Talk:Western Front (World War I)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Western Front (World War I) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 19, 2006.
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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Eastern v Western Front / world perspective

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

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

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

In Europe, there were four main fronts: The Balkans Front, the Italian Front and two others, one of which was east of the other. W.S.Churchill's book, The World Crisis 1911-1918, finished in 1938 though written from his own memory and from records of the 1911-18 period, refers to 'The Eastern Front (page 467). His usual phrase when referring to the Western Front is 'The West', e.g. Volume I, Part II, chapter I. (RJP 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
I see your point, but I am betting that it is the Westernfront, because on a map/globe France is to the West and Russia to the East. say1988 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

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

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

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

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

The first point is valid. It is easy to forget that the terminology is new to some people. The comma after frontier should be a full-stop. However, the Western Front did not extend from the English Channel but from the North Sea. It did not pass through most of Belgium but through the western extremity. It passed through neither Luxemburg nor north-western France.
It is difficult to refine an introduction like this so as to be both unambiguous and brief but on the whole, I think it is not far from right as it is.
How about:
During nearly all the First World War, the lines of the opposing armies on the Western Front extended essentially unchanged, from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier with France. Most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some important industrial regions of France remained under German control.
In response to the massively heavy casualties and virtually static front lines, the western front saw the introduction of new military technology, including poison gas and tank warfare. Although few territorial gains were made outside the first and last few months of the war, this front would prove decisive. The inexorable advance of the Allied armies in 1918 persuaded the German commanders that defeat was inevitable and their government was forced to sue for an armistice.(RJP 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
The version above is a definite improvement over its predecessor. I would consider putting the part about "extended essentially unchanged" into the second introductory sentence in order to leave the first as simple and "introductory as possible". There is more than enough space to comment on the static nature later on. Something like this:
For most of the First World War, the battle lines of the Western Front extended from the North Sea to the Franco-Swiss border.
Perhaps Franco-Swiss is not the ideal way of putting it, but the first sentence must assume that the reader knows very little about World War One (even if (s)he does); it should be aimed at the lowest common denominator. As for the second sentence, there one should comment on the static nature of the front and where it ran through (e.g. Belgium and Luxembourg). For the second paragraph, perhaps the historical significance should be addressed (much like it has been already): Why was it considered more important than the Eastern Front? What about casualties? What about geography? What about its significance on the outcome of the war?
I am not sure about the current second sentence, and its place within the introduction. "Most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some important industrial regions of France remained under German control." This is perfectly valid, however it comments on German territorial gains without a) Relating them to the context of the western front and b) even introducing the contestants Germany, France and Britain. I think that the latter should be done first (while simultaneously commenting on static lines and geography):
(Second Sentance) "This front comprised the static trench lines of Germany, France and Britain, end extended through most of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, and some important industrial regions of north-east France". Roger2dc 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, the front did not extend through most of Belgium nor any of Luxembourg. Germany took the (Grand Duchy of) Luxembourg over before the war had really begun.
By not specifying British and French involvement, we avoid the diplomatic problem of needing to list all those involved: Belgium & Portugal for example as well as those who were there under the headings of British or French empire.
Someone had written the introduction in such a way as to save the question of what constituted the industrial areas of France for discussion later. The 1871 and 1919 borders left the industrial area of Lorraine for example, in respectively different countries.
As to what was an important front; opinions will vary. The Italian front was important to cohesion of the relatively new country. The Balkan front rumbled on in fits and starts and was important in forming Russia's attitudes. If you lived in Warsaw or Pinsk, you would probably have thought the Western Front less important than the fear around you.
The Western Front has more written about it in English because it was nearer home for English-speaking people. But also, by the time the war ended, the Austrian resistance in Serbia was collapsing, the Eastern Front was not a factor and effectively, all land warfare was in the West. The Western Front was where the final decision was to be made. When writing History, the outcome has a strong influence on what is seen as important. (RJP 12:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
If Belgium and Luxembourg were all part of the German conquest, then it should not be mentioned at all in the second introductory sentence. Considering that this is a long and content-rich article, there should be several introductory paragraphs (in order to do the subject justice). Belgium and Luxembourg should be included later on. Perhaps instead of Belgium and Luxembourg, there should be a mention of key battles or cities (Verdun, the Somme, Ypres), or some of the key events during the long battle. German territorial gains are by comparison not quite as important.
I don't really see a diplomatic problem with stating who the main contestants of the Western Front are. One should name those that were actively involved in the battles on the western front; a mention of the allies and entente members should follow later on in the introduction. It is important to name those combatants because it is one of the fundamental concepts in the article.
I am aware that a broad range of cultural views exist, and that we serve to present a neutral point of view. However, facts such as casualty numbers, technology employed, or number of men and material present speak for themselves. As stated above "The Western Front was where the final decision was to be made". This should be addressed in the introduction. (Roger2dc 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
I performed a re-write of the header section, attempting to incorporate these suggestions and expanding the content. Hopefully this is now somewhat more satisfactory. Thank you. — RJH 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I ask for someone authoritative to fix this sentence in the main text: "The German planes were swept from the skies, achieving air superiority." Clearly, the German planes did not achieve air superiority by being swept from the skies, yet that is what the sentence is telling me. - anonymous
See how it looks now. (RJP 10:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Commonwealth

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

[edit] Bad layout=

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

[edit] Disputed?

