Talk:German spring offensive

message: At least one expert analyst at the Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College disputes this account (in The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Change in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War, Timothy Lupfer, in Leavenworth Papers No4, US ISSN 0195 3451). That analysis raises serious questions to both the account given here of the genesis of stormtrooper tactics, and Ludendorff's alleged insensitivity to them. This article as it stands is therefore lacking NPOV. Adhib 09:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sorry if I've caused offence, but the detailed description of 'Hutier tactics' and mentions of battles in other theatres seems better placed in the article of that name than in an article dealing with the progress of a campaign -IMHO. This article already has a brief reference to them and a link to the specific article and also an external link to 'Stormtrooper Tactics'.
Folks at 137 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hutier Tactics

message: I've read in a book about the war that the German troops stopped attacking when they encountered the allies supplies of food and wine. Generally they were badly fed and the abundance they suddenly encountered caused them to stop fighting and loot instead. I've forgotten the name of the book though, but this story should not be too hard to verify.
According to Glyn Harper's book "Spring Offensive" , by the end of March 1918 German storm troops had outpaced their artillery and logistics support resulting in Ludendorf postponing operations until April 4th.
--itpastorn 12:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find info on that in Erich Maria Remarque's famous novel "All Quiet on the Western Front". Many of the conversations revolve around food as supplies are so low that the soldiers have to eat sawdust. When they storm enemy trenches, they feast on the food they find there and drink the rancid cooling water from the machine guns. I'd add full quotations but I haven't got an English edition. --84.153.181.208 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudolf Binding is quoted in Lidell-Harts history of WW1 eg "there is no doubt the army is looting with some zest" and more besides. GraemeLeggett 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Looting halted the offensive

message: Shouldn't the Spring Offensive be on their in some capacity? It was an utter bloodbath--while it was not a single engagement, it was a concentrated, sustained engagement. Most definitions of combat would regard it as continuous, and few, if any, battles or engagements come even close to matching the body count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.23.172 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Lethal Battles in Human History

message: am i the only one who disagrees with "stalemate" in the infobox.  The gains that the Germans made were, quite frankly, massive.  I've looked at the map, and it's fairly obvious that it WASN'T a strategic stalemate.  A tactical one?  Yes.  I'll change the wording in that.
Cam 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The German objective was a breakthrough, not just an advance. Nothing less would avoid defeat in the war. They didn't succeed - they were held in highly vulnerable salients. Massive gains? Perhaps, but they were irrelevant in the context. On the other hand, they had exhausted their final reserves and could not hold the next Allied offensive. Maybe it was a local, tactical victory - I don't think so. It certainly was a decisive strategic defeat. Changing this wording has become contentious elsewhere, might be a better idea to seek a consensus first. Folks at 137 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The wording should be the other way round. The Germans gained huge territories, and captured many prisoners, guns and supplies. Tactically, that was a great success. Their ultimate aim however, was to break through the Allied lines and break the Allied armies. They failed on both counts. Strategically therefore, it was a failure. HLGallon 09:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: infobox wording

message: Australian, New Zealanders and Canadians fought under separate command at divisional and corps level at least so is it possible to mention these countries under the sidebar and not just group them as "British Empire"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.110.58 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were certainly correct. Very sorry for the belated correction as to your point. Similar articles for battles from the same period are divided in the same manner. Anger22  (Talk 2 22) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British Empire?

message: Isn't this sentence a bit off:
"Even so, about a million German soldiers remained tied up in the east until the end of the war, attempting to run a short-lived addition to the German Empire in Europe. >>>German political ambitions remained extravagant until the very end<<<"
Weren't they tied up because factions of the Russian revolutions wanted to continue the war and forced German troops to keep territory occupied to threaten the Russian revolutionaries? While the German empire might have frantically tried to establish some territorial realignments and create facts for the postwar era their primary problem was to kick Russia out of the war as quickly as possible and keep it that way. German forces went back on the offensive during negotiations and occupied further territory to make that point.
Just wondering  93.135.73.60 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: extravagant ambitions?

