Talk:Hundred Days Offensive

message: This article needs a serious edit, as to read it one would wonder where the Canadians are.  Strikes me that was Arthur Currie and the CEF that was tne central story of the Hundred Days.
Is there someone who has a better grasp of this and the Battle of the Hindenburg Line who could do an edit?
139.142.75.220 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First comment

message: I could find no other sources that call this the "Hundred Days Offensive." I did find it named the "Somme Offensive", though. Perhaps someone could check it out? () I made the redirect, but if I'm in error then I hope someone will correct me.
--DVirus101 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been looking for a book which mentions it, but it is packed away in my attic and I can't lay my hands on it. However a google search [Haig "100 days" 1918 -wikipedia] returns "about 328 English pages for Haig "100 days" 1918 -wikipedia". It is a well known that the "100 days" won Haig his earldom (because the First Battle of the Somme defiantly did not), also I suspect it is to draw a parallel with Napoleon's last campaign which 100 years earlier is also known as Hundred Days. So I think the article should remain under its current name --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's right. The name was deliberately chosen - I think it was by Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson -- to draw a parallel with Wellington's defeat of Napoleon, which was more obvious at the time -- Hawkeye7 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Somme Offensive"? 

message: Seeing as the AIF was part of the British Expeditionary Force does it need to be included. If they are included we might as well include all of the seperate British units and French Units.
Separate please. It hints at the increasing disenchantment with BEF command felt by the AIF and Australian government. This returns as a major theme in 1942, with the AIF in Africa under British command whilst Japanese forces are 300Km from Australia. 150.101.30.44 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Imperial Force

message: I think that this article needs a section on tactics and how the Allies had learnt the lessons of stormtrooper infiltration tactics that were used againt them in the German offensive of 1918 (Operation Michael et al), and how the Allies used "combained arms" coupling the use of tanks with infantry and close air support which for the Germans who were on the on the recieving end was the initiator for the development of the ideas which led to blitzkrieg, and has influenced military thinking throughdesert storm to today. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactics

message: This page seriously needs a re-edit. It's become so biased that it's of dubious worth. 
Apart from 'a British division' it appears the war was actually won by the Canadians and an American unit! The sources give a clue, mostly being Canadian sources.
As Philip says above important details are completely missing making me question the knowledge of whoever wrote it originally.
A balanced, accurate article giving credit where it's due is seriously needed. If I have time I'll try to write a whole new, balanced, article for submission
Roger
83.67.126.86 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow this article was written without any citations.  Is this just because it is primarily a summary of other articles, or is a binge of fact tags needed?LeadSongDog 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall

message: This part is missing a few things.
The French Fourth Army of 250,000 also attacked on the 26th at the Meuse Argonne.
On the 27th the First and Third British Armies attacked.
There was also a French army with Flanders Army Group.
The French First Army of 14 Divisions also attacked along side the British Fourth Army at the Hindenburg line on the 29th. They took St Quentin.
The 5th British Army and the French 5th and 10th armies also commenced with fighting within a few days.(Brocky44 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The title exhibits an Allied POV. Perhaps "The Hindenburg Line breaks"  would be preferable?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I have always known it as the Battle of the Hindenburg Line. Breaking the Hindenburg Line would be leading towards POV. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the Hindenburg Line 

message: Should this not be "Hundred Days' Offensive" (with the apostrophe)? Brigade Piron (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I have moved it back. If you check other world history sources, it is referred to as the "Hundred Days Offensive", without the apostrophe. Wikipedia article titling guidelines support using the most common name for the subject.—D'Ranged 1 talk 03:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Is this what the author meant to say, or is it a reference to the Austin armoured cars of 17th Battalion, Tank Corps, which operated in the German rear during this offensive? Hengistmate (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tanks attacked German rear positions, sowing panic and confusion"? 

message: Please take note of this before tampering with the result criterion in the infobox. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: Keith-264 started an edit war and suddenly removed "Collapse of the German Empire" from the result (while it had been there for years) because it doesnt fit his revisionist views of history (Stab in the back myth) according to which the German Empire collapsed before the end of the war.
The accepted truth is that Germany collapsed because it lost the Hundred Days Offensive, not the contrary
So stop with this nonse, and other confirmed users should stop nlindly backing up this adept of Hitler's revisionist theiry about WW1 just because he's a "confirmed user"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1C:8172:5400:6913:9B2E:EFD3:846A (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully draw your attention to the comment above which shows what terms can be used for the result criterion and ask you to mind your manners. Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith-264 and his revisionism 

message: The second sentence of the lead paragraph reads:  "Beginning with the Battle of Amiens (8–12 August) on the Western Front, the Allies pushed the Central Powers back,", and the infobox lists Austria-Hungary as a belligerent.  However, all of the action occurred on the western front in France, and there is no mention of any A-H troops being involved in any way.  Shouldn't the second sentence be: "... the Allies pushed the German Army back...", with no mention of Austria-Hungary in the infobox?  I appreciate that the offensive ended the War, but that's a larger issue, in which Austria-Hungary would be involved. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Powers?  or Germany?