Talk:Battle of the Ardennes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Ardennes 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

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / French / 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been plagiarized in its entirety

This article has been plagiarized in its entirety from:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/ardennes.htm

and contains no original work.

No indication if copyright holder has given permission for this text to be used.

142.179.206.203 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@Vami IV: Greetings Vami, the original version was in BritEng not AmEng. I've put back most of your CE minus a few bits here and there (I may have overlooked a few wikilinks) and put a BritEng banner on for information. Happy to discuss, Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just change the USA English back to UK English and then told me off for being thick-headed? You didn't need to remove 1,347 bytes of content to do that. –Vami _IV✠ 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I put it back in except for some of the wording. Pls stop altering the Notes, Footnotes and Citations layout. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchman is a rather elderly source and the "relatively weak" southern German flank is a bit of a myth (see Schlieffen Plan). Herwig, Strachan and Zuber are better sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchman is the only published work I have on hand at the moment. Feel free to correct my work - I have no access to Herwig, Strachan, and Zuber at this time. –Vami _IV✠ 21:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with Tuchman is that she's a source from 1962 and a lot has changed since then. I'm bogged down with other stuff at the moment (I'm on a fork lift truck course) so it might be better for you to write what you please and I'll drop in when I can. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What plan do we devise for working on this article simultaneously? I'm using the 2014 issue of Guns of August (Tuchman), which I checked out from my local library. –Vami _IV✠ 21:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with Tuchman is that she's a source from 1962 and a lot has changed since then. I'm bogged down with other stuff at the moment (I'm on a fork lift truck course) so it might be better for you to write what you please and I'll drop in when I can. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apols for the duplicate edit. Keith-264 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Did a cheeky little ce, rv as desired; I'm a little uneasy about leaning so heavily on Tuchman though, Strachan, Foley and Doughty are newer. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can do, I'll zap some source diversity into my work soon. I don't see Foley in the bibliography. –Vami _IV✠ 16:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this

In its 1906 version, the Schlieffen Plan would allocate six weeks and seven eighths of the Imperial German Army (a force of 1.5 million) to overwhelm France while the remaining force was to remain in East Prussia to contest the Russians.^[1]

References

^ Tuchman 2014, pp. 23–24.

is untenable now, I doubt that recent writers accept the timetable aspect of the German invasion. I'll have a look for Foley. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS My edits have been cosmetic so suggestive rather than anything else. If you want a look at Foley's thesis and Ethos won't let you download it, I'll send it by e-mail as an attachment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate that, gracias. –Vami _IV✠ 17:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of Mark D. Karau

In his book Germany's Defeat in the First World War The Lost Battles and Reckless Gambles That Brought Down the Second Reich

He said that The battle of the Ardennes raged for two days. The French lost over 26,000 men and the Germans lost nearly 38,000 in the course of two days.

I am curious about why the numbers of losses were so different.

[1] Waylon1104 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What dates did he give? Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't give the precise date, On August 21, German forces reached the northern bank of the Sambre River and the large siege guns were sent into action against the fortress of Namur. On the same day Joffre launched his offensive into the Ardennes. The French Fourth and Fifth Armies marched into the hinge of the German line, the German Fourth and Fifth Armies. The battle in the Ardennes raged for two days before the were driven back and forced to retreat behind the Meuse. The French lost over 26,000 men and the Germans lost nearly 38,000 in the course of two days Waylon1104 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The French lost 27,000 men killed on 22 August.Keith-264 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTETuchman201423–24-1] Tuchman 2014, pp. 23–24.

[1]