Talk:First Battle of Ypres

Untitled

All you need are some pictures of the battle

This article seems to have been locked against further edits. This is unfortunate since it contains numerous text errors, including at least one nonsense sentence, the meaning of which is now so jumbled it cannot be understood. Can whoever has assumed proprietorial control over this page plesase either proof read it properly and start to bring it up to standard, or allow others to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a sentence saying the Ypres "was the last geographical object protecting the Allied ports at Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer." Ypres, the city itself, was no such obstacle. It would be much more accurate to say that the ridges surrounding Ypres were the last geographical obstacles south of the Yser River screening the Allied ports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.7.178 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Kinder-Mord (Child murder)?

Hello, it should be noted that this term is quite misleading. The Germans brought 4 new built "reserve corps" to Northern France and Belgium, fall 1914. Some of its regiments had a large number of (most young) volunteers (e.g.: Reserve Infantry Regiment 215, from Hanover region, as can be seen in prussian 1914-15-casualty rolls, consisted to more than a half of "Kriegsfreiwillige" = "volunteers for wartime duration", men without any peacetime service experience).

But: The youngest volunteers were around 17, 18 years of age. And so far as "students" are concerned: the german grammar school leaver qualified for attending university ("Abiturient") was 19 years old - hardly younger than the average "active" soldier of 20,21 years. In other words, the university STUDENT was of the same age as the active soldier. But as soon as such a student had served his "One Year" in peacetime (the privilege of one year service for men from higher education which built the reserve officer pool) he couldn't have been a "Kriegsfreiwilliger" at all. So can be spoken of "Kindermord?"

The point is that the bulk of german volunteers came from an urban background (grammar schoolboys not finished "abitur", or secondary schoolboys: 17-19 years of age), but not to forget apprentice boys, trainees, and unskilled workers from the cities and so on.

And as far as higher educated youth is concerned: it's obvious that most of them came from well-to-do families and used to live under more comfortable conditions than the average and predominating draftees: farm hands, craftsmen and rural people like that. This better-off youth was obviously more irritated and stressed by the hardships of basic training and barrack life, maltreatment by sergeants or comrades as the ordinary recruit. On the other hand it's a fact that the german student was taller and heavier than his contemporaries from other classes.

So "Kinder" ? --- one sees, the term "child" is quite doubtful, and even more in conjunction with "student". Moreover, the number of university students in germany around 1910/20 was not very great - some 40-50,000, virtually all male. Germanys population was 60-65 mill. Compare this with present times: 1,000,000 male students alone at 80 mill. population. - for a more detailed examination see Karl Unruh "Langemarck - Legende und Wirklichkeit" (german), 1986.

Pure kitsch is 'unschuldig' / innocent. What should that mean ? One might say, some of the Kriegsfreiwillige were 'misled', but innocent is the wrong word for people rushing voluntarily to the colours, ready to fight, shoot, kill, and, not to forget - eventually being wounded, mutilated or killed.

In the end, that term might be a sign for german tending to emotional extravagance, not to say hysteria - besides of ill military leadership in that particular case. German over-emotion can be noticed here but also in other historical circumstances, past and present.

WernerE (german wiki), 07.12.2005

I completely agree with Werner's logic. It's misleading, and is Germany-biased if it is indeed not true.

true_avatar47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by True avatar47 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For an explanation of why the KinderMord legend mattered, see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25556 Regards, Ben Aveling 09:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kinder-Mord ist indeed an legend because no kids were involved! And: "Kindermord von Ypern" is totally unknown in Germany and pure fantasy -- Waterthrower (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a literal equivalent of "Massacre of the Innocents" a reference to King Herod. It isn't referring to literal children. In the same way that labelling armoured vehicles "tanks" does not mean they were ever used to hold water, referring to a slaughter of innocent youth doesn't mean literal children were involved. (Wilfred Owen's "Anthem for Doomed YouthW" isn't 'false' because Britain wasn't using child soldiers either.) Perhaps instead of following false etymologies you could improve the quality of contributors to this page. 157.14.243.139 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead-up to the battle

Battles are not fought just because the enemy is there in front of you: that's the squaddie's viewpoint, the generals have other views, right or wrong. The Race to the Sea was a German effort to outflank the relatively static French lines to the West, and it nearly succeeded: if it had, then the French would have surrendered and the UK would have lost the BEF.

