The government had fled to London. Technically the surrender was the capitulation of certain army units, not that of the entire empire. This will be made explicit later in the article.
  2. "Entente" was in 1940 still the usual contemporary term for the relation between Britain and France, as it had been through the Interbellum. The use of "Allied" would be the anachronism. It would also create the false impression it was some make-shift coalition, necessitated by the war emergency. Using "Entente" emphasises it was in fact a long-standing power block.
  3. The gamble that failed would be the Blitzkrieg operation against The Netherlands, not of course Fall Gelb as a whole :o). The text, read correctly, doesn't suggest the latter.
  4. Now it becomes painful. You have become the victim of a premature peer review request by Sandertje. The article is indeed simply not finished yet...
  5. This will be expanded.
  6. This also.
  7. He surrendered Rotterdam; but this should be obvious from both context and the following sentences.
  8. An in-depth analysis of all related issues will follow.

So, sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for your attention and effort!--MWAK 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Too much information

Some of this text seems more appropriate for a general history of the Netherlands rather than this particular battle. Other portions may be more appropriate for a new article, or the same details already exist in the current links. Finally, some of it is not internally consistent, referring to different amounts of the same equipment or to pictures which no longer exist.

I removed the excess text to reduce the size to the suggested length, while preserving some of the additional details. I think the remainder is more appropriate for a book listed in the (new) reference section.

StephenMacmanus 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You removed almost everything in the article! Maybe there is too much verbosity but there is no need to delete so much material. Battle of France, Battle of Normandy and most of the other WWII-related articles are longer, and nobody butchered them. GhePeU 12:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Being the man who wrote most of the article — and even intends to enlarge it :o) — allow me to defend its future length:
Firstly, within Wikipedia there is no such thing as "too much information". Als long as that information has a minimal notability, we have a duty to provide it. An entirely different question is in what way this information should be organised. Some things should be separate, others should be presented together. The criterion by which to decide this question is the degree to which the information forms an integrated whole. It would be dysfunctional to divide an article into separate parts if these parts cannot stand alone. If StephenMacmanus has taken the trouble of spending five minutes to really read the article he will have noticed that the level of integration is in fact very high, in that it forms a coherent whole. Also the separate sections have no value at themselves: there is no need for a Dutch strategy of 1940. So a splitting seems not to be indicated. Of course its length has the disadvantage of preventing to absorb the main points at a single glance. This I hope to remedy by increasing the length, by giving a longer lead section. The lack of it has been in fact one of the main criticism of the article.
To this StephenMacmanus might retort: "But there is also such a thing as a maximum practical length. It's an encyclopedic lemma, not a book". Very true. However, the simple fact that there are lemmata longer than this one, makes it fall within the apparent conventions. Also, while in general an encyclopedia reflects existing literature and can therefore afford to be a good deal shorter than the publications it refers to, here we have the special situation that all serious literature is in Dutch. There is not a single special technical treatment of the subject in the English language. So, while disclosing for the first time to the world at large a serious account of these events of 65 years ago, I felt that a certain level of detail wouldn't be amiss. This might also explain why StehenMacmanus had the impression of an undue detailing: he compared it to those books about the Battle of France known to him, which have at best a small chapter dedicated to the subject. However there is not a section in the article that isn't the condensation of over a dozen books in Dutch as the campaign is richly documented in every possible detail.
Finally, as regards the more specific objections: the short introduction about the political situation in the Thirties provides simply the minimal historical context without which Dutch military planning cannot be understood. I thought I had removed all equipment inconsistencies, but I'll check again :o). The picture issue might yet be solved. I find it ironic that the person who complains about redundancies with other articles, while there is in fact very little redundancy present, then replaces most of it with a section that simply repeats the information on Battle of France :o). By the way, it were repeated complaints about that article negelecting the events in the Low Countries themselves, that induced me to write this one.--MWAK 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What you did with our (If that isn't a too big assault on your ego MWAK :o) - grapje! - ) is simply unacceptable.Like MWAK said, there is never too much information.And as long as the amount of information doesn't cause the article to fall into disarray (which is so far hasn't) the article will remain as it is now (except for expansions of course).

Sandertje 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a private message to Sandertje, limiting the length of the article isn't just my personal opinion: it is raised automatically whenever the article is edited.

