Talk:Battle of France/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Put out fewer flags

Must we have flags in the Commanders.... section of the infobox? They duplicate those in the Belligerents section.Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264:

imo: no. The right column contains six countries:

• Leopold III (Belgium)
• Lord Gort (UK)
• Henri Winkelman (NL)
• Władysław Sikorski (Poland)
• Jan Kratochvíl (Czech Republic) and
• three frenchmen (Maurice Gamelin (until 17 May), Alphonse Georges (until 17 May), Maxime Weygand (from 17 May) )

--Neun-x (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The left column? Not necessary.Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, we need to keep the flags. This is SOP for every other war/battle infobox out there on Wikipedia, and MOS states that flag icons can be used appropriately when helping to identify commander allegiance. The Battle of France involved no less than five nations. Not every reader should be expected to know which side Leopold III fought for, or which nation Maurice Gamelin served under.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 19:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The left column has eight nazi flags, do we need that many? I say no. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, your personal preference doesn't really matter. Literally every other war/conflict infobox on Wikipedia out there includes flags for commanders, if we have a flag to assign to them. You can look at World War I, World War II, Operation Barbarossa, Franco-Prussian War, Crimean War, Napoleonic Wars, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Midway, Allied invasion of Sicily, Winter War, Continuation War, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, American Revolutionary War, Austro-Prussian War, Battle of Borodino, Battle of Trafalgar, Belgian Revolution, the list just goes on and on and on. Your personal preference (or mine for that matter) plays zero role in whether or not we keep the flags, and is a long-established and universal precedent that any war/battle/conflict infobox contains flags for military commanders. I see absolutely zero reason to break from that precedent.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? Whose preference does? The convention came from somewhere and isn't fixed. Do you like swastikas plastered over the infobox? Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Do you like swastikas plastered over the infobox?" That is a blatant strawman argument if I've ever seen one...and it's a completely moot point. Wikipedia is not censored. If someone doesn't like the prospect of seeing a Swastika, maybe they shouldn't be reading this article to begin with...considering the subject mater is literally about the Nazi conquest of France and the Low Countries.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think an appropriate compromise, where arguments in favor of keeping the icons and in removing them can meet in the middle, would be to follow the example laid out in Operation Barbarossa, where we include the icons in the Commanders section, but we don't duplicate them except for the head commader(s) of the engagement. In this case, Manstein would get a flag as the overall German commander. The other German generals would not have one. For other battles where command changed over time, each of the main commanders would get a flag...so for example American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War would have Barack Obama and Donald Trump each with an American flag, as the former was the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces during the beginning of the intervention, while the latter is the current Commander-in-Chief.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind here bearing in mind that there's an Italian as well. I didn't know that it was already in use, thanks for that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, let's see what the punters make of it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I made an example where the Template:bulleted list was used to group the German commanders as I thought that might be what you are looking for. I self-reverted as this is for editors here to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but bullet points scream subordination. Were all these commanders under Manstein? If so, I like it...but otherwise I think we should leave them out. Aesthetically, I like the bullet points.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Less is more

...often applies when it comes to infoboxes and this fits that case. With this edit, White Shadows has attempted to alter the standing consensus concerning the victory to "German-Italian victory". This would require a new consensus in order to change that. Additionally, editors shouldn't try to shoehorn all the facts into the infoboxes but instead should try to address points with prose in the article body. The infobox doesn't need expansion work or minor points added that then are argued over.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• I can accept the result needing consensus, but I’ve got to disagree strongly on reverting the rest of those changes. There’s no reason we shouldn’t follow the standard practice of most other warfare infoboxes out there and include basic information about the results of the Battle. The Armistice of all things can’t be added to the infobox? That’s not right.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 16:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Where did the bullet points come from? I thought that the column of swastikas has been replaced by one and that was it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Replying to user:White Shadows - The infobox is really not very good at accommodating that kind of detail. It's part of the lead, and should summarise only the salient points of the main body of the article. You added the Armistice of Villa Incisa and four governments-in-exile that aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Then there's the question of, if we add detail to the infobox, on what basis do we choose what to add? You added six bullets. Back in February, there were five. Only the creation of Vichy France and Free France are common to both. Adding that kind of detail is just grounds for endless dispute, for information that, if it's significant enough, can be accommodated in the lead text. The guidelines on infobox usage specifically say not to present as the result anything more complex than which side won, though they are only guidelines, and their authority is currently the subject of an RfC. Finally, what occurs on other articles is no justification for what goes on in this one. Factotem (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair points all around, but none of this suggests that we shouldn't include after "German vcitory" the Armistice. I'd also caution against using the argument that "if it's significant enough, it should be in the text", and at the same time argue that if it's not significant enough, it shouldn't be in the infobox at all. I mean, by that logic, nothing should be in the infobox.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

