Talk:German spring offensive

Untitled
At least one expert analyst at the Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College disputes this account (in The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Change in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War, Timothy Lupfer, in Leavenworth Papers No4, US ISSN 0195 3451). That analysis raises serious questions to both the account given here of the genesis of stormtrooper tactics, and Ludendorff's alleged insensitivity to them. This article as it stands is therefore lacking NPOV. Adhib 09:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moving this page to Spring Offensive because it discussed both sides of the offensive, not merely German planning, and there is currently no wider article. 119 22:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hutier Tactics
Sorry if I've caused offence, but the detailed description of 'Hutier tactics' and mentions of battles in other theatres seems better placed in the article of that name than in an article dealing with the progress of a campaign -IMHO. This article already has a brief reference to them and a link to the specific article and also an external link to 'Stormtrooper Tactics'. Folks at 137 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Looting halted the offensive
I've read in a book about the war that the German troops stopped attacking when they encountered the allies supplies of food and wine. Generally they were badly fed and the abundance they suddenly encountered caused them to stop fighting and loot instead. I've forgotten the name of the book though, but this story should not be too hard to verify. According to Glyn Harper's book "Spring Offensive", by the end of March 1918 German storm troops had outpaced their artillery and logistics support resulting in Ludendorf postponing operations until April 4th. --itpastorn 12:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You can find info on that in Erich Maria Remarque's famous novel "All Quiet on the Western Front". Many of the conversations revolve around food as supplies are so low that the soldiers have to eat sawdust. When they storm enemy trenches, they feast on the food they find there and drink the rancid cooling water from the machine guns. I'd add full quotations but I haven't got an English edition. --84.153.181.208 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rudolf Binding is quoted in Lidell-Harts history of WW1 eg "there is no doubt the army is looting with some zest" and more besides. GraemeLeggett 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-respected British historian Richard Holmes, in his photographic history of the war (The First World War in Photographs, I think its called) also mentions this as a factor that helped slow the German advance, so I think we can consider the story well founded.IxK85 13:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Feuerwalze" does not mean "Fire Waltz"
Unless there is an obscure secondary meaning of the English word "waltz", I think the translation given in the article is incorrect. AFAIK English "waltz" refers to a dance; German "Walze", on the other hand, means "roller" like in "steam roller", a slowly progressing, barrel-shaped object. Trust me on the meaning of the German word (I am German), but could a native English speaker please comment on whether or not English "waltz" covers that meaning, too.


 * As the person who wrote the text under question, let me comment. I took the term Feuerwalze from the book 1918 The Year of Victories, where it's translated as "Firewaltz" (p13). This translation is plausible, since a waltz is a dance, and there's an English expression "to lead someone a dance" meaning to confuse or cause trouble. The steam roller meaning makes sense, however, and there's no equivalent meaning of "waltz" in English. BTW, please don't forget forget to sign & date stamp your entries by typing four tildes (see below). Folks at 137 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I agree that fire waltz would definitely make sense, but it does not seem to be the correct translation. I consulted the German wikipedia, which offered the information that it was called "Feuerwalze" because the concentrated artillery fire slowly progressed towards enemy lines and crossed them (supposedly flattening all resistance like a roller flattens the ground); the infantry followed closely to storm the trenches.
 * Therefore, I think the translation in the book quoted should be considered an erratum. I do not, however, feel up to the task of replacing the expression; does "fire roller" sound acceptable to native English speakers, or can you think of a better solution? --84.153.204.112 14:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Firewaltz" is incorrect: agreed. I'm tring to select an appropriate equivalent English expression. "Fire-roller" is strictly accurate as a word-for-word translation, and might suffice, but doesn't (IMHO) convey the impact and methodical nature of the concept - that you describe and I agree with. I think we should create a new page to describe "Feuerwalze", and keep the untranslated "feuerwalze" in articles. This would continue the informal practice whereby "blitz", "blitzkrieg", "schadenfreude" and words from other languages have been used and adopted into English. Perhaps we should collaborate...I might draft something soon. Anyone else have a view? Folks at 137 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * More thoughts and a query. What you described sounds more like a "rolling barrage" - indiscriminate and massive. I thought "feuerwalze" was more targetted - precise targets hit accurately in a defined sequence, an efficient use of ordnance. What do you think? Folks at 137 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Rolling barrage" sounds like a very good translation to me. I also find it a good idea to create a "Feuerwalze" article of its own. I have never done this before, however, and feel a bit daunted by the task, what with all the rules and naming conventions. I do want to be helpful though, so I sat down and did a translation of the "Feuerwalze" article from the German Wikipedia. I have done my very best, but I do not claim correctness of spelling and/or grammar. Here it is:

"A “Feuerwalze“ is an offensive military tactic employed to support advancing infantry.

