Talk:Battle of Messines (1917)/Archive 1

Duplication in Passchendaele
The section Passchendaele is actually longer than this article; some content should be merged here. regards, High on a tree 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it has been almost a year since you said that, but thanks for the info I will try to improve this article by merging here later. HighInBC 15:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just watched a documentary on German TV, confirming the 10.000 death toll figure given in the article, as well as the bit about the explosions being registered as an earthquake in Switzerland.

It also confirmed the site of an unexploded mine underneath a local farmhouse, as given in the Mesen article. The documentary said that, although older history books talk of two unexploded mines in total [as mentioned in the article], it is now deduced from wartime maps that the mine which exploded in 1955 was one of four unexploded mines (that would be IN ADDITION to the one under the farmhouse).

I only got the German title for the documentary, but I've got the name of the producer [Andy Webb] and the productione company [One on One production ltd], which makes it hightly likely that its original title was "Ultimate Explosions" (from the documentary series "The Ultimates") - apparently running on "Five" in the UK, as well as on "Discovery Channel Canada".

Two suggestions: - could someone cut the farmhouse bit from the "Mesen" article [where it sticks out like a sore thumb] and add it to this article here?

- the German wikipedia article "Schlacht von Messines" - apart from additional information for which there are no detailed sources given - has a list of English weblinks, which might also be a nice addition to this article.

consequences
I would think that there were some consequences of the overwhelming victory at Messines. For instance, the "ease" with which the British took the ridge likely made Haig cocky, leading to the total slaughter of Passchendaele. Just a thought. I might add that in later.

Cam 03:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * More correctly, British commanders failed to realize exactly what made the Messines operation so successful. Consequently, expectations for the Passchendaele offensive were overblown (perhaps even more than usual). It should probably be noted in the article that the results of Messines were misinterpreted at the time, but I don't know how much more we can read into this. Carom 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mines
The numbers don't add up here. If 21 mines were laid, and 19 were detonated, it isn't possible that 2 were found be the Germans and 2 were left undetonated, one of which later exploded, and one of which is still buried. I haven't read the Wolff book, but I haven't located any other author that mentions the discovery of two of the mines - what is his basis for saying this? Or were more mines laid than we have accounted for in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carom (talk • contribs)


 * I've been wondering about that somewhat myself. I've read a bit of the Hart book, and it says 21, the "Turning Points in History" says that it was 21, but the Wolff book says 19.  My guess is that I misinterpreted and one was discovered (or that the Germans came so close to it that they decided to remove it) and the other one was left unexploded.  The "Aftermath" says that two weren't detonated, because they were outside of the offensive.  If they were on Hill 60 (northernmost sector of attack), then one of them was removed because German tunellers were getting too close to the chamber (It's also entirely likely that they simply filled in the chamber and dismantled the detonation equipment, I hadn't thought of that).  I'll re-check that later, and then get back to you on your talk page.

Cam 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I re-read the bit on the mines, and it DOES say 20. It also says that the Germans found one, blew a defensive mine, and wrecked the gallery.  However, that doesn't mean the mine is gone.  It's entirely possible that THAT was the one hit by lightning (or the one not yet found), the Wolff book doesn't go into any of the after-details about the mines.  I'll look for more info.  Although I find it odd that the Wolff book says 20 were dug in the first place, while all my other sources say 22.  I'll check that out.