See also Help:Infobox#What should an infobox not contain?

The consensus that formed on bullet points being omitted in the result comes from multiple threads and multiple reverts. See Talk:Battle of France/Archive 7#Result and Talk:Battle of France/Archive 7#Full protection.

• 1 "Oh and the those bullet points must go too."- Keith-264

• 2 "...adding any qualification to the result parameter, much less the bulleted list of consequences that follow in this case, has no place in the infobox. It's nothing more than template bloat; a case of trying to cram nuanced information into a space that was designed only to paint the broadest of brushstrokes." - Factotem

• 3 "I actually agree that the bullet points should be removed. Too much fluff." - KevinNinja

• The point was specifically addressed with Talk:Battle of France/Archive 7#Bullet Points Pre-Discussion but by that time consensus was reached by editors which had stopped reverting each other. It concluded with 4 "Looking back at it, you're right - it seems the bullet points have been removed and nothing has been reverted or changed. All good." - KevinNinja

This is one of the things that seemed to have general agreement and consensus. You are free to try to convince editors otherwise.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2018 (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.

Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of this precludes having the result portion of the infobox saying "German victory, Armistice of 22 June 1940" so I ask, what harm is inflicted by having that included? Did the Armistice not signal the end of fighting in France? Was it not what formalized the German victory in France? Does it violate any Wikipedia policies regarding infoboxes (No, otherwise hundreds upon hundreds of war-related infoboxes out there are in the wrong) Does it really harm the article in any fashion to have this included in the infobox?

Furthermore, the link we have under the territorial changes portion of the infobox absolutely needs editing. We have the reader being taken to Occupation of France, but that merely redirects them to an article about the German occupation of France...nothing about the Italian occupation of France despite the fact that the text itself mentions the Italian occupation. I propose re-linking that sentence to say "Parts of France placed under German and Italian military occupation"--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 19:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Victory covers all that. Only the most general terms have a place here. Your territorial change suggestion misses the point, the Italian occupation was at the pleasure of the Germans. An elaboration too far. Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an "elaboration too far" to correct a sentence that references two things, but only links to one of the two? Again, what harm is there in making any of these changes? At this point, we're starting to get into Wikipedia:Ignore all rules territory. We lose nothing by including this in the infobox, and there is a credible argument to be made that not having the correct link in place actually hurts the article. There is no point being missed at all. The only thing that is missing is accurate information. We've got a sentence that begs for two links to be attached to it, yet we're only including one. Why? Once again, I have to ask...what is the point of having anything in the infobox using the logic I'm seeing here?--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 21:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how you format it, tacking the armistice onto the end of the result is a bullet point, for which there is no consensus. Why add the Franco-German armistice and not the Franco-Italian armistice? Why the armistice rather than any of the other eight different bullet points that have been either listed by yourself or were there back in February? Why only one bullet point? Why not two, or three? That selection of only one of the two armistices which actually signalled the end of fighting in France is a good illustration of why it's not a good idea to try and add detail to the infobox result parameter. The decision of what to include and what to exclude is steeped in WP:POV, it's fertile ground for endless argument, it does not substantially aid reader understanding, and it misrepresents what actually happened. Factotem (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As for the precedent set by all the other articles that don't comply with the template guidelines, try clicking on random article a few times and see how many articles are not properly sourced. I've done it a few times, and found about 75% of them have unsourced statements. "Everyone else is doing it" is no justification. Factotem (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, do the German and Italian occupations actually represent a territorial change? The two axis powers occupied territory, but didn't that territory remain French? The article states that "Both [occupation] zones were nominally under the sovereignty of the French rump state...", while the article on the German occupation states that "French sovereignty was to be exercised over the whole of French territory, including the occupied zone...". I was under the impression that only the territorial status of Alsace-Lorraine might have changed, and even that is questionable given that that territory does not appear to have been formally annexed by Germany during WWII. Factotem (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right that Alsace-Lorraine were the only annexations. If the other territories had been annexed formally, perhaps the Germans would have found it difficult to plunder them? Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, the annexation seems to have been piecemeal, the formalities waiting on the end of the war. Keith-264 (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Results

