Talk:1917 French Army mutinies

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait for the Americans = French policy say the RS
One editor rejects the idea that the French army decided to wait for the Americans to arrive. However that is what the RS say. 1) "Instead the French army would sit tight and wait for the Americans" says 2) "French policy in the last year of the war was to remain on the defensive and wait for the Americans to arrive on the Western Front." [Rossof 1982]; 2) "Even after Petain's skilful mixture of tact and firmness had restored military discipline, the French army could only remain on the defensive and wait for the Americans." [Andrew 1981]; 3) "He also had the good sense to indulge in no more great offensives, but to wait for the Americans and the tanks." [Paul Hayes, 2002]; 4) "Instead the French army would sit tight and wait for the Americans." [Martin Evans 2014]; 5) Clemenceau told Wilson in June 1917, [he would] wait for the Americans & meanwhile not lose more." [Brock Millman, 2014]; 5) "Pétain's watchword was that 'We must wait for the Americans and the tanks'" [David Stevenson, 2011]. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * we have one editor who rejects the statement "The mood of the Army was to wait for the Americans to arrive and win the war" despite the evidence provided here and in the text--what more proof does he want??? we have scholars AND the top French General (Petain) and the French Prime Minister all making the same point: Wait for the Americans. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotes of Petain and Clemenceau about "waiting for the Americans" appear to have been casual remarks and not serious statements of policy. Certainly they do not reflect the realities of the situation on the Western Front from June 1917 until a year later. The American Expeditionary Force, for all its massive potential, took many months to be built up from the small peace-time U.S. Army and to arrive in substantial numbers. In March 1918 (almost a year after the mutinies) 318,000 Americans had reached France and in August 1,300,000. Essentially it was the British who held the line for the remainder of 1917 with massive losses at Ypres-Passchendaele and Cambrai. During the "last throw" German offensives of March-July 1918 it was again the British, together with the recovered French, who stopped them. The enthusiasm and freshness of the doughboys were battle-winners when they reached the numbers to begin their own offensives but it was not until September 1918 (at Saint Mihiel) that this was finally the case. Buistr (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Clemenceau quote came in an official cable to the US president, which is as far from "casual" as you can get. As for Petain it was not casual: historians say it became his official policy to wait for the Americans before launching a major offensive--see   Buistr misreads the claim: historians, Petain and Clemenceau all said that from June 1917 the French policy was to avoid offensive attacks against the German lines, and they all link that to the mutinies. The Paris promised its soldiers no more Nivelle-like offensives. (casualty rates did in fact fall sharply and the French launched only three small attacks in the second half of 1917...Stevenson With our Backs to the Wall  p 269]  Everyone knew in 1917 it would take a long time for the US soldiers to arrive.  That is why the British had to do so much of the fighting in 1917.  In his statement Buistr seems to agree with these points: the French indeed did not make any offensive moves for about a year, and then only did so when the Americans were arriving at 10,000 a day.
 * So the French political and military leadership of 1917 officially acknowledged that three years of fighting and nearly a million French deaths had been wasted and that they would have to wait for foreigners to save their country? Remarkable and so out of keeping with the concepts of national pride prevalent in all combatants at the time, as previously understood. Clearly the centenary of WWI will see some major historical revisionism. Anyway the newly added sentence which sparked off this little edit skirmish "The mood of the soldiers was to wait for the Americans to arrive and win the war" has now been reverted by a third editor with the rather brusque sign-offs "inane comment" and "utter rubbish"Buistr (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
 * indeed the French political and military leadership of 1917 realized that three years of fighting and nearly a million French deaths had been wasted -- but no, they did not state that publicly. However they did promise the soldiers (and tell President Wilson) there would be no more major offensives until the Yanks arrived. They followed that promise and it it played a role in ending the extreme tensions that had produced the mutiny. As for "inane comment" and "utter rubbish" -- that editor obviously has not read much history. Rjensen (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Politics
According to this article 'there were no politics involved just despair'. This in total contrast with the story told in the BBC witness program that says the Internationale was played and soldiers formed Sovjet like groups. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p051b9xw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing the infobox
I don't think that adding an infobox as this was done the 3 August 2018‎ at 16:43 and 16:46 is pertinent. It provides the reader with no relevant abstract of the article and instead mereley repeats what is written in the first two paragraphs of the header. Other articles about mutinies like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_mutiny and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89taples_mutiny don't feature any such infobox and I think it makes more sense this way. I'll remove it in a few days unless someone disagrees. Dyadique78 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Changing "disastrous" to "unsuccessful and costly"
The French most likely suffered about 187,000 casualties (Nicholson) or perhaps 134,000 (Doughty) and the Germans 163,000 including 28,500 prisoners during the Second Battle of the Aisne. The term 'disastrous' is not correct. However the battle failed to bring a quick end to the war as promised by Nivelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyadique78 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Statistical discrepancy - death sentences and executions
In the introduction, a 2018 BBC source is cited in support of a statement of 554 death sentences and 26 carried out executions, but in the Repression section quotes research published in 1968 that the respective figure was 629 sentences and 43 executions. Some reconciliation and explanation of the difference ought to be added. Which set of statistics is more trustworthy?Cloptonson (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mutiny
If the article says it is not mutiny why not calling the article "1917 French Army desobedience"? And saying that officially or usually it is refered incorrectly as mutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:3D4A:8EAA:4353:F5BA (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

CE
Homogenised citations but some lack page numbers. Auto ed, cite scan, dupe wl scan. Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)