While there may not be "too much information" in a general sense, the style of an encylopedia article does anticipate a particular type of organization. The information ought to be focused relatively narrowly on a particular topic, so readers know what to expect. For instance, why is there no need for a "Dutch strategy of 1940" topic? I think finding some of this information there would be more appropriate than its current location. Other facts, like the attitudes and events of the twenty year period between the First and Second World War probably fit better in the history section of the existing article on the Netherlands, or in a new article about that topic.

I think other facts are really only desirable for a book-length treatment or some other format. For instance, what does the German troops buying chocolate have to do with the outcome of the battle?

In a third case, the details are clearly on topic, but the larger picture is not provided. For example, the current article describes the capture of the bridges near Rotterdam on the first day, but doesn't mention the significance of this event for the battle: that it would allow the German troops to bypass the Water Line defenses. The encylopedic style typically provides a high-level overview of an incident, with references to sources for those who want more specific information. It is not meant to provide an exhaustive account of events, even if one is missing in English.

StephenMacmanus 03:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify these issues:
  1. The mention of the 32 kb limit really refers to an old technical problem that today is of very little importance as such. I would emphatically not see it as an adhortation to solve it in a any particular case :o). It was arbitrarily linked to the larger question of desired article length because some indication was needed. Try to see it within an order of magnitudes: 3 kb is a bit meagre, at about 30 kb most subjects reach their optimal size, 300 kb is usually way too much.
  2. You are absolutely right in stating that the organisation of an article should make it increase its focus on the subject matter. But I would claim that the article under consideration is pretty well focused. The attitudes and events of the Interbellum are only mentioned to the extent they bear on the war, to explain why the Dutch were neutral and badly equipped. Surely this is quite relevant? We do not need a separate Dutch strategy in 1940 article for the same reason we can do without a Front side of elephant lemma: just as the elephant's front side is hard to understand without the back one, so the Dutch strategy in 1940 makes little sense without the war it is the strategy of. The behavior of the German soldiers is relevant because it shows it was not campaign of plunder and rapine, like in 1914, it emphasises the good relations between the two peoples up to that moment and it explains the lack of a flood of refugees clogging the roads.
  3. Well, the relevance of the bridges is mentioned in the German Strategy chapter — which therefore should also not become a separate article :o) — but I hope to make it clearer still. The entire article is still under construction. Why is humankind always so impatient? :o)
  4. Far from being an exhaustive description of the subject, the present article provides but the scantiest outline of all available information. As the Dutch books written about the German invasion number in the thousands, this account is indeed an overview — and one in which 99,995% of detail has been lost. But I have tried to make it an adequate outline, that gives the reader the opportunity to understand the battle. We have on Wikipedia produced a host of Weasel Articles about wars, describing mainly troop movements, of which the particulars are explained by parroting myth and distortion. When saying that the Dutch army was "poorly equipped and trained", we also have to make clear what that means in the context of 1940. When we state that this description might also fit the German 18th Army, that might cause some surprise to people used to the myth of German superiority, so we had better give the exact data. It is simply this minimal adequacy that I strived for.--MWAK 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the old technical limitation, but the readability and organization of the article. I recognize this consideration is to a certain extent a matter of opinion, but I do think some information from the background section should move elsewhere.

It seems to me that our disagreement grows from different conceptions of this article's purpose. You are covering many of the broader events "that bear on the war", including relations between the Dutch and Germans, characteristics of the Netherland's population and industry, etc., etc. I am considering this article within the context of all the other Wikipedia material involving the military aspects of the war. From that perspective, a shorter time scale for the background and a narrower focus seems more appropriate. I think this article should mainly describe troop movements -- though certainly without myth and distortion ;-) -- and the overview of the inter-war period and the social and political treatment should go to the existing History of the Netherlands article, which already links here. Perhaps I'll try some rearranging in a couple of days after I finish some other things and get some feedback. In the meantime, I await your reply.

StephenMacmanus 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A battle/event like this needs context.Therefore contruary to decreasing it's size. It will probably be expanded.

