Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Belgium in World War II


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War II

 * Nominator(s): Brigade Piron (talk)

Since I am not in a position to implement a major change suggested (with regard to reputable sources), I think it would be best to close the review. Thanks to everyone for their comments though.Brigade Piron (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it would be a good addition to WP:MHP. It has recently been promoted to GA status. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments (not a full review): G'day, good work so far. I had a quick look at the changes that have been made since the GA review and at this stage, I have only looked at referencing. Comments It's always nice to see good-quality articles on "big" topics such as this. I have the following comments:
 * In this regard, for a successful A-class review, I believe that the following sentences need referencing:
 * "Belgian Congo remained loyal to the government in exile and was put at the disposal of the Allies, making a significant contribution to the Allied war effort" (specifically who states that their contribution to the Allied war effort was "significant" and that they "remained loyal");
 * "These were repressed by military force, often violently."
 * "In February 1945, Achille Van Acker replaced Pierlot as Prime Minister."
 * "Léon Degrelle however, managed to escape to Francoist Spain amidst the chaos of the war's end, where he remained until his death in 1994."
 * "Belgium was also a key player in the unsuccessful negotiations about the creation of a European Defence Community (EDC) in the 1950s. Belgium was assigned a sector of the British zone in West Germany, around the town of Cologne, which it occupied from 1945. Belgian soldiers remained in Germany until their final withdrawal in 2002."
 * Reference/note 59 has a "page needed" tag that should be fixed.
 * once these are done, I will come back and take a more thorough look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All done! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * in the lead you mention the figures of 88,000; 1.05% and 8% but they do not appear in the body of the article. If they are important enough to be in the lead, they should probably be in the body of the article somewhere as well. If you do this, and cite them in the body, the references in the lead could be removed;
 * inconsistent hyphenation: "army-in-exile" (in the lead) v. "Belgian Army in Exile" (section header);
 * in the Holocaust section, I think the short paragraph starting "Of the 25,000 deported..." probably should be merged with the paragaph above it;
 * inconsistent terminology: "Begian Army in Exile" v. "Belgian forces in exile";
 * "400 Belgian pilots served in the Royal Air Force" --> Probably should be "Four hundred Belgian pilots served in the Royal Air Force" per WP:ORDINAL figures shouldn't be used to start a sentence;
 * wath out for overlinking. I removed a couple, but the duplicate link checker tool reports a few more: "Yellow badge", "Auschwitz concentration camp", Hubert Pierlot", "Royal Air Force", "United Kingdom", "Canada", "1st Belgian Infantry Brigade", "Antwerp"; "Royal Question"; Fort Breendonk";"Pierlot IV Government"; "Rexism", "Jozef-Ernest van Roey";
 * "western front" --> probably should be "Western Front" as it seems to be a defacto proper noun;
 * "File:Sswallonie.jpg": this probably needs a US licence as well as the German one (on the image description page);
 * is there a url or book that can be added as the source from where "File:99th Infantry Division Moving Through Wirtzfeld.jpg" was taken? Currently it just gives the source as the US Army Center for Military History, but it would have been scanned from somewhere...
 * is there a reference for Note 1?
 * final point, I found the prose a little awkward in places, have you thought about listing it at WP:GOCE for a copy edit? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, its been a couple of weeks now since I posted these comments. Are you able to provide an update on how you are going with this? If you don't agree with my comments, I'm more than happy to discuss. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If it is OK, I will attempt to respond to each point individually for clarity. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'Background' section seems a bit brief - can you say more about the country's defensive plans? (in particular, did the Belgian Government believe that it could actually hold off a German offensive in 1939, or was the goal to play for time by slowing down the German force?)
 * The material on the fighting in 1940 doesn't note that British and French forces entered the country as soon as the Germans invaded - this was actually the main body of the British-French forces, and they deployed as part of a plan which was pre-arranged with the Belgian Government. This also raises the question of why the Belgian Government didn't allow British and French troops to take up positions in the country before this time.
 * Belgium was neutral, to allow Allied troops into the country before the declaration of war would have been a clear violation of this. I must admit I have not heard that the plan was pre-arranged, but I will make a note of it.
 * I've somewhat over-stated things, but there was a degree of cooperation. The Belgians appear to have acted in general accordance with the Allied plans without properly coordinating with them. See the British official history of the campaign here for a discussion of this. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is estimated that around two million civilians fled their homes during the campaign." - can more be said about this? This must have been a traumatic experience for the country.
 * "and could only field 180 serviceable aircraft out of its total of 234" - this is actually a pretty good serviceability rate for military air units of the era, and wouldn't be considered awful today
 * I'm not an expert in this area. I cite the figure in the context in which Mollo (2001) uses it only.


