Talk:Hindenburg Programme

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindenburg Programme article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Logistics / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military logistics and medicine task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stevenson Book has a lot of detail on this program...

This is missing a lot of the detail.. it was a very big part of closing the war down.. See Stevenson's book on 1918 close of the war... plam to add some material to improve article... thanks .. Risk Engineer (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed, as does Stevenson's single-volume history of the war from 2004. Ian Beckett paints a very similar story, and both these heavyweight historians tell a somewhat more nuanced story than the tale, beloved of what might politely be called "a certain kind of British milhist", of Germany struggling to stave off inevitable Allied victory. In terms of armaments the plan seems actually to have been something of a failure - production actually fell in some key areas and Germany was deprived of export earnings to neutrals, and they still put up a good fight despite that. In fairness the article does sort-of point out that Germany was not particularly short of men in uniform in 1916; Stevenson suggests that the real manpower shortage was on the eastern front after the Brusilov Offensive, not the western front from which there was a net transfer of divisions despite the Somme. The claim that Germany was close to starvation by the end of 1918, cited to Paul Kennedy's history of international relations since the 1500s, is seriously overstated as well - my recollection of reading Chickering (over 15 years ago and I no longer have a copy to hand) is that there was some increase in mortality rates in infants and the elderly, but not much more than that - there were important shortages of raw materials but it's open to debate (depending on who you read) whether the Germans were quite "starving" even in spring 1919 when they were still being blockaded until they signed the Versailles Treaty. As to what caused the Central Powers to implode, well "it's complicated" ... Paulturtle (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will increase the credibility of your comments if you refrain from Mainwaring-esque bluster. The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation. (Oxford, 1990, ISBN 0198219466) shows that food shortages in 1918 were mainly due to transport shortages caused by the demands of the war effort, that they were short-lived but of great impact. Quibbling about manpower shortages in one part of the war, when the war was a single event and the Entente offensives were intended to cause this, is rather monocular don't you think?Keith-264 (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Added detail used in other articles.Keith-264 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless addition

Why have a sub heading with the same name as the whole page? Leutha (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It barely scratches the surface. Analysis needs to be in the Aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Found some detail to add, changed online to printed sources, improved citation and refs, plenty more narrative needed. Keith-264 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]