Talk:Battle of Verdun
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Verdun article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Battle of Verdun was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Battle of Verdun. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Battle of Verdun at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 19, 2006, December 19, 2007, December 18, 2010, December 18, 2013, December 18, 2015, and December 18, 2016.|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
General statements and questions
The horrifying aspect about this battle is that the Germans never intended to overrun Verdun. Their primary goal was to win through a war of attrition. The German calculus was that they had one number of men coming to military age each year and France had a smaller. Eventually, the theory went, after both sides fought for long enough, France would be the first to run out of fighting men.
At Verdun there is now a memorial to the battle. Aside from the graves there, the bones of soldiers who could not be identified were removed from the battlefield and put in a massive Ostuary. Visitors can walk around the outside and see these bones piled inside through low windows.
I don't have a lot of details, how many soldiers' bones are there? How many graves? What were those numbers in the German calculus?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 19:58 3 September 2003 (UTC)
Casualty figures and other problems
The article had considerable confusion about the size of the battle and the casualty figures (probably due to the usual way in which total casualties — killed, wounded, prisoner, missing — get reinterpreted as killed only). In particular there was a claim in the opening that the battle caused a million deaths. This seems rather unlikely given the official French figures of 162,308 killed or missing. There was also a claim that it was the bloodiest battle in history, which also seems very unlikely:  makes it the twelfth bloodiest in the 20th century. I changed the numbers and claims accordingly.
there was about a quarter million killed in all and a half million wounded.
It would be nice to be able to estimate the maximum numbers of troops on each side in the battle. Gdr 13:31, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Verdun. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040813081743/http://www.third-reich-books.com:80/x-590a-verdun.htm to http://www.third-reich-books.com/x-590a-verdun.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313232657/http://www.panopixel.fr/page.php?30 to http://www.panopixel.fr/page.php?30
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522232558/http://octant.u-bourgogne.fr/portail/documentsafb/dossiers/187AQ588-01/PDF/187AQ588-01.pdf to http://octant.u-bourgogne.fr/portail/documentsafb/dossiers/187AQ588-01/PDF/187AQ588-01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Entente or Allies.
Forgive me if I am wromg but I believe Allies with a capital A is more accurate here than Entente. "Allies" refers to the whole alliance against the "Central Powers" in the First World War and later came also to be used to mean the whole alliance against the "Axis Powers" in the Second World War. "Entente" means understanding which is different to an alliance and refers specifically to the "Entente Cordiale" between Britain and France only which refers to more than the 1914-18 War i.e also to peace time diplomacy. "Allies" I know smacks of one sidedness and the victors' view of history but " Entente" rather ignores the other allies of France and Britain. On the Western Front this means the independent Dominions of the British Crown (Canada,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa and Newfoundland) as well as Belgium and Portugal.On the other fronts it includes Russia,Italy,Japan,Serbia,Romania etc."Allies" is well understood and is a traditional term but I am not sure "Entente" has quite the same immediate recognition. I concede that later in the War it rather leaves USA out as they were not strictly speaking allies of Britain and France but "co-belligerents," not being at war with Austria-Hungary, Turkey or Bulgaria. Spinney Hill (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Allies refers to all of the states against Germany; Belgium and the US weren't part of the Entente but Britain, France and Russia were Entente powers as well as part of the Allies. British dominions weren't independent Allies, they were part of Britain so part of the Entente. When the three Entente powers are mentioned, Entente and Ally are synonymous.Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Nedhudir: It varies from article to article, but should be consistent within each article. There's more about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. This particular article uses British English; there's a note about this at the top of this talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)