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

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

[edit] German casualties

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

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

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

[edit] Tranlation issue

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

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

[edit] Featured Article

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

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

[edit] edit: air warfare

Changed the line:

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

to:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] British Empire

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

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

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

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

Cheers SAW

I know for certain that Indian, Canadian and ANZAC units played roles on the western front. (E.g. ANZAC ==> Battle of the Somme (1916), Canada => Battle of Vimy Ridge; India => Battle of Neuve Chapelle.) The national participants are listed on the specific battles, as well as in the global template at the bottom of the page. They could probably be mentioned briefly on this page as well, but I think this should be primarily a high-level overview of this front. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Social and political attitudes have moved on ninety years, so it is now difficult to appreciate differences in attitude between ours and those of the recorders of events at the time. Most of the recording done at the time was by Europeans for Europeans. The Moroccans, Algerians and so on, were generally listed under French forces while the Indians (as defined at the time), West Indians, East Africans and Chinese, for example, were British. Some were mainly labourers some were fine soldiers but since they were largely non-Europeans, they did not get much publicity. Nonetheless, go to french military cemeteries and you will find plenty of non-Christian symbols, which in those days, Jews excepted, meant casualties among overseas imperial troops. Even at the time, the qualities of the Ghurkhas and Sikhs as soldiers of outstanding quality, were recognized, though less publicized than those of Scottish regiments for example. The Scots had been romanticized for a hundred years before, partly perhaps, because of their idiosyncratic dress code, partly because of writers such as W. Scott and R.L.Stevenson. What the Chinese labourer behind the Western Front needed if his contribution was to be noted, was one of his own to write interestingly about him for a European readership. This did not happen because Chinese labourers did not write well in English or French.
Conversely, and for the same reason, the Dominions' forces sometimes receive more publicity than the English units who shared their experiences. To some extent, it is a matter of who has the best writers. It is another angle on the fairly obvious observation that among English-speakers, there is little knowledge of the Württemberg regiments. (RJP 08:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC))
Okay, I added a reference to the table that includes a brief list of nations that sent forces to this front. Please feel free to edit the reference and add other nations as appropriate. Would it also make sense to have a separate page with more detail on the nations that served on this (and possibly the other) fronts during the war? — RJH (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I would rather se the references put next to both the British EMpire and France and list their colonies that sent significant nubers of troops. say1988

17:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Additional references and resources

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

The main World War I page already has a fairly comprehensive list of literature. I didn't think it made sense to duplicate it here. — RJH (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The influence of the events on subsequent film and literary works is something which is bound to arise from a subject like 'The Western Front' but I think it is better treated as an article to itself. All too easily, it would be possible to find that the tail is wagging the dog and this dog is too important to be subsidiary to the media used for reporting it. (RJP 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Christmas Truce

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

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

[edit] Italian and Russian flags?

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

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

[edit] History notes

These comments appeared in the history:

Deletion of some myths- Germany was not bankrupt, she could afford the reparations, but evidence shows she refused to pay. And; Germany was not isolated commerce-wise.
Changing wording of an earlier edit. The person who asked me to 'prove it'- have a search for it yourself, and feel free to citate it- I'm not great with computers!

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

[edit] Polish forces

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

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

[edit] Lead image

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

It is exceedingly rude to edit another person's comments. I have restored my original text. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly feel that the lead image should be changed from it's current image, to this one: Image:Canadians_Troops_going_Over_the_Top_in_1916.jpg which is a well-known and mass published iconic image of World War I and represents the trench warfare at it's best with it's dynamic and upward action photograph. The The user RJHall however disagrees and feels that the harsh, overly contrasted, pixilated quality of the reduced image. I however, strongly feel that the original image is as nearly well-known and presents a very dull and bland scene with no real substance. There is no contrast or action to this image, which would leave the viewer glancing and moving on where as the Canadian troops image presents a more colorful and contrasting image. -Signaleer 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the second image doesn't look good on a computer monitor. I favor keeping the first (original), at least until another contender comes along. We are in the right ballpark with any kind of trench pic. Haber 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify, it's the Canadian photo that looks bad on computer monitors. I think the only reason it catches the eye is because it takes a few seconds to figure out exactly what it is. Haber 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
In light of my research, I have stumbled upon a higher resolution and better quality image than both images Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg, I feel that this image is the epitome of the current lead image and therefore should be used, additionally this image has been a featured picture of the day. -Signaleer 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well done. Approve. Haber 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miles vs. kilometers

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

[edit] Unsourced modification & entropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I)

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