Hi, I was thinking the section about results or changes in the infobox could include "end of the French Third Republic and establishment of Vichy France" as well since this was a pretty big/defining (and very direct!) result of the battle of france. This was reverted though, and I was directed to bring it up here, which I did here. good or bad?--Havsjö (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It was a consequence of the battle, not the result of the battle, so should be covered in the main body of the article, not shoe-horned into the infobox. Further, the end of the Third Republic and the establishment of Vichy France was a regime change, not a territorial change. Factotem (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That is true!--Havsjö (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict

territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.

I think this means the occupations, not domestic arrangements.Keith-264 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not convinced that occupation is a territorial change. The occupied territories were still French. The only actual territorial changes that I'm aware of was the ceding of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. Factotem (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording-Review requested

I'm sorry but the following "France had previously invaded Germany in 1939." is far from a) objectively what happened (France did not invade Germany--France made an attempt at invasion that failed--making it sound like France invaded Germany lets the reader think this was successful, which it wasn't, mainly because French high command dilly dallied for far too long and missed the window of opportunity when Poland was still keeping the majority of the German Air Force busy), and b) it made it sound like France did this without any prior provocation of Germany, which is also not how the timeline of the beginning of World War II. Are we still replaying the war and who attacked first, and what happened? France declared war to Germany on September 3, 1940, following the invasion of Poland, an ally of the French, and the invasion and annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria.

It's incredible that a full 70 years after the war, we are still letting what I can only assume are either nationalists or neo-Nazis rewrite history. The above need to be requalified. The wording should at the very least give the date of the Saar invasion attempt, and mention the declaration of war and the invasion of Poland--which what I have modified the article to be.

I'm all for mentioning the various discussions around the country responsible for World War II, and talking about what De Gaulle called the "modern Thirty Years war", as he thought that World War I and II were just continuations of the Franco-Prussian conflict, and that imposing sanctions as huge as Europe did on Germany led to the crumble of the Weimar Republic and Nazism. These are serious and well-documented issues that I'm happy to see on Wikipedia. But the wording above makes it sound like the person who wrote it wrote it with the agenda of absolving Nazi Germany of any responsibility in the Battle of France and the war in general. It sounds exactly like the people here in the US who call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression."

Come on now. There is a timeline. Stick to it, don't give a partial representation of it...

--149.84.154.197 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)AC

For that matter, whoever added that the French got held back by "the thinly held Siegfried Line" didn't read the Saar offensive article, which states the French never made it to the Siegfried Line, and Gamelin ordered the withdrawal in late September. The "thinly held" suggests that the French got easily held back by a poorly manned Siegfried line--but the French never even reached the Line, according to the Saar Offensive article.

There is lack of coherence here that's problematic.