In its bias towards the British troops who eventually had the victory, this Article ignores the Belgian line between Ieper(Ypres) and Nieupoort, who took the first step in the eventual victory by stopping the German forces virtually single-handed: had it not been for the Belgians, the Germans, who had won the Race to the Sea, would have outflanked the British and French forces to the West, with a clear run to Paris and the French heartland, cutting the entire BEF supply route off into the bargain. The German forces, initally attacking along an axis southwards from Brugge(Bruges), ran into the final Belgian last-ditch suicide defence: my own great-grandfather's citation, for instance, states he was the only survivor of what can only be termed a suicide squad of five men who destroyed a German machine-gun nest of a dozen machine-guns, approximately fifty troops.

This defensive line was principally along the railway embankment over the marshland between the two towns, which was the only consistently high ground in the area. The Belgian command of this was split, Nieupoort to Vuurne (Furnes) and Vuurne to Ieper. The Belgian forces had fought a running retreat from Namur in the East of Belgium, across the plain north of Brussels, past Ghent and Brugge and finally made a last-ditch stand on the railway: there was barely a couple of miles of land back to the French border.

When it finally became clear that the remaining Belgian forces were in the process of finally being wiped out, and that even this would fall, the Belgian King ordered the demolition of the sea-sluices at Nieupoort, thereby destroying the drainage of the entire area between there and the Ardennes, which then turned into the sea of mud so closely associated with the Battlefields of Flanders. This bought enough time for the British and French forces to catch up, threatening the German flank to the North of Ypres, and in an attempt to circumvent the flood to the East, the Germans ran into the BEF and French. The rest is as described.

It was, therefore, probably an even more closely-run thing than Waterloo: had the advancing British forces been any slower to come up, or the Germans quicker to disengage around Ramskapelle, then they would have probably broken through around Kortrijk(Courtrai) and the war would have been lost, at least as far as the French were concerned. This lesson did not get missed: the error was not repeated in WWII, leaving the Brits evacuating at Dunkerk.

Jelmain 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Adjusting the order of appearance in campaignbox

{{editsemiprotected}} The text of this page and the dates suggest that the last 2 entries (1st battle of Ypres and Battle of the Yser) appear in the wrong order.

Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaignbox western front

This page is part of campaignbox western front but the box is lacking, can someone add it? Thank you and awesome work! Now if i just had the discipline not to read these pages during worktime... 200.222.3.3 (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

British Army

"Each battalion of infantry contained just two machine guns and 18,073 men each." God might be on the side of the big battalions, but 18 thousand men in one has to be a mistake. In the proceeding paragraph, 154000 men / 71 battalions = 2169 per division, which sounds more reasonable. Bungo77 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The battle was very dangerous for many people because their was new technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.50.217 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How many French fought in the battle?

In the section on Polygon Wood, the text states that "both the French claimed credit for the idea".

Image copyright problem with File:Capper.jpg

The image File:Capper.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection?

Why is this page SemiProtected?

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mis-spell

There is a small mis-spelling in the right bar at the top, under the "strength" category, it is said: "Total strenth: 4,400,000". Should be "Total strength: 4,400,000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.197.251 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

inexperienced and highly trained

> most of the German casualties were a mixture of young inexperienced [volunteers] and [some] highly trained reserves.

This line, from the intro, doesn't read right.

