Talk:Battle of France/Archive 5

Maginot Line
I recently made the same observation on the Dunkirk evacuation article; the French understood that the Maginot Line would be outflanked, the whole point of it was to force and funnel a German attack to the north into Belgium. Currently, the lede states the line was outflanked, but provides little context to that statement. The rest of the article does not really explain it either, other than stating that Gamelin recognised the Germans could not breakthrough there (something he had considered several years earlier).

As on the above article's talkpage, for the consideration of editors involved (as well as additional sources provided during the discussion), a sourced para wrote up for another article to provide background; something that could possibly be pulled apart and partially inserted, where needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

""During the 1930s, the French had constructed a series of fortifications—the Maginot Line—along their border with Germany. This line had been designed to deter a German invasion across the Franco-German border and funnel an attack into Belgium, which could then be met by the best divisions of the French Army. Thus, any future war would take place outside of French territory avoiding a repeat of the First World War. The main section of the Maginot Line ran from the Swiss border and ended at Longwy. The area immediately to the north, was covered by the heavily wooded Ardennes region. General Philippe Pétain declared the Ardennes to be "impenetrable" as long as "special provisions" were taken. If so, he believed that any enemy force emerging from the forest would be vulnerable to a pincer attack and destroyed. The French commander-in-chief, Maurice Gamelin, likewise believed the area to be of a limited threat, noting that it "never favoured large operations". French war games held in 1938, with the scenario of a German armoured attack through the Ardennes, left the military with the impression that the region was still largely impenetrable and that this, along with the obstacle of the Meuse River, would allow the French time to bring up troops into the area and thus counter such an attack. With this in mind, the area was left lightly defended. The German strategy, which became known as the Manstein Plan, was to concentrate large armoured forces in the Ardennes, who would then push towards the English Channel encircling the Allied armies in Belgium, cutting them off from supplies and reinforcements from France."


 * (above edited slightly) Not bad but I'd add something about it being a response to the demographic consequences of the Great War too, that economising on the defence on the common border was necessary to make it possible to concentrate a large part of the modern French forces in the north.Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is an excellent point. The above, prior to your edit, was wrote up only as a brief summary so was not aiming to go into mega detail, but this is the article where that kind of info should be. Outside of the Maginot Line, should the article discuss the fractured political state the French nation found itself in, of the low morale among the military (having sat around for the Phoney War) or of the civilians? I have to say Jackson's book is an eye opener on what France was like at the time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Kevin, as the one of the main contributors to the article and the one taking it through GA at the moment; your inout is very much welcomed. Thus far, kept this more as a sidebar than adding the GA review so not to derail somewhat although this discussion does touch on the broad coverage part of the GA spectrum and can only serve to further the article by providing some background context.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)



Orders of battle


Fill yer boots Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Flagicons
Icons I suggest that flagicons in the infobox next to generals etc are redundant and should go. Keith-264 (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead/infobox
It's still cluttered with extraneous material. See here Template:Infobox military conflict

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."


 * Fall of the French Third Republic, establishment of Vichy France
 * Second Armistice at Compiègne
 * Establishment of the Free French Forces

shouldn't be under result and the victory was not decisive, only half of the anti-German coalition was defeated; decisive does not mean big. Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Frenditor (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I watched the nov 2015 discussion now archived, and agree also. FWIW, I also think see aftermath should replace decisive. The result is way too complex and nuanced for a single word. Irondome (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The details would be better in the lead, first paragraph (I should have used infobox as the title, apols). I knew we'd discussed it before but I couldn't remember when so thanks for that. Perhaps we could use the weekend to wait for opinion?Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at the discussion in the archive, would that our eloquence had found its way into the article rather than just the verbosity ;O)) Does anyone know if the GA review is going to be renewed? I see that I decided to wait on it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was involved in another discussion on this which I initiated on exactly this issue. But it way predates this. I removed decisive and I got hammered by a couple of other editors. Just couldn't seem to grasp the point I was trying to make. I can't for the life of me remember when, or the venue, but I had just started on here. Would fully support any move away from the very dodgy and misleading "decisive" Keith and Frenditor. Simon. Irondome (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, we're saying the Battle for France wasn't decisive because it defeated only France? Seriously?  (And a few other countries were defeated also, but they don't count?)  Regardless, our opinions don't matter; sources do.  From what I've seen, they tend to compare it to 1914, and tend to say it was decisive.  But I'm willing to be convinced by new sources.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several definitions of decisive; in the Clausewitzian sense, decisive means a battle with a political result (i. e.) a peace treaty; the Germans only made peace with one of the two belligerents. For other people decisive is an analogue of big so they don't see the point of using it technically. The sources I listed above vary in their verdicts, so aren't that helpful.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that this conflict had already been resolved. In any case, claiming otherwise to the fact that the battle was not decisive in completion of its strategic objectives is complete nonsense, to say the least. KevinNinja (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you are mistaken on both points.Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I believe you are mistaken on the meaning of "decisive" in the context of strategic warfare (not to mention that your argument against the fact is the leading cause of your assertions, including me being "mistaken" on both points). It is only you trying to further the complexity of this argument, without due cause. Using the word "decisive" is indeed correct in the further context of the entire topic at hand. Pointing to an Aftermath section, when the result of the battle could not be clearer in both historical and strategic terms, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I would suggest we keep the result as it is, because it is the closest result to the fact. KevinNinja (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are historically and linguistically illiterate. Keith-264 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are counterproductive.
 * The clausewitzian definition of "decisive" is not the common one for the average reader, and neither is the straw man suggestion of it meaning merely "big". Most uses, per dictionaries, are closer to "conclusive".  To me, it's hard to see how the Battle for France, which ended with France being conquered, could have been any more conclusive.  Saying it wasn't decisive since it didn't also conquer all other Allied nations is odd, because than means that no battle in WWII was decisive, since the final Axis surrender was triggered by the dropping of the atomic bombs, which wasn't a battle.  In fact, based on this view, all wars that had any small resistance after the last major battle could have no decisive battles no matter what happened in them.
 * But, as has been suggested, we should focus on sources, not personal opinions. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It may not be common among average readers but it is in the sources and I'd avoid terms like straw man because personal attacks are counter-productive. Your opinion is as irrelevant as mine, it's the opinion in the RS that matter. You use the term Battle for France but want to use a criterion that would work better (slightly) if you used Battle of France. By using for you show that the campaign was bigger than France. I suggest that you also misunderstand the nature of the Clausewitzian term because decisive means a battle with political consequences. Such a battle would be that of Smolensk in 1941 because that was where the Germans lost the ability to win by military means; decisive doesn't mean the last battle but the one that determined the course of the war, something that must be based on hindsight. Midway might also qualify for the Pacific War. I won't call your claim a straw man but I might be tempted to suggest that you are disingenuous. Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You couldn't be anymore duplicitous in your discourse! Indeed, whoever said the Clausewitzian definition is the one to which we abide? All one needs to research is the definition of "decisive", in any context, it is the production of a definite result. Therefore, the Battle of France is indeed decisive in concluding that Germany completed, by definite result, all of its strategic objectives. With your way of going about this, we may as well mark every decisive battle (except the final battles of a war) as indefinite in deciding a victor! KevinNinja (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:AGF; it isn't a matter of our opinion or its constant and rather boring reiteration, it's what the RS say.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
Template:Infobox military conflict please refer to this before editing the infobox.Keith-264 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the previous edit is not only more detailed and correct; but it is much cleaner indeed. The territory changes in your version are overly complicated and paragraph like. I don't see a reason to change it, if it has been like this for a long time (and has worked just fine). Indeed, the wikipedia tutorial states that the territory section "should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement."


