Talk:German invasion of Belgium (1940)/Archive 1

Should be merged with Battle of France...
This articles seems entirely redundant - "Battle of Belgium"? This doesn't seem to be an expression historians used. What little material this stub articles has currently It should be merged with the Battle of France article. Kurfürst (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the way you are trying to spite me Kurfurst by getting this deleted, but your "suggestion" is nonsense. It won't be a stub for long. Each country has it own battle:


 * Polish Campaign
 * Battle of Denmark
 * Norwegian Campaign
 * Battle of the Netherlands
 * Battle of Belgium
 * Battle of France
 * German invasion of Yugoslavia
 * Battle of Greece
 * Battle of Crete

Even, Denmark, a 24hr battle has its own article. Your complaint is just a childish attempt at revenge. So, if you are not here to help, just go away.Dapi89 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference being that all of these expressions above (except the B. of Denmark, perhaps another wikipedia oddity) are commonly used by historians, and they are clearly definiable in terms of time and space. Did any historian, ever, used the expression of the 'Battle of Belgium'? 99.9% of them seem to discuss the May 1940 under the term the 'Battle of France'. And sorry, I am not to be blamed for your paranoia and non-ceasing willingness for seeking confrontation. This article simply has no reason to exist seperate from the Battle of France article, which already discusses the same content, it seems it was just created as a POV-fork. Kurfürst (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh Kurfurst, the irony in your comments. Why are you commenting here Kurfurst? Just to get it deleted? Another well thought of editor, and many more with genuine motivations disagree with you. Dapi89 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I nearly forgot, as for This article simply has no reason to exist seperate from the Battle of France article, which already discusses the same content - nonsense. Read both articles this page discusses Belgian strategy and Belgium problems - overwhelmingly. Dapi89 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we should make a distinction between two separate questions:


 * 1) Is there good reason to have an article on the events of May 1940 from a Belgian point of view? And the answer then is obviously: yes. There are many aspects about the campaign the Belgian Army prepared for, planned and fought that are too detailed for Battle of France — a huge event of which we can give but a scanty outline — and yet important enough to be mentioned somewhere.
 * 2) What shall we call this article? This is a more difficult matter. The battle does have a separate name in Belgium: the Achttiendaagse Veldtocht or "Eighteen Day(s) Campaign", but the latter name is uncommon in the English literature. The alternative is then to use a rather cumbersome neutral circumscription like The German invasion of Belgium of 1940 or a neat concise title like Battle of Belgium — preferably Battle of Belgium (1940), as there already had been one in 1914.--MWAK (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your points MWAK. Still, I believe the 'Battle of Belgium' title has to go - it would make it seem as a POV fork article to the BoF article. On the contrary, the 'Eighteen Day(s) Campaign' would be a good description, as its commonly used by (Belgian) historians, would be verifiable and not a title that some editors simply made up. Still, I do see problems with overlapping the the Battle of France article, so preferably this article should only contain description Belgian (and perhaps Dutch?) army etc., otherwise the birth of a POV fork article is guaranteed; German, French and British actions in the May-June 1940 campagign should be covered in the main BoF article, and keep this one distinctively concentrating for the events from the Belgian POV. Therefore, readers would enjoy and find all major information about the Western Campaign, as viewed in the tradiational sense, but find more details in this article for the Belgian role. Thoughts? Kurfürst (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again Kurfurst demonstrates his only reason for being here is to try and delete the article to get at me.
 * MWAK I am glad I have a serious editor who is in agreement. I dont' suspect the rubbish spouted by Kurfurst - not a title that some editors simply made up is believed by you. Anyway, published material can be found relating to a "Belgian campaign". Thanks for getting involved, and for the support. I shall not be responding to Kurfurst, as sensible discussion with him is impossible. Try not to get dragged in to a long drawn out slugging match with him, regards. Dapi89 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, article names are always a bit tricky. If in English usage no common name exists for a certain object or event we are forced to improvise; we will never find some secondary source saying "Such and such should be that article's name in Wikipedia"!. I'm not convinced that literally translating names from another language — which by their very distinction might falsely suggest they are in common use — is superior to giving a short title that does not so much suggest an "official" name but limits itself to a mere description.


