Talk:Hindenburg Line

Hindenburg and Alberich

I have expanded this page and included Operation Alberich which already has a page because it seems to me that they go together. I'm not sure that all the narrative is necessary but put it there so that the page is comprehensive. If desirable it can be pruned and material moved to other pages. It could do with a fresh pair of eyes though.Keith-264 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

1. I don't think that the article makes it sufficiently clear that the line was incomplete when the withdrawal began, with positions not fully dug and concrete not properly set due to the winter.
   • I can add some detail here
2. The discussion of the reverse slope is good, but I would add that some of the defenders did not like the layout, as they could only check what the British were up to by sending out patrols to their own wire.
   • I don't have a source for this

     Bean, vol. IV, The AIF in France 1917, p. 267 [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

3. The description of British tactics is not right. Rawlinson's Fourth Army pursued the Germans with cavalry alone, allowing them to move at their own pace. Gough's Fifth Army used columns of reinforced brigades, which were capable of minor attacks thereby forcing the Germans to withdraw faster than they intended. (Not "strong patrols" as the article says. Calling them patrols makes the reader think they were platoons, not reinforced brigades.) These were called "advance guards" but were not advanced guards as described in the FSR, because the main body was not "supported by larger forces moving forward more deliberately behind them"; on the contrary, they were out on a limb.
   • I can alter the terms in the description to make the size of the various units explicit but the sources I have most certainly don't say that British troops went out on a limb, quite the opposite. The Div hists I have concur with the OH on this. I can add something about the Fifth Army needing to be ready for its supporting operations in Arras and the ground being easier to cross than further south. Fourth Army infantry divisions were part of the pursuit as well as cavalry but again this might be terminology - did you have in mind the British units closest to the Germans or all the units which were advancing in front of the main body?

     Bean, vol. IV, The AIF in France 1917, pp. 150-154 [2] Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

4. They were, however, supported by the medium artillery. Gough considered the fact that medium artillery could displace forward as easily as the field artillery as the outstanding tactical lesson of the campaign.
   • Do you have a source for this?Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

     Aaargh, no. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much trouble, there's plenty of room for improvement. Pity about German sources in English though, they are even sparser than usual. Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just been looking at Bean but haven't got to those bits yet.Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Guards Div hist, p. 206 15 Mar, patrols skirmishing in St Pierre Vaast Wood, 18th, XIV Corps cavalry passed through, 19th advanced guards to advance to vicinity of Nurlu. 8th Div hist, p, 108 18 Mar, advance into southern SPV wood advanced with Wiltshire Yeomanry. Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Haig Dispatches p. 73 advanced troops on west bank of the Somme Brie bridge repaired sufficient for infantry, by 19 Mar infantry held line of Somme with infantry outposts and cavalry patrols over the river. Line of cavalry outposts with infantry in support Germaine-Hancourt-Nurlu-Bus. 74 successive lines of resistance... by main bodies of infantry...cavalry and infantry outposts maintained touch and covered consolidation.... cavalry took an active part....Keith-264 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just found an analysis by II Corps of the advance to the H Line which says the opposite of the Australian OH about the advanced forces being out on a limb, corresponding to the OH criticism that the advance was slow and hesitant ("bewildered and helpless") found in http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/599/ Thomas, A. M. (2010). British 8th Infantry Division on the Western Front, 1914–18. Birmingham UK: Birmingham University. OCLC 690665118. conclusions at Corps level seem a bit parochial.Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

More detail

Made the narrative of British advance to the HL more detailed to bring out differences in 5th and 4th army methods and intentions.Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The only reference I've seen to concrete is for Vimy ridge on the the Sixth Army front north of the HL.Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Order of battle

I've added this from a magazine article but can't find all the bibliographical details (the magazine has no cover) if anyone can help I'd be grateful,it's Purnell's History of the First World War. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict

I question whether it's really appropriate or necessary to have the conflict infobox given that this is not a battle but rather battlefield feature. An lead image of the trench line seems like a more appropriate feature. --Labattblueboy (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military operation this might be betterKeith-264 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What about Template:Infobox military installation? It's the option employed for Fortifications of Rhodes, Walls of Constantinople and similar.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I inserted Template:Infobox military structure. I took notice that it was employed for Maginot Line and a number of other defensive lines in Category:World War II defensive lines.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclature

