This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
First Battle of Ypres article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 19, 2011, October 19, 2014, October 19, 2017, October 19, 2020, and October 19, 2023. |
All you need are some pictures of the battle
This article seems to have been locked against further edits. This is unfortunate since it contains numerous text errors, including at least one nonsense sentence, the meaning of which is now so jumbled it cannot be understood. Can whoever has assumed proprietorial control over this page plesase either proof read it properly and start to bring it up to standard, or allow others to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 ( talk) 09:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a sentence saying the Ypres "was the last geographical object protecting the Allied ports at Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer." Ypres, the city itself, was no such obstacle. It would be much more accurate to say that the ridges surrounding Ypres were the last geographical obstacles south of the Yser River screening the Allied ports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.7.178 ( talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, it should be noted that this term is quite misleading. The Germans brought 4 new built "reserve corps" to Northern France and Belgium, fall 1914. Some of its regiments had a large number of (most young) volunteers (e.g.: Reserve Infantry Regiment 215, from Hanover region, as can be seen in prussian 1914-15-casualty rolls, consisted to more than a half of "Kriegsfreiwillige" = "volunteers for wartime duration", men without any peacetime service experience).
But: The youngest volunteers were around 17, 18 years of age. And so far as "students" are concerned: the german grammar school leaver qualified for attending university ("Abiturient") was 19 years old - hardly younger than the average "active" soldier of 20,21 years. In other words, the university STUDENT was of the same age as the active soldier. But as soon as such a student had served his "One Year" in peacetime (the privilege of one year service for men from higher education which built the reserve officer pool) he couldn't have been a "Kriegsfreiwilliger" at all. So can be spoken of "Kindermord?"
The point is that the bulk of german volunteers came from an urban background (grammar schoolboys not finished "abitur", or secondary schoolboys: 17-19 years of age), but not to forget apprentice boys, trainees, and unskilled workers from the cities and so on.
And as far as higher educated youth is concerned: it's obvious that most of them came from well-to-do families and used to live under more comfortable conditions than the average and predominating draftees: farm hands, craftsmen and rural people like that. This better-off youth was obviously more irritated and stressed by the hardships of basic training and barrack life, maltreatment by sergeants or comrades as the ordinary recruit. On the other hand it's a fact that the german student was taller and heavier than his contemporaries from other classes.
So "Kinder" ? --- one sees, the term "child" is quite doubtful, and even more in conjunction with "student". Moreover, the number of university students in germany around 1910/20 was not very great - some 40-50,000, virtually all male. Germanys population was 60-65 mill. Compare this with present times: 1,000,000 male students alone at 80 mill. population. - for a more detailed examination see Karl Unruh "Langemarck - Legende und Wirklichkeit" (german), 1986.
Pure kitsch is 'unschuldig' / innocent. What should that mean ? One might say, some of the Kriegsfreiwillige were 'misled', but innocent is the wrong word for people rushing voluntarily to the colours, ready to fight, shoot, kill, and, not to forget - eventually being wounded, mutilated or killed.
In the end, that term might be a sign for german tending to emotional extravagance, not to say hysteria - besides of ill military leadership in that particular case. German over-emotion can be noticed here but also in other historical circumstances, past and present.
WernerE (german wiki), 07.12.2005
I completely agree with Werner's logic. It's misleading, and is Germany-biased if it is indeed not true.
true_avatar47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by True avatar47 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Battles are not fought just because the enemy is there in front of you: that's the squaddie's viewpoint, the generals have other views, right or wrong. The Race to the Sea was a German effort to outflank the relatively static French lines to the West, and it nearly succeeded: if it had, then the French would have surrendered and the UK would have lost the BEF.
In its bias towards the British troops who eventually had the victory, this Article ignores the Belgian line between Ieper(Ypres) and Nieupoort, who took the first step in the eventual victory by stopping the German forces virtually single-handed: had it not been for the Belgians, the Germans, who had won the Race to the Sea, would have outflanked the British and French forces to the West, with a clear run to Paris and the French heartland, cutting the entire BEF supply route off into the bargain. The German forces, initally attacking along an axis southwards from Brugge(Bruges), ran into the final Belgian last-ditch suicide defence: my own great-grandfather's citation, for instance, states he was the only survivor of what can only be termed a suicide squad of five men who destroyed a German machine-gun nest of a dozen machine-guns, approximately fifty troops.