Cam 15:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Decisive Victory?
Why is the victory here decisive? After this battle there was the Passchendale battle, which didn't decide anything in this theatre. I think that between 1st Ypres and the german spring offensive nothing was decisive. 200.222.3.3 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It achieved all it's objectives in pretty much the time expected. German counter-attacks all failed.  Seems pretty decisive to me.  David Underdown (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that "decisive" is supposed to mean that it contributed to the result of the war as a whole, and this wasn't the case: a lot of it was retaken later by the germans in the spring offensive of '18 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive#Georgette). I would just classify it as "British Victory". 200.222.3.3 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll probably get wider input at WT:MILHIST, I see your point to a degree, but due to the degree of the success, pretty well unprecedented n teh Western Front for the Allies, then it would seem to be more thana bare victory. David Underdown (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe a Tactical victory? 200.222.3.3 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you should go with whatever the published sources say. Try not to bring your own opinion into it.Lawrencema (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But then what's the source? It's not noted there (i'm 200.222.3.3, logged now)Candlemass (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mallet
I see there are several refs to someone called "Mallet" - who isn't listed in the bibliograph. Who, or what, is this work? And how much credence can we put on his casualty figures? The Land (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd Royal Bavarian Division
2nd Bavarian Division wasn't there. It must be an error in "Wolf". 2nd Royal bav. division was in the Chemin des Dames/Forest of Argonne region that time, May/June 1917. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Liddell-Hart's verdict
"... the circumstances of the operations were substantially different and attempts to apply similar tactics would result in a general failure."

In this matter as in a few others he's wrong. Plumer's methods at Messines were adapted for 3rd Ypres (a much bigger operation) and delivered several crushing victories.Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Decisive?
Ian Passingham called it a "comprehensive and significant victory" (Pillars of Fire, (2004) p. 146), Hindenburg wrote "... we again succeeded in bringing the enemy to a halt before he had effected a complete breach in our lines." (The Great War, (2006) p. 143), Gary Sheffield has "Thus the Germans were allowed time to recover when they were at a point of maximum vulnerability" (The Chief, (2011) p. 227)Keith-264 (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"The battle of Messines was a brilliant British success, which lent itself to great possibilites for exploitation." (G.C. Wynne, If Germany Attacks, (1976) p. 280). "A great victory had been won by Plumer's Second Army, and with a swift completeness beyond that of any previous major operation of the British armies in France and Flanders.". (J.E. Edmonds, OH 1917 II, (1991) p. 87). At Messines they were knocked for six." (P. Griffith,Battle Tactics of the Western Front, (1996) p. 194), "With just one (sic) mighty punch" the Entente had achieved a great success, although the Germans finally prevailed in maintaining at least their positions in the immediate rear." (Heinz Hagenlucke, The German High Command, (Ch 4, Passchendaele in Perspective, 1997) p. 50).

No mention of decisive there....Keith-264 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Synchronisation
I have altered some of the section titles to coincide with the other pages on 3rd Ypres battles. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Material moved from main page to avoid repetition
The Official Historian called the attack a great victory. All the objectives had been taken with 7,354 prisoners, 48 guns, 218 machine guns and 60 trench mortars. It demonstrated that by bringing overwhelming firepower to bear and resisting the temptation to set distant objectives for the infantry, it was possible for the attacking side to prevail even against fortified positions. Second Army losses 1–12 June were 24,562 and German losses were 'about 23,000' (10,000 missing) 21 May–10 June. Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