 * Perhaps a combination of our styles would be of order. I can see how the pointers in the result field may be missing context, but it doesn't serve the purpose any better by cramming everything into the territorial changes section.KevinNinja (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your beliefs are of no consequence, Template:Infobox military conflict is. Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On reflection I have rm the territory criterion because it falls between two stools.Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You cannot just revert a section after months of discussion of the topic, proving you to be wrong on your assumptions every single time. I am trying to create a dialogue where we can jointly agree on the outcome of this matter, but you seem not to be joining. Wouldn't it be quicker for us to create something that has elements from both of our styles? Because, replacing the entire lower part of the infobox with an aftermath section, when the outcome of the conflict is clearly known, is absurd to say the least. Also nonsensical is removing the territorial changes section. KevinNinja (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, are you French? It is almost as if I sense bias in your actions, because there is no other logical explanation for your edits that I can think of. KevinNinja (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All things aside, I think it would be much better for us to focus on fixing things from the GA review instead of wasting our time engaging in wasteful rhetoric. KevinNinja (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from bluster and read


 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.


 * territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.

How can these requirements be reconciled with the bloated edits you keep reverting to or the personal abuse in your talk page comments? Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the debate is still open, instead of having fizzled out weeks ago, we will have to rehearse the matter again, during which the infobox shouldn't be edited.Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's talk! But i've reverted it to what it was originally, not your simplified version, because that only makes sense. Please point out, specifically, why you think an Aftermath section is better than what is currently there? Please refrain from reusing your arguments, which point only to battles that "win the war" (ie final battles..) as decisive.


 * 1. result - "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome"... this does not apply to the article as the outcome is clearly known. Use common sense.


 * 2. territory - not sure why you've decided to remove this. Worked all along.


 * Monsieur, this time, please care to rebut my arguments instead of re-circling. KevinNinja (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a question to ask you: do you think that the battle was decisively won by Germany? The answer is most probably negative, and I'd like to know why. KevinNinja (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again I remind you that this is a matter for the RS. They were exhaustively trawled and show no consensus so the matter should be described in the Analysis section.Keith-264 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody. First of all, if we're gonna keep things sane while we talk and preempt any need for admin tool usage - lets keep the infobox the way it was before the disputed, non-consensus edits were made. Second, full disclosure, I was invited here by KevinNinja on account of my previous involvement in this non-issue.

Third, this is a non-issue. And bothering people with it is imo an abuse of dispute resolution mechanisms. The Battle of France is the Battle of France - not the entirety of WWII. It was a decisive victory for the Germans. I have no complaints about adding a link to the Aftermath section, but lets not use that as a red herring in debating whether "German victory" should be in there, that's borderline comical. -- Director  ( talk )  04:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is silly and you made it worse, I suggest you change your approach. Keith-264 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I made it worse for your weird revisionist agenda. Suggestion noted, here's mine: stop edit-warring to push your opposed edit in. -- Director  ( talk )  13:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Full Protection for One Week
Due to edit warring, I've full protected the article for one week. Work it out, find consensus, instate the consensus view after a week. If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * While this week passes - might be a good idea for all editors to read archives 1, 2 and 4 for this article. All of these issues we are rehashing now were initially hashed then. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RS on result
If we must go through this again, I suggest we poll the RS

[Copied from Archive 4 7 October 2015]

The War in France and Flanders (Ellis 1953) Ch XXIII, pp. 315–328: Conduct and Consequences of the Campaign

The loss to the Allied cause implied by the conquest of France, Belgium and Holland cannot be measured exactly.... For them the immediate effect of the campaign was to...consolidate the foundations on which were built the forces of final victory. Ellis, pp. 327 & 328

To Lose a Battle (Horne 1969) Ch 21, pp. 646–666: Aftermath

Soon Hitler's astounding achievements in France would turn to dust.... Britain would remain at war, inviolate. And as long as Britain was there, it was inevitable that sooner or later the immense power of the United States would be brought in to. Horne, pp. 653 & 654

on the other hand

Before the decisive battle opened.... Luftwaffe... constituted a decisive factor at this stage of the Second World War. Horne, pp. 656 & 658

The Blitzkrieg Legend (Frieser 2005) Ch 11, pp. 347–353: Summary and Epilogue

....This is where [Sedan] the Germans in 1870 and 1940 had been able to win two of their most significant victories....In contrast to World War I, swift, operational, battles of decision now again seemed possible [but] the generals forgot who really won the Second Punic War. Cannae was only a passing operational success.... Frieser, pp, 349 & 350

Clearly room for discussion even in these three examples from a crowded field of candidates. What do the other RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?

I invite interested editors to contribute from their sources and abide by NPOV. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Survey cont.
 * ...Germany won the campaign.... ...fall of France.... ...unexpected collapse.... p. XV ...collapse.... p. XVI ...swiftly defeated.... p. 350

Doughty Breaking Point (2014)


 * Few defeats have been as unexpected or as sudden as France's collapse. Few have altered so fundamentally the status or standing of a nation within the community of nations. p. IX ...the resulting debacle.... p. X

Doughty Seeds (2014)


 * In a matter of weeks the French army surrendered and the British army slipped across the Channel. p. 306 In May 1940 Gamelin had also thrown the dice in an all-or-nothing gamble – and lost. p. 332 Germany's defeat of France was a triumph, but Hitler realized its significance would shrink the longer the war went on. Time remained a real player. p. 342

Maiolo Cry Havoc (2010)


 * Germany's victory over France gave it a remarkable position of power over the Continent of Europe. p. 393 In the weeks following the French collapse, Hitler clearly did hope that Britain would react to the loss of its major continental ally by accepting Germany's offer of an Imperial partnership. pp. 393–394 Despite the Wehrmacht's triumph in France, British recalcitrance exposed the fundamental problem of German strategy. Hitler had unleashed a war with Britain without a coherent plan as to how to defeat that country. p. 395 Defeat of France in a few short weeks.... p. 661

Tooze Wages (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The defection of France meant the ruin of the strategy so laboriously planned in the previous year. p. 209

Butler Grand Strategy (1957)


