Talk:First Battle of the Marne

Marne Taxis "critical"?

In the German article, it says that the famous Marne taxis were mainly a propagandistic success but in fact rather insignificant for the actual fighting, because they only managed to take a total of about 6,000 troops to the front, while 50,000 troops were killed every day and many more were wounded.

Are there any sources for the "critical" role that is attributed to the Taxi cabs in the English article? --Cancun771 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that - it says they are TRADITIONALLY described as 'critical'. Tom Black 19:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here & throughout -- this article seems poorly sourced. Wouldn't that improve it significantly? ABS (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Memorials

Are there any more than that horse one? Its kind of pathetic as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Crawfords tale is a very nice yarn but, alas, unsubstantiated. A much more likely explanation of the statue (which depicts a single horse and a single artillery driver) is found here

To the east of the massive Australian national memorial north of Villers-Bretonneux, twelve kilometres to the east of the city of Amiens, is the small village of le Hamel with its recently built hilltop memorial to the Australian victory there on the 4th of July 1918. Eastwards lies flat country which was ideal for charging heavy and light tanks, with the armoured cars raiding the fourteen kilometres to Proyart and Framerville-Rainecourt. Above the valley, on the other side of the river Somme, is the Chipilly Spur. At its base commemorating the 58th (London) Division's capture of the Spur is the emotive staue of an artilleryman comforting his wounded horse. . . Besides this statue and the Australian memorials, there is little to show of those four days in August 1918.

(Note the date discrepancy here.) Moreover, there seems to be no available text of a plaque to identify the statue as a specific memorial. I have to agree with the above unsigned IP that the section is insubstantial enough to be deleted, at least for the time being, until a better collection of properly cited items can be produced. On the other hand, there is already a perfectly good article on War memorial. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I should recap that the 'horse memorial' pic is here. It's actually an amalgam of two shots taken from different angles. Its publisher's description (which has no bearing whatever on the Crawfords yarn) is to found at the foot of this page:-

Below is what I believe to be one of the most touching memorials capturing both the suffering of the almost half million horses killed in the Great War, as well as the anguish of his driver as he embraces his faithful servant farewell. The memorial is in a little village called Chipilly on the banks of the River Somme. . . The photograph is taken from two angles so as to highlight the poignancy of the statue

The "date discrepancy" I raised above is between the 1918 action at Chipilly and the 8 Sep 1914 alleged date of the uncited Crawfords' actions. Bjenks (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion.

Ipage. Plus if you have anymore info on this subject or any other WWI battle, could you please add to Spawn Man 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As I can see, no one actually has been on this page & has decided to write anything. Ah well. Spawn Man 05:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Hi i think this it at school im going to belgium next week and now understand everything i needed to thankyou, jodie

French Military

Maybe the Republican politician (and Vietnam era draft dodger), Roy Blunt, should apologize for the ignorant joke that he made concerning the French, "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known. It's never been tried". Apparently in September, 1914 80,000 Frenchmen died SUCCESSFULLY defending Paris! Jay Gregg

Who won?

I know that the side box is supposed to be a quick reference, but neiter that nor the article stated who won. So who is it???Dogmanice 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Result: Strategically decisive Allied victory -- Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one really won, as far as I remember. The First Battle of the Marne was the desperate Allied attempt to keep the Germans from reaching Paris. In the end, hundreds of thousands died, and then everyone settled down in trenches. This was the beginning of trench warfare, which lasted throughout World War One. -Gunslinger

Yes, a Phyrrhic victory in some respects. It's an open question whether a German victory would have ended the war and thus saved everyone a lot of aggravation. On the other hand, the battle was a clear victory for the Entente in that it stopped the German offensive. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may have taken France out of the picture. But I don't believe that it would have ended the entire war. Although the Schlieffen Plan could have worked if they had only taken Paris. Eh, who knows? It really is impossible to draw any conclusions, as there are so many variables in war.

At that stage of the War "Taking France out of the picture" would have ended the land war in the west. And unlike WW2 I doubt Britian would have continued the fight. Remember if the Marne was lost the BEF, basically the entire British Regular army would have been destroyed. Chances are the war would have ended in Central powers victory with the removal of France, that was the plan after all!

