Talk:Western Front (World War II)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Flag ordering in the battle box[edit]

I had a look at this version from five hundred edits ago. It seems to me that the ordering then was more sensible than it is now.

I suggest that the list includes the largest contributions for the two phases of the war and that each country is only included once. That will put France first, then Britain, followed by the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway Luxembourg (not sure of the ordering of these five minor countries). For the second campaign the US, Canada, Free French, etc. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The ordering is probably best done on the number of dead as that is a fairly well known substitute for effort. -- PBS (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Would it not make the most sense to just list who contributed the most troops and materiel? Or the one that undertook the most decisive actions? Or the country that the Allies themselves considered to be in command? In all those areas, the United States should pretty clearly be listed as the first flag; they had more troops on the Western Front than every other Allied nation combined by 1944, a US general was the Supreme Allied Commander, and even many of the other Allied soldiers were relying on American logistics and using American equipment. If we're just using casualty figures, then technically France should be listed before the United States. They lost [mostly POWs] 2,000,000+ troops.--Nihlus1 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Casualties[edit]

I apologize in advance for asking what appears to be a stupid question... but are the casualties listed in casualty box just soldiers or soldiers and civilians? I'm assuming they're soldiers because in the note its mentions the consolidation at Dunkirk... but since the Western Front encompasses all of Western Europe and England and the numbers leave out the blitz, so... yeah, less of a stupid question now that I think about it.
Abattoir666 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Allied Casualties Section Still a disaster.[edit]

The numbers of Allied losses are imcomplete. Just look at the WW2 Casulties article. The most shocking difference its about the Canadian Losses over 10k reported in this page and the WW2 casualties article claims over 43,000 killed. Note that most Canadians served in Western Europe not the pacific. Soo, this source its only 25% of the final tally. The same for U.S losses in the breakdown by theather over 185,924 deaths in Western Front/Atlantic theather, not 100k dead. The same in a lesser degree for the British, this page claims an incomplete 30k dead and the breakdown by theather is: UK-25,195,[406] France and Belgium, 1939/40-13,167,[407] Norway-351,[408] Middle East-19,003,[409] North Africa-11,095,[410] Malta-531,[411] East Africa-465,[412] Sicily-2,816,[413] Italy-22,029,[414] Balkans and Greece, 1944/45-487,[415] Western Europe, 1944/45-36,288,[416] Malaya-11,219,[417] Burma-9,858,[418] At sea-7,260,[419]. Witch the final sum its like 60k.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. According to the sources used in the article World War II casualties, United Kingdom suffered 357,116 military dead (of which 213,685 served in the Army and the Air force) during World war II. I find it hard to believe that less than 30,280 of these were killed on the Western front 1944-1945. (Perhaps the explanation is that some of those counted as wounded were later declared dead.) However, I am fully cleat that casualty figures can only be changed in accordance with reliable source. /EriFr (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Western Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Western Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1944–45 campaign in hindsight section[edit]

I've just rather WP:BOLDly removed the "The 1944–45 campaign in hindsight" section [1]. My reasons for doing so were:

  • It read like an amateur editorial rather than a serious work of history. It was focused on a narrow range of incidents, backed by a small range of sources, and didn't acknowledge the significant differences in views on this issue.
  • In particular, it was highly biased. Despite acknowledging that the Allies achieved a significant victory, the material largely attributed this to errors made by the Germans and then went into great detail on supposed mistakes made by the Allied forces which lengthened the war. That the Allies also shortened the war through many good decisions and the quality of their forces wasn't mentioned.
  • The whole thing seemed rather one-eyed. For instance, Eisenhower's decision to not attempt to capture Berlin was argued to be a mistake. However, many historians - including Max Hastings who was referenced extensively but not here - have judged that it was correct. Similarly, the material was critical of Eisenhower's emphasis on a broad front, yet historians generally consider this to have been correct. The material also implied that the Allies somehow failed in that they didn't finish the war in 1944, but again modern historians generally regard this as having been impossible given their logistical constraints and the remaining capabilities of the German forces. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Most of the text you removed was added by W. B. Wilson in Revision of 16:43, 21 January 2007 -- PBS (talk)

Your wording "but again modern historians generally regard this as having been impossible" implies that the previous views you have contradicted are supported by most modern historians. From my reading of general histories written to appear in or around the 70th anniversary of the War I do not think that by a large the views in the text you deleted are not widely supported by modern histians. While I agree that some historians have taken Hastings line most of those I have read in recent years have questioned that decision given the cold war that followed WWII. Similarly although I agree that most of the historians I have read would agree with you that the war could not have ended in 1944, they generally agree that the wide front was suboptimal, although the do not seem to agree on which army group should have got the lions share of the diverted supplies after the failure of Market Garden. Most also seem to think that not clearing the Scheldt estuary quickly was a mistake which by implication makes Market Garden a mistake rather than a gamble that did not pay off. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)