 * The Germans' unease over the "Miracle of Dunkirk" was limited, however; the rapidity of their victory over France served as sufficient consolation. p. 85

Megargee High Command (2000) Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The result in May 1940 of these technological, tactical, doctrinal, and organizational developments was a bold operational approach that produced one of the most crushing military victories of the twentieth century.... pp. 374–375 In short the advances in land warfare that defeated France and pushed the British off the continent....p. 375

Murray & Millett Innovation...Interwar (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Army of the Third Reich was a failure....it conquered Poland in twenty-seven days....France in thirty-nine....The first transient victories.... pp. VII–VIII In June they took Paris, defeated France, and turned their attention on Great Britain. The impression made on contemporary minds by these fast and devastating victories was immense.... p. 113 But it was to the south that the decisive stroke was mounted....The campaign in the west had lasted just forty-six days and had been decided, effectively, within ten...a decisive attack in which manoeuvre and organisation counted for far more than men and weapons. The speed and decisiveness of the German victors.... pp. 217–218

Cooper German Army (1978)


 * You can cherry-pick 20 more sources you interpret as vaguely supporting your position - and this affair would be no less ridiculous. These sources do not support you - this article is about the Battle of France, a specific conflict, not World War II. And no respectable historian in their right mind would claim it wasn't an Axis victory. Moreover its a German victory if there ever was one, by your argument no battle the Axis powers ever engaged in was a "victory". Oppose.


 * And look, if you actually start edit-warring again over your opposed edits - I will at once request assistance for the community. This is absurd. -- Director  ( talk )  13:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The change from Analysis to Vichy isn't opposed it's a separate matter, unless you object specifically. Change it back if you must but there isn't a shred of analysis in it.Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you even realised that "German victory" is a term I would support? The disputes here have always been about whether it was decisive. You are conducting gang warfare and your assumption of bad faith and edit warring is as self-serving as it is ignorant. I suggest you lay off the personal abuse too, I'm better at it than youKeith-264 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The personal attacks really should stop. It'll be a lot easier to gain consensus that way. FWIW the suggestion that the battle of France was non-decisive ignores the strategic reality. The Germans needed to avoid a two-front or prolonged war. The fact that they were able to put away the western allies in a short campaign was massively important for them. And while Britain was undefeated, Britain and Germany were mutually unable to put the hurt on each other. The influence on the development of the rest of the war was massive. There was no land combat in an important western theater until mid-1944. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I should add the perhaps obvious point that the single most important US Army operation of the entire war - the invasion of France- was in part aimed at reversing the outcome of the Battle of France. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "The supreme effort of the Western Allies in Europe" - US Army official History, Cross-Channel Attack, p.1.
 * Erm, don't you think it was an Allied attack? The point I've been making all along is that it's not for us to judge, it's not NPOV. I made a start and it would be nice of everyone chipped in with their sources. Thanks for your well-mannered comments. Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're removing "G victory". The victory was "decisive" in that it decided the war on the continent. Again - the scope of the Battle of France, and this article(!), is the war on mainland Europe in May and June of 1940. In that respect, the battle was a swift and decisive victory for the Germans. It decided the war in France. IT DID NOT "DECIDE" WORLD WAR II, yes - but this article isn't titled "World War II"! Its not titled "Battle of Britain" either - but Battle of FRANCE.


 * Pardon the caps, but I'm incredibly annoyed to have been roused from my soft slumber for such a banality. I've mentioned the edit war on WP:ANI, here. -- Director  ( talk )  16:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Lay off the narcissistic posturing, you're not at home. Following your capital example, it Was A German Victory but the RS are not consistent in calling it decisive. Didn't you read my last comment? My view has been that it can be described either as a German victory or 'See Aftermath Section' as per Template:Infobox military conflict and you are still agreeing with me and then slagging me off. You are substituting opinion for NPOV as per the RS in a foul (and sadly typical) mouthed way.Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment above includes both "US Army" and "Western Allies" and is sourced. Ironic that the article we are discussing does not actually address the major consequences of the battle - the loss of an entire theater of operations; the (very big) French Army & Navy taken off the table (their air force seems to have taken themselves off the table during the campaign...); the shock amongst leaders of other armies to see that modern combined-arms operations could accomplish what they did, the effect in eastern Europe, which was now vulnerable to a German ONE-front war, etc. Instead it leads with the establishment of the Vichy regime, which is way down the list of major consequences IMO. The US Army formed its armored divisions and tank destroyer force directly as a result of the French campaign. There are a lot of things missing from the consequences/aftermath section. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to "the single most important US Army operation of the entire war" this. Do your sources describe the Battle of France as decisive or not?Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. There is such a thing as WP:BLUE, Keith-264. Drop this.. -- Director  ( talk )  16:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well said. I honestly don't care very much whether the info box uses the word 'decisive' or not. I am saying several things though:
 * a) Any suggestion that the campaign was non-decisive, unimportant, or not dispositive of a great many issues is a nonserious argument.


 * Do you agree that it was a German victory?Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * b) Regardless of the info box, the article could use improvement in terms of describing the aftermath/result whatever we would like to call it.


 * I agree, the article needs work on lots of sections and the section that I labelled analysis is anything but; when I looked at it again and reverted myself for carelessness, I got slagged off.Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * c) These consequences include all the things I noted above, plus other things I haven't got the brains to think of right now.