Regards, Ben Aveling 09:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I thnk that it's an unfortunate form of words - some of the reservists were former conscripts such as those who had besieged Antwerp (Beseler's 3rd Reserve Corps) and some were untrained student volunteers raised hurredly in Germany who were cut to pieces (see Kindermord).Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

the term "kindermord", b.t.w., is highly exaggerated, not to say misleading nonsense. A german university "student" was 19 years or older (rather the same age as normal conscript or career soldier); what the english mean is rather "pupil"; no question, there were some, predominantly northern-german regiments, with a remarkably high number of 17, 18 (even 16 year) old "pupils", "apprentice boys" a.s.o. But does this rectify the term "kindermord" ? Not to forget at 1st Ypres fought trained and experienced bodies like II Bavarian Corps (Armeegruppe Fabeck) and others. --Widlotic (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S., cite: The Germans called the battle "The Massacre of the Innocents of Ypres" (in German Kindermord bei Ypern) as many of the German casualties were young and inexperienced reserves recently recruited from German universities. - thats right and irritating, too: the germans (or their propaganda) accusated themselves for sending them into battle, ill-prepared and immature ? --Widlotic (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

German Reserve Corps

at "Langemarck Legend" (22 Oct) is rather meant "XXIII German Reserve Corps" - not XXIII Corps" - right ? --Widlotic (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It was in the source as that. But on review I think you're right. Dapi89 (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler

This account suggests that Adolph Hitler was decorated for action against the French. There have been TV accounts that Hitler saw action agaist the British at Gheluvelt.AT Kunene (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be Adolf, with an 'f'. Sca (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Yes true. It is in the article, but you have to look for it since we are not supposed to add undue weight to this issue. Just do a CTRL+F and you'll see the single sentence. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a picture, on this page, of Adolf Hitler amongst a group of soldiers. The page/picture caption identifies Hitler as sitting on the Right Side of the group. However, the Photograph information page suggests the prone figure in the foreground is actually Hitler. Perhaps someone who knows the photo could settle the contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.135.15 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Strength in infobox

User:XXstuyXx recently made a change to the Strength fields in the infobox, stating German Army Strength was 5.4 million and French Army was 3,989,103. This latter is obviously 4,400,000 (Total strength) minus 163,897 (British Army) minus 247,00 (Belgian Army).

My first reaction was to simply revert: these numbers are not the respective strengths of the German and French armies at the First Battle of Ypres. According to Order of First Battle of Ypres, the French employed 12 Infantry and 8 Cavalry Divisions (lets say 20,000 per Infantry Division plus 5,000 per Cavalry Division = 280,000 total - no where near the almost 4 million stated); the Germans deployed 28 Infantry and 8 Cavalry Divisions (similar "back of an envelope" calculations yield 600,000 - not 5.4 million).

These Total Strength numbers are the mobilisation strength of the entire armies, for instance, as stated in the article First Battle of Ypres#German Army. Surely the infobox should contain information pertaining to the battle itself? Anything else is misleading. Hamish59 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

CE

Had a go at several paragraphs and tidied a few inconsistent items and nowrapped numbers. It seems a pretty good article but I thought that there was too much reliance on Beckett and an absence of German and French sources, which given the few which exist in English isn't unusual. The exposition of Falkenhayn's decisions seems a little inadequate and could benefit from the views of Foley and Mombauer to balance the Reichsarchiv line presented here. I have a minor reservation about header titles as looked in the OH and record of engagements which were different. Considering the size of the battle, its range over space and time and the limited sources available to them, I think the writers have achieved more than could be expected. I'll leave a message on the milhist page as the b-class on the mainpage doesn't seem to have been copied into the talk page. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Was it an Allied victory? The narrative describes both sides having an offensive strategy and both failing to achieve it. Oh and I'd move the list from the lead to the section on Langemarck and prune it as the kindermord legend can be dispatched in a note rather than the body of the text. I took the references out of the infobox as the data is in the casualties section in the main text.Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Was it an Allied victory? I would say so as it halted the German advances.

