Talk:Falaise pocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falaise pocket article.
Article policies
France Portal
Falaise pocket is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This was an anonymous contribution, obviously not by a native speaker. I've tried to edit as well as I could, also left some notes in comment marks to hopefully help someone who knows the topic (which I don't) see what still needs to be done. -- Jmabel 01:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is also the action more commonly known as the 'Falaise pocket'. A little more info is needed to integrate into the story of the second world war. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gulf War Highway of Death (1991)??

Anybody has got an idea why this link is included in See also section? --Edcolins 13:50, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it should be there. The historical parallel might be reasonable, but if so, someone should overtly make the case with appropriate citations, rather than just throw in a "see also." -- Jmabel 05:51, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
I'm taking it out, it looks very odd. I'm not sure I see the point of the "See Also" section, surely that's what the categories are for? The comparison to Dunkirk looks a little strained as well. Forgot to sign this Leithp 11:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll just take out the "see also" section, as I don't see that it serves any purpose. Leithp 07:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Poles had lost 325 dead, with 1,002 wounded and 114 missing when they were reinforced by the 22nd Canadian Armoured Regiment in the early morning of August 21. The Germans lost around 2,000 dead, with 5,000 taken prisoner, and 359 vehicles destroyed. Those is alleate propaganda. Francesco

Also montgomery due to much heavier fighting than the americans was notably more cautious because of this.

[edit] The aftermath

I can't make heads or tails of the last phrase in this section

Although it must be noted Montgomery's approach had significantly more troops than those of Patton and Bradley.

Any clue what it's trying to say? It looks to be a defense of Monty's cautiousness but I don't know what, really, that defense is. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC) This only makes sense to me if considered to be a comment on the broader situation: the British and Canadians were still attacking through the enemy, whilst US soldiers were, by then, moving through more open ground. Not sure of the relevance of this and in any case, Monty was still overall field commander, with Dempsey and Bradley reporting to him at this stage, wasn't he?

[edit] categ

would it be appropriate to categorise this under world war ii or would that have been subsumed under operation overlord already? Chensiyuan 16:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied victory?

Objective of the operation - to encircle and destroy German armies - was not fully reached. That's hardly definition of victory. Pavel Vozenilek 14:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur, if up to "100,000 German troops succeeded in escaping the allies due to the delay in closing the gap" that´s rather a huge screw-up that a lost opportunity and sure as hell no victory. I guess I change it to limited allied victory.Markus Becker02 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not a serious point of view. The campaign in Normandy was a major disaster for the german army. That a few got away at Falaise is hardly cause to call it "no victory". DMorpheus 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
First, we are not talking about the whole campaign, just about the pocket. Second, saying 100,000 troops are "a few" is not serious. Especially when the remnants of two SS-Division that would late make THE key contribution in the defeat of Operation Marker-Garden were among the escapees. They had the Germans by the balls and the blew it. Markus Becker02 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

British forces were succesfully evacuated from Dunkirk, but german forces are considered to escape always, This sound Biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

An excerpt from Max Hasting's Overlord helps construe this idea that eventhough the Allies were able to encircle 5th Panzer Army and Panzer Group Eberbach, which in itself is proof of victory, they were not, however, able to prevent the most determined Germans from fleeing: "...the pocket at Falaise was being closed too late to prevent the escape of a formidable cadre of the German army, including some of its most skilled and dedicated officers who lived to lead men through many more battles. It was only the most determined who still possessed the will to try the gap." While one can see this as detrimental towards future Allied aims, it cannot be rationally considered a defeat. More happened prior to and during the assault to close the gap that definantly are of more importance to history than those who escaped the gap: Operation GOODWOOD, Operation COBRA, Operation TOTALIZE, and Operation TRACTABLE. These all should be analyzed in order to truely understand the events of the gap.

Dr. Owenby (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Dr. Phillip Owenby, Professor of History (UTK)

The wieght of victory is not measured in how many escaped, one should look at the ammount of material that the Germany Army was unable to pull out of Normandy, how they were unable to make a decent stand in France following this battle - the original allied plan called for the desivie battle to be fought to the east of the Seine iirc. The German army essentially collsaped and within a short time the allied forces had reached the frontier. It was only at this point when they were once again capable of succesful defensive operations agaisnt the allied forces. It can hardly be called anything other then a victory.--86.4.87.16 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I wasn't sure if N/A under the Strength1 and French and American Casualties meant that there weren't any, or that the number is unknown. Since I've seen photos of American dead at Falaise, I'm sure that the N/A represents that the # of casualties isn't known. I've simply replaced that with unkown, since it makes a bit more sense that way. Climie.ca 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

[edit] Added Citations

I tried adding a few citations to this article, but I haven't figured out how to attribute mulitpul things to one source. Thus the Reference area became jumbled because several things are cited with the same book. If I figure this out I will fix it later, but if anyone else can I'd appreciate it. --KobaVanDerLubbe 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out, someone is keen on posting fantasy German losses

2x total Normandy KIAs in Falaise only, oh lawd. --HanzoHattori 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping wacth on this. But also keep looking at the Aftermath section. --HanzoHattori 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limited Victory

I for one do not believe that Falaise Pocket is a limited victory. It was a decisive victory for the Allies and a disaster for the Wehrmacht; while the allied victory was not 'complete' there is no doubt that the Wehrmacht lost its ablest units and had nothing to show away from it. Losing one third of its personel and all heavy equipment and weapons should not be viewed as anything other than unmitigated disaster. Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.202.30 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've done some research in the last few days, and I can tell you that all sources say that Falaiase was a crushing defeat for the Germans, and the worst since Stalingrad, as well as a decisive victory for the allies. Ok, Market Garden was a complete balls up, but the Falaise Gap is most certainly an allied victory, and a disaster for the Wehrmach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.110.177 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image removed

here is the image i removed from the info box and the caption in case its of use further within the article:

|image= |caption=U.S. soldiers celebrate with a captured German flag in front of a destroyed Panther tank.
The group of infantrymen were left behind to "mop-up" in Chambois, last German stronghold in the Falaise Gap area.