 * I was recently rather chuffed to find a cheapo edition of Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster to go with The Breaking Point which is why I have returned to editing the article, to add something new rather than go round in circles here. How are you getting on with your survey of the RS? Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I ask again that folks refrain from personal attacks for crying out loud. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My suggestion, therefore, is that we all redirect our energies to a much revamped Aftermath or Effects section. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite agree; it that how we left things last time? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for the purposes of explanation. It is not to say that we should redirect users to an Aftermath section, when the outcome is clearly known. The scope of the aftermath section is different to all other sections in that its scope encompasses what happened after the battle. You will notice that this is not the case for the infobox. KevinNinja (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Will you agree to "German victory"?Keith-264 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually I have a cunning plan. I think this deserves an article of its own. I believe it can be richly sourced. Tooze is an excellent start. The economic consequencies of the German occupation of France Tooze argues, (damn I dont have my copy to hand) that actually the German occupation actually cost German resources. In other words the occupation was a net loss. That, and/or a radical restructuring of the aftermath section. I belive old Keef is on to something, but we are getting bogged down in narrow defs. Sure it was a military victory, but it is much more highly nuanced than that, imho. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd agree to "German victory", with the bullet points which sit beneath the current "Decisive German Victory". There seems to be very considerable ambiguity as to what constitues a decisive victory and I think it right to remove that word. Equally I think there's broad agreement that the Germans won the battle, and so replacing "Decisive German Victory" with "See aftermath section" was not a good call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been willing to settle for either all along... I think that see Aftermath is good, because the reader can go straight to the minutiae. When I looked at the Analysis I realised that it isn't an analysis (i.e. a survey of RS verdicts on the BofF showing variations caused by passage of time, schools of thought, new evidence, translations of French and German sources, Tooze (2006) etc). I took the list out of Territory because I had re-read the criteria for inclusion and copied them into the talk page, I shouldn't have put them there in the first place. With a decent analysis section the territory section (if used at all) need only have the territorial changes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The notion of bullet points may be good but let's ensure we have the right ones, i.e., the most important consequences of the campaign. The creation of the free french forces is certainly not in the top three. The Free French were a *tiny* addition to the Allied OOB until much later in the war and then only with US lend-lease.
 * DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I'd be happy to see that one go. The first two look sound. Keith, the very strong argument against "See aftermath" is that there was an unambiguous German victory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We should not go too far on the Tooze argument; the strategic consequences of the campaign were HUGELY in Germany's favor. It was a massive, cheap and enduring victory. That their occupation then may have been a net loss economically doesn't change that. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Per Ferguson and The Pity of War, the Germans won WW1. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There has never been a despute about it being a German victory. Enduring I'm not sure four years counts. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure 4 years "counts"? The Germans eliminated an entire theater, quickly and at low cost. By the time land combat resumed in western Europe the war had less than a year to go. Of course it was enduring; the time span covers most of the war. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Four years is a third of the thousand-year Reich, It hardly endured.Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have I misunderstood your point? It seems to me to be potentially perverse to rejection of one of the best RS of the last fifty years. Describing his view is a valid use of a source, because we can't make a synthesis out of RS, only describe what they say. I've listed ten sources so far on what the Battle of France meant, not judged them against an a priori opinion.Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea what your comment means, sorry. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Tooze is one of the best RS of the last 50 years. You can't ignore him because his findings contradict preconceived ideas. Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. Nowhere do I say 'ignore Tooze'. And please do not attempt to read my mind by suggesting why I might want to ignore him - which, again, I did not suggest.
 * For the second time, I ask you not to insert comments in mid-thread, it makes it very difficult to sort out. I am not the only editor to make this request of you, Keith.
 * Four years is most of WW2. I am having trouble taking this seriously when I have to point this out, but, it happens to be important. Germany's strategic problem right from 1871 was the problem of two-front wars. In May-June 1940, against all expectations including their own, they solved that problem. They did not have to worry about their western front for four years. Sounds pretty decisive to me, according to the wiki definition. Again I am far less concerned with the infobox, which was the original point of dispute, than I am with having a really well-done Aftermath section that lays this out.
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You wrote this We should not go too far on the Tooze argument, what did you expect me to think? It looks like OR and if you resent me trying to read your mind, show me a little empathy for the abusive comments I've been receiving from other editors and explain it to me.
 * For the second time, if you are going to make points in a list, number them so I can comment underneath without losing the thread. Commenting under each point is a common practice in GA reviews and is not bad manners here.
 * No it wasn't, this is a myth, Germany's problem was in being confronted by bigger coalitions, not the number of fronts. The Germans worried about the Western Front all through the war and began to make military sacrifices in Russia in the second half of 1943 to reinforce it as they had earlier in Italy. Wiki isn't a source; especially one not cited and a stub.Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Could we now go for "German victory" and the first two bullet points, without opening new fronts on Tooze and interleafing comments, so that the article can be unprotected. (Also ffs, tbh.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I heartily agree with ffs; I'm reminded of the suggestion in Arkell vs. Pressdram nearly every time I look into the talk page. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Parked
* Keith-264 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

New "Aftermath" section proposal
I suggested above that we rework the aftermath section rather than edit war abut the results info box.

I am just going to list a few major consequences of the campaign; I haven't yet sourced them but I will. Just trying to get a more productive discussion going here.

Major immediate effects:
 * Defeat of France et al resulted in the loss of an entire theater of operations
 * Large, modern French Army & Navy taken off the Allied order of battle

Indirect effects:
 * Demonstration of modern combined-arms operational success leads to major force restructuring in US Army
 * ? Effects on British Army force structure? I honestly do not know.

Political Effects:
 * Germany offers peace proposal to Britain
 * Occupation of northern France
 * Italy enters WW2
 * Establishment of Vichy regime

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

-- Reformatting -- Keith, PLEASE stop inserting your comments into mine. It makes it very difficult to track who wrote what. Thank you. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you number them I won't need to.

--
 * It can't have been, Britain continued the war but of course what matters is what the RS say.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Split between majority Vichy and minority Free French so even worse than that, when Operation Catapult went off.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red Army reforms after the Finland fiasco, Khalkhin Gol triumph and the French debacle
 * Maiolo made the interesting point that the British and the Red Army perfected the French model of methodical battle and that the pirouettes of the German ubersoldiers and their continuous battle was futile and exposed in 1941. The main effect on the British army was to deprive it of much of the equipment manufactured in the 30s and lead to decisions for quantity over quality.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Economic effects
 * Germany remained inside the British blockade and France joined it, the French economy declined by about 50% in 1940 and shrank for the rest of the war
 * The British boss class chose to be a US protectorate rather than a German satellite and threw economic rectitude out the window
 * Dependence on Russian appeasement meant that Germany would decline compared to the USSR, hence the rush to invade
 * Anticipation of the Anglo-American air fleets under construction increased Hitler's need to steal the USSR and its commodity output
 * The anti-German coalition that began to form in 1938 after Munich quickened with US rearmament (Two-Ocean Navy Act, Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 etc)
 * The US decision to back the British empire with guns and moneyKeith-264 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2016


 * 1 Yes, Britain continued the war - but in other theaters of operation. The western European theater was shut down for four years. And of course, with the exception of the Atlantic (naval&air) theater, these were much less important theaters. Again, I reference the US Army official history on that.
 * 2 Free French forces were practically nonexistent in June 1940. They became significant much later and I don't think we can attribute that directly to the French campaign.
 * 3 The Red Army was re-re-forming anyway. Trying to return to their more advanced state of, say, 1936.
 * 4 I wonder when the British Army began forming their armored divisions and tank brigades? They had only one division in 1940. Honest question: were the additional divisions formed as a result of 1940?
 * Agreed there were major effects in the USA.
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. No it didn't, Bomber Command was the principal offensive force against Germany
 * 2. I know that's why I put minority
 * 3. The Red Army was galvanised by the sensation in France
 * 4. There was one (1st) armoured division in Britain and one (7th) in Egypt but the result of the French gig led to an emphasis on tank production to form new units, which overtook German production in 1941. In 1944 the Second Army was the most armoured army in the world. Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Precisely my point. If Bomber Command was the main effort, frankly that ain't a theater of war, its just a theater.
 * You're correct Britain had two armored divisions before the French campaign, not one as I wrote. The 1st Armoured Division was, like most of the French armored divisions, so recently formed that it was ineffective as a unit. In Normandy, correct, the 2nd Army had a huge number of armor units, which was intended for their breakout that never happened. I don't know enough about the history of the formation of British armored units; I can't tell if they were forming lots of units in 1940-41 as a result of the French campaign or if that is simply an artifact of the whole Army expanding.
 * Please consider this my third request for a bit more civility. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You didn't need the first one, what have you taken offence at?