I would put the kindermord stuff as a sub-section of Aftermath. Hamish59 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Splendid.Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've amended sone of the headings to reflect the Arras 1917 model. The nomenclature book has Battle of La Bassee 10 Oct-2 Nov, Battle of Messines 12 Oct-2 Nov, Battle of Armentieres 13 Oct-2 Nov, Battles of Ypres 19 Oct-22 Nov, Battle of Langemarck 21-24 Oct, Battle of Gheluvelt 29-31 Oct and Battle of Nonneboschen 11 November. La Bassee, Messines and Armentieres have their own pages so might stand reduction here to a paragraph and main article link.Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had another look and think that quite a bit of the narrative belongs to other battles if you use the British nomenclature conventions. I'm by no means committed to the header changes which were more a means of trying to separate a mass of detail into a more coherent narrative. The more I've looked at it the more it seems that tinkering is insufficent and that the page needs an overhaul so I'll copy it and work on it in a sandbox rather than confuse things further. All suggestions are welcome, particularly by previous editors.Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to disentangle the narrative a bit more by using the British nomenclature conventions and changed some more headers but so much seems to have been crammed together that some parts look like duplicated narratives. I've had second thoughts about overreliance on Beckett too, perhaps an editor used it to cite uncited paragraphs? Please revert any poor choices I've made as I think that a fresh pair of eyes is what the changed I've already made need and I'll stick to using the sandbox version for now. Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

See here User:Keith-264/sandbox2 for a revised version.Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Revisions

As requested Keith, I've transferred discussion to talk page. My original question. Nothing major. Dapi89 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The sandbox link above is where I've got to (after looting the Michelin guide for maps); I ended up removing the exposition on the pre-war armies etc and moving material up the page in its place. I also thought that with the seperate OOB page there was too much detail about the armies so pruned that too. I have in mind an attempt to link and cross-refer the battles which are in the Race to the Sea campaign box and move the detail on the other battles to them but that will take a lot of time and I've got 2nd Artois and Delville Wood to finish first, so feel free to revert anything on the 1st Ypres page that I've changed. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No need. Looks good. I used Beckett to death so if you have an queries about information citations pages etc etc just ask. But I am sure you have his book already. There is also one out about the German Army at Ypres 1914. Dapi89 (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a look through my reserve library and only found Strachan but his exposition of 1914 strategy is pretty succinct. I have the British OHs and most of the divisional histories but not Sheldon 1914. I usually find that the OH privides a good chronology and structure which might disentangle the narrative a little more. Could it be that the page was written before much recent work so broader themes were covered here for want of a better place to put them?Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Strachan is good. I believe with the OHs you have pretty much all you need. Simpson' s Directing Operations: British Corps Command on the Western Front is excellent, but it won't help the narrative of this battle. Its analysis and helps his reader understand operational-level development. It touches on some of the issues facing Corps commanders in 1914.

Yes pretty much. These edits were done in 2007-8 so newer work may unseat some of it. I probably went over board with explaining the context of this battle but I supposed its place at the beginning of the war, and the fact it spawned several more campaigns in the war, warranted coverage of the broader picture. The objectives of the British were never really changed for duration which is why mention of the 1917 battle crops up a few times. Perhaps a cut and paste of the race to the sea bits may go into its own article. I understand there is one now. There is rather a lot of it. Once again, all that stuff is down to the edits I made some years ago. Dapi89 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens while I've been referencing Belgium 1914 pages today, I've found similar material in the 1914 OHs and have been having second thoughts, Flanders is a theatre of operations so as I've been pottering round I've thought that there's a need for a page to contain something of all of the associated articles. I only stumbled on the Siege of Antwerp by chance.... Perhaps one of the existing pages could become a hub like the Somme and 3rd Ypres pages so that the background material can go in one and the rest link to it? I've found Simpson to be excellent for what I'm interested in - structures and functions. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=uk.bl.ethos.416459 Beach is revealing about the things that older tertiary sources are silent on. Thanks for a very interesting discussion, I should potter around while recovering from Cotes du Rhone frenzy more often. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think a hub is a good idea. I'll slap the grey matter around and see if I can think of a solution for a campaign-article-thing. Maybe difficult since the first battle always seems to have the background dumped in it.