--149.84.154.41 (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I added that bit, based on the narrative in the main body of the article. It's fair enough to fix problems in the article, but it's a mistake to focus on the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises the important issues detailed in the main body. All I did with the "thinly held" edit is summarise the relevant info from the "Phoney War" section. If that section is inaccurate, then that should be fixed, supported by the appropriate sources (and another Wikipedia article is not an appropriate source). Once that's done, no-one will be able to dispute the lead. Factotem (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two fundamental facts here: the line was thinly held — and that didn't really matter as Gamelin had no intention of making a real effort to break it.--MWAK (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Analysis

I have to say that the content of this section, although interesting, is the sort of edit that lets Wiki down. It is entirely drawn from a single source, Ernest R. May's book on the fall of France, "Strange Victory". May was a distinguished historian but his views on the events of May 1940 have not gained wide currency and so the entry does seem to represent a rush of enthusiasm by someone who has just read a 600+ page book rather than a well founded analysis. I mean no offence to the contributor, getting through Strange Victory is itself a notable achievement, but other views are needed for balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.195.125 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It isn't finished, why don't you have a go? Keith-264 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's a bit thin and maybe a bit partial also. In addition there are statistical contradictions with other Wiki articles i.e. the article gives a figure for French tank forces of 4071 vehicles of which 1749 were destroyed. However, in the Wiki article "Equipment losses in World War II" French tank numbers are stated as 6126 vehicles of which '3000 were destroyed and 3000 were captured by the Germans'. Alas, the same applies to British tank numbers, though to a lesser extent. The Wiki article "British Expeditionary Force (World War II)" advises that "About 700 tanks.... were abandoned" in France in 1940. The writer adds that 22 tanks were saved, presumably 'saved' means transported safely back to the UK. Nowhere though is a figure given for losses in combat. Nevertheless, the Wiki article "Battle of Arras (1940)" has it that 50 British tanks were 'destroyed' during that battle. Meanwhile the "Battle of France" article advises that 689 British tanke were 'lost'. What to make of all this? Does 'lost' include 'destroyed' less 'saved'? As I said earlier, it's a bit thin. Of course, it's easy to criticise. The writers have all spent time and thought to produce efforts for all to read and benefit. Even so, the stats parts of the articles just don't come together to provide any kind of consistency. 81.129.32.65 (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that different articles can and often will reflect different sources, often contradictory. We have no Central Editing Board removing contradiction. Consistency can only be attained by the careful work of individuals, painstakingly determining what in each case might be the more reliable source. And indeed, often different criteria are applied. In this case it should be obvious that the round numbers of six thousand French tanks, half of which destroyed, are rough approximations. The 4071 number probably refers to modern tanks. For the British tanks, the seven hundred "abandoned" includes all destroyed and the 689 "lost" includes all destroyed plus (really) abandoned. French armour historians have been researching the fate of each individual French tank deployed in 1940, so some exact numbers can be given. I'm not aware of a comparable British effort.--MWAK (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Result

The IPs that have been edit-warring on the article and started this discussion belong to community-banned User:HarveyCarter. Favonian (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As France signed a separate treaty with Italy the result was an Axis victory, not just a German victory. Mussolini occupied part of France, although he should have invaded Malta instead in June 1940. (86.160.101.179 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)) If you can convince editors here of this then it may be changed but until you have consensus on your side then it will need to remain as is.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC) The Italian invasion hastened the end of the fighting. (86.160.101.179 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)) The war begun by Italy was entirely reactive to the magnitude of the German victory in France; it was not part of an Axis strategy or part of Fall Gelb. Italian strategy was parallel to that of Germany not symbiotic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Mussolini wanted to join the war in May 1940 but Hitler asked him to wait a few weeks. (86.160.101.179 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC))

Who are "Maier and Falla"? (Inaccurate references)