 * 1Theatre of war and theatre...? Don't know what that means.
 * 2The Second Army had three armoured divisions and (eventually) eight armoured and tank brigades. Breakout? It was always planned to come in the west. The British armoured divisions showed what they were made of in the dash from the Seine to the Dutch border and the dash from the Rhine to the Baltic.
 * 3The army had been intended to be an armoured and motorised supplement to the big French army, after Dunkirk the target size was increased and the armoured element was too, hence the push for a big increase in production.Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a brief note to reinforce the last comment. Per David French's research, the British Army started the armoured division concept supplemented by motorized territorial divisions in the late 30s with the intention of breaching and breaking through. Per Buckley, by Normandy these division were intended as Keith mentioned and instead were utilized as bulldozers in every operation against their express intention and design. More later, on topic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in here after my day or two absence. I agree with your first suggestion (which Keith misunderstood): " I suggested above that we rework the aftermath section rather than edit war abut the results info box."


 * Here is my reasoning, as explained in the previous post as well: "It is not to say that we should redirect users to an Aftermath section, when the outcome is clearly known. The scope of the aftermath section is different to all other sections in that it may encompass what happened after the battle. Indeed, it should! You will notice that this is not the case for the infobox." KevinNinja (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What have I misunderstood? What is your evidence from RS that the result is clearly known? Keith-264 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We won't play the RS game when you cherry pick sources. Since we all know that Germany won the battle, we must focus on the problem here, which is scope. The info box has scope on the battle. The only part in the article where this differs is the aftermath section.
 * Add your own sources or explain why you can accuse me of cherry-picking and it not be a failure of AGF, WP:game. Unless I've missed something.... have you looked at RS and realised that you don't have a leg to stand on? That aside, will you agree to "German victory"> Yes or no?Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood in the fact that he was suggesting a revamp of the aftermath section, not removing all context and pointing to the aftermath section. You are the only one who is making an issue of this, and its senseless. KevinNinja (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil I didn't misunderstand, you're fantasising. Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. Put up or shut up Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't get into the Aftermath section issue, but permit me to reiterate my strong opposition to removing "Decisive German victory" from the infobox. This was a devastating blow that definitively ended all operations in France and the Low Countries for three years, knocked France out of the war for good (its called "Battle of France"!), and very fundamentally affected the course of World War II. These are basically BLUE facts that are being challenged (again!) by what's essentially OR. No reputable historian in his right mind would contest that this was a decisive defeat for the good guys - probably the most significant of the entire war.

And I will be frank, 'cause that's kind of my thing: I believe this entire annoying issue (Aftermath proposals included) being pushed again for the fiftieth time - is solely about the British flag being there in the infobox under the "Decisive defeat" result heading. The "BoB" is something of a national myth in the UK nowadays, blown way out of proportion in terms of both scope and significance, and I think that's what causes disruptions to this article on a regular basis. "Defeated??! We?? What with the RAF not being destroyed?? Poppycock!" :)

Next we'll be hearing how the Malayan Campaign "wasn't really decisive" since the front just moved to Burma... -- Director  ( talk )  19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OR Everything you have written is irrelevant, un-WP:Civil and here solely about the British flag is fatuous if it's aimed at me, I'm. an. anarchist. How would you like it if I wrote that you were an illiterate, American ignoramus? Why not show that you are serious about writing a good article, by going through your sources to see which ones have decisive German victory and those that don't? I suggest that it is a more productive activity than blustering and calling me names. Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, Director, that was pretty funny.
 * I think when we try to magically figure out the motivations of other editors we stray into thing we cannot know and that will just hurt our ability to work together.
 * I don't care whether the info box says "German Victory" or "Decisive German Victory" - either is OK with me....I think adding 'decisive' is certainly accurate and citable and Director expressed the reasons why very well (although I think he meant 4 years ;). But if it's going to cause constant reverts it's simply not worth it. Sometimes you can see these things coming. Look at the old talk pages. We've been here before and we have better things to do.
 * The Aftermath section as it stands now, regardless of this infobox argument, is pretty bad. That's why I suggested a rework to solve both problems at once. A well-crafted aftermath section will make it damned clear that the Germans achieved a yuuuuge victory that had really massive effects on the course of the war, even on nonbelligerents (the USA at the time).   DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't, I think it's embarrassing but I agree that writing a better aftermath is a good idea. I'm working on an analysis section and will add it to the talk page, rather than waste my time here wondering where all the grown-ups have gone. Morpheus, no-one has shown a RS that deprecates the magnitude of the German victory, it's only the word decisive that is tendentious and I'm the only one who's cited a RS that uses the term. Did it really change the course of the war though? Germany was weaker than the 1940 coalition, had a big, unlikely victory but still lost, only managing to take longer. As for the neutrals, you might find Tooze quite supportive. I have a few more sources to look at but there are some really good ones in the bibliography that I don't have. Is there a reluctance to join in because it might show that I've got a point? Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keith, this is a good example of a snarky comment that makes it difficult to edit with you. Calling other editors children is incredibly corrosive to cooperation. Maybe some are 'reluctant' because: a) You insult them frequently, and b) You seem to be seriously arguing whether the fall of France fundamentally changed the course of the war. That is nonserious. Maybe step aside and let other people edit this article without you? After June 1940, the Allied "coalition" consisted of ....who exactly? Britain-on-the-ropes and....?  A couple battalions of exiles?
 * I am going to disengage now, this was silly a long time ago. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Morpheus, OK, Director, that was pretty funny, "OK Keith that was snarky I'm bailing out", not exactly even-handed is it? I have resorted to retaliation against the provocation of serial abuse (which I shouldn't) and all you can see are my retorts. Thanks very much, you haven't even complimented me on how stylish they are. As for your view about the war, like mine it's irrelevant to Wiki, we aren't RS. Why is this so difficult? Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was channeling General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, KCB.

