Talk:Battle of Lorraine

Requested move May 2006
Battle of Lorraine → Lorraine Offensive Battle of Loraine doesnt sound very good because a battle would be more a battle over a hamlet, village etc. while offensive is used to refer to a region. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarFreak (talk • contribs)  16:14, 7 May 2006  (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * strongly oppose the move, which ignores normal usage in both world wars, for names like the Battle of Britain, for strategic-level conflicts. Septentrionalis 19:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for for now for the same reason as Septentrionalis, but what is the common name for this battle? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's the Battle of Lorraine. Kafziel 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

There doesn't seem to be one common name for this battle. It is sometimes referred to as the "Battle of Morhange-Sarrebourg" (David Stevenson's 1914-1918 and Correlli Barnett's The Swordbearers). The Dictionary of the First World War calls it the "Invasion of Lorraine". Neither Keegan nor Tuchman seem to call it anything in particular. "Lorraine Offensive" is probably as good as any if there is a compelling reason to change. Gsl 08:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Lorraine Battle in World War II?
Wasn't there a "Battle of Lorraine" in World War II, a tank battle in which better trained American tankers defeated German tanks, which technological superiority was outweighted by their green crews? thestor (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit to section "Background - Belgium"
I've edited the following line:

"...that it was seen as a British protectorate..."

replacing it with the text,

"...and that the British would fight to protect Belgian independence."

A protectorate is a territory that stands under foreign control, with limited sovereignty. For example, the Middle Eastern territories formerly under Ottoman control up to the end of WWI were given over to the French and the British by the League of Nations as protectorates. They were not truly independent or sovereign. I don't think the original author of the article meant to say that Belgium stood under British control of her internal and foreign policy.

Of course, if the community believes that this edit is inappropriate, I will conform to their opinion.

Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)theBaron0530


 * Greetings, it comes from Strachan "By 1912 the Belgians reckoned that Britain saw Belgium's neutrality as a protectorate established in Britain's interests, not their own." Perhaps I could have phrased it better?Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, if you're quoting the source directly, you've made no mistake. But I'm curious in that case to see the original source and see the context. As I noted, a protectorate is something very specific, and it sounds like the meaning is being stretched.

Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)theBaron0530


 * Perhaps you could give Strachan a wigging? ;O) As it was, the treaty of 1839 was agreed to appease Britain. I assume that Strachan was pointing out that the Belgians were aware that their interests weren't necessarily the same as those of Britain (the boss classes that is)Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)