@Julius Marx Greetings, I used Anglo-French for brevity over British-French and put the French last, since they played a lesser role in the battle. I thought of using Entente but the Russians weren't there and decided that Allied was too vague. Would you prefer British-French, rather than Franco-British? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an sources employing the term British-French with regards to the Somme. "Anglo-French" or "Franco-British" are employed and a quick searched appears to show a slightly greater employment of "Anglo-French" with regards to the Somme.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was, Franco-British it wasn't. Did your search discriminate between scholarship and hackwork?Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it did. Here is some of the easily identifiable scholarship: Matthias Strohn's latest, Doughty's "Pyrrhic Victory", Peter Hart's Somme book. I seem to remember Elizabeth Greenhalgh's work referring to it as Franco-British. Anyway, as I said, sources (with notable citation stats) employ both Franco-British and Anglo-French, they don't however refer to it as British-French.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Bugger! Although I wouldn't put Hart into the same category as the others. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, fully agree about Hard. Either way, Anglo-Franco still appears to win out but who knows what the future holds.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

CE Comment

Realised that the lead was too big and moved extraneous detail to the article instead. Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Justification for re-writing lede

The existing lede had the problem of being rather long. In condensing the lede, I did not remove anything that was not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree but your cut was rather abrupt and we should leave it alone while discussing. I'll have a look as well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hindenburg Line (German: Siegfriedstellung, Siegfried Position) was a German defensive position built during the winter of 1916–1917 on the Western Front during the First World War. The line ran from Arras to Laffaux, near Soissons on the Aisne. In 1916, the Battle of Verdun and the Battle of the Somme left the German western armies (Westheer) exhausted and on the Eastern Front, the Brusilov Offensive had inflicted huge losses on the Austro-Hungarian armies and forced the Germans to take over more of the front. The declaration of war by Romania had placed additional strain on the German army and war economy.

The Hindenburg Line, built behind the Noyon Salient, was built to replace the old front line as a contingency. By wasting the intervening ground, the Germans could delay an expected spring offensive in 1917. A shortened front could be held with fewer troops and with troop dispersal, reverse-slope positions, defence in depth and camouflage, German infantry could be conserved. Unrestricted submarine warfare and strategic bombing would weaken the Anglo-French as the German armies in the west (Westheer) recuperated. On 25 January 1917, the Germans had 133 divisions on the Western Front but this was insufficient to contemplate an offensive.

Greater output of explosives, ammunition and weapons by German industry against the Allied Materialschlacht (battle of equipment) was attempted in the Hindenburg Programme of August 1916. Production did not sufficiently increase over the winter, with only 60 percent of the programme expected to be fulfilled by the summer of 1917. The German Friedensangebot (peace initiative) of December 1916, had been rejected by the Entente and the Auxiliary Service Law of December 1916, intended to further mobilise the civilian economy, had failed to supply the expected additional labour for war production.

The retirement to the Hindenburg Line (Alberich Bewegung/Operation Alberich/Alberich Manoeuvre) took place from February to March 1917. News of the demolitions and the deplorable condition of French civilians left by the Germans were serious blows to German prestige in neutral countries. Labour was transferred south in February 1917 to work on the Hundingstellung from La Fère to Rethel and on the forward positions on the Aisne front, which the Germans knew were due to be attacked by the French. Divisions released by the retirement and other reinforcements increased the number of divisions on the Aisne front to 38 by early April. The Hindenburg Line was attacked several times in 1917, notably at St Quentin, Bullecourt, the Aisne and Cambrai and was broken in September 1918 during the Hundred Days Offensive.Keith-264 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was "abrupt". The previous lede (and to a lesser extent, your revised version) focus most on the factors that led to the construction of the Hindenburg line. There's a lot of detail for things like the "Materialschaft" that were one of many things that had tipped the strategic situation against Germany. But it's also important to add what happened when the German Army withdrew to the Hindenburg line, what happened while it was in use as a defensive line from 1917-18, and its importance in the concluding months. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, does my revised version need expanding or more cuts to accommodate what you want? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Geography in intro

@Keith-264: Greetings! Regarding this revert of:

It was mainly located in the borderlands of northeastern France, but in placed crossed the border into Belgium and Germany.