This tactic was first used in 1916 during World War I by German artillery at the Eastern front. In the “Feuerwalze”, artillery fire was concentrated on the area lying immediately in front of the attacking infantry. According to a plan devised in advance, the artillery fired at a broad strip of the front lines, then moved some meters in the direction of the enemy, while the infantry – following as closely as possible – moved into the area that had just been shelled.

This tactic had the theoretical advantage of holding down enemy infantry; thus, the attacking infantry could gain ground even in areas that were strongly fortified. The disadvantage was that the tactic could not be adapted to the changing situation on the battlefield, because the means of telecommunication in use at the time were incapable of establishing a reliable exchange between the infantry and the artillery. Thus, the “Feuerwalze” sometimes left the infantry far behind if the soldiers had to advance through rough territory or if they met with strong enemy resistance. On the other hand, the slowly moving shelling hampered a quick attack of the infantry if there was less resistance than expected. Also, in contrast to a longer-lasting barrage, the “Feuerwalze” did not cause enough damage to barbed wire fortifications and dugouts. It transpired that that the time between the passing of the “Feuerwalze” and the arrival of the attacking infantry was often long enough for the defenders to take positions in the trenches.

The strategic effect of the “Feuerwalze” was ultimately limited by the range of the artillery, because the heavy guns were slow to follow a successful infantry advance, so sooner or later the infantry had to do without the protecting barrage." --84.153.181.208 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just realized that we, disappointingly, may have done a lot of work in vain: I looked up "rolling barrage" in the English Wikipedia; I was redirected to "creeping barrage", and the explanation is almost exactly what I wrote above... with the exception that in the German article, the writer claims inventorship of the "Feuerwalze" for the Germans ;-). Maybe we should just add the info that "Feuerwalze" equals "creeping barrage" in this article...--84.153.181.208 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy. "rolling" or "creeping barrage" is as you describe - a massive attempted demolition and intimidation of defenders. However, my understanding of "Feuerwalze" is something else. The rolling barrage made the ground difficult ro move across (not what the stormtroopers needed) and used large amounts of ordnance. I thought "feuerwalze" was more targetted - precise targets hit accurately in a defined sequence with a mix of HE, shrapnel and gas, an efficient use of ordnance. Moreover, it would be quick - to avoid enemy reaction to an obvious preparation. What do you think? BTW, have you considered adopting a name for yourself? Folks at 137 08:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy either; I hoped that we would be able to contribute something new to the Wikipedia. I am not an expert on WWI Tactics, however, and the information I have gathered so far leads me to the conclusion that "Feuerwalze" is probably a creeping barrage with a flashy German name :-(. I'll try and get more info on that, but while German libraries are usually full of books on politics during the war, you rarely find anything about tactics. Yes, I have thought about adopting a name - but to be quite frank, I am completely ignorant of how this is done...(edit: okay, figured it out)--84.153.129.211 11:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Lethal Battles in Human History
Shouldn't the Spring Offensive be on their in some capacity? It was an utter bloodbath--while it was not a single engagement, it was a concentrated, sustained engagement. Most definitions of combat would regard it as continuous, and few, if any, battles or engagements come even close to matching the body count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.23.172 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

infobox wording
am i the only one who disagrees with "stalemate" in the infobox. The gains that the Germans made were, quite frankly, massive. I've looked at the map, and it's fairly obvious that it WASN'T a strategic stalemate. A tactical one? Yes. I'll change the wording in that.