In this article there are several references made to "Maier and Falla, 1991" and to "Maier and Falla, 2000". I could find no trace of such books. There is a "Maier et al." great opus, written by several authors and comprising at least 10 books, of which the second ([1]) covers the WWII episode dealt with in this article. It would seem that this second volume was published in 1979 and it beats me to see references mentionning 1991 and others 2000 as publication dates for this book. This volume 2 is attributed to 4 authors Klaus A. Maier, Horst Rohde, Bernd Stegemann, and Hans Umbreit, all working in the framework of the German Zentrum für Militärgeschichte. Could someone lay their hands on the actual document and straighten up the numerous references to "Maier" (who does exist) and "Falla" who seems to be rather... fallacious.
Pensées de Pascal (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Germany and the Second World War (DRZW) is a German publication with an English translation, hence the later dates. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Still, footnotes 173, 189, 194 and 195 are inaccurately quoting the non-existent "Falla" as author. And it would be clearer to mention from which volume each information is coming. Just changing the date of publication does not seem the clearest way to go. At least I could not understand. Best regards,
Pensées de Pascal (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Owzat? Regardes Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Result is inaccurate

Parts of France placed under German and Italian military occupation This statement is inaccurate becase France completely capitulated. Any sense of the French government did not exist. If I do not hear counter points in next 30 days I will update text to state that "France capitulated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

well no, there was an armistice that left Philippe Pétain in charge of what is called Vichy France. Rjensen (talk)

Additionally, Charles de Gaulle formed a government in exile called Free France. --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of France collage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fall Rot and the Italian offensive

The third paragraph talks about Italy's declaration of war; this does not fit well in this section because Fall Rot is the second phase of the German offensive in France and does not involve Italy at all. The Italian offensive or the Battle of the Alps would be better in its own separate section. The last phrase: "The Army of the Alps (General René Olry) was defeated by the Italian Army." is plain wrong. The Italian army with overwhelming numerical advantage hardly made any gain apart from the town of Menton. France's armistice with Italy on the 25th of June was one of the conditions of the armistice with Germany signed on the 22nd of June and not a result from the battlefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.193.105 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My recent edit

Didn't notice that the edit I reverted was in this article and not Mers el Kebir. Apols Keith-264 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of France collage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Trivia

May I suggest that the Popular reaction in Germany and Witness accounts are unnecessary and should be removed? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Bulgariansoviet1878: Copy edit by all means but please note that the article is in BritEng. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I'm sorry, what was the edit that wasn't in British English? Bulgariansoviet1878 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bulgariansoviet1878: Apologies, I missed the ping and I've forgotten what we were talking about. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tubby infobox pic

I think it's something to do with using a Firefox browser that anything over 250px makes the infobox overlap the campaignboxes. People with other browsers say that 300px (the standard pic width) doesn't overlap when they check. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Odd. I checked using Firefox with my other pc. At 100% zoom it seems smaller than when I use Chrome. Perhaps we keep it at 300px? KevinNinja (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OKKeith-264 (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Rough consensus to keep the current title since the fall of France is either a part of the battle or a consequence of it. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Battle of France → Fall of France – As both Google Scholar[2][3] and NGRAM[4] searches make clear, the most common way to refer to this topic by a considerable margin is "fall of France", not "Battle of France". (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. "Fall of France" is certainly a very well known title form, although, per WP:CONSISTENT, it is difficult to find main title headers of World War II Wikipedia articles that use "Fall of...", other than Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy. There are, however, WWII "Battle of..." headers, such as Battle of Belgium, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Britain, Battle of Crete, Battle of Moscow, Battle of Okinawa, Battle of Singapore, Battle of Stalingrad and many others at List of World War II battles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of these are actually battles, while this article is more about a general campaign leading to the fall of a country (France). I don't think consistency is a good reason because WWII events are all over the place depending on what they're called in reliable sources, there's a ton of battles, campaigns, operations, offensives, attacks, invasions, and so forth. Harmonization is impossible. The key point is WP:COMMONNAME and other WP:AT criteria. (t · c) buidhe 07:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

    When you say that "this article is more about a general campaign leading to the fall", I agree with you, that is what the article is about. But aren't you arguing against your own proposal, here? Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather the title be left well alone. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