Sandertje 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right: I will reply :o):
  1. The background section has only a few paragraphs about (military) subjects before 1939, such as the explanation of the low defence budget and the generally pro-German attitude. The rest is about the Dutch mobilisation and preparation and the Entente plans, that should be mentioned in any case. Removing the few lines at the beginning would hardly improve readability and have only an indifferent effect on article length.
  2. Yes, I do refer to the Dutch population and industry. But not to describe their quaint habit of eating raw herring or the manufacture of clogs. I merely refer to them to indicate the Dutch war potential. It is the war industry I talk about. Very relevant to the subject — provided of course that you think the Dutch war effort merits any attention.
  3. I'm well aware that at this point many readers will say: "That's just it, isn't it? Dutch mobilisation, Dutch preparations, Dutch strategy, Dutch this, Dutch that...Since when is any of this of interest? What "Dutch war effort"? That oddball dwarf nation was doomed to be defeated whatever it did, so who cares what was done? Of course there are no English books about it and how dare you to suggest this implies some failure on our part? The important actions during the conflict were those executed by the only serious party involved, the German Army, whose troop movements are therefore the only legitimate content of the article. Please do remove the remainder to some place far away where we can safely ignore it!".
  4. I feel certain that this is not your attitude. After all you apparently care for military history in general and no one who does that, can pass the opportunity to indulge in the obscure details of some arcane battle. But you must agree with the avarage reader in that you correctly perceived that the present article is lopsided. It gives you all the necessary information to understand the battle — and then the battle itself is nearly absent. To put it in the words of someone who commented on Operation Barbarossa that has the same flaw: "Where's the beef?". Now the reason there is not any beef, is simply that the article isn't finished yet. It's like the portrait of a man in which the painter has already filled in the background, but the face is still missing. Seeing it in that condition the understandable comment would be: "It would be better the other way around". True, but it would be even better to finish the complete picture. Which I intend to do in the near future.
  5. When finished, it will become clear what all that background was needed for in the first place. It will be shown that the German 18th Army campaign was in its two main efforts a complete failure, that could only be saved by the threat of strategic bombardment. It will also become obvious that had the relative armaments level of Belgium and The Netherlands been as high as that of France, Fall Gelb in its entirety was unlikely to have been executed as it in fact was, if it had been attempted at all. So surprisingly the (lack of) Dutch war effort really did matter. But this conclusion has to be substantiated and that's why I gave the necessary facts. I beg forgiveness for my tardiness. And I beg your patience.
  6. Should you however feel the understandable urge to immediately create a crisp and concise account of the battle, an excellent place to put it would be in a May 1940 Campaign chapter of German Eighteenth Army, which article — also seriously lacking in beef :o) — is the natural place to describe the conflict from mainly the German side.

--MWAK 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I've created a number of redirects, varying from 'battle of Holland' till 'slag om nederland'.

Sandertje 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more 'red links'

As of now, all 'links' have been connected to either 'stubs' or articles.

There was really no need for that. Red links simply show that the article discloses new potential :o)--MWAK 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Sandertje 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stubs are never a good thing. I'll try to "unstub" them :o)--MWAK 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're a guardian angel MWAK! Sandertje 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future plans 2006

First Let me just thank everybody who has edit/adjusted this article.

The comparison between my humble beginnings and the current state of the article is pretty much comparable to the evolution of man from ape to human!


The future plans are the following:

  • MWAK, will make sure the article is equiped with the newest information after he compares the article with a new book he is expecting.
  • I propose that after this, the article will have a new peer review, and after that we'll try to get it to be a featured article'.

The time for these tasks is currently undetermined.


Let's keep up the good work everybody!

Sandertje 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and revert games

I notice that a number of people are doing a to-and-fro regarding the inclusion of the Dutch name of this battle. Might I suggest you let that issue die (preferrably with the Dutch name included since it doesn't hurt the article and provides more context for all readers - Dutch-speaking or not). Because the article is undergoing review for Featured Article status I think you all might consider using your energies for more pressing concerns, such as the less-than-Featured Article writing style and problems of clarity, etc. Pinkville 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of the Dutch name (with explanation) coupled with the retention of the German name Fall Gelb (without explanation) makes no sense to me. - Biederman 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, isn't "Fall Gelb" the name of the German military plan for the conquest of the Netherlands and Belgium? If so, it isn't an alternate name for the Battle of the Netherlands, which is an event, not a plan, i.e. it is something that actually happened, regardless of any plan(s) (it's like calling Christmas Dinner, "menu for Christmas Dinner"). Pinkville 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing quality