First Marne was unquestionably an Allied victory, and a very important one. Moltke was under no illusion when he told the Kaiser, "Your Majesty, we have lost the war." The Marne stopped the Schlieffen Plan. Now Germany had a war on her hands that she did not know how to end. It eventually led to her ruin, all because of the Miracle at the Marne.UberCryxic 18:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Had Germany taken Paris and routed the Allied armies, France would have been forced to sign an armistice. The ground war in the West would have ended. Germany would have transferred its western forces to the east and almost certainly inflicted a devestating defeat against the Russians, although the Germans would very likely NOT have tried to take Moscow. The Czar would have also sued for peace well before that. Germany would have dominated Europe and become the world's leading power, assuming "its rightful place" and attempting to spread German culture throughout south and southeastern Europe and elsewhere. German strength relative its rivals was much greater in 1914 than it would be in 1939, and its technological edge against Russia far greater. Perhaps Britain would have continued a naval war for some time. It is doubtful Germany would have attempted any invasion of the Nritish Isles. Following Russia's defeat, there would likely have been a "Concert of Berlin" type peace conference and a general settlement establishing Germany as the dominant power in Europe.

It is interesting to speculate as to whether this would have better for the West and the world or not. Certainly, at the time, it was seen as a disasterous possibility. In retropsect, we know what happened as a result of Germany's eventual defeat. Wilhemine Germany was conservative and reactionary, but still a far, far cry from the barbarous Third Reich. Millions of deaths that occurred later in the war would have been avoided, the rise of radical National Socialism and Hitler would have been averted, no Holocaust, etc. Moreover, the utter disillusionment of the West with Victorian ideals and the Victorian world order would not have happened; or at least, that world would have slowly faded over decades rather than implode with shocks that still reverberate today, though unrecognized as such. The U.S. would have become only one Great Power rather than the dominant superpower, colonialism would have remained morally valid and politically/economically feasible for much longer, the 1960s social revolution and rise of liberal (small L) ideology and multiculturalism all delayed or deferred. Who knows?

It seems likely western countries today (including the U.S.) would be more bourgeois, more conservative, more religious, and have avoided the great bloodlettings of the rest of WWI and WWII, while smaller conflicts, especially over colonies and resources,might have been the norm. What was once considered "Western Culture" would still be strong. On the other hand, decolonization might still be going on, the plight of minorities in the U.S. would still be poor, and tolerance for and even advocacy of homosexuality, sexual freedom, etc., more muted.

Better for most white Europeans and Americans in the aggregate, perhaps, and no western decline; worse for the non-white world and minorities of all kinds.

All that never was to be because Moltke deviated from Schlieffen's Plan by not stripping the left wing and giving to the right, and because von Kluck made his fatal error of turning too soon, thinking the French already beat and eschewing the drive on Paris. Such are the vagaries of history.214.13.130.104 (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Short article

Surely a battle as significant as this one deserves a longer article... =\ – ugen64 03:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 I failed this article because it's too short, just a little more than a stub. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes a battle as important as this one deserves to have far more coverage. For some reason I haven't gotten around to expanding this article. I hope someone beats me to it.UberCryxic 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BEF

I think special mention should be made of the quality of the BEF troops. AllStarZ 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by the time of First Marne, there were few of the original regulars left. The BEF was not retreating in the first part of the war, it was routed. Part of the German 1st Army smashed their positions at Mons on August 23, then on the 25th, at Le Cateau, the BEF suffered more casualties the Wellington did at Waterloo. By the 27th, the BEF HQ was in panic, orders were being sent out to discard ammunition and impedimenta, so as to not impede the retreat. This was when Sir John French started talking about leaving France altogether. The BEF's retreat did not stop till they were at the Seine, and were essentially out of harm's way. Now, it is true that the units of the BEF were the most professional and battle-experienced of all the combatants in the West. The Royal Warwickshire Regiment had seen action in 1907 in the Indian NW frontier area. But that mattered not, in the face of the superior German artillery and mortars. I feel that the BEF's original combat power, and its effectiveness was inflated greatly by later British propaganda, and never retracted.Marhault 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think too much is already being said. It looks like they were outnumbered by the French 60 to 1, yet most of the article is about English greatness. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.223.82 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The BEF had stopped the Germans dead in their tracks. The only reason they withdrew was to maintain the line with the beaten French troops. They sang 'We don't give a fuck for old Von Kluck & all his fucking army' for a reason.