SFN's
Tidied references and sfn'd the footnotes. All the pages associated with the 3rd Battle of Ypres are consistent with this system.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Revised edition
Revised the page to consolidate numerous piecemeal changes and submitted for a B-class assessment as the GA was obsolete. Suggestions and comments are welcome as usual.Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Has something gone wrong with the infobox?Keith-264 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, it appears okay on my screen right now. What seems to be wrong? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The open-and-closey bit was on open, with the list of Western Front battles in a column. It's gone now.Keith-264 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the template itself was edited, which is probably what was affecting the article. The edits have been reverted now, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Auntie, I'd rather you left the English spellings since this is an English article about a British military operation. Isn't that the convention?Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith....Absolutely it is, and I think I did, but if I didn't, it was accidental....I don't know what happened to the box, but it was wonky, however, it's fixed now. This is quite good.  I'll fix some grammar and flow stuff.  I think, to move it up to A (eventually), you'll need to improve upon the maps.  A general map showing where the battle took place in relation to the over-all salient would be helpful.  I know the geo tag links to a big map, but that is too big, and out of context.  The military maps are too focused, and tooooo contextual.  Also, it would be helpful to have a stub on the other village, Wytschaete, like there is a stub on Mesen (Messines).  It would also help to have a bit of text about the lay of the land:  this isn't polders, and it isn't the uplands (such as Ardennes).  I'll drop other suggestions here as we go along.  auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Auntie thanks, the map question is a bit vexed as we've had to use what's available. There have been offers of help from other contributors but they are still on the way. There is some geography and geology on the Passchendaele page so I'll see if some can be copied here. Geography in the sources tends to be described in absolutes - the highest ground might be a slight rise but gets called a height and a dip a valley.Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)\
 * the problem of the ground should be dealt with, even if it's to say that a dip of 50 feet is called a valley--this is part of the overall problem that bit them on the tail subsequently. Experts will understand the problem even if you don't mention it, but the casual reader needs more information.  There is time to pull another map together...these things take time, and need not be rushed.  I think you can use some casualty figures from the different national units. The Australians and New Zealanders took some major hits here, right?  As did one of the Wiltshire regiments?  (or maybe that came later) If my memory is correct, Liddle has some, and there should also be some on the WWI page you referenced.  It would be helpful to have that section expanded.  Clearly some of the units took greater hits than others. This could go in the casualty section, and you could augment it with some material on the cemeteries there--the Commonwealth Graves Commission has a lot of material on it. Not sure what there is in English on German casualties, but if you find them, I'll translate them for you, or we can get MisterBee to do it. There is also a German cemetery nearby. Need to resolve the issue of the spelling of Wytschaete, also.  Its spelling has changed over time  as has the spelling for Ypres (now leper).  Correct current spelling is Wijtschate....not sure why it has changed, but I'm sure it has something to do with how Belgian divisions are laid out.  auntieruth (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a map to "Background" which may help and some terrain material adapted from the Passchendaele page. I feel somewhat attached to the contemporary British spellings (and the German ones when writing from German sources) since the current ones are anachronistic and Belgium is officially trilingual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_legislation_in_Belgium so using the modern terms would mean writing Ieper/Ypres/Ypern. Perhaps a note on languages and spelling conventions then and now would suffice? I'll have a look at the OH's for more casualty data (I have tended to overlook the infoboxes) but some of the omissions reflect the sources, particularly those on the Germans and Belgian civilians. Dividing British losses according to Dominion contingents also risks anachronism, as they were all British casualties and lots of troops (such as artillery) in Dominion divisions were British and many Dominion infantry were UK-born.Keith-264 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * a note is a good solution. It seems that if there are specific casualties for the units, it might be worth using them, because it illustrative of the amount of damage done, and the impact of losses.  Esp worth using them in the cases where you mention specific units, such as the point when the Australian and NZ units were caught in SOS friendly and enemy fire. I'm off for tonight, will continue tomorrow or Thursday.  cheers! auntieruth (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed note on language
Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Casualties
Added detail on casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith, much improved. I'll work on it more tomorrow.  :)  and I'll see if I can find a map among my lecture materials--I made a couple to simply this for my undergrads, so I might have something useful.  auntieruth (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry for the delay, I haven't forgotten you! auntieruth (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Plugstreet
