Talk:Battle of Verdun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Number of divisions and casualties

The previous editor who stated 75 out of 95 french divisions fought at Verdun in rotation was right and 379,000 is the number of casualties. Those are the official numbers in french archives and shared by Philpott and Doughty as well. 75 rotating french divisions are the numbers in german archives as well. Sources about the number of canons/guns in the battle highly differ however and should probably not be included (Jules Agathias (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC))

See the casualties section for information on the vexed question of casualty counts. Note that there are several "official" tallies and that sources can be superseded by new research. Let me know what you find. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

See here for eg

The états numériques des pertes give French casualties as 348,000 to 378,000 and in 1930, Hermann Wendt recorded French Second Army and German 5th Army casualties of 362,000 and 336,831 respectively from 21 February to 20 December, not taking account of the inclusion or exclusion of lightly wounded. In 2006, McRandle and Quirk used the Sanitätsbericht to increase the Verlustlisten by c. 11 per cent, which gave 373,882 casualties, compared to the French Official History record to 20 December 1916, of 373,231 French casualties. The Sanitätsbericht, which explicitly excluded lightly wounded, compared German losses at Verdun in 1916, averaging 37.7 casualties per thousand men, with the 9th Army in Poland 1914 which had a casualty average of 48.1 per 1,000, the 11th Army in Galicia 1915 averaging 52.4 per 1,000 men, the 1st Army on the Somme 1916 average of 54.7 per 1,000 and the 2nd Army average for the Somme 1916 of 39.1 per 1,000 men. Jankowski estimated an equivalent figure for the French Second Army of 40.9 men per 1,000 including lightly wounded. With a c. 11 per cent adjustment to the German figure of 37.7 per 1,000 to include lightly wounded, following the views of McRandle and Quirk; the loss rate is similar to the estimate for French casualties.

Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

@DocWatson42: Greetings, was wondering why your circa edits add a space after the pipe? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I did so per MOS:CIRCA, whose examples include spaces (you have to look closely). It is explicitly stated in the (sub-sub-...)section's last bullet point (which begins "Ranges in which c., after, fl. or similar forms appear‍"), though I used regular spaces rather than the specified non-breaking ones. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Battle of Verdun was I believe the longest battle on record and ,compared with the Somme and even the Third Battle of Ypres confined to a very small area.I prefer the description as at my edit of 0029 on 30 October and in the circumstances I think we can allow ourselves a few superlatives. In Britain and the Commonwealth we tend to forget Verdun and how much it is engraved on the French and maybe German, memory. Unlike Ypres and the Somme the land was not restored to agriculture but was turned into forest and the villages were not rebuilt.. What do other people think? Do you prefer Keith-264's version or the one I reverted to?.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you an American? Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

NoSpinney Hill (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised, with your preference for hyperbole. Keith-264 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude, stop insulting him. See WP:NPA --Shimbo (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No insult, it's a fair question. Let him speak for himself. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A person's nationality has nothing to do with editing the article to make it better, and neither do nationalistic slurs. Everyone's sole concern should be making the article better, as it says in WP:NPA. --Shimbo (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? What do you think I'm defending. Have you seen the difference between AmEng and BritEng? I suggest you butt out and let us reach consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, really. You are attacking people for no reason, apparently now including me. I'll "butt out" when you stop insulting people. And sorry, but any further insults and I'll escalate, in line with WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. --Shimbo (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Mote and the Beam Keith-264 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please calm down. The part of Keith-264's edit I agreed with was the change back to the spelling of "defence. " I didnt accept that because I hadnt seen the instruction that British spelling applied. The British so far as I know took no part in the Battle. They are certainly not mentioned in the article. As not being a specifically British subject I assumed US spelling applied and I seem to remember being roundly told off for using British spelling in an article about a German warship of this period that only ever was used in batles against the Royal Navy. My view is that the ground was "devastated " because the fighting was lengthy and concentrated. The nearest to this in a British battle was at Passchendaele (which is now good farmland.and not forest-) see the various first hand accounts quoted by Philip Warner in "Passchendaele" (published in London in 1985 and later in Barnsley by "Pen and Sword" in 2005.The artillery fire was not just occasional but "constant." "Entirely" is perhaps redundant.. The deserting soldiers faced execution only if captured-not if they reached Spain. Incidently a recent television programme (Who do you think you are ? ) referred to a British soldier being present at Verdun and later fighting at Passchendaele. Does anybody know if this was a mistake or were there some British troops in the battle?Spinney Hill (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying; national ties aren't the only reason for a form of English, the original form used for the article is usually kept unless there is a consensus for change. Your view of the ground being "devastated" is the point, your view is irrelevant, we can only describe what is in reliable sources, anything else is OR. If you want to use such terms it can only be by reference to a reliable source, not your opinion and taking care not to veer into NNPOV. Your comparison with the Third Battle of Ypres is OR; the Somme 1916 was just as artillery-laden but that's my OR and I'm not a reliable source either. If you've read Warner I commiserate with you, his prose is the amongst the most terminally boring I've ever read and I'm a history man. The British soldier is a puzzle but he might have joined the French army and fought in Flanders in the First Army (French) on the northern flank of the Fifth Army in 1917. If you are interested in Verdun, I'd suggest Foley, R. T. (2007) [2005]. German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870–1916 as a good place to start, After Clausewitz: German Military Thinkers Before the Great War by Antulio Echevarria II is a comparative, international study of military thinking from 1870 to 1914, which explodes even more myths than Foley's book. Anything by Christina Holstein and by Jack Sheldon is worth a look. Philpott, W. (2009). Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme and the making of the Twentieth Century writes the French back into the war for English readers; Jankowki is good on casualty counting. Much of the rest of the sources references section of the article cover small items or are rather forgettable texts, as you can see by looking at the footnotes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I didnt write this paragraph. I only returned it to what it was before. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC).