[5] @ 8:40 on. Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: – reserving judgment on the proposal for now, but just pointing out that while the ngrams data are accurate, the interpretation of them isn't necessarily. The mere fact that "Fall of France" is undeniably more frequent than "Battle of France", is not ipso facto evidence for "Fall of France" as the COMMONNAME for this topic. One would also have to demonstrate that these terms represent the same topic, which they may not. For example: I tend to view the "Fall of France" as the final part of the "Battle of France", when it was clear that France was defeated. Thus, to me, "Fall of France" is more akin to the "Surrender" (or "Defeat") of France, than the "Battle of France", which has a wider scope. Naturally, my views hold no weight here, but we should do an analysis of how these terms are used in reliable sources, to determine if they are referring to the same thing or not. Here is another ngrams chart, which tends to show something else, but once again, the whole point of that example is that it is comparing apples to oranges. Further analysis is required. Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but according to that NGRAM (or Google Scholar)[6][7] "invasion" is significantly more common than battle (adding the qualifier 1940 to ensure that we get the right topic). So the article could also be moved to invasion. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're missing the whole point of that ngram, and kind of making it at the same time. Yes, "Invasion of France" *is* significantly more common, but it is not the same topic. I included that phrase *because* it was more common, and because I thought the apples-to-oranges would be more obvious in that case. The invasion is not the battle, it's just day one when you cross the border. Some might argue that the "Fall" is just the end stage leading up to the Armistice. That's why I haven't !voted yet; if it turns out after checking sources that "Fall of France" is used synonymously with "Battle of France", then I'll vote to support; but a priori, the "Battle" and the "Fall" seem related to me, but different, with "the Fall" being more like the surrender at the end of the battle. Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fall of France was the consequence of the battle of France. Srnec (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe such a change has been suggested before. I agree with Mathglot's viewpoint; Battle of France is not necessarily equivalent to Fall of France. KevinNinja (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Question why does the google scholar have a 'since 2015' filter on the results? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't usually offer an opinion on these requests as it seems to usually leads to more angst than I need these days; however, I seem to recall that "Battle of France" as a term was used in a rather famous speech by Churchill, quoting Weygand: [8]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The Encyclopædia Britannica uses the title "Battle of France" for its article, seems to indicate that it is fairly commonly used. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  May I also add that the Encyclopædia Britannica specifically dedicates a section to "The fall of France (June 5–25, 1940)", inside the encompassing article, Battle of France. KevinNinja (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support It does seem to be the most used term. Wandavianempire (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title has always been the normal name for this campaign, particularly since it was used by Churchill in one of his most famous speeches. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Battle of France" terminology first propagated by Churchill, then used by many others. The "Fall of France" was the last part of the "Battle of France" - they are not the same.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The article is about an entire campaign, not a single battle. "Fall of France" is much more commonly used than "Battle of France" in reference to the entire campaign. Churchill may not have wanted to remind people that France had fallen, but that was a political desire, not an encyclopedic one, and does not reflect modern usage anyway. Warren Dew (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I find "Battle of France" used for edification of general public in use by the RAF Museum and The Imperial War Museum. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA?

Lots of progress has been made in the last 4 years. Is anyone against a Good Article nomination? From what I see, we need to fill out 2 more outstanding citations, among other things (?) Talk:Battle_of_France/GA2. KevinNinja (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To KevinNinja: For me this seems ripe for GA. I just added another map for the Dyle-Breda variant. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely the referencing still needs a lot of attention. Many of the inline citations do not connect properly with the full references shown in the References section. There seem to be several opportunities to add the "citation not found template". I have made a very small impact on some of the problems, but there is a lot more to do. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

detail on referencing

I note that Template:Cite book says (bold added):
"year: Year of source being referenced. The usage of this parameter is discouraged; use the more flexible |date= parameter instead unless both of the following conditions are met:
The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD.
The citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator."

