Talk:Battle of France
|Battle of France was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
Battle of France was nominated as a good article in the Warfare category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: August 27, 2013
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 14, 2012, June 14, 2013, and June 14, 2014.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
Reluctance of Reynaud to surrender
I found a citation for that; it's a newspaper clipping: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19660921&id=AtoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5224,3352623 I am horrible at editing wiki pages, so please add.
German and freench casualties, differences between the French and English articles
The French article puts the total number of German dead to 63,000. The sources used for this statement is "France 1940 – Autopsie d'une défaite" (in "l'Historie") and "Blitzkrieg-Legende" by Karl-Heinz Frieser. Using the same sources, this article says that a commonly accepted figure of German dead is 27,074 and that the total number of German dead "may have been as high as 49,000". The French article does not mention the figure of 49,000 dead and hardly mentions the the figure of 27,074 dead. This article does not mention the number of 63,000 dead. Why are there such differences between the the two articles? EriFr (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Further. The French article put the most likely number of French dead to 55,000-65,000. This article says that "some recent French research indicates that the number of killed had been between 55,000 and 85,000". Both statements use the same source "France 1940 – Autopsie d'une défaite" (in "l'Historie"). Again, why are there such differences between the two articles? EriFr (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Almost certainly attributed to the use of different relevant source material, and some nationalism thrown in, to boot. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Army of the Alps
I am doing work to improve the quality of the Italian invasion of France article. Thus far, I have established that at the start of the war the French had 185,000 troops based on the Franco-Italian frontier. However, I have also seen several sources note that during the Battle of France this force was stripped of troops for action elsewhere. Thus, only three divisions and several independent brigades etc. remained to counter the Italian attack.
Inconsistent reference styles
I notice this article has both r and page number templates, and plain Harvard references. I would like to homogenise it all to Sfn references, or at least change the current r and page number combinations which stand out. Could I?
Deutsch or German military names?
This article uses a mix of true German names for military units ("1. Pazerdivision") and Aglisized names ("1st Panzer Division"). The worst current example:
- the 1st and 10. Panzerdivisions
That's just a mess; we should stick to one style or the other. Plus, I don't think we should attach Anglicized plurals on Deutsch words (they add 'n', not 's' for plurals).
My opinion is that the auf Deutsch names don't really add anything, and can be confusing (those "." look like end-of-sentence to most English speakers). Plus, our articles on those military units used the Aglisized titles. If there's no objection, I'm going to change them all to the Anglicized versions. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Poland, Czecholsvakia, and Canada.
Including them is pretty silly.. What's usually listed in the infobox are so-called "independent combatant authorities". That is to say, it doesn't matter what nationality the soldiers were, or whether they were nominally a part of some army or other - what matters is were they independent forces in a conflict. Canadians, Czechs, and Poles - were not, they were incorporated in the French military command structure (token Canadians in the British ofc). Same goes for Moroccans and Tunisians also, etc. Remember we're trying to convey forces arrayed against each-other in the battle, give the reader a starting idea as to the forces involved. (The BEF was also nominally subordinate to Gamelin, but not de facto, as Gort held the explicit right to appeal to his own government before following any orders, and pretty much acted on his own anyway during much of the battle.) -- Director (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Canada's military was independent and directly answerable only to Ottawa. Excluding Canada by placing them at the same level as refugee soldiers from eastern Europe is completely anti-historical. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave complete military authority over Canadian armed forces to the Cdn Government and all Canadian units were raised in Canada, paid by Canada and were answerable only to the Canadian Government and the general commanding the Cdn First division "...held the explicit right to appeal to his own government before following any orders...", unlike the emigre Poles and Czechs who were directly enlisted in their host country's armed forces. For more information about the legal and military command structure of the Cdn armed forces and why they were independent of foreign command, see Arms, Men and Government, by CP Stacey. Canada placed a division onto French soil along with RCN destroyers that operated in French waters.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)