 * Furthermore, "Belgium" in this case very much denotes the nation, not the region: it is about Belgium's Battle against the invaders. Obviously this also implies that indeed the Belgian POV should be predominant — but just as obviously the plans and actions of both its allies and its enemy cannot remain unmentioned. I'm confident a satisfactory balance can easily be found.--MWAK (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks MWAK. Dapi89 (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep &mdash; I concur that this article has its right to existence. Clearly the German success in the Battle of France lies in breaching the Belgian defences at for instance Eben Emael, which happens to be in Belgium. Personally I like the name "Battle of Belgium (1940)". This article is evolving nicley. Keep at it Dapi89 MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The way the Battle of France article is currently set up that shows the overall German strategic intentions etc and how the fight in Belgium played its signficant (i.e. drawing in the BEF and French) part BUT it cant go into that much detail on the subject hence this article - so i totally agree, keep. Also just because the article is currently named the Battle of Belgium doesnt mean the article will be bais.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep, of course, but shouldn't this be titled Battle of Belgium? Why the need for (1940)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As MWAK pointed out, there was a Battle of Belgium in 1914. Dapi89 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle
I think the order of battles should be moved to a seperate page and a link provided here to it; like the way it is done on the Operation Epsom article for example. At the momment it seems to be cluttering up the page at the momment. Just my 2 cents--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. But I would leave it until the article has been completely fleshed out first, so I/we have everything in one place before any large moves are made. Dapi89 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it anyway, sooner is better than later. Dapi89 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Forces involved
I think the Belgium section should be renamed to 'Allied forces' as it does have info on British formations. I think it should also be expanded to talk about the French forces and from the infobox apparently Dutch and Polish formations took part to, maybe discuss them?

I feel there are few things that need to be sorted out in this section:


 * 1) "This was more than the British Expeditionary Forces 10 divisions" - 2 things, the OOB article shows the BEF having 12 divisions not 10, this is a little confusing. Secondaly i think stating "this was more than the British" seems a little POV pushing, prehaps reword it in a more neutrual fashion i.e the UK fieled the BEF of x divisions... etc
 * 2) The info on the Belgium Army i find rather confusing. It first states "The Belgian army could muster 22 Divisions" then it explians further "The Belgians ... by May 1940 mounted a field army of 18 infantry divisions, 2 divisions of Chasseurs Ardennais ... and two motorised cavalry divisions." But then it states a slightly different figure "After mobilisation ... 12 regular infantry divisions, two divisions of Chasseurs Ardennais, six reserve infantry divisions, one Brigade of Cyclist Frontier Guards, one Cavalry Corps of two and one Brigade of motorised cavalry."
 * 3) "one Cavalry Corps of two and one Brigade of motorised cavalry." Should this be one Cavalry Corps of two divisions?


 * I'm happy to ort this out. The statement of low numbers of BEF divisions was a statement of fact, but its no biggie. Dapi89 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all of the twelve mobilised BEF saw action in Belgium - 51st Highlanders - I notice they are not on the BoF Orbat. Dapi89 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right oh good stuff, prehaps the OOB page should be edited to reflect this? The source information does support this righT?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which bit of info? The 51st or the more divisions issue? Dapi89 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
As requested i have had a look over the article and i have a few comments regarding it:


 * 1) "; the cream of the Allied forces, the Armoured divisions, would advance to the Dyle river in response to a German invasion" - What armoured divisions? Should this not read French Armoured divisions considering the British, i dont recall, sent any to France till late in the game. I think this point can be a bit more precise if you have the sources.
 * 2) "communications located at the Bay of Biscay ports, would be parallel their front" Are you sure the sources say the British supply base was on the Bay of Biscay - it seems rather illogical considering the Channel ports were available. From what ive read British forward supply bases were in the Somme region and doctrine stated they should be pretty close to the railhead meaning Biscay would be far away.
 * 3) There are a few odd paragraphs with no inline citations, for instance "The Belgians had secured themselves from immediate attack, gained time to prepare a defence, and make covert arrangements with the Allies upon the outbreak of war." and "were removed from Army Group B and given to Army Group A; to strengthen the German lines of communication and to prevent an Allied breakout."
 * 4) "would attempt a Kesselschlacht to destroy its enemies" - English translation?
 * 5) "The French Seventh Army, should be able to reach the Zeeland or Breda, would be in a position to protect the left flank of the Belgian Army forces, protecting Antwerp, and threaten the German northern flank" - the bold section of this sentance does not read right, can this be reworded slightly?
 * 6) "Fort Eben-Emael protected the city's northern flank," protected what city, Leige?
 * 7) There are several - within the article that need to be replaced with – . This should be done between dates or comparable numbers i.e. 1-2, or 1-2 May etc.