If work is being done on referencing, especially by User:Keith-264, it seems we need to avoid changing "date" to "year". I am no expert on referencing, which is why I have been reading the instructions. So there may be other considerations here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that date needs more than the year, at least month year to qualify but I might be out of date. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to work fine just putting a year in "date". Furthermore, the instructions say:
"date: Date of referenced source. Can be full date (day, month, and year) or partial date (month and year, season and year, or year). Use same format as other publication dates in the citations. Required when year is used to disambiguate {{sfn}} links to multiple-work citations by the same author in the same year." ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've put the question here [9] to see what's what. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Major issues not covered

I currently work on expanding the equivalent article in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål, and there are several major issues that is covered in the article: the expansion of the war due to the French-British defeat, from a European to a global war, and war crimes, both crimes against peace (by attacking neutral countries), murder of soldiers that surrender, and strafing of civilians by Luftwaffe aircraft. The killing of several thousand black soldiers from French colonies should also be covered under war crimes. All this is well documented in major books about the campaign. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a global war from the outset since Britain is involved in naval operations but are you referring to the Italians extending land warfare to North Africa? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Some parts of the article have too much text due to the separate articles on those subjects being incomplete or unfinished. I think it would be better to remedy that flaw than to expand the article. There's very little on the incomplete nature of the German victory in the west and the economic dilemma forced on Germany by Britain not folding. I'd give this more attention than the Italians and N Africa. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Historians as Julian T. Jackson, Norman Davies, Robert Frank, David Reynolds, Joel Blatt, Stanley Hoffmann, Gerhard Weinberg and Ian Kershaw agree that the fall of France was a major event in the 20th century, and changed the nature of the war, from a European to a global war. As a start Italy joined in, but it also made Japan confident of attacking south, which it knew would drag in the US, and it let the road open for the Germans to attack the Soviet Union. And, last but not least, it pushed the US into a major rearmament drive. So this is no minor matter. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Germans invaded the USSR because British intransigence denied Germany access to commodities available on the world market, not because France made a separate peace. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ulflarsen:, while I think some of your comments may be helpful, I think there are a couple of problems with it because of a scoping issue that you haven't taken into account. First of all, the correspondence of article topics, as indicated in the left sidebar (in en-wiki and no-wiki) shows the links to articles in other languages, as enshrined with some Q-source item in WikiData. This may give a false impression that the linked topics encompass the same scope, when the reality may be very different, and thus comments about "missing content" may not be accurate without an examination of other articles as well. For example, WikiData item "Battle of France" (Q151340) links no:Slaget om Frankrike with Battle of France in English, as well as 67 other Wikipedia language articles. Some of the content that you find "missing" here, may in fact be covered in other articles related to this one on en-wiki. Perhaps they should be summarized here as well, and link to detail in other articles, per WP:Summary style.

Let's consider the scoping issue, and look further afield, to other articles related to this one. Take, for example, the Liberation of France. As opposed to Battle of France, which has 68 linked Wikipedias, the "Liberation of France" (Q697829) has only 9, including fr and de, but Bokmål is not among them. (Swedish is; the article sv:Andra världskriget: Frankrikes befrielse exists, but is a stub and not very useful.) And then there's European theatre of World War II, French West Africa in World War II, Italian campaign (World War II), Rape during the liberation of France, War crimes of the Wehrmacht, which might host some of the content you speak of, none of which exist in Bokmål.

One implication of this difference in topic organization between en-wiki (6,820,036 articles) and N-B (561,210 articles) is that en-wiki has a lot more choice of what article to place content in, and that there are cases, like this one, where some content which might have no exact home in Bokmål might be placed in Norwegian "Battle of France" because that's the closest alternative (and because creating a new article is hard), whereas en-wiki might have more related articles and so our English "Battle of France" might be more limited in scope, and the "missing content" might instead be found in Liberation of France or some other related article instead.