Cam 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The German objective was a breakthrough, not just an advance. Nothing less would avoid defeat in the war. They didn't succeed - they were held in highly vulnerable salients. Massive gains? Perhaps, but they were irrelevant in the context. On the other hand, they had exhausted their final reserves and could not hold the next Allied offensive. Maybe it was a local, tactical victory - I don't think so. It certainly was a decisive strategic defeat. Changing this wording has become contentious elsewhere, might be a better idea to seek a consensus first. Folks at 137 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The wording should be the other way round. The Germans gained huge territories, and captured many prisoners, guns and supplies. Tactically, that was a great success. Their ultimate aim however, was to break through the Allied lines and break the Allied armies. They failed on both counts. Strategically therefore, it was a failure. HLGallon 09:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

British Empire?
Australian, New Zealanders and Canadians fought under separate command at divisional and corps level at least so is it possible to mention these countries under the sidebar and not just group them as "British Empire"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.110.58 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You were certainly correct. Very sorry for the belated correction as to your point. Similar articles for battles from the same period are divided in the same manner. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

extravagant ambitions?
Isn't this sentence a bit off: "Even so, about a million German soldiers remained tied up in the east until the end of the war, attempting to run a short-lived addition to the German Empire in Europe. >>>German political ambitions remained extravagant until the very end<<<"

Weren't they tied up because factions of the Russian revolutions wanted to continue the war and forced German troops to keep territory occupied to threaten the Russian revolutionaries? While the German empire might have frantically tried to establish some territorial realignments and create facts for the postwar era their primary problem was to kick Russia out of the war as quickly as possible and keep it that way. German forces went back on the offensive during negotiations and occupied further territory to make that point.

Just wondering 93.135.73.60 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe they wanted to keep and annex the Ukraine. Hence the occupation.

I removed the sentence mainly because it doesn't add anything concerning the spring offensive. The number of reasons why Germany didn't or couldn't release these troops is for the eastern front article to describe. Overall Eastern Europe and Russia were a mess and that these troops advanced further into Russia kind of indicates a more complex situation than grabbing land, tons of factions were popping up trying to fill the power vacuum of the collapse of tsarist Russia. 46.244.193.24 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The New Zealand division's contribution to halting Operation Michael tragically overlooked in the annals of history
Along with the four Australian divisions rushed in to plug the gaps in the line was the New Zealand Division. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.170.235 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 222.155.170.235 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Unbelieveably no mention of the New Zealanders most vital contribution and decicive role in arguably the most crucial and pivotal battle facing Germany's greatest offensive of the war. 222.155.170.235 (talk) According to Glynn Harper in his book titled Spring Offensive "At a time when well trained, high quality soldiers were desperately needed, the New Zealand Division, widely acclaimed as one of the best Allied divisions in France, was thrown into the thick of the action in the most dangerous sector of the line. There between Hebuterne and Beaumont-Hamel, they brought the German advance to a standstill. It was one of the turning points in the battle and a feat of arms that could have been achieved only by the finest troops." —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. If you're not Canadian or Australian, your contributions are overlooked or minimised; the best British divisions, and indeed the New Zealand division as well, are often ignored in favour of focus on Australia and Canada here. Not that there isn't a lot to celebrate with those two nations, but it is a curiously biased collection of articles that categorise WW1 where they are concerned. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:FCE4:D7DF:2C92:AA12 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Participants
If Portugal is going to be listed, shouldn't Belgium be listed as well? john k (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, unfortunately; the sector occupied by Belgian troops (from north of Ypres to the Channel coast at Dixmude) was not attacked, while that occupied by the Portuguese contingent at Neuve Chapelle was the target for the German "Georgette" offensive. HLGallon (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source showing that the Belgian army participated (possibly in a defensive flanking manoeuvre) then by all means add them. To my knowledge HLGallon is correct and the Belgian contingent was largely collected around the Yser area.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepest advance since 1914?
What about the Allied advance in early 1917?Keith-264 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Four attacks?
What about Mars?Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reichsarchiv 1918 source ?
''Churchill, "The World Crisis, Vol. 2", p.963. German casualties from "Reichsarchiv 1918"'' - but what means "Reichsarchiv 1918" ? --Mwknacker (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph of this article incorrectly states: "In August 1918, the Allies began a counter-offensive with the support of several million fresh American troops."

American troops in France reached a maximum of two million by the very end of the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Forces

In August 1918, American troops available for the counter-offensive would have been somewhere between 1 and 2 million... not "several" millions.