Yes! Good to see someone looking after this thing. It was exhausting putting it together. Dapi89 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The more I've looked at it the more the size and complexity of it and the other contempraneous operations from Antwerp to Arras impresses me; to have got this far looks more impressive each time I think about it (having sidetracked myself with Antwerp 1914 and reading Krause and the GOH on 2nd Artrois). I'm trying to finish things off so I can concentrate on one thing at a time. I've been considering looking at things in stages and on my sandbox have moved some of the peripheral operations off the main page but I'm a bit hampered at the moment because I'm waiting for Sheldon 1914, which should counter Anglocentric bias in the sources I've got. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the Race to the Sea page as a hub, since it could be non-specific about battles?Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Its an idea. I'll chew it over. Dapi89 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely think the race to the sea here could go in the main one (Race to the Sea). That would cut out what has become unnecessary now. Dapi89 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some text to the bottom of this User:Keith-264/sandbox2 page, which looks like it belongs in the respective wikipages. The awkward thing when you look at the dates is that Ypres overlapped with several other operations, in a region big enough for an army group/theatre of operations. I also sfn'd the citations and tried to synchronise the header titles with the nomenclature committee-OH usage, before I started what I thought was a quickie on Antwerp: Battle of Ypres 19 Oct-22 Nov, Langemarck 21-24 Oct, Gheluvelt 29 Oct-10 Nov and Nonne Bosschen 11-22 Nov.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Periodisation

Farndale describes five phases:

• I. Encounter battle 19-21 Oct
• II. Battle of Langemarck (I and IV Corps) 26-28 Oct
• III. Battles of La Bassee and Armentieres late Oct-2 Nov
• IV. Battle of Gheluvelt coincident with III
• V. Battle of Nonne Boschen 11-21 Nov.(p. 72)

Farndale also claims that the creeping barrage emerged during British-French discussions about artillery tactics in mid-October. (p. 69) Hope this helps.Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Messines 1914

Cut 'n' pasted the Messines material into the Battle of Messines (1914) page and linked.Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

Altered the German total to exclude casualties in France and in the Battle of the Yser.Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Did the same to the British total using Edmonds and removed the French and Belgian totals (French needs to be split between France, Yser and Ypres).Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RTTS

I think this article is a logical step and will go along way to putting the 1914 campaigns into context. One can see clearly see the progress of operations from south to north whilst providing a succinct overview of the battles and of course the rationale for the northward creep of the warring factions. As ever I think the military strategic context is a must, though I would try to be brief (pot calling the kettle black there). I thought if you added in a brief line about the grand geostrategic realm you could add in a link for Causes of World War I, but perhaps it would be better to keep this solely to military matters.

On a small note, I see you use "Tactical Developments" as a sub-heading. It is an interesting choice in place of "Operational Developments" which I thought would have been better. Then I had a think about it. After some reading, I note that perhaps you were right. Moltke the Eder had spoken of the operativ in the 19th century, but it appears this was not crystallised into doctrine until much later—possibly after the Soviet Soviet deep battle concept which officially was the first to recognise operational warfare. The French had done the same as the Germans and the British had not injected the term into doctrine until the 1980s. I find that the combatants at the time tended to use the term "grand tactics" to describe what we would call "operational manoeuvre".