This defensive line was principally along the railway embankment over the marshland between the two towns, which was the only consistently high ground in the area. The Belgian command of this was split, Nieupoort to Vuurne (Furnes) and Vuurne to Ieper. The Belgian forces had fought a running retreat from Namur in the East of Belgium, across the plain north of Brussels, past Ghent and Brugge and finally made a last-ditch stand on the railway: there was barely a couple of miles of land back to the French border.
When it finally became clear that the remaining Belgian forces were in the process of finally being wiped out, and that even this would fall, the Belgian King ordered the demolition of the sea-sluices at Nieupoort, thereby destroying the drainage of the entire area between there and the Ardennes, which then turned into the sea of mud so closely associated with the Battlefields of Flanders. This bought enough time for the British and French forces to catch up, threatening the German flank to the North of Ypres, and in an attempt to circumvent the flood to the East, the Germans ran into the BEF and French. The rest is as described.
It was, therefore, probably an even more closely-run thing than Waterloo: had the advancing British forces been any slower to come up, or the Germans quicker to disengage around Ramskapelle, then they would have probably broken through around Kortrijk(Courtrai) and the war would have been lost, at least as far as the French were concerned. This lesson did not get missed: the error was not repeated in WWII, leaving the Brits evacuating at Dunkerk.
Jelmain 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} The text of this page and the dates suggest that the last 2 entries (1st battle of Ypres and Battle of the Yser) appear in the wrong order.
This page is part of campaignbox western front but the box is lacking, can someone add it? Thank you and awesome work! Now if i just had the discipline not to read these pages during worktime... 200.222.3.3 ( talk) 16:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
"Each battalion of infantry contained just two machine guns and 18,073 men each." God might be on the side of the big battalions, but 18 thousand men in one has to be a mistake. In the proceeding paragraph, 154000 men / 71 battalions = 2169 per division, which sounds more reasonable. Bungo77 ( talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The battle was very dangerous for many people because their was new technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.50.217 ( talk) 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
In the section on Polygon Wood, the text states that "both the French claimed credit for the idea".
The image File:Capper.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is this page SemiProtected?
Regards, Ben Aveling 08:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a small mis-spelling in the right bar at the top, under the "strength" category, it is said: "Total strenth: 4,400,000". Should be "Total strength: 4,400,000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.197.251 ( talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
> most of the German casualties were a mixture of young inexperienced [volunteers] and [some] highly trained reserves.
This line, from the intro, doesn't read right.
Regards, Ben Aveling 09:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I thnk that it's an unfortunate form of words - some of the reservists were former conscripts such as those who had besieged Antwerp (Beseler's 3rd Reserve Corps) and some were untrained student volunteers raised hurredly in Germany who were cut to pieces (see Kindermord). Keith-264 ( talk) 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S., cite: The Germans called the battle "The Massacre of the Innocents of Ypres" (in German Kindermord bei Ypern) as many of the German casualties were young and inexperienced reserves recently recruited from German universities. - thats right and irritating, too: the germans (or their propaganda) accusated themselves for sending them into battle, ill-prepared and immature ? -- Widlotic ( talk) 07:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This account suggests that Adolph Hitler was decorated for action against the French. There have been TV accounts that Hitler saw action agaist the British at Gheluvelt. AT Kunene ( talk) 12:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a picture, on this page, of Adolf Hitler amongst a group of soldiers. The page/picture caption identifies Hitler as sitting on the Right Side of the group. However, the Photograph information page suggests the prone figure in the foreground is actually Hitler. Perhaps someone who knows the photo could settle the contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.135.15 ( talk) 21:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
User:XXstuyXx recently made a change to the Strength fields in the infobox, stating German Army Strength was 5.4 million and French Army was 3,989,103. This latter is obviously 4,400,000 (Total strength) minus 163,897 (British Army) minus 247,00 (Belgian Army).
My first reaction was to simply revert: these numbers are not the respective strengths of the German and French armies at the First Battle of Ypres. According to Order of First Battle of Ypres, the French employed 12 Infantry and 8 Cavalry Divisions (lets say 20,000 per Infantry Division plus 5,000 per Cavalry Division = 280,000 total - no where near the almost 4 million stated); the Germans deployed 28 Infantry and 8 Cavalry Divisions (similar "back of an envelope" calculations yield 600,000 - not 5.4 million).