Thanks! 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Scott

It is strange that there is no casualty number for US in the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin9 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Siam
An IP has moved the entry for Siam in the infobox from the bottom of the list of Allied belligerents to a bit higher up. This has prompted me to look more closely into the role of Siam in the campaign (about which I knew nothing). According to Siam in World War I and Siamese Expeditionary Forces, Siam declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary on 22 July 1917, but the expeditionary force did not land in Marseilles until 30 July 1918 (12 days after the official end of the Spring Offensive), and no troops reached the front line before August. In my opinion, although Siam was technically one of the allies during the campaign, she cannot be regarded as one of the belligerents, and should be removed from the infobox. Other views? GrindtXX (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd support removal. It's disingenuous to be marked as a belligerent without a demonstrated participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Operation Michael
I've flagged a section in Operation Michael for editorializing. To say someone has argued something convincingly is subjective. This part would also be better if someone who has the Greenhalgh article could cite what source the argument is based on or even see whether it's a fact the author has proven - either way given that the claim made is so specific there must clearly be some source behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:7848:B79:6862:1097 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to fix this by removing the adverb "convincingly", and also the tag. I assume that the argument is strong and evidence-based, but not necessarily "proven". However, I haven't seen the article, so if anyone else wants to rework the paragraph, go ahead. GrindtXX (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Spring Offensive → German spring offensive – The currrent title is ambiguous and over-capitalized relative to sources. The most common reference in sources for this 1918 offensive seems the be the German spring offensive. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Some history and data – the article started out being about "Operation Michael" in 2004, then got "German Spring Offensive" (capped thus) later in 2004, then got the German removed in this Feb. 2005 edit. Since about that time, sources increasingly adopted "German Spring Offensive" over "German spring offensive", but not yet close to consistently; and just "the Spring Offensive" is less common, and frequently refers to other events.  Some n-gram data shows the landscape.  Refocusing on the just the case question, and limiting to before WP capped it, sources are clearly in favor of lowercase.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 1918 German spring offensive. Germany also carried out spring offensives during World War II and probably other wars. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK by me. It's not nearly as common, but definitely less ambiguous. As others note, it's not very ambiguous (I can't find any uses of "German spring offensive" for a WWII action), and the extra date disambiguation is awkward.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I lean towards Buidhe's proposal. If the title is descriptive, it needs to be clear. Srnec (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:CRITERIA such as recognizability and precision don't usually go that far. WP:COMMONNAME is enough here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support German spring offensive - A search suggest to me that this is the primary topic for "German spring offensive". German spring offensive (disambiguation) can be created if necessary, but the vast majority of uses of the phrase are referring to this one it seems to me.  The lowercase form is preferable per Dicklyon's arguments. Hog Farm Talk 05:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Qualified support for German spring offensive. The campaign is widely known within WWI military historiography as the Spring Offensive, almost to the extent of that being a formal name – but not quite, and I agree that for the non-specialist reader it might be better to qualify the term with "German" and to remove the caps. I don't think the additional qualification of "1918" is necessary or desirable. Yes, there were other offensives by the Germans that took place in the spring, but are they ever referred to with any consistency as "the spring offensive"? I don't think so. (None feature on our dab page Spring offensive, though that's not, of course, definitive.) 1918 German spring offensive seems a clumsily convoluted title: if it's really thought necessary to include "1918", I'd prefer it in the form German spring offensive (1918). GrindtXX (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on both lowercase and clarity grounds. Tony (talk)  02:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Qualified support for German spring offensive. Looking at the general n-gram data, there are clearly other events that are "spring offensives".  The data has a smoothing of 1 (ie unsmoothed) and shows events that precede 1918.  There is also a peak in WW2 that could be attributed to either: offensives in that war or the anniversary of WWI - I suspect, the former is of more influence though.  Similarly, the more recent data could be attributed to the influence of WP or to the 100th anniversary of WW1.  Regardless, it is not capped in a substantial majority of cases. The DAB page uses German spring offensive.  Given that campaigning was linked to season (and often spring), I think there is clearly a need to disambiguate further.  The issue is a somewhat compounded because "seasons" were frequently capitalised but less so now.  I think that this n-gram for "German spring offensive of 1918 is most telling, since it is specific to the event and therefore more revealing of how it "should" be capitalised.  I would favour German spring offensive (1918).  While there are arguments in guideline against adding the date, I think this is an exception.  While we may not have articles for other dates, thereby requiring this degree of disambiguation, I am quite certain that there are sufficient references across sources covering German offensives in the spring season of both world wars, that it can be reasonably justified to add the date as an assistance to our readers. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent page move
The recent page move has left nearly a thousand links pointing to Spring Offensive that need to be edited to point to German spring offensive. Owing to the surrounding wording in the articles affected it's not viable to simply "find and replace" text. DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am working on it with AWB. I reckon I have done 30% or so. I will update here once I have finished. Vpab15 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Links pointing to a dab page do need sorting out, I agree. However, the recent page would appear to have been a slightly over hasty response to Dick Lyon's lowercase campaign. In fact, ngram viewer shows that "German Spring Offensive" is currently twice as commonly used as "German spring offensive". Unfortunately the more common title is a redirect that cannot be overridden. Could an admin please fix that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermicourt (talk • contribs)
 * That not what I'm seeing. Do you have a link to what you're seeing?  Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because you've missed out the last 15 years. The up to date information is here Bermicourt (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, sorry, I had forgotten that I had trimmed my previous n-gram search, which I cobbled from, to before Wikipedia capped it. Still, not what I'd call consistently capped in sources, especially considering how many of those are from book titles and running heading.  In this case, most of the 21st century capped uses seem to be references to the 1978/1995 book The Kaiser's Battle 21 March 1918: The First Day of the German Spring Offensive. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a clearer view. There's nowhere near a factor of 2.  Just a few years with a few more capped uses than lowercase, reversed again in 2019. Dicklyon (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I undid your overly hasty change of the redirect target after the move. We should fix the indirect links through Spring Offensive before changing the redirect to go the disambig page. I was about to try this with AWB, but glad to see that you are well along on it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The links have now been fixed. I have updated the redirect for Spring Offensive. Vpab15 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It took longer than I thought, glad to have finished it :) . Vpab15 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ludendorff's Objectives
Ludendorff is often criticised for "not having a plan", other than "punching a hole", seeing what happened, then "punching another hole".