Sorry for the ramble. Dapi89 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's tempting to paraphrase Foley: German Strategy and the Path to Verdun - Erich Von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition 1870-1916 and have done with it. ;O) Strachan is similar without the detail so the northern extension of the fighting is not too controversial subject. I tend to split pages up the way I do because of the lack of French and German sources in English, which means they're usually a patchwork of authors. I divide the Background section like that to keep in mind the Eastern Front etc which had a symbiotic relationship with the Western (and southern) front, that way I can keep shenanigans at GHQ, GQG and OHL separate from the fighting. The tactical developments are usually changes in the way existing resources were used and why - since both sides were always trying to use what they had in the context of outsmarting the opposition, which was difficult when any use of the army, tended to destroy it as fast as the the opposing one, reducing well-trained units to novice status in a few days.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The page is an outline at the moment and modelled on Arras 1917, which I used for the 3rd Ypres and Somme hub pages, which seemed to go down well with the punters. Since we usually write the lead last, it might stay in the sandbox for a while as I do something about the sub-pages. I used your material copied from 1st Ypres for Battle of Armentières Battle of La Bassée so perhaps you might want to consider how much of it needs to stay on the 1st Ypres page? Keith-264 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it would be acceptable to leave just a two-line summation and a link to those articles? Dapi89 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the last time I checked the recommendation was a paragraph (see here Battle of the Somme) so I tend to adapt the lead of the article. In the outline I've just copied and pasted such lead material as exists. I've been doodling with the structure of the First Ypres page here User:Keith-264/sandbox5, same as RttS here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 but I don't think there's a straightforward way of organising so many battles in the region, which overlapped at some times and reacted against each other at others. I think that the RTTS can be restricted to mid-September to mid-October when the Belgians took up the Yser line, so have put Yser and Ypres at the bottom of the page as Subsequent Operations. La Bassee, Armentieres and Messines seem to fall into two parts, the meeting engagements during the RttS and then supporting operations to the main event at Yser-Ypres after mid-October, so I've experimented with putting them into the prelude for 1st Ypres. I've limited the headers in the Battle section to those in "Battles and Engagements" for the moment but I wonder if sub-sections for La Bassee, Armentieres, Messines and/or Yser might be necessary as "Supporting" or "Subsidiary" attacks after mid-October.

It seems to be an intractable problem with battles that last for more than a day or two, either you chop it into bits and write half a dozen new articles which are almost identical in the Background and Prelude sections or risk having a "Battle" section a mile long. When I was writing some of the pages for the Somme (Other engagements) I asked Oz Rupert, who pointed out that they may look repetitive to us but to a punter they're necessary on each page, since we can't assume they're as knowledgeable as the writers.

Anyway they're thought experiments rather than decisions, so I'm interested in your views as to structure too. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I stripped out as best I could. I might suggest that the "Strategic developments" part - from the point "Germany Army was the strongest" to the end, could conceivably go into the First Ypres Orbat articles it relates to mobilisation. That would go some way to reducing size. Dapi89 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In this section we stand to benefit from continuity, because it seems to me that the Marne-Aisne pages end the beginning of the war> battle of the frontiers>great retreat period. RttS takes the story from the end of the Aisne to the North Sea and Yser-1st Ypres cover operations to the end of the year in northern France and Belgium. I'd concentrate on Falkenhayn taking over and shifting the German effort to the northern flank, Joffre doing the same, the influence of the Eastern Front (demands for reinforcements from France/opportunity to exploit German difficulties) a few sentences re RttS and then the strategic situation in the north once the ground had been occupied and the flank closed, with a para somewhere on the move of the BEF from the Aisne front (although quite a bit of it ended up south of Ypres in the Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee areas. I had another doodle with 1st Y here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 by removing everything but the headers to see if I could find a satisfactory structure but the three battles specific to Ypres would need separate pages. Are you OK with sources for the bits you're interested in?Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved these comments from User talk:Keith-264 for relevance.Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can add them in. I note there was one paragraph missing a citation. I will sort it shortly. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

La Bassee and Armentieres

Look much more manageable now.Keith-264 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Allied attack in Gheluvelt sector, 29–31 October

In this section of the article, the actual dates range from 25 Oct to 30 Oct so I think this title ought to give those dates. A later section headed German attack at Gheluvelt, 29–31 October, may have led to confusion on this point. As a reader, it certainly confused me! There could not have been attacks from both sides at the same time but covered in different sections.

Budhen (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I feel sure. I have made the change. Budhen (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes authorities differ, I'm working on a re-edit here User:Keith-264/sandbox5Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Germany's casualties and losses.