These Total Strength numbers are the mobilisation strength of the entire armies, for instance, as stated in the article First Battle of Ypres#German Army. Surely the infobox should contain information pertaining to the battle itself? Anything else is misleading. Hamish59 ( talk) 12:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Had a go at several paragraphs and tidied a few inconsistent items and nowrapped numbers. It seems a pretty good article but I thought that there was too much reliance on Beckett and an absence of German and French sources, which given the few which exist in English isn't unusual. The exposition of Falkenhayn's decisions seems a little inadequate and could benefit from the views of Foley and Mombauer to balance the Reichsarchiv line presented here. I have a minor reservation about header titles as looked in the OH and record of engagements which were different. Considering the size of the battle, its range over space and time and the limited sources available to them, I think the writers have achieved more than could be expected. I'll leave a message on the milhist page as the b-class on the mainpage doesn't seem to have been copied into the talk page. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As requested Keith, I've transferred discussion to talk page. My original question. Nothing major. Dapi89 ( talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Farndale describes five phases:
Farndale also claims that the creeping barrage emerged during British-French discussions about artillery tactics in mid-October. (p. 69) Hope this helps. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Cut 'n' pasted the Messines material into the Battle of Messines (1914) page and linked. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Altered the German total to exclude casualties in France and in the Battle of the Yser. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is a logical step and will go along way to putting the 1914 campaigns into context. One can see clearly see the progress of operations from south to north whilst providing a succinct overview of the battles and of course the rationale for the northward creep of the warring factions. As ever I think the military strategic context is a must, though I would try to be brief (pot calling the kettle black there). I thought if you added in a brief line about the grand geostrategic realm you could add in a link for Causes of World War I, but perhaps it would be better to keep this solely to military matters.
On a small note, I see you use "Tactical Developments" as a sub-heading. It is an interesting choice in place of "Operational Developments" which I thought would have been better. Then I had a think about it. After some reading, I note that perhaps you were right. Moltke the Eder had spoken of the operativ in the 19th century, but it appears this was not crystallised into doctrine until much later—possibly after the Soviet Soviet deep battle concept which officially was the first to recognise operational warfare. The French had done the same as the Germans and the British had not injected the term into doctrine until the 1980s. I find that the combatants at the time tended to use the term "grand tactics" to describe what we would call "operational manoeuvre".
Sorry for the ramble. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be an intractable problem with battles that last for more than a day or two, either you chop it into bits and write half a dozen new articles which are almost identical in the Background and Prelude sections or risk having a "Battle" section a mile long. When I was writing some of the pages for the Somme (Other engagements) I asked Oz Rupert, who pointed out that they may look repetitive to us but to a punter they're necessary on each page, since we can't assume they're as knowledgeable as the writers.
Anyway they're thought experiments rather than decisions, so I'm interested in your views as to structure too. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Moved these comments from User talk:Keith-264 for relevance. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Look much more manageable now. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In this section of the article, the actual dates range from 25 Oct to 30 Oct so I think this title ought to give those dates. A later section headed German attack at Gheluvelt, 29–31 October, may have led to confusion on this point. As a reader, it certainly confused me! There could not have been attacks from both sides at the same time but covered in different sections.
Budhen ( talk) 16:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I feel sure. I have made the change. Budhen ( talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Under the sub column of "casualties and losses" the following for Germany are listed: 8,050 killed 29,170 wounded 10,545 missing Total: 46,765
This is frankly extremely incorrect (and misleading to people who look this article up). According to the various established sources, in the entire course of the battle: the Germans suffered more than 120,000 casualties, and more than the combined entente armies. A quick google search provides a website with the following figures: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/WWIWesternFront/p/World-War-I-First-Battle-Of-Ypres.htm
"German losses for their efforts in Flanders totaled 19,530 killed, 83,520 wounded, 31,265 missing."
Whatever a credible figure that can be obtained, could it please replace the completely false figures currently displayed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielJosephEyre ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Our infobox lists Allied casualties but not German, which seems odd. For what it's worth, the German WP article's infobox lists 100,000 casualties — citing Der Weltkrieg von 1914 bis 1918. Band 5, S. 401; Band 6, S. 25, Berlin 1929.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For some reason, a user called "Keith-264" on the 18th of January edited the German casualties to a much lower figure than what is recorded in established history. In his description he's written: "previous totals included Yser and Lille" indicating he's minuses casualties from associated battles. And yet he's clearly not also revised the Allied casualties. Either that, or his assumption that these battles were included in the original total are not correct.