Some weeks ago this article first went up as a Featured Article Candidate. At the time I objected based on a number of issues, and I see that in the time since none of these have been addressed. Once again, I'd like to suggest that instead of using your time to make minor changes (like changing the perfectly acceptable English spelling of Goering to Göring) those of you who are most involved with editing this article should concentrate on more fundamental issues: this article is very confusingly written, is missing key dates and other information to provide a context for the events, and the names of places and people are inconsistent (and too often rendered in either Dutch or German, without translation). Here are the objections that haven't been addressed:

"Needs some careful copy-editing and rewriting for clarity, more formal language, etc. Some examples of problems:

The first paragraph gives no years: "The battle lasted from 10 May until 17 May during..." and "The battle ended after the devastating bombing of Rotterdam...", i.e. bombing of Rotterdam in what year?
Passages such as: "The Netherlands had been neutral during World War I but — mainly because of the Boer Wars — at the time sympathies were clearly more on the German side, although the Dutch were shocked by the atrocities committed against the Belgian civilian population and sheltered more than a million refugees. In fact at the end of the war, when the German Kaiser Wilhelm II fled, he was given a castle called Huis ter Doorn in the Netherlands where he lived until his death in 1941." are unclear, with apparent non-sequiturs.
And phrases like: "The governments just didn't see it as 'such a big deal'" and "The Dutch equipment shortages were so bad it actually limited the number" are too informal, agrammatical and confusing ("governments" ? how many did the Netherlands have?). If these sorts of problems are fixed up it will be easier to judge what otherwise seems like a promising article."

Good luck. Pinkville 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of your criticism is certainly founded. I'll soon rework and complete the article, including a better lead section, and I hope to remove many syntactical errors. But claiming that the passage you cited contains a non-sequitur is a little harsh. I'm confident the avarage reader will make the correct logical connections, precisely because otherwise the text would make no sense.--MWAK 06:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Sandertje, I noticed you hastily made an effort to remedy. But you shouldn't allow yourself to be made insecure by the above comments. If we explain everything, someone else is bound to complain about "excessive verbosity". You simply can't please them all :o). And you must resist the temptation to presume that the outcome of the battle was predetermined by German superiority in either numbers, training or firepower, the common mistake popular books make.--MWAK 07:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But already the article looks better. And the new version of the paragraph I quoted is much easier to follow. I wasn't being harsh, by the way - I know the history fairly well and yet I coudn't make sense out of that passage because it introduced new subjects even within sentences (e.g. Dutch neutrality in WWI, the Boer War, Dutch sympathies with Germany, atrocities against Belgians, and Beligian refugees - too much for a single sentence to carry, and something to watch out for in other places). But as Sandertje has shown, it is possible to clarify this and other passages while remaining concise. Well done. Pinkville 11:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

The article needs a lot of references[citation needed] also the image in the info box maybe available but the license tag says its PD because the author died over 100years ago for that to be correct this cant be used until 2040. I had only got through the cursory check of images and references to find these issues further reading may reveal more. I'll read further and leave more suggestions here but these are sufficient to fail the article. Gnangarra 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armament

What where those 'bolt-action rifles made before the Great War' ? Were they license-built Mauser Gewehr 98's, or 'home-made'rifles?

The type was mainly Repetiergewehr M95, I believe, from Steyr Mannlicher, an Austrian firm, but licence made in The Netherlands, the caliber changed to 6.5 mm. See: http://www.tumke.nl/M95/M95_2.htm --MWAK 06:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --

For a superrabbit I do anything ;o).--MWAK 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