Under the sub column of "casualties and losses" the following for Germany are listed: 8,050 killed 29,170 wounded 10,545 missing Total: 46,765

This is frankly extremely incorrect (and misleading to people who look this article up). According to the various established sources, in the entire course of the battle: the Germans suffered more than 120,000 casualties, and more than the combined entente armies. A quick google search provides a website with the following figures: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/WWIWesternFront/p/World-War-I-First-Battle-Of-Ypres.htm

"German losses for their efforts in Flanders totaled 19,530 killed, 83,520 wounded, 31,265 missing."

Whatever a credible figure that can be obtained, could it please replace the completely false figures currently displayed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielJosephEyre (talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

German WP

Our infobox lists Allied casualties but not German, which seems odd. For what it's worth, the German WP article's infobox lists 100,000 casualties — citing Der Weltkrieg von 1914 bis 1918. Band 5, S. 401; Band 6, S. 25, Berlin 1929.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

For some reason, a user called "Keith-264" on the 18th of January edited the German casualties to a much lower figure than what is recorded in established history. In his description he's written: "previous totals included Yser and Lille" indicating he's minuses casualties from associated battles. And yet he's clearly not also revised the Allied casualties. Either that, or his assumption that these battles were included in the original total are not correct.

The text that needs editing is as follows on line 18: |casualties2=8,050 killed
29,170 wounded
10,545 missing
Total: 46,765

Could someone please change it back to the original text of: |casualties2=19,530 killed
83,520 wounded
31,265 missing
Total: 134,315

This is a total that is or is close to almost every established history of the battle. Here's but one website that can corroborate these figures: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/WWIWesternFront/p/World-War-I-First-Battle-Of-Ypres.htm

Because as it stands; it gives a ridiculously lopsided impression of casualty counts for the two engaging parties. And that's really not good considering how many people use Wikipedia as a source of information. DanielJosephEyre (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've been a bit premature with the big stick, shouldn't you have attempted to reach consensus first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs) 04:38, August 2, 2014

Excuse me? I'm not certain why this response is supposed to mean. But if you're implying that I'm somehow supposed to contact people (whom I've never encountered before) and get them to agree that I dare request this, then I'd like to know if this "Keith-264" received this prior to editing the figures in the first place. As it stands: it would give anyone wanting to know about the battle the impression that the Germans suffered far less casualties than the entente forces. And that is extremely misleading. So I frankly don't understand why the right thing is not being done. Is there some agenda here or something?

No Consensus for change. You could create an RFC if you wish. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The section below is part of my reply to the comments from "DJE". I'm open to persuasion about casualties but am busy elsewhere so if you want to put your edit back in I won't complain. I'm working on a revision to the page User:Keith-264/sandbox5 here as mentioned but decided to get the easier ones for further south done first.Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

BEF casualties
Month	Losses
August	14,409
September	15,189
October	30,192
November	24,785
December	11,079
Total	95,654
Casualty data from Statistics of the Military Effort.... 1914–1920

In 1925 J. E. Edmonds, the British Official Historian recorded that a great number of Belgian casualties had been suffered from 15–25 October, including 10,145 wounded. British casualties from 14 October – 30 November were 58,155, French losses were 86,237 men and of the total German casualties in Belgium and northern France from 15 October – 24 November of 134,315 men, 46,765 losses were incurred on the front from the Lys to Gheluvelt between 30 October – 24 November. In 2003 Beckett recorded 50,000–85,000 French casualties, 21,562 Belgian casualties, 55,395 British losses and 134,315 German casualties. In 2010 Sheldon recorded 54,000 British casualties, c. 80,000 German casualties, that the French had more losses, after the mass casualties of the Battle of the Frontiers and that the Belgian army had been reduced to a shadow. Sheldon also noted that Colonel Fritz von Lossberg recorded that up to 3 November, casualties in the Fourth Army were 62,000 men and that the Sixth Army had lost 27,000 men, of which 17,250 losses had occurred in Army Group Fabeck from 30 October – 3 November.