The text that needs editing is as follows on line 18:
|casualties2=8,050 killed
29,170 wounded
10,545 missing
Total: 46,765
Could someone please change it back to the original text of:
|casualties2=19,530 killed
83,520 wounded
31,265 missing
Total: 134,315
This is a total that is or is close to almost every established history of the battle. Here's but one website that can corroborate these figures: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/WWIWesternFront/p/World-War-I-First-Battle-Of-Ypres.htm
Because as it stands; it gives a ridiculously lopsided impression of casualty counts for the two engaging parties. And that's really not good considering how many people use Wikipedia as a source of information. DanielJosephEyre ( talk) 07:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm not certain why this response is supposed to mean. But if you're implying that I'm somehow supposed to contact people (whom I've never encountered before) and get them to agree that I dare request this, then I'd like to know if this "Keith-264" received this prior to editing the figures in the first place. As it stands: it would give anyone wanting to know about the battle the impression that the Germans suffered far less casualties than the entente forces. And that is extremely misleading. So I frankly don't understand why the right thing is not being done. Is there some agenda here or something?
BEF casualties | |||
Month | Losses | ||
---|---|---|---|
August | 14,409 | ||
September | 15,189 | ||
October | 30,192 | ||
November | 24,785 | ||
December | 11,079 | ||
Total | 95,654 | ||
Casualty data from Statistics of the Military Effort.... 1914–1920 [1] |
In 1925 J. E. Edmonds, the British Official Historian recorded that a great number of Belgian casualties had been suffered from 15–25 October, including 10,145 wounded. British casualties from 14 October – 30 November were 58,155, French losses were 86,237 men and of the total German casualties in Belgium and northern France from 15 October – 24 November of 134,315 men, 46,765 losses were incurred on the front from the Lys to Gheluvelt between 30 October – 24 November. [2] In 2003 Beckett recorded 50,000–85,000 French casualties, 21,562 Belgian casualties, 55,395 British losses and 134,315 German casualties. [3] In 2010 Sheldon recorded 54,000 British casualties, c. 80,000 German casualties, that the French had more losses, after the mass casualties of the Battle of the Frontiers and that the Belgian army had been reduced to a shadow. [4] Sheldon also noted that Colonel Fritz von Lossberg recorded that up to 3 November, casualties in the Fourth Army were 62,000 men and that the Sixth Army had lost 27,000 men, of which 17,250 losses had occurred in Army Group Fabeck from 30 October – 3 November. [5]
User:Keith-264/sandbox5 I've been working on a revised article here on and off, after I realised that the existing one was to cluttered for ad hoc alterations, with a view to disentangling the Battle proper with the military operations further south, which belong to the battles of Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee and the French and Belgian contributions at Ypres and the Yser. Since the Battle has been divided into three episodes, I have in mind a general article and then three specific ones for Langemarck, Gheluvelt and Nonne Bosschen to go with the three areas further south. If my edits are incomplete it is because the sources I've got don't warrant other changes.
I'm having a purge on unfinished business at the moment and will shortly complete the long-awaited rewrite of Delville Wood, after which I can give more attention to 1st Ypres, if you're interested. You can look up German casualty statistics here [1] or in the British OH (on Archives org) as above or Sheldon. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
References
There are several references in the article to the 'Royal Worcesters' whose 2nd Battalion played a decisive part in the action around Gheluvelt. The regiment was called simply the Worcestershire Regiment, commonly abbreviated to 'Worcesters'. It never had a 'Royal' pre-fix either officially or colloquially (Royal Worcester was a porcelain company). I suggest all instances of 'Royal Worcesters' are changed to 'Worcesters'.
Source: http://www.worcestershireregiment.com/nicknames.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.31.163 ( talk) 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Battle of Langemark: form -> from Patrick Crozier ( talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Finally finished the re-edit from last year. I envisage separate pages for the three battles in this section but I'm not sure about the links and redirects so have put them inside <!----> for the moment. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the casualties listed in the infobox are cited in the casualties section. German losses in the 4th and 6th armies were not all from the 1st BofY. Total 4th and 6th army losses are in the note and occurred in France and Flanders. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
In their zeal the latest editors have butchered the article. You can't just jump into debunking the alleged "kindermord myth" without explaining first what it is. Suggest finding some sources and talk about this - the myth is important since it contributed to public consciousness of the battle, and the war in general, for decades. 46.193.174.6 ( talk) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Ypres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://ia700407.us.archive.org/32/items/principalevents100grea/principalevents100grea.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ia700300.us.archive.org/10/items/fifthdivisioning00huss/fifthdivisioning00huss.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@ OwenBlacker: Greetings, why no 300 px with the pic in the infobox? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)