message: Along with the four Australian divisions rushed in to plug the gaps in the line was the New Zealand Division.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.170.235 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you're not Canadian or Australian, your contributions are overlooked or minimised; the best British divisions, and indeed the New Zealand division as well, are often ignored in favour of focus on Australia and Canada here. Not that there isn't a lot to celebrate with those two nations, but it is a curiously biased collection of articles that categorise WW1 where they are concerned. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:FCE4:D7DF:2C92:AA12 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Zealand division's contribution to halting Operation Michael tragically overlooked in the annals of history 

message: If Portugal is going to be listed, shouldn't Belgium be listed as well? john k (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unfortunately; the sector occupied by Belgian troops (from north of Ypres to the Channel coast at Dixmude) was not attacked, while that occupied by the Portuguese contingent at Neuve Chapelle was the target for the German "Georgette" offensive. HLGallon (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: What about the Allied advance in early 1917?Keith-264 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepest advance since 1914? 

message: What about Mars?Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four attacks? 

message: Churchill, "The World Crisis, Vol. 2", p.963. German casualties from "Reichsarchiv 1918" - but what means "Reichsarchiv 1918" ? --Mwknacker (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reichsarchiv 1918 source ? 

message: An IP has moved the entry for Siam in the infobox from the bottom of the list of Allied belligerents to a bit higher up. This has prompted me to look more closely into the role of Siam in the campaign (about which I knew nothing). According to Siam in World War I and Siamese Expeditionary Forces, Siam declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary on 22 July 1917, but the expeditionary force did not land in Marseilles until 30 July 1918 (12 days after the official end of the Spring Offensive), and no troops reached the front line before August. In my opinion, although Siam was technically one of the allies during the campaign, she cannot be regarded as one of the belligerents, and should be removed from the infobox. Other views? GrindtXX (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support removal. It's disingenuous to be marked as a belligerent without a demonstrated participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siam 

message: I've flagged a section in Operation Michael for editorializing. To say someone has argued something convincingly is subjective. This part would also be better if someone who has the Greenhalgh article could cite what source the argument is based on or even see whether it's a fact the author has proven - either way given that the claim made is so specific there must clearly be some source behind it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:7848:B79:6862:1097 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to fix this by removing the adverb "convincingly", and also the tag. I assume that the argument is strong and evidence-based, but not necessarily "proven". However, I haven't seen the article, so if anyone else wants to rework the paragraph, go ahead. GrindtXX (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Michael 

message: :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: moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Spring Offensive →  – The currrent title is ambiguous and over-capitalized relative to sources.  The most common reference in sources for this 1918 offensive seems the be the German spring offensive. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 April 2021 

message: Ludendorff is often criticised for "not having a plan", other than "punching a hole", seeing what happened, then "punching another hole".
Recently I read that he wasn't that daft, and knew perfectly well that he didn't have the means to exploit to Paris or Abbeville (as the Germans would in 1940). Rather, he knew that countries in WW1 tended to crumble from within - collapse of morale in the army or on the homefront, or collapse of supply arrangements, or running out of usable reserves - rather than being decisively defeated on the battlefield. It had happened to Russia and had come close to happening to France and Italy (Britain actually came a lot closer than the sillier sort of military historian tends to realise, but that's a discussion for another occasion). Basically, he thought that if he kept "punching holes" either Britain or France would sooner or later crumble, although in the event the Allies pulled through.
Sadly I can't remember where I read it.Paulturtle (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If Ludendorff thought Britain would collapse into anarchy like Russia he was an idiot (as if we didn't know that already). He was also engaging in what Freud called 'projection', that is, unconscious self-description. It wasn't Britain's institutions and society that were giving at the seams, it was Germany's. And the French army may have mutinied and become incapable of offensive action, but the British and Commonwealth forces led the Hundred Days Offensive that defeated Germany and it was Germany that collapsed into anarchy. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludendorff's Objectives 

message: The last paragraph cites a claim from a blog post by the historian Bret Devereaux (see the post here https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/). Devereaux himself doesn't provide any evidence for his claim. Should this be removed or not? --Svennik (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is citing a footnote from a blog acceptable?