User:Keith-264/sandbox5 I've been working on a revised article here on and off, after I realised that the existing one was to cluttered for ad hoc alterations, with a view to disentangling the Battle proper with the military operations further south, which belong to the battles of Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee and the French and Belgian contributions at Ypres and the Yser. Since the Battle has been divided into three episodes, I have in mind a general article and then three specific ones for Langemarck, Gheluvelt and Nonne Bosschen to go with the three areas further south. If my edits are incomplete it is because the sources I've got don't warrant other changes.

I'm having a purge on unfinished business at the moment and will shortly complete the long-awaited rewrite of Delville Wood, after which I can give more attention to 1st Ypres, if you're interested. You can look up German casualty statistics here [1] or in the British OH (on Archives org) as above or Sheldon.Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

References

'Royal' Worcesters

There are several references in the article to the 'Royal Worcesters' whose 2nd Battalion played a decisive part in the action around Gheluvelt. The regiment was called simply the Worcestershire Regiment, commonly abbreviated to 'Worcesters'. It never had a 'Royal' pre-fix either officially or colloquially (Royal Worcester was a porcelain company). I suggest all instances of 'Royal Worcesters' are changed to 'Worcesters'.

Source: http://www.worcestershireregiment.com/nicknames.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.31.163 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, you are completely correct. Change made. Hamish59 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Battle of Langemark: form -> from Patrick Crozier (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Re edit

Finally finished the re-edit from last year. I envisage separate pages for the three battles in this section but I'm not sure about the links and redirects so have put them inside <!----> for the moment. Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The old page is here User:Keith-264/sandbox5, the beginnings of an article for Langemarck User talk:Keith-264/sandbox here, Gheluvelt User:Keith-264/sandbox2 here and Nonne Bosschen User talk:Keith-264/sandbox2 here. Is there a view on how to write Nonne Bosschen? I've copied this form from James (Record of Battles and Engagements)Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The infobox total for the German army is all told, not the Western Front. Does anyone know the number in the west? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

PS where's the Talk archive gone?Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Casualties

Please note that the casualties listed in the infobox are cited in the casualties section. German losses in the 4th and 6th armies were not all from the 1st BofY. Total 4th and 6th army losses are in the note and occurred in France and Flanders. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kindermord

In their zeal the latest editors have butchered the article. You can't just jump into debunking the alleged "kindermord myth" without explaining first what it is. Suggest finding some sources and talk about this - the myth is important since it contributed to public consciousness of the battle, and the war in general, for decades. 46.193.174.6 (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think not but I had another look and the section seems good enough to me but then I wrote it so I have a potential conflict of interest. Perhaps you could suggest improvements here to discuss? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Ypres. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://ia700407.us.archive.org/32/items/principalevents100grea/principalevents100grea.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160802130005/https://archive.org/details/statisticsofmili00grea to https://ia700607.us.archive.org/5/items/statisticsofmili00grea/statisticsofmili00grea.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ia700300.us.archive.org/10/items/fifthdivisioning00huss/fifthdivisioning00huss.pdf

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) 10:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@OwenBlacker: Greetings, why no 300 px with the pic in the infobox? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Keith-264:. I've got in the habit of removing image sizing from infoboxes, as they are generally handled as defaults now. It's displaying at exactly the same size for me when logged in, but smaller now when logged out, so I've restored that sizing. Sorry about that. That said, a clearer map would be good; it might be worth getting the WP:WikiProject Maps people onto that :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Owen, I see some infoboxes with the 300px in and some not, so I thought that there was an indication in the image file data (or something) which showed if the image size criterion was unnecessary, as in your edit; I'll give trial and error a go. The map could be a lot better but what with copyright and a rather disappointing experience trying to get a map from the cartographers, I'm reduced to the goodwill of others who know how to do maps. Thanks for taking an interest, I can use your edit as a model to put right my own mistakes. Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)