Talk:Operation Alberich

"Shrewd"? How about desperate?Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

References

I've added a few references for writing intended for the next few weeks, when I've finished Ancre Heights, to round off the Battle of the Somme.Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed references to sfn and put citations inline for same reason.Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Jay D. Easy: Dear Jay, thanks for the scrutiny but the last I heard, we houldn't use a semi-colon to bold because machine readers can't handle it; has this changed? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Keith-264, yeah I'm aware of MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. Turns out I just remembered it wrong, haha. I'll take care of it. Jay D. Easy (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:PSEUDOHEAD? New to me, thanks for mentioning it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox query

There are two infoboxes here, I suggest since there was no fighting (or very limited) the latter Operational infobox should be kept and the warbox itself remove. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It is labelled a strategic withdrawal, I doubt a reader would think it redundant. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, the article is skeletal and when I get round to it the fighting part will be a lot bigger. Trouble is I'm working full time now. Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Operations on the Ancre, January–March 1917 is a counterpart but is also unfinished. The campaignbox has some of the details but I needed a German analogue before starting or it would have been lop-sided. Now I can delve into Der Weltkrieg it's feasible but I need the time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So we should remove it then? Or relabel result as German withdrawal? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The withdrawal was planned, a success and disjointed the Entente spring offensive so I prefer victory. Do you want me to blank the Operation box for now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it should revert to operational success since there is no mention of any fighting. I also cant find any sources that label the operation as victory. Also look at Operation Dynamo for a similar planned withdrawal. I've seen a few which label the operation as a major problem for the Germans during the 1918 Spring Offensive because of the already scorched earth campaign they had conducted. I prefer to remove the infobox & leave the operation box. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

• Which sources? Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Added some material on aspects of the fighting during the withdrawal.Keith-264 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Im well aware of Template:Infobox military conflict result parameter - these are guidelines and are in no way rules/demands. Are you also aware of the Operation Dynamo then? Perhaps we should call that an Allied victory? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As for those sources:

• 'The German 1918 Offensives: A Case Study in The Operational Level of War' - David T. Zabecki P.28
• 'The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918' - Holger H. Herwig p.319 Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dynamo took place at the end of a disaster, Alberich as a rational response to strategic overstretch after a lot of thinking, time and soul-searching. Not a good analogy.

• OH 1917 II "...Ludendorff replied that a voluntary retirement to the Hindenburg Line could not take place for politico-military reasons. General von Kuhl pointed out that there would be a gain of two month's time and a certain strategic freedom." (1992 ed.)
• The Blood Tub "The enemy plan certainly succeeded in throwing the British off balance."

References

Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a good analogy, since both operations were withdrawals on a tactical level. None of those quotes describe the operation as a 'victory'. Not to mention the Germans lost some ground to British attacks (as you recently added Bapaume & Péronne. I think the result should be German operational success and we could leave it to consensus too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is false, the Germans weren't scuttling for their lives. The Germans were retreating so it's debatable if they lost anything. As for hair splitting I remind you that Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.Keith-264 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying it should be German operational success or German success - that isn't "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" or even non-standard terms like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Im actually going to go through the edit history now and determine if someone just changed it without explanation; if I find that it has I will revert it back to what it was. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Found it - this user 73.51.204.149 (talk) changed it here without explanation and it wasn't reverted. Looks like it got missed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

German victory Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Find a source that says so. You have 24 hours. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Paste from Operations on the Ancre, January–March 1917

An adaptation of the section German withdrawals on the Ancre has been pasted into Operation Alberich. Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)