The Germans continued the offensive after la Cateau. The BEF forced marched away out of contact for 48 straight hours. There's something seriously wrong with the Terraine narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.213.241 (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

250,000 German casualties at First Marne?

The Germans only turned in 85,000 dead on the Western Front, for the whole of 1914. It's reasonable to assume they had wounded comparable to the 3.25:1 they suffered through the course of the war, or about 275,000, for a total for all of 1914 in the West of 360,000. Were there only 110,000 German casualties in all the battles at the Belgian forts, Antwerp, Lille, "the Race to the Sea", action in the Verdun area, and the border battles? I don't think so. My guess is that they suffered casualties about half that of the Allies. After all, they had entrenched first, they had the heavy guns and mortars that the Allies did not, and they followed a cohesive withdrawal plan, unlike the disjointed Allied effort. The Allles turned in 330,000 dead in 1914, and their dead:wounded ratio was worse, too (i.e. fewer wounded survived). Again, this may well be a matter of obfuscation by later British propaganda.Marhault 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue numbers then you should back up your argument with a reputable source. Atrian 16:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the German figures are from their own post-war government sources, published in 1935. The French ones came from a monograph published in 1931 at Yale, by Michel Huber. The British War Office published their stats in 1922.Marhault 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If the German figures are from 1935, don't you think they might be subject to propaganda as well? The Germans of that era were somewhat known for doing things like that. Atrian 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not impossible, no. But the 1935 report came from the medical services, not the government political offices. It's well supported by actual field medical notes, something the Germans were very meticulous about. In any case, the Germans were always very hard-nosed and realistic in re military casualties, even well into WWII. It's the British, and to a lesser extent, the USA, that had historians that consistently ignored their governments' own data. Unfortunately for this approach, the UK brought other nations into the war with it, and figures from Canadian, and especially Australian, sources are available to correct the record. Marhault 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The 250,000 figure is very well established. Almost every single work I've come across on the subject gives that number. Whether that is correct or not is not for Wikipedia to decide; the only thing that matter is that it is the dominant view among the historical community, so that is the number that will be placed in the infobox.UberCryxic 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

'Von Kluck, happily met the French women on his right leg...' ???

I'm not sure what this line is supposed to mean: "Von Kluck, happily met the French women on his right leg, opened up a 50 bottles of wiskey and made a wide gap in the German lines between his First Army and the German Second Army,"

It appears in the first line of the "Battle" section of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.6.247.146 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That was vandalism, and it was fixed yesterday. You may be looking at an older version of the page. - Eron ^Talk 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was Info about General Gallieni removed?

I added in this section, "By September 3, Joffre recognized the German armies' tactical error..." that it was (according to Barbara Tuchman in The Guns of August), General Gallieni who recognized the Von Kluk's error and forced Joffre to support his request to attack the German flank. This is the widely accepted version of the event and should have been left in.

--192.43.161.1 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Western front box

The Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) is lacking and this page is part of it. Can someone add it? 200.222.3.3 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Map image incomplete.

The image does not clearly mark the French 6th Army, even if it is obvious from the text that they are the formation marked in blue facing the German 1st Army. AadaamS (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New book published

See here for a review of The Marne, 1914: The opening of World War I and the battle that changed the world (2009, Holger H. Herwig), Random House; 391 pp. Looks like it would be a good source to add to this article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

..."Over two million men fought in the First Battle of the Marne, of whom more than 500,000 were killed or wounded. French casualties totalled 250,000, 80,000 of them dead, while British casualties were 13,000, 1,700 of them dead. The Germans suffered 220,000 casualties." Since when does 250,000 + 13,000 + 220,000 = "more than 500,000" ? References ? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"The French incurred 250,000 losses, and it is believed that the Germans suffered similar casualties (no official figures are available). The British recorded 12,733 casualties among the BEF." firstworldwar.com

"During the battle, the French had around 250,000 casualties. Although the Germans never published the figures, it is believed that Geman losses were similar to those of France. The British Expeditionary Force lost 12,733 men during the battle." Spartacus