"Three years".. ok two and a half years.. I was thinking of Case Anton :). -- Director  ( talk )  09:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Baaaah.Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gobbledygook. -- Director  ( talk )  12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources on 'Decisive' Victory
The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean. West Point Military History Series, published by the history dept of the United States Military Academy. P.15 "Destruction of the enemy forces in quick, decisive, offensive battles, accordingly, remained the keystone of German strategic and tactical doctrine." P. 45: "By Feb 1940, Case YELLOW had been drastically revised and now had a decisive objective: to cut off and destroy Allied forces north and west of Sedan." (obviously this decisive objective was achieved-DM2). P.48, Rundstedt's breakthrough labeled "decisive". p. 50, "In six weeks, the Allied armies in Western Europe had been shattered and pursued with a vengeance reminiscent of Napoleon." p. 51 Hitler sued Britain for peace.DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Decision in Normandy, LTC Carlo D'Este, p. 18-19: "....the pressing need to defend the British isles against invasion made any thoughts of a quick return to the continent of Europe fantastical. British priorities lay in simple survival; indeed it was evident....that immediate American aid was essential if Britain were to hold out against Hitler." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Berlin, Roman Jarymowycz, p. 89, "The Battle of France in 1940 had demonstrated the decisive power of massed armor." p. 107, discussing objectives for the Normandy campaign, "Above this hovered the political and military expectations that the Allied armored force would effect a rapid and decisive victory that would parallel, if not overshadow, German victories in 1940." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 12:5, still no seegar.Keith-264 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources on Aftermath
The sources below support the bullets I outlined above regarding the effects of the battle on force structures in the German, US and Canadian armies. Essentially, these sources support the idea that previous usage of tanks in WW1, Spain, Poland etc. had not shocked the world's armies into changing their thinking. France did. Both the US and Canadian armored forces were formed directly as a result of the French campaign. The Germans concluded they were on the right track and continued to expand their armored forces. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean. West Point Military History Series, published by the history dept of the United States Military Academy. p. 51: "The 1940 campaign in the west was the first German experience against a numerically equal enemy with modern equipment. Evaluation of this campaign convinced the Germans that tactical concepts for the conduct of mobile warfare were correct."DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century, Jonathan House. P.114 "Yet the Germans defeated the Allies so rapidly that they seemed to validate the concept of blitzkreig in Germany and abroad...." p. 117, "The sudden collapse of France in 1940 caused professional soldiers in many armies to reassess their organizations, training, and doctrine." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Battleground: The Greatest Tank Duels in History, Steve Zaloga, p. 10: "Tank-versus-tank combat was a rarity until the 1940 battle of France." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Berlin, Roman Jarymowycz, p.60, "As late as 1939, after blitzkreig had savaged the Polish army (which had more tanks than the U.S. Army) into submission, the Chief of Infantry (all US tanks were under the Infantry branch- DM2), General Lynch, went on record as saying the US Infantry did not want any "Panzer Divisions"." DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * p. 71 "It was the third time Chaffee had proposed an Armored Force.....His recommendations had been regularly dismissed, but this was June 1940: the Germans had just crushed both the British Expeditionary Force and the French Army . Chaffee now preached to interested ears." The US Armored Force was created on July 10, 1940 p. 71. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * P. 75 "German aggression brought the (Canadian-DM2) government to its senses and it reacted remarkably quickly. On 13 August 1940, after the fall of France, the minister of national defence ordered the creation of an Armoured Corps."


 * P. 83 "The Battle of France in 1940 had been an epiphanic experience. if Poland had been dismissed as a lucky victory against a second-rate opponent, then no one could deny the triumph of panzers over both the French Army and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF)". "....the campaign in France at once legitimized mechanization..."DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Effect of the French campaign (but not Poland) on US defense spending: History of the United States Army, Russell Weigley, p. 424-425: early 1940, FDR proposes an Army budget of $853 million. "....the fall of France suggested that the French and perhaps soon the British fleet might pass into German control." Revised US Army budget after the fall of France: $ 1,585 million. I.e., the Army budget nearly doubled in the space of a few months when the USA was not at war; the increase was not due to the outbreak of the European war but due to the French campaign. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Why the Allies Won, Richard Overy. p.137-8 : The Victory Plan, which was the overall plan for rearmament in the USA written in July 1941, "...was based on the assumption that at some time western forces would need vast army and air equipment for re-entry to the European continent." I.e., the major assumptions underlying the massive US economic effort in WW2 include the goal of reversing the French campaign. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Postwar: "Britain and France, the key actors in 1919, found their postwar international position fatally weakened by their inability to stop Germany in 1940. Without allies there would have been no way that Britain could secure her empire, let alone defeat her enemies, once the French Army was out of the contest. After 1945 Britain and France became powers of the second rank."DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, could you add the publication dates? Keith-264 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Truly thou art akin to the foundation of a sturdy sequoia, DMorpheus2. Reading your posts is therapeutic: the patience, the zen.. Reading Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingbird-Massingbird, VC, DFC and Bar over here just makes me want to use the word "gobbledygook" more often in conversation.
 * I'm not even kidding, kudos for actually verifying for this gentleman the fact that the Battle of France was a serious defeat. I know I could never do it. -- Director  ( talk )  11:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You've changed from Decisive victory to serious defeat, I think that's a fair summary of the RS. I was talking to your friend General Melchett about differences of opinion yesterday and he congratulated me for my ripostes,

"Well, I hope so, Blackadder-264. You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!"

thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thing is, all I have in this box of standard entries for the parameter is "decisive victory".. it'll have to do for the most serious Allied defeat of WWII. (I was hoping we could use "Wooble", but no luck...) -- Director  ( talk )  16:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A fair summary of the RS, including most of the ones posted by K-264, leads to at least 'German Victory' if not 'Decisive German Victory'. I had said before I could live with either but, thinking more carefully and looking at other comments, if this wasn't decisive then nothing in WW2 was decisive except maybe atomic bombing. We should, all together now, draft a better aftermath section also. There's some good stuff here.
 * RS's must not only be counted but weighed. Two of the sources I listed are textbooks used to train Army officers. IMO they have a lot more weight & rigor than popular histories. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we apply a qualitative criterion, it has to be derived from the RS, not our subjective assumptions about the value of each source. On that bombshell, Doughty The Breaking Point looks like a good place to start. Are you still under the impression that I don't agree with German Victory? I've always been willing to settle for it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Decisive is the word you're missing for a victory so crushing, that it sent Allied forces running for some boats on the beach at Dunkirk. With 1.9 million captured, it was a decisive victory that proved combined arms combat as a superb military technique and made military tacticians around the world question their own strategies. Kieth, Sources explaining the devastation of this historic decisive victory have been posted for you, and as such I believe that this discussion is over. KevinNinja (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:OR, WP:Synth that being the case, the score is 13:5 I believe. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Top three bullets in infobox?
This might be a good time to ask for opinions on the top three bullets to be included in the infobox, based on some of the discussion above. I suggest at least these two:


 * French surrender
 * Allied loss of western front until 1944

Other contenders for top three bullets might be:
 * Italian entry into WW2
 * Strategic shift in favor of nazi Germany

Other opinions???? DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Initial thoughts:


 * French Surrender
 * Axis gain French Atlantic seaboard
 * Italy enters WW2 as an Axis power

I think these are the main takeaway points from the result. I think strategic shift would be better covered in an improved aftermath section, as it's a bit complex for a bullet. I would suggest adding the Atlantic seaboard because it became the best Axis opportunity to win the war in the west, enabling the Battle of the Atlantic to begin in earnest. The Italian entry bullet also I think is critical, and can be better handled in bullet format, and expanded in aftermath. Irondome (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Only points which fit the Territory criterion can go under territory, no bullet points are acceptable under result, for obvious reasons. If you want them mentioned you must replace German victory with See Aftermath section. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're totally wrong about that. Who told you bullets can't be used? They are used good articles around Wikipedia. Absurd. KevinNinja (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. (my bold).