I added a lint to the Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 rifle and I have a question. Were the rifles the Dutch used in 1940 actually made prior to 1914 or did the design just date back to the time before WW1? In that latter case the sentence "infantry armed with Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 bolt-action rifles made before the Great War." should be changed, because almost all bolt-action rifels in use at that time were designed before WW1 broke out and were equally obsolete. Markus Becker02 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some were bought in Austria, some made in The Netherlands before 1914; the vast majority, some 400,000 exemplars, was produced between 1915 and 1918. The point of the sentence was not to make a contradistinction to other bolt-action rifles but to make a contrast with automatic weapons. It should be emphasized though that the Dutch rifles mostly hadn't been modernised since 1918, still using e.g. bullets with a hemispherical tip.--MWAK 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. So the problem is rather the ammo and not the rifles. Perhabs that part of the sentence should be left out. The disadvantage caused by the obsolete rifle ammo is rather small compared to the significant lack of light machine guns.Markus Becker02 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's very true but the sentence correctly suggests that the Dutch army relied on obsolescent technology. And of course a calibre of 6.5 mm had insufficient stopping power. A commission advised to bring it to 7.9 mm but as always no money was made available.--MWAK 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, bullets with a round tip loose velocity much faster, than the ones with a pointed tip, but are you sure about the insufficient man stopping power? The Mannlicher 6.5*54 had a kinetic energy of 2,700 Joules, the German 7.92*57 had at least 3,600, but the ammo of the Stgw44(7,92*33) had just 1.400 Joules and that was and is still considered fine.
The Italian and the Japanese 6.5mm rounds are usually criticized for being affected by wind drift, insufficient range and penetration, but I think the two latter disadvantages only affect machine guns. In combat rifles were fired at targets 400, maybe up to 600 meters away. Even considering the fact that a bullet with a round tip slows down quickly I can´t imagine it being that bad.

Markus Becker02 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem was not a lack of KE; rather the 6.5 mm bullet punched a nice hole right through the hapless soldier it hit, but without inflicting much of a flesh wound. I guess this was even compensated somewhat by the round tip. What matters is not penetrating power but the amount of KE tranferred to the flesh. This increases for a given value of KE when the surface hit is larger. The 6.5 mm had only a 68% cross-section compared to the 7.9 mm.--MWAK 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Acccording tho Tony Williams it was largly a matter of bullet design, not so much a question of caliber. Turns out the round nose made things even worse: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=106208&sid=60a6462fe7715618469c0c5a164d7c25 Markus Becker02 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This point escaped me :o).--MWAK 07:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German strategy and forces

It says four of the seven divisions were regular infantry divisions, but than it goes on to say six of them were Landwehr units. That is a contradiction in itself. The difference in quality is so great a unit is either a regular one(1st rate) or belongs to the Landwehr(3rd rate). Markus Becker02 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, operationally, they were regular divisions in that they weren't operational reserve divisions. Precisely because any other interpretation of "regular" in this context causes a contradiction, the intended meaning should be obvious when the end of the section is reached. And they weren't Landwehr units as such but, as the article indicates, raised from them. Certainly the difference in training between them and the units of the prewar standing army was very great, as again emphasized by the article. I deliberately wrote it down this way, so that the reader would first assume a clear distinction between regular and reserve units, only to be surprised by the information that the units considered fit enough to be immediately committed to be battle, would also often be half-trained. :o)--MWAK 08:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Just Information

A good article doesn't only have NPOVing and well-cited sources, in addition to being well organized, but also good mechanics. This is all I changed in the first half of the article in case you were wondering (e.g. simply strengthened the English mechanics, grammar, and spelling). Colonel Marksman 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but I fear your knowledge of proper spelling is, if possible, even worse than mine. :o) It should not be "1 tank", but "one tank"; "materiel" is not the same as "material" — why you call yourself a Colonel, if you have no knowledge of military terminology? Besides what you call POV-statements are mainly sentences simply reflecting informed consensus on the subject. And those contractions are today so common in normal texts that it seems overly formal to remove them all.--MWAK 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad on the materiel. I always thought that was simply a British spelling.
  • As for "one" vs" "1", the reason being is because when you are comparing something to something else, you can't say: "They have 100 men, but they have fifty". It must be all numbers or all letters.
  • The way you determine that is this: Numbers that would end up to be more than three words are written in numerals. Exceptions include: lists of numbers (I don't recall how many have to be in the list, in which case, it is all numerals), and if it begins a sentence, it MUST be written out. That is not spelling sir, that is grammar. Colonel Marksman 04:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding MWAK's comment: "And those contractions are today so common in normal texts that it seems overly formal to remove them all." Contractions are common in spoken English and in e-mails and other ephemeral texts but never appear in formal (i.e. encyclopedic) written English. Any contractions in the article should be converted to their full form. Pinkville 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for mentioning. I don't have to say that after all. The term is "informal" and "formal". Colonel Marksman 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the sentences I'm calling "POV", it's not really healthy for the article to say, "Holland's armed forces were poor." That is unnecessary filler and only your opinion (it is an opinion.) Consider the Conintenal Army of the United States fighting the British empire or the United States facing Japan in the early years of the war. Our (America's) technology was not too different from Holland's ground forces as our sea forces in comparision. The odds were, quite possibly, worse than between Nazi Germany and the Netherlands. (In fact, after Pearl Harbor, the United States had next to no protection of our homeland. The bombers could've well resupplied and bombed San Franciso.) But we can sit here all day and say how much an army stinks or we can simply give out the numbers (As the article already did). Those sentences do not help the article, do not help the reader, and could be left out and still make sense. Colonel Marksman 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I appreciate your effort, but I fear your knowledge of proper spelling is, if possible, even worse than mine. :o)"