So the article broadly agrees with the above. We need to work on this. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at the German and French articles and their figures are wildly different from our English one. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity Death (Peguy)

I made an edit that removed a one-sentence "anecdote" section about a celebrity death tied to the battle into the section on casualties. The celebrity's page also makes note of it. I was not able to find exactly what that death "one day before the start of battle" had to do with the battle. Was he a soldier scouting? Innocent civilian? Car crash two countries away? The user who made the edit claimed to be a French literature student, so I'll trust there's some significance there. --Joshrulzz (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulars

After experiencing the markmanship of the Boers during the earlier Boer War the British Army had made great strides in improving the quality of rifle fire. All ranks were encouraged to qualify as marksmen and enjoy the extra payment for this.

The Regular Army that marched off to France in 1914 consisted af large numbers of marksmen. There are many jokes about "fighting retreats" but on the retreat to the Marne the German army was to suffer a lot of casualties caused by accurate British rifle fire. The accuracy of British rifle fire caused such numbers of German casualties that it was to give rise to the German legend that "every British soldier carries a machine gun".

The Germans claim that they never heard of that legend.

The British Official History claim this was a German interpretation of events quoting a German monograph on the first battle of Ypres. However, it's based on a cherry-picked quote which in addition was inaccurately translated. See Jack Sheldon's book on the Ypres campaign. http://www.amazon.com/GERMAN-ARMY-AT-YPRES-1914/dp/1848841132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320323156&sr=8-1

Was it at the Marne that the surviving British regulars, some 8,000 exhausted marksmen using accurate rifle fire, beat off the crack German regiment, the Prussian Guard consisting of some 12,000 fresh men and with heavy casualties?AT Kunene (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like the first battle of Ypres in which a composite force of surviving German guardsmen was decimated by the British.

Strengths are misleading

The German strength are very misleading. Here are the initial strengths of the four participating armies from three reputable sources:

Holger Herwig, The Marne 1914, ISBN 978-0-8129-7829-2 has two figures: 1st 320,000, 2nd 260,000, 3rd 180,000, 4th 180,000, (5th 200,000, 6th 220,000 and 7th 120,000) according to the US Military academy quoted in the illustration in p 38 and 39. The entire Western army is listed as 1.6 million on p 48.

Sewell Tyng, The campaign of the Marne, ISBN 978-1-59416-042-4 only has numbers of divisions totals(of which cavalry): 1st 15(3), 2nd 14(2), 3rd 8, 4th 10, 5th 13(2), 6th 17(3), and 7th 8 pp 355 and 356.

John Ellis & Michael Cox, The World War I Databook, ISBN 1 85410 766 6, 1914-08-18: 1st 15(3), 2nd 14(2), 3rd 8, 4th 10, 5th 12(2), 6th 13(3), 7th 6, p 171.

From those 2 German active corps and 1 Cavalry division were sent east to reinforce the 8th army and 4(?) reserve divisions were left behind to watch Antwerp. All of those infantry divisions were taken from armies 1-3.

At the battle Tyng says the Germans had 1st 13(3), 2nd 9.5(2), 3rd 6, 4th 8, 5th 14(2) [and the 6th 17(2), 7th 8], pp 380. Possibly 2 reserve divisions from 2nd army were watching Maubeuge.

Tyng and Herwig doesn't list the Landwehr brigades, while Ellis & Cox includes them. The former are IMHO correct since the Landwehr were mostly guarding LoC and/or besieging fortifications.

Tyng states allied divisions at the battle of Marne as 6th 12(3.5), BEF 7.5(2), 5th 16(3), 9th 9(1), 4th 10, 3rd 11.5(1), [2nd 10(1), and 1st 13(1.5)], pp 376-378. The vital allied left flank had 43.5(8.5) while the opposing German right flank had 25.5(5). The centres are given as allied 21.5(1) and 25(2). I specify the number of cavalry divisions because they had 50% or less the men and about 25% or less of the guns.

A problem is that none of these sources state manpower. However divisions were in theory more or less equally strong on both sides. It's more than probable that actual strenghts were more favourable for the French since they had been given replacements.

I suggest that strenghts are given as allied 43.5(8.5) and German 25.5(5), or simpler 35 vs 20.5, alternatively 65 allied vs 45.5.

Johan Arve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.213.241 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)