 * QEDKeith-264 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Examples of articles with bulleted results in infobox:
 * American Civil War: "Union Victory", four bullets
 * Battle of Kursk: "Decisive Soviet Victory", two bullets
 * Battle of Berlin: "Decisive Soviet Victory", two bullets
 * Battle of Stalingrad: "Decisive Soviet Victory", two bullets
 * Battle of the Bulge: "Allied Victory, German Operational Failure", three bullets
 * Battle of Dien Bien Phu: "Decisive Viet Minh Victory", two bullets
 * Hundred Years' War: no explicit result, just four bullets


 * So, whether we agree this is policy or not, it is certainly common practice on some rather prominent articles. Nothing in the policy excludes this. Common sense applies. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you going to follow the rules or not? Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, (and as always I am willing to be corrected), there is no rule that says "no bullets may be used in infoboxes". The rule that K-264 keeps repeating is silent on this issue. When I am attempting to show is that, whatever the rule may be, the actual practice is that bullets are often used. WP:COMMON DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict
 * OK, here goes: result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". this shows what can go in so there's no need to show what can't. I think you'll need a lot more examples of A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner. non-standard infoboxes, before you can justify often. Notice the class ratings of your seven examples too, how many of the errant bullet points will survive scrutiny for higher class reviews? WP:Game WP:Dead horse Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I dunno, Keith. Let's ask:
 * Battle of Svolder [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of The Cedars [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Bosworth Field [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Gonzales [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Khafji [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Kieth, you keep quoting that section from the Wikipedia help page, without understanding what it actually means. The text reads that "see aftermath" should only be used so that contradictory or confusing terms like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat" are not used. In this case, "decisive German victory" describes the outcome perfectly. The bullets, which are used in many good articles in Wikipiedia, are just there for extra context or information that might be important about the result, and do not in any way apply to this contradiction of terms. KevinNinja (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As a side note, the example used -- "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat" basically describes Operation Barbarossa. That is one case where, yes, see aftermath can be used. KevinNinja (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My name is K e i t h. Keith-264 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ..You sure its not spelled "Keith"? -- Director  ( talk )  19:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Digging a hole....Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we though, K e i t h? KevinNinja (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope so, 'cause if this goes on I'll end up sanctioned for trolling. -- Director  ( talk )  14:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am reminded of that old saying, "when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table."
 * By my reading I suggest we are close to consensus for the current "Decisive German Victory" and should put some effort into 3 short bullets plus a really good aftermath page. This is an important article. Let's do it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By my reading there was already an explicit consensus for "decisive ger victory", long-standing in fact, and Keith has failed to build one for any changes.
 * At the end of the day, even if you still believe sources are on your side (which they really aren't), be aware that on this project WP:CON effectively trumps other policies (like WP:V). That's just how it is, sorry, see here for my ravings on the subject. I've been where you (think you) are now, but if you revert again I'll ask for a week's block. Lets move on here. --  Director  ( talk )  15:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

RS on the nature of the German victory
I have copied the list above to separate it from commentary [Copied from Archive 4 7 October 2015]

The War in France and Flanders (Ellis 1953) Ch XXIII, pp. 315–328: Conduct and Consequences of the Campaign

The loss to the Allied cause implied by the conquest of France, Belgium and Holland cannot be measured exactly.... For them the immediate effect of the campaign was to...consolidate the foundations on which were built the forces of final victory. Ellis, pp. 327 & 328

To Lose a Battle (Horne 1969) Ch 21, pp. 646–666: Aftermath

Soon Hitler's astounding achievements in France would turn to dust.... Britain would remain at war, inviolate. And as long as Britain was there, it was inevitable that sooner or later the immense power of the United States would be brought in to. Horne, pp. 653 & 654

on the other hand

Before the decisive battle opened.... Luftwaffe... constituted a decisive factor at this stage of the Second World War. Horne, pp. 656 & 658

The Blitzkrieg Legend (Frieser 2005) Ch 11, pp. 347–353: Summary and Epilogue

....This is where [Sedan] the Germans in 1870 and 1940 had been able to win two of their most significant victories....In contrast to World War I, swift, operational, battles of decision now again seemed possible [but] the generals forgot who really won the Second Punic War. Cannae was only a passing operational success.... Frieser, pp, 349 & 350

Clearly room for discussion even in these three examples from a crowded field of candidates. What do the other RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?

I invite interested editors to contribute from their sources and abide by NPOV. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Survey cont.
 * ...Germany won the campaign.... ...fall of France.... ...unexpected collapse.... p. XV ...collapse.... p. XVI ...in subsequent days the Germans won one of the most decisive victories in military history. pp. 349–350Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Doughty Breaking Point (2014)


 * Few defeats have been as unexpected or as sudden as France's collapse. Few have altered so fundamentally the status or standing of a nation within the community of nations. p. IX ...the resulting debacle.... p. X

Doughty Seeds (2014)


 * In a matter of weeks the French army surrendered and the British army slipped across the Channel. p. 306 In May 1940 Gamelin had also thrown the dice in an all-or-nothing gamble – and lost. p. 332 Germany's defeat of France was a triumph, but Hitler realized its significance would shrink the longer the war went on. Time remained a real player. p. 342

Maiolo Cry Havoc (2010)


 * Germany's victory over France gave it a remarkable position of power over the Continent of Europe. p. 393 In the weeks following the French collapse, Hitler clearly did hope that Britain would react to the loss of its major continental ally by accepting Germany's offer of an Imperial partnership. pp. 393–394 Despite the Wehrmacht's triumph in France, British recalcitrance exposed the fundamental problem of German strategy. Hitler had unleashed a war with Britain without a coherent plan as to how to defeat that country. p. 395 Defeat of France in a few short weeks.... p. 661

Tooze Wages (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The defection of France meant the ruin of the strategy so laboriously planned in the previous year. p. 209

Butler Grand Strategy (1957)


 * The Germans' unease over the "Miracle of Dunkirk" was limited, however; the rapidity of their victory over France served as sufficient consolation. p. 85

Megargee High Command (2000) Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The result in May 1940 of these technological, tactical, doctrinal, and organizational developments was a bold operational approach that produced one of the most crushing military victories of the twentieth century.... pp. 374–375 In short the advances in land warfare that defeated France and pushed the British off the continent....p. 375