More to come as i work my why through the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Changed. 2. Bond says the Bay of Biscay ports were the main British supply ports - he does not explain why. Perhaps because of possible U-Boat and Luftwaffe threat? 3. Done. 4. Done. 5. Done. 6. I'll reword this part soon 7. To be done. Thnaks. Dapi89 (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent stuff, the Belgium and Allied Forces section could do with some additional information on the British and French contributions to balance things out - prehaps some info on the Dutch contribution to the battle as well?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More feedback
The Ardennes is a dense forest, "breakingthrough through" I get what you mean, but it is redundant. Cutting through the dense Ardennes is also a good modifier. So making a break through, etc. I'm not finished reading yet. Malke  2010  18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, you seriously kick writing butt. Well done article.  Good mastery of the topic.  Don't know if that's a category but I'm voting for it. Malke  2010  18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Can you point out where the sentence is though?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I have yet to sort out the intro. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know Dapi, I can make it so that we you can be the co-nominator of this GAN and we can work on any issues together.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with that. You may have to do the lion's share, as my time tends to very limited. Dapi89 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I might chip in a little with grammar and formatting issues (like I did at WWII, Coldplay), Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

English
Is there a consensus on what type of English to use in this article. I've found "armour", but also "mobilize", so I'm not 100% sure. COnsistency in the variation of English is more-or-less required for GA status, for what it's worth. I would recommend British English, as the BEF was involved, but being British I've got something of a conflict of interest. Any suggestions or agreements? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!)  21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...Sponge, your Scotish but yes, it needs to be in British since the BEF was a major force in the campaign. And this happened before the US even got involved)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh! I didn't mean we can't use it because of me, I mean I wouldn't wanting to go changing it without consensus...because of me, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh...well I support the change.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this consensus...as in consensus? I'll treat it as consensus, unless someone disagrees, in which case I will not treat it as consensus. the reason for that would be because someone disagrees, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  00:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way...the BEF are referred to as the B.E.F. or the B.E.F in this article (inconsistently, I'll have to fix that either way). But aren't they normally referred to as simply BEF without the periods/full stops? Or am I entirely wrong, I'm just getting this from the two British Expeditionary Force articles. I know, I'm very picky with the details. I can't help it, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The subject contains no involvement by US forces, was in Europe, the British were involved (but by no means a major force), so I would agree it should all be UK English. This was how it was intended. Sorry for the mistakes. Dapi89 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are very few mistakes. If any. Well, depends how you look at it. The spelling "mobilize" for example is also accpetable is UK Eng, just not as common as the -ise spelling, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't take credit for that! I am sure they are few owing to the various editors (Chris the Speller) who have cleared up after me after the bulk was written. Glad that seems to be agreed. Dapi89 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article long enough
I think this article is long enough now (if its going to pass GA). Dapi89 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course! I am now just fixing and inconsistencies with the numbers. The army names need to be in numbers not words.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus!
When I wrote this article I had no idea that it would ever make it to GA status!!!! Thanks to Coldplayexpert tenacity in editing for grammar and style its made it. Thanks all. Dapi89 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it! You deserve credit for this just as much as me. If not more. You started it! Give yourself a pat on the back and don't forget to give yourself the userbox for it! We made it. I can't belive that we did it. Can you?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  17:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Clumsy edit
I've just spent four days copyediting this article, Dapi89 took seven minutes to put all the mistakes back in: e.g. "Whether this aggression was directly solely at Belgium", with the rather pompous edit summary: 'please don't change block quotes". Yes, I did add the odd word, in parentheses or square brackets, (to show they are not part of the original quote), to improve the flow. Why didn't you at least read through the article? I think it was a significant improvement on previous versions By the way, a) did Hitler really suggest the type of assault on Fort Eben Eamel and did he 'reveal the tactical weapon' - the hollow charge? The article seems to claim these 'facts'. And (b) are 'St Heribert, Malonne, Dave, Maizeret and Andoy' forts? Because if so, they are not written-up as such. RASAM (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I told you on your talk page I was going to readd the good edits. So the pompous complaint wa not needed. And you did not add parenthasis. Yes - they are sourced. And keep your snide comments about these "'facts'" to yourself. 13:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Names
Can we use First World War or Second World War rather than the American created WW I or II etc? Dapi89 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to :)-- White Shadows stood on the edge 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)