  • Be glad I'm very tollerable towards such judging insults. Go ahead, please challenge my 800-pages of college English textbooks and handbooks. Colonel Marksman 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at why the article failed nomination, it was because it was not formal enough, lacked citations/sources, and those very problems I tried to fix. Do you want this article re-nominated or not? Colonel Marksman 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006: restored background sentence (again) for broader context

This background was removed with the comment that it was not consistent with Hitler's plans in 1939. However, the conquest of living space in the East was a fixed goal of his plans long before war began, and avoiding a two-front war was a typical German goal throughout the 20th century, at least. These general aims hardly amount to a specific plan, but without this information Germany's invasion of the Netherlands isn't fully explained. Its absence will allow uninformed readers to assume any number of incorrect conclusions, such as a non-existent desire for revenge or something, which certainly doesn't apply.

Yes, but the sentence is too much conforming to the still very popular, but scientifically utterly refuted, idea that Hitler had some Master Plan for World Conquest. First the West, then the East. The real goal of Fall Gelb however, as is abundantly clear from Weisung No. 6, was simply to occupy the Low Countries as a base for air and sea attacks against the UK and to prevent the Entente from doing the same as a base for attacking the Ruhr Area. All this in the context of an expected long and bloody war against France, protracted well into 1942. Of course secretly Hitler was dreaming of quick victories against all possible enemies and in some of his utterings before the war these vague intentions become explicit. But only when, against all expectations, and to the utter surprise of Hitler himself, bold and daring armoured strategic penetrations ("Blitzkrieg") caused a quick and total defeat of France and offered the hope of easy victories wherever the new tactic would be applied, Hitler dared seriously to consider an attack on Stalin — and it is of course far from certain that, had the UK made peace and allowed Hitler access to the oil and raw materials he desired, he would have started a new and very impopular war to gain Lebensraum that wasn't really needed. So, ascribing clear intentions to him in this respect before the Fall of France is an anachronism. But you are of course right that some explanation of his direct motives is in order, to avoid a possible misunderstanding. And when we limit ourselves to his immediate concerns, this has the added advantage of giving near certain information, while avoiding statements that have a strong speculative content and are potentially even more misleading than remaining silent. I'll try to show you what I have in mind.--MWAK 07:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] rotterdam bombing backgound

a scientific research of that topic was made in 2003 by the german military historic institute in potsdam. the study came to the conclusion that the reason why the second bomber wing attacked rotterdam AND DID NOT NOT TUREND BACH TO germany ( like the first bommber wing) was that they used a so called schlepp-antenna. short before the final run for the bombing started they pulled these antennas back in the aircraft.the only possibilty to stop the attack from then on was to shut red signal bulltes over the target area by the german ground forces in rotterdam. the german ground forces shot these red signal bullets. the first wing stopped the attack and turned back to german without bombing the target. the commander of the second wing could not see these signals, because of heavy fog comning from a burning crudeoil-tanker in the rotterdam harbour.

Sure ... the question remains though, why attack a bridge with heavy bombers when you have stukas at your disposal?
Rex 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

well, the goal was not to destroy the bridge. the goal was to burn down the area around the bridge (dutch army resistance pokets around the bridgehead) to take these strategic bridge undestroyed.Insert non-formatted text here --131.173.252.9 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_the_Netherlands_e1f2.html"