That should have been "in places". Does fixing that typo make the addition sufficiently clear? The main problem I was trying to solve was that the intro does not say what country the Hindenburg Line is in. The place names mentioned are obscure, so they don't provide enough context on their own. -- Beland (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: Thanks for replying, I think you're referring to the system of defensive positions. The Siegfriedstellung (Hindenburg Line) ran from Neuville Vitasse, south of Arras to the east of Soissons. The one in Belgium was the Flandernstellung and the one south of the Siegfriedstellung was the Michelstellung. In the first paragraph of the lead there's this

"The Hindenburg Line (German: Siegfriedstellung, Siegfried Position) was a German defensive position built during the winter of 1916–1917 on the Western Front during the First World War. The line ran from Arras to Laffaux, near Soissons on the Aisne."

It's not misleading is it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Ah, thanks for the clarification. The map does not distinguish the different German lines, so I was wondering if the locations given in the intro were an error. It looks like it's entirely in France, then. I'll add that to the intro and clarify the map caption. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing to clarify. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: On second thoughts, it's the map in the infobox that's misleading, not the text in the lead so I've swapped it for the one that was in the text lower down. How now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: That's actually a lot better. It may be good to clarify the continuation of the red line north and south is just the front of April 5 and not the Hindenburg Line.

I see you've removed the phrase "Located in northeastern France near the Belgian border" which I had added to the intro. What is your objection to naming the country that this geographic feature is located in? That seems like a basic piece of information, which is otherwise not mentioned in the intro. -- Beland (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: Added "in France"; sad to say there aren't any more maps, diagrams or pics than when I re-edited it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: OK, what are your objections to "in northeastern France" and "near the Belgian border"? -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: Too vague, the extremities of the line are given in the text, that's enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Well, "France" without "northeastern" is even more vague, so I'm not sure why removing the adjective is better? The problem with the location names given is that readers are generally unfamiliar with them, but I expect people generally know where Belgium and Germany are with respect to France. Whether Germany had invaded most of France or only a tiny bit seems like important context to understand the strategies being used. We could say something like "about 50 to 100 km (30 to 60 mi) from the Belgian border" to be more specific than "near". -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: The map and the text are specific; adding French regions is pointless when towns and cities are noted. Have you read the article as well as the lead? As for us inferring the knowledge of the reader, that way madness lies. That the article in its existing form is a decade old and no-one else has objected is, I suggest, more significant than your assumption of ignorance in hypothetical people. Swapping the maps is an improvement though and it's a worthwhile discussion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Longevity is not any guarantee of perfection. Our main cleanup queue has a backlog of 13 years. This article is only graded B-class, and clearly has a lot of room for improvement. Though it's extremely informative and well-written, this article probably just hasn't had enough substantial contributors yet to mature from multiple perspectives; according to the page stats, you're the author of 93.9% of the material and 78.6% of the edits.

I am not a hypothetical person. I did not know where these random French villages were, and I didn't know where the Hindenburg Line was until I found the international borders on the map you removed from the top infobox. I'm sure my knowledge of European geography is better than 80% of Americans, and that there are hundreds of millions of English readers around the world who also do not know where these villages are. Writing articles to accommodate different levels of knowledge is not "madness", it's what Wikipedia guidelines tell us we must do. This article needs to be accessible for a general audience, not only those who are experts on WWI or the geography of France.

No, I haven't read past the intro, and we shouldn't expect readers to do so in order to get the most important facts. Wikipedia:Summary style requires us to put the most important facts in the intro. The idea is that few readers will actually get to the end of the article; most people stop reading once they encounter text that's uninteresting, find the fact they were looking for, or run out of time or patience. I stopped reading when I hit the "Background" section because it was full of deep historical background I'm not interested in. I was just reading up on WWI to remind myself how much of France that Germany had invaded.