I think that the section on morale is superfluous, it risks making the battle appear unusual or unexpected when it wasn't. I think that hyperbolic language serves only to mislead, which is why I had another dash at it last night. What do you think? Keith-264 (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Brusilov Offensive

@Longsars: Re recent edits, need to add a bit more about the effect of Brusilov to Fourth phase 1 July – 17 December Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Spinney Hill: Oh well, since you've been a gentleman about it. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

End date

Keith-264- I'm confused about your revert here. There is not scholarly agreement on when the battle ended, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Could you clarify what you want to see happen here? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is, the RS consensus is 21 February to the end of the French Second Offensive Battle in December. Jankowski was musing in a book not noted for forensic detail (except for casualty counting) and Axelrod is an outlier. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264, could you point to the books that make up the "RS consensus"? Or RS that cite a specific end date of 18 December (as was in the article until I just changed it) or 20 December, or really specify at all? Or an RS that states that Jankowski's book is unreliable or Axelrod's is an outlier? The sources that I've been able to access that aren't Axelrod or Jankowski don't specify anything beyond like December. Maybe that's the best thing to put in the article? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As a separate issue if this is restored at any point could someone make sure to supply the required cite to support the short form reference "Axelrod 2016". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eddie891: See the Bibliography. 18 December is the day after the end of the French Second Offensive Battle. Please note that if you want to alter the status quo in the article, the burden is on you to justify it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I did justify it by including two reliable sources that explicitly discussed the ending of the battle. You responded by reverting with little explanation and upon my asking a question dismissed the two books I included with little justification other than implying you knew something about them that I didn't. Which is both fine and probably true. But you have yet to cite any specific sources that cite 18 December as the end of the battle. My impression would be that if the fighting ended on the 17th, the 17th would be the end date... It's unreasonable to point to a list of 36 books and say "find the consensus somewhere in there". I've looked at at one (Jankowski) of them and it does not support your interpretation. Which books should I look at to find what you're saying? I'm more than happy to go to the library and read. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eddie891: That's not fair, the Biblio is the place where the text of the article comes from. I am not interpreting, I am describing. Doughty Pyrrhic victory.... is a good place to start, Foley German Strategy and the Path to Verdun is excellent, Greenhalgh too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at those. Doughty p. 309 uses February 21 to December 20 as a range for casualties. Greenhalgh 237-9 seems to only mention fighting as continuing "into November". Haven't gotten a chance to look at Foley. But my is we can't really cite a specific date as being the end of fighting. Looking elsewhere (with the sources I have access to), Buckingham says fighting is "commonly accepted" to have extended until "December 1917" Mosler p. 17 seems to say "end of December" on page 320 he describes American advances in 1918 (?!) as marking the "definitive end" of the battle. Horne 318 to 319 discusses some time shortly after the December 15 offensive without citing a specific date but also notes (p. 319) that despite the technical end, fighting continued until the end of the war. Ousby p. 4-5 says there is "no clear end", describing a November/December date as cited by historians, but at the end of the day no more than an "arbitrary line". I think we can justify saying the battle ended in "December 1916", but I don't really think we can name a specific date. Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I do realize it's hard to neatly narrow down the end of fighting in the first world war, and I recognize that sometime in December was functionally when the battle ended, I'm just not really sure based upon the sourcing that we can specify down to 18 December as the end. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Doughty pp 308–309, Greenhalgh p 147, Philpott (Attrition) p 245 ("December") all of the sources ecxcept Philpott cite 17 December as the last day of the 2nd Offensive Battle ergo 18 December was the first day after the battle ended. The attack in August 1917 was a different affair altogether. Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I see it in Greenhalgh, but Doughty doesn't seem to clearly establish an end to the battle in my reading. My reading of the sources has Ousby, Jankowski, Mosler, and Axelrod all raising doubts about this, Philpott, Doughty and Buckingham all citing some time towards the end of December without a specific day, and Greenhalgh, arguably Horne, and Foley (?) (haven't read his) really clearly establishing some time around the 17-18 as the end of the battle. I don't think we can not include this at the very least in an explanatory footnote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :I suggest you look at the biblio's of the books you've looked at. Mosier is generally considered to be a hack, Ousby a historian of mentalités rather than facts and figures. The Battle of Verdun is the 1916 battle but there were others (1914, 1917 and 1918), just as there were five Battles of Ypres and battles of the Somme in 1914, 1916 and two in 1918. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Michelin guide (1919) "...on December 18th they had lost all the ground it had taken five months and enormous sacrifices to conquer." p. 37 [1] Keith-264 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wynne If Germany Attacks: The Battle in Depth in the West (1939 [1976]) and Petain Verdun (1930) Keith-264 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Les armées françaises dans la Grande guerre. Tome IV. 4,3 / Ministère de la guerre, état-major de l'armée, service historique p. 485 (With thanks to Sheldrake). Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Aurexify: I suggest you take note of WP:3RR Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Tanks?

Were there tanks in the battle of Verdun? I don't there were. TheMaggster (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not in 1916. Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. TheMaggster (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Do we really need all those flags in the infobox when the repeat those in the Belligerents section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits Comment

@Reaper1945: Do you have the page number for that data? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's on page 226 of Philpott's book, with him stating that "The Germans had inflicted by French reckoning 377,000 casualties on their army, of which 162,000 were killed. The Germans themselves suffered 337,000 casualties. Other imprecise estimates put the total casualties both sides suffered around Verdun over four years as high as 1,250,000." Reaper1945 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just found it in the Casualties section. Hope it wasn't me that wrote the higher figure. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Reaper1945: You're basing your edit on a 26-year old source. What has been written since? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)