To summarize, I think your initial motivation to find out what is missing here is a good one, and I, for one, would be interested in finding any gaps in our coverage. But I think the one-to-one approach of comparing only Slaget om Frankrike with the one Battle of France article is too limiting, and you have to broaden your query to en-wiki coverage as a whole, so a broader examination like: "What topics covered in the Recommended Article 'Slaget om Frankrike' are not covered in 'Battle of France' and related articles in en-wiki". To the extent that Battle of France says nothing at all about a subtopic or related topic that would be part of an English tertiary source on the topic "Battle of France", then I agree with you; that is an oversight that should be corrected, possibly with the addition of a sentence or a brief paragraph with a {{Main}} or {{Further}} link targeting a child article which covers it in more detail; where the approach in no-wiki might be different with the Bokmål article going into all of the detail in no-"Battle of France" because that is the only option, if the en-wiki child article does not exist there.

I'm not sure if I explained myself adequately as this is sort of a tricky point involving multiple Wikipedias and the different scoping of issues cross-language, not to mention the artificial appearance of one-to-one relationships forced by WikiData, where no such one-to-one correspondence necessarily exists. However, this happens to be an interest area of mine, and so I thought it worth going into it in some detail. Maybe I should write an essay about it, because in reality, my main point transcends the topic of this article, although your query was a good illustration of it. Anyway, thanks for your comment, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC) to add more article links.

@Mathglot: I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2004, so I am well aware of both that Wikipedia in English has more articles and also sub-articles on various topics. Some of the points I have mentioned should also be expanded on in separate articles, like war crimes.

Having said that, I believe that checking with the historians I have mentioned above will show that my point about the battle of France as a game-changer in the war, is very well f[o]unded, not controversial at all. One see this clearly if we assume that the allied line held, and the Wehrmacht had to keep on fighting for a year, or even more, how their attack on the Soviet Union would have been delayed, as they could not fight on two major fronts. So this - that the fall of France totally changed the war - should not only be mentioned in the body text of the article, but also in the summary at the beginning. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of "what-if"-ism for a Wikipedia article (even the Talk page). I'd like to call on rjensen to add his thoughts here about your points. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The quick defeat certainly motivated the USA to full-scare war preparations. Lots of books on that point. But few historians speculate regarding a delayed attack on USSR so it's not appropriate here. Rjensen (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It was a shock to the US and the USSR and both accelerated the rearmaments that they began in the 1930s. As soon as the US was sure that the British state was staying in the war it was supported by arms and later the money to buy them. The indecisive nature of the campaign in the west in 1941 was a catalyst for the German invasion of the USSR not a delay. See Adam Tooze et al. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Canadians in list of belligerants

(Reversion of [10]) The inclusion of Canada was well justified in the edit summary when originally added[11]. To this I would add the point that the commitment of Canadian troops was part of the desperate attempt to keep the French fighting. That attempt might have failed, but the Canadian troops were still deployed. At the very least, this issue deserves a broader spread of opinion on whether or not to include. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Canadian and 52nd Division played less than cameo roles, not enough to justify addition to the infobox necessarily a broad brush treatment. Regard Keith-264 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Citations and references

Have nearly finished homogenising them to sfns but some anomalies have appeared where there is a citation but not the reference. If anyone knows what the sources are pls put them in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Add alternative naming "Germany-France Crisis 1940"

To align with Russian-Ukrainian War 2022 named as a crisis naming as "Germany-France Crisis 1940" is suggested 46.211.229.66 (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to "align" this article with a more modern article about current events. The historic name of the battle is found in a great many sources. Wikipedia follows those sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's pointless. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Info. Box bloat

Looking at the list of leaders in this box, I feel that most of them could well be removed. The German commanders for example contain a carps commander (OK, who played an important part), a staff officer (likwise), sn admiral (who played no part) and an SS regimental commander (not mentioned anywhere in the text). There are four Italian generals, whose contribution was dubious at best. The list of French commanders resembles the side pf a war memorial. These indicriminate lists can surely be pruned to a more sensible size. HLGallon (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Quite agree, the oob and casualty data ought to go too, into sections in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)