The tactical objective of the attack at Messines was the capture of the German-occupied ridge, running north from Ploegsteert ("Plugstreet") Wood ...
 * Is this perhaps what the British called it? It's not the translation in any case, since "ploeg steert" is Flemish for "plough tail". Ssscienccce (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Plugstreet" was an approximation of the local pronunciation, as "Whitesheet" was of Wytschaete (spelt "Wijtschate" in the German sections of the page). Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Gheluvelt plateau
Removed the red wikilink for this as I can't find enough material (it really needs a decent map) to make it worth burdening Wiki with a stub. I've done a description as a note instead, as the next best thing.Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Submitted for A-class review.
Have done this but not all the stages because as usual the instructions don't describe how.Keith-264 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. The Article history template is only for keeping track of processes the article has been through, not for proposed or current processes. If you are trying to request a WP:MILHIST A-class review, the directions are at the top of this page: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. Maralia (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I put a request on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-Class_review&action=edit but wasn't able to complete the process for the usual reasons.Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't work because you have skipped steps 3 and 4 listed at the top of that page. I will break it down for you:
 * At the top of this page, click "show" next to the WikiProject Military history banner.
 * Click "show" again next to additional information.
 * Look for the line that reads This article is undergoing an A-Class review.
 * Click on the red words to open the assessment page for the article.
 * List your reason for nominating it, then save the page.
 * Hope that helps. Maralia (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, would that the advice pages were as helpful. Even my feeble wiki-mojo was sufficient to follow your instructions.Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad it helped. Good luck with the review. Maralia (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A Class
Thank you to all the editors and reviewers who have participarted in the revision and promotion of the article to A Class. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Flagicons
The flagicons I put on the other day have been reverted without explanation. This is contrary to wiki procedure. Please explain.Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. You made a WP:BOLD edit and another editor reverted it as part of the WP:BRD cycle. You should provide evidence to support your contention that these flags represent separate national armies, and that there was not a single Deutsches Heer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, evidence here.[]Keith-264 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although under the circumstances it ought to be wp;cautious....Keith-264 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See here German Army (German Empire) and Philpott p 52 (Philpott, W. (2009). Bloody Victory: The sacrifice on the Somme and the making of the Twentieth Century (1st ed.). London: Little, Brown. ISBN 978-1-4087-0108-9.)Keith-264 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tenses
I remember hesitating about describing geography (relatively timeless so it is rather than it was) and human activity (it was) and never being satisfied with the result, so if anyone wants to put everything into the past tense that's OK by me. I have a preference for text on the left, pictures, maps, diagrams etc on the right and would be grateful if on this page I could have my own way, because it's the only page I've got to A class but I won't send Victoria Nuland round if anyone demurs, honest. Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering the number of disputed edits, I think that an attempt to achieve consensus is necessary. I don't think there is a fundamental disagreement about content, more a case of idiosyncratic reading which can easily be resolved without laborious to-ing and fro-ing. If you're confused about something we can discuss it and amend the text or not together. Consider the matter of splitting paragraphs. Do you try to keep paragraphs to roughly the same number of lines and then synchronise them with photos, maps and charts to avoid fat and skinny ones? Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't object to splitting overly long paragraphs in the interests of making them more readable. However as someone who has been trained in geology and geomorphology, I do have a problem with putting all the verbs into the past tense when describing the landscape. Doing so implies that conditions may have changed. Of course landscapes do dramatically change over (geological) time, or more rapidly through human agency. But to use the past tense throughout implies things may no longer be quite as they were. In terms of human geography this is quite possible - villages and other settlements may be rebuilt in new locations, and roads and road junctions may lose importance as new highways are constructed - but do the Bassevillebeek and the Reutelbeek no longer flow southward? Have the ridges which "ran north and east from Messines" mysteriously changed their direction, or been quarried away? Is "Gheluvelt which was above 164 feet ... above sea level", now at some other altitude?