Murray & Millett Innovation...Interwar (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Army of the Third Reich was a failure....it conquered Poland in twenty-seven days....France in thirty-nine....The first transient victories.... pp. VII–VIII In June they took Paris, defeated France, and turned their attention on Great Britain. The impression made on contemporary minds by these fast and devastating victories was immense.... p. 113 But it was to the south that the decisive stroke was mounted....The campaign in the west had lasted just forty-six days and had been decided, effectively, within ten...a decisive attack in which manoeuvre and organisation counted for far more than men and weapons. The speed and decisiveness of the German victors.... pp. 217–218

Cooper German Army (1978)
 * By that logic the 1927 Yankees sucked too. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

all contributions welcome. I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ...the conquest of France by the Germans in 1940 seemed at first to be a major disaster. But this was not a new experience for the French, and there were precedents to suggest that, although this might well be a lost battle, it was not necessarily a lost war. p. 3 ...and the Germans had realised that their great victory in France had misled them into believing that the world lay at their feet. p. 4 The decisive German victory of 1940.... p. 245

Warner Battle of France (2002)


 * ...an armistice following its amazing victory. p. 2

Smith Fighting Vichy (2010)


 * ...general collapse. p. 32 ...military defeat, even defeat on the scale the French had suffered. p. 33.

Ousby Occupation (1999)Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Germany's seeming preparations for an such an offensive were deceptive manoeuvres intended to pin down Allied forces and prevent their deployment in other, potentially decisive theatres such as Scandinavia or the Balkans. p. 8. ...it is more accurate to say that France lost a war in 1940, then later took part in another war that ended differently. p. 451

May Strange Victory (2000)Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Remarkable as it now seems, in 1939, and even in 1940 and 1941, British leaders were confident of victory.... So much so, that even without a great ally, France, they could see the way not just to avoiding defeat but to victory. p. 2 The defeat in the east was a devastating blow which weakened the Empire's capacity to fight Germany and Italy very considerably. The new necessity to fight on two fronts made the Empire dependent on the United States, which only now emerged as what Britain had until recently been, a great global power.... The dependence on the US was not a straightforward matter of subservience to a greater power, but an attempt through a division of labour to maximise the exploitation of common resources. pp. 4–5

Edgerton War Machine (2011)


 * Once again Keith, we turn to discussing scope. A majority of your sources explain why defeating France put Germany in an uncomfortable position with England, which is true. But, that's not what this article is about. Let me reiterate.


 * What the infobox is NOT about:
 * The infobox is NOT about the Aftermath of the battle.
 * The infobox is NOT about the significance of the battle in the grand scheme of the war.
 * The infobox is NOT about anything that occurred after the battle.
 * The infobox is NOT about the Battle of Britain.
 * The infobox is NOT about describing the position Germany was put in after the battle.


 * What the infobox IS about:
 * The infobox IS about describing the result of THE BATTLE.
 * Finally, this article IS about the BATTLE OF FRANCE.


 * Everything in the "NOT" section can be placed into the Aftermath section, which is where you should keep your ideas. Also, you'd probably be very welcome at Battle of Britain. They'd like you there!


 * You may also notice, the people who have decided to leave this discussion are simply tired of your weird historical biases, stubbornness without agreeing to anything except your own positions, and misunderstanding of scope. And no, your positions are not proved by your RS, because, like I've explained, you're just disproving yourself, and providing resources that only point to Germany's position after the war, not during the battle.


 * THE END. KevinNinja (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * All constructive contributions welcome. I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Kevin, if your claims are true, where are the RS to back them up? Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For information WikiProject Military history/Content guide. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, well, cordially, I've changed "this article" to "the infobox". And, like I've said, this discussion was never about RS, but it was about scope. A majority of your sources explain why defeating France put Germany in an uncomfortable position with England, which is true (Congrats on proving something!). But, that's not what the infobox is for. The infobox is about describing the result of the battle, not the implications that the result had. That, my friend, is what the aftermath section is for.
 * Further, since this is a discussion about scope (and sources?), here is my source: Template:Infobox military conflict.
 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. - I think you will find that this refers to the sources which describe the outcome of the battle, which are very obvious anyways. What sane historian would say that Germany didn't decisively win the battle? It's just a well known fact - sources not needed. Germany totally destroyed the allied resistance in France in a swift campaign, the likes of which had never been seen before in modern history. Thus, they decisively won the battle. Where I would agree with you for the needing of sources is in describing the aftermath or implications of the battle on the entire course of the war, which are the sources you are listing. Feel free to include those sources into the aftermath section. But, they don't belong in the discussion for the infobox, which just describe the basic result of the battle. This discussion is just so trivial. KevinNinja (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you agree to "German victory" because it's true and the RS say so or do you want to editorialise with OR? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed this bit In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. out for some reason.... All constructive contributions welcome. I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Kevin, if your claims are true, where are the RS to back them up? Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Most sources about the battle don't even consider the fact that someone would weirdly question the fact that Germany won the battle decisively. Most just explain how they won so decisively. This is because, yes, it is a fact (You might want to look at some high school history books, they might tell you who won?). I omitted the last section of that because "Decisive German victory" describes the result perfectly. KevinNinja (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have Citino, Corum, Jackson, DRZW II, if anyone can help I'd be grateful. Kevin, if your claims are true, where are the RS to back them up? German victory and "See the 'Aftermath' section" are the only ones which fit, unless you can quote RS that say different. Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He's still on...
 * The standard terms most certainly do suffice. This was not a strategic defeat, nor a defeat in any sense, for the Germans. This was both a strategic and tactical victory - you could put this thing in the dictionary next to "strategic victory". We do not require sources to explicitly use the term "decisive victory" in order for us to judge that is the standard term for use to use in this parameter. Short of the First Battle of Kiev (possibly), this is the most devastating defeat of Allied forces in the ENTIRE WAR.


 * You have no consensus, your proposal is laughable - move on. Stop parroting the same phrases like they mean anything, and please stop disrupting the talkpage.


 * @Kevin, all that can be said has been said, I don't know what purpose there is in continuing this charade. If he holds WP:CONSENSUS in such contempt as to yet again introduce his edits in spite of universal opposition, I don't know.. I'll ask for sanctions or something. Tb maybe. -- Director  ( talk )  14:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil, AGF Dead Horse etc. Me, Enigma, Irondome and Morpheus will settle for German victory. Why won't you acknowledge this or offer RS to support your claims? Keith-264 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As it happens I've found a reliable source that actually uses the explicit term 'decisive' German victory. Will post later when I have more time. But I may need to join my comrades in the 'decisive victory' camp after all.
 * Regarding the aftermath, the campaign also led directly to the creation of the Canadian Armoured Corps.
 * DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Splendid, so did I and despite my "cherrypicking" I added it but it's still about 15:3. Apropos, if you stop indenting every sentence when you comment, I'd be obliged, thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it's 12:2, the decisives are losing. Could there be anything more conclusive of the difference between RS and OR?Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not remotely conclusive. Let's not even bother going down such a silly path. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CivilKeith-264 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)