For me and readers like me, adding these tidbits would be far from "pointless"; it would give us the information we're actually interested in before we give up on the article. -- Beland (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: I did not call you hypothetical and we speak for ourselves, not millions of anonymous people. French villages are not random they are where they have always been. You might be right in your estimate that 80% of Americans don't know where Arras is but perhaps they can't find France on a map either. We write for the ignorant, the expert and those in between and decisions have to be made about what to put in and what to leave out and I'm surprised that you think the article fails the accessibility test. It is B class because I don't ask for good article or A class assessments to avoid disputes with Americans and illiterate English English literature graduates. If you think there's room for improvement I'd like you to tell me what so that we can address it but listing French regions for a line along the ground seems to me to be overkill. I don't agree that this is important and think that the lead is OK as it stands. Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, maybe it would be helpful to get some additional perspectives. @Hohum, Trappist the monk, Unreal7, and EnigmaMcmxc: As previous contributors to this article, how would you feel about changing "France" to "northeastern France" and adding "about 50 to 100 km (30 to 60 mi) from the Belgian border" to the intro of this article? -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that canvassing? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why? I just went through [3] and pinged editors who had previously contributed to this article and who have been actively editing articles this month. That seems like appropriate notification to me, given that I haven't gone looking for editors who support a particular point of view. I'm not even sure how I would go about finding editors who have any given specific opinion on this question; I'm mostly interested in knowing if I'm completely off base here, because the utility of the addition just seems obvious to me. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why I've been pinged into this discussion. The only contributions to this article that I have made were fixes to {{lang}} templates. I have no opinions regarding other article content so will not offer any.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am in the same position, to the best I can see this was the only edit I have made to this article. I am not too familiar with the Hindenburg Line. I guess noting northeastern France seems to be a bit more specific. What is the importance of mentioning Belgium in the lead about the defensive line?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: As Keith-264 points out, some readers are very unfamiliar with European geography, so pointing out that Belgium is to the northeast of France helps set the geographic context in their minds. For many readers, Belgium is much more meaningful as a landmark than small villages that they have never heard of. The Germans invaded France via Belgium, so giving a distance helps give a sense of how much territory they had gained at the time the line was constructed, how much they were defending, how far they had to go to escape France when it fell, and that they had a land rather than sea route available for retreat and supplies. It also answers Keith-264 objection that this addition was "too vague". -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet again you are inferring about hypothetical people. I've seen some maps that show a globe or a hemisphere with an emphasis on a small part like this

Maldives (orthographic projection)

would something like this help, since a picture is worth a thousand words? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to "inferences" about "hypothetical people". Are you disputing the assumption that some of the hundreds of people who read this article each day are unfamiliar with the geography of France? According to List of communes in France with over 20,000 inhabitants, Arras is the 178th largest city in France. Do you think most people who live outside France and Belgium would know what part of the country that's in? The 178th largest city in Brazi is São Caetano do Sul. Do you know what state that's in without looking it up? Our guideline says, among a lot of other things, that an article may disappoint "because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field". How would we accomplish the task of not disappointing readers in this way without making reasonable assumptions about how knowledgeable a general audience is about French geography, or the metric system, or the German language, or a thousand other things?

A locator map would be extremely helpful for many readers. A country-level one such as the one currently on Arras would probably be fine. However, this does not help people who cannot see maps, such as those that rely on text-to-speech screen readers, so the intro text could still use improvement. -- Beland (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that your opinion is the equivalent of a fact; you speak only for yourself. You're going in rhetorical circles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure which opinion or facts you're referring to; maybe we can take things one at a time. Do you think this article should be written to be informative for someone who doesn't know where Arras and Laffaux are? -- Beland (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know there is plenty of information already in the lead and the article, France has been added which includes an assumption that it means something to a hypothetical reader; regional labels are no more informative than words like Arras. I'd leave it as it is. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think there are readers who know what part of France is referred to by "northeastern France" but not "Arras"? -- Beland (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beland: Greetings, I've only just noticed your comment. As before, I think it's pointless to make assumptions of ignorance in hypothetical people. I prefer it when real people like you ask questions and make constructive criticism. We don't agree and from that something better might emerge but that might be the case if we did agree. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I find it flabbergasting that complaints from experienced editors that some readers will have trouble understanding a given passage would be considered invalid, and suggestions for improvement categorically ignored. The vast majority of readers who have trouble do not complain about difficulty in understanding; as you can imagine, they are the least likely to know how to do so. If we only make changes in response to complaints, at worst we will not be following Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, and at best it will take decades before all the problems in an article are worked out. However, if you wish to respond to a complaint from a real person who found the article difficult to understand, I can say that before I started researching the Hindenburg Line, I knew where "northeastern France" was but not "Arras", and found the article's intro unhelpful in establishing where the Line was located. -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that we're done, good luck. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello - popping in from WP:3O to offer a third opinion. I think the first sentence description in question should be left at "in France". @Beland the lead of any article should be clear and precise, but there's such a thing as too much precision. Phrases like "in northeastern France" or "near the border of Belgium" add precision for readers who don't know where this line is - but so too do phrases like "185 km north of Paris" and "near the headwaters of the Scheldt river". We can't rightly put ALL these helpful phrases in the lead, so we typically settle for putting things as succinctly as possible.

Also, Wikilinking things like "from Arras to Laffaux, near Soissons on the Aisne" allows readers to go to those pages if they're looking for more precise geographical information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)