 * On the other hand, in my opinion, a judicious use of the present tense is more useful in interpreting the landscape (even though it seems that this may be a bit challenging for some readers), as it conveys, in a more direct and immediate sense, the issues of terrain and the challenges that it presented to the protagonists, and their response. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's why I ended up fretting about two tenses juxtaposed in the same paragraph.Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis
Prior & Wilson's "complaint" and Brown and Simpson's "research findings"


 * Ian Malcom Brown (1996) is criticising Philip Warner’s 1987 book on Passchendaele, not Prior & Wilson as the article originally incorrectly stated (it’s been edited since I last read it). They write that it “seems highly improbable”, in view of the logistical arrangements which had to be made, that Third Ypres could have followed hot on the heels of Messines. That’s probably true (although there was a further delay in the final week or so), and I basically wouldn’t quarrel with it – although strong leadership can move mountains and with the right man (i.e. a complete bastard) in charge who knows what might have been achieved. It is, however, not a “research finding”. It’s an informed opinion. Still less is it a second “research finding” when Andy Simpson quotes it with approval in a 2001 book.


 * What Prior & Wilson are driving at – and their account is simply lifted from the Official History – is that Haig caused a ballsup by handing matters over to Gough when Plumer demanded 3 days to get ready. Plumer would have taken the Gheluveld Plateau in less time than it took Gough to come back to Haig with a second estimate (6 days). So it was a bad decision by Sir Douglas, a wasted chance to seize some high ground, which cost the BEF dear in subsequent weeks.Paulturtle (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Raiding revealed that if the Germans were shaken it was not on that part of the front and Gough gave cogent reasons for not wanting to go off half-cocked - another reason to doubt that Gough was as impulsive as is sometimes made out.Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * PS Look what happened after the capture of Inverness Copse on 22 August; Haig moved command and army boundaries several times during the campaign so I wouldn't treat it as a beauty contest, more a consequence of his level of command. The German defence of the Gheluvelt Plateau was the schwerpunkt so I doubt that different British behaviour would have led to a different result and I doubt that quibbling over semantics would either.Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Messines (1917). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726072739/http://loakes.game-host.org/nmldocs/plustreetproject.pdf to http://loakes.game-host.org/nmldocs/plustreetproject.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
@Vijay, please be careful with amending strength data as it can't always be established whether a division is at full strength or not. It might be better to mention a proposed edit on the talk page first so that the formalities of sourcing can be established. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Footnote at "German 4th Army"
This foot note reiterates much of the half-truths usually encountered in connection with the Messines mines: I believe Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) is much more precise on these matters. --BjKa (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "the largest planned explosion in history": Yeah, well, I don't know if a collection of nineteen distinctly separate explosions arranged over a line of ten miles can really be compared to any single explosion just because they were detonated at the same time.
 * "prior to the Trinity atomic weapon test" I'm not sure if the massive mound of TNT fired as a gauge event two months before the first nuclear explosion may have released more energy than the combined nineteen explosions in Flanders. It should be investigated how 110 t of TNT compares to 455 t of Ammonal. But at least the TNT was all in one spot.
 * "Several of the mines at Messines did not go off on time." While literally true, this rather comes across sounding like a mishap, when in fact some of the mines were intentionally not detonated for various reasons.


 * I'm inclined to agree but when I re-wrote the article to A class standard, I tried not to eliminate material unless I had a positive reason to. I wouldn't have put that stuff in but didn't feel justified in removing it, even though I think it's hyperbolic, which is why I tucked it away in the footnote. If you prefer it changed or gone, be my guest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Were 10,000 German troops really KIA during the initial explosion
Multiple instances, including many on this page, quote a figure of 10,000 German killed instantly by the mine explosions. Yet as outlined in the casualties section, " In volume XII of Der Weltkrieg the German Official Historians recorded 25,000 casualties for the period 21 May – 10 June including 10,000 missing of whom 7,200 were reported as taken prisoner by the British." It appears that the 10,000 missing figure is being used as KIA figure when in reality 7000 of that number were MIA and eventually registered as Prisoners of War. So the German MIA, and possibly killed by the mines, is around 3000. Of those some went missing over a period between 21 May – 10 June. So those killed by mine explosions would be even less. Can we change the number to reflect this? -- Esemono (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, I was a bit surprised when I re-read that section, is the figure from the Verlustliste or the Sanitatsbericht? Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Messines (1917). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719173700/http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm to http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Coords
but is it the right blade of grass? ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Often people just take the coordinates from another article, such as the town. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I have put the coordinates to where Nieuw Zeelandersstraat meets Armentiersstraat, close to a number of memorials. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)