Recently I read that he wasn't that daft, and knew perfectly well that he didn't have the means to exploit to Paris or Abbeville (as the Germans would in 1940). Rather, he knew that countries in WW1 tended to crumble from within - collapse of morale in the army or on the homefront, or collapse of supply arrangements, or running out of usable reserves - rather than being decisively defeated on the battlefield. It had happened to Russia and had come close to happening to France and Italy (Britain actually came a lot closer than the sillier sort of military historian tends to realise, but that's a discussion for another occasion). Basically, he thought that if he kept "punching holes" either Britain or France would sooner or later crumble, although in the event the Allies pulled through.

Sadly I can't remember where I read it.Paulturtle (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

David French's classic "Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition", which I've just finished rereading, discusses this on page 214.

It includes a famous quote from early April 1918 (ie. after Michael but probably before Georgette) to the effect that he would "tear a hole and the rest would follow. That is what we did in Russia" which is presumably referring to Gorlice-Tarnow. Gorlice-Tarnow led to a spectacular advance - although the Russians in 1915 were more thinly spread and had a lot more room to retreat than the Western Allies in 1918 - but it's not quite correct to establish a simple linear connection between that battle and Russia's eventual collapse.

French argues that Ludendorff was planning a series of attritional battles throughout the spring and summer, but that it's not entirely clear what he was seeking to achieve, except perhaps a breakdown in Anglo-French relations or a complete collapse of one or both country's army or domestic will to fight.

He wasn't alone in that - Chancellor Hertling wrote as late as 5 June that a series of German victories might trigger revolution in Britain or France. Paulturtle (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If Ludendorff thought Britain would collapse into anarchy like Russia he was an idiot (as if we didn't know that already). He was also engaging in what Freud called 'projection', that is, unconscious self-description. It wasn't Britain's institutions and society that were giving at the seams, it was Germany's. And the French army may have mutinied and become incapable of offensive action, but the British and Commonwealth forces led the Hundred Days Offensive that defeated Germany and it was Germany that collapsed into anarchy. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is citing a footnote from a blog acceptable?
The last paragraph cites a claim from a blog post by the historian Bret Devereaux (see the post here https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/). Devereaux himself doesn't provide any evidence for his claim. Should this be removed or not? --Svennik (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)