 * "The military held out against German forces for 18 days, against overwhelming odds" - this seems to be putting a positive gloss on things. The Belgian military was comprehensively outmaneuvered and outfought and had to surrender after a very short campaign. I don't think that the odds were "overwhelming" - the Belgian military was quite large, and was operating alongside powerful British and French forces and the main weight of the German attack was in northern France. The problem was that the Allies  doctrine was totally outdated and they lacked air support.
 * This is very much a contentious point. The Belgian army was clearly outnumbered (20 divisions to 141!) and underequipped but it held out remarkably well in actual fighting. It retreated because it was outflanked and because of the poor coordination with British and French forces. The 28th May surrender was made because it was clear that there was nothing that anyone could do to save the army. The Belgian army is usually perceived to have performed better, given its obstacles, to either French or Dutch armies in the period. In any case, there is quite a bit of literature that supports the argument presented. Cf. "Despite some support by British forces, the Belgians were simply outnumbered and outgunned from the beginning... The Belgian forces fought on, courageously, but were continually overcome by the invaders." from here, both a reputable source and one that is independent of Belgium.
 * Are you sure about that figure for the German forces? Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Occupied Belgium was also targeted by the Allied bombers from both the British RAF and American USAAF. The policy led to high civilian casualties as bombs missed their intended targets and fell on civilian areas." - while this is a fair point, you should also note that the Allies at least attempted to avoid or minimise civilian casualties during raids on occupied Belgium.
 * Sorry to sound so negative again! The text (I hope!) makes it clear that factories etc. were the target of the bombers, but very little effort seems to have been made to prevent civilian casualties, which seem to have been considered as inevitable.
 * Not at all true: the Allies made considerable efforts to minimize civilian casualties in occupied western Europe. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "yet one estimate puts the number of German soldiers killed by the Belgian resistance in 1941 as higher than in all of France" - not a very meaningful comparison given that the resistance in France didn't really kick off until 1942/43
 * As I say, I'm not an expert. Resistance in Belgium was also pretty nascent in 1941 and didn't really kick off properly until 1944!
 * This seems like a cherry-picked figure. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note 2 needs specific references
 * Can you tell me how to attach a reference to a note? I have seen it done elsewhere but can't seem to get it to work in this article!
 * It works the same as other references - just include the reference within the note. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "After the defeat in 1940, significant numbers of Belgian soldiers and civilians escaped to Britain who, along with Belgian pre-war émigrés in Britain and Canada, formed the Belgian forces in exile." - is there a figure for the total number of people here?
 * That's a valid point. The only number I've been able to find is the figure of 4,500 by 1944 mentioned though I will keep looking.


 * "Two all-Belgian fighter units, Nos. 349 and 350 Squadrons, were formed in the Royal Air Force with over 400 pilots between them" - is this figure correct? A fighter squadron typically had about 20 pilots on strength at any point in time, and if the Free Belgian forces peaked at 4,500 people this means that one in ten was or had been a fighter pilot, which seems unlikely given the exacting criteria pilots had to meet.
 * I'm not sure. I will check the source again. Now that you mention it, my gut feeling is that is the squadron (maintenance, logistics etc.) all told, though it probably includes replacement pilots also.
 * Interesting point actually - the source clearly indicates pilots, though does not specify the two Belgian squadrons. If you see here too (not exactly a reputable source, but still...), there seem to have been loads of Belgian pilots floating around in the RAF in various different squadrons. This (521 pilots and navigators during war) seems to be the source for the above and is a website I trust a great deal and is already referenced. It certainly gives the 400-pilot figure a certain legitimacy.
 * Those don't appear to be reliable sources I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "13,000 Congolese troops served under British command in Nigeria." - what were they doing there? Nigeria was never a war zone or close to one.
 * No idea, will check!
 * On garrison duty. I've put this on the Free Belgian Forces article I'm writing currently.


 * Were the African members of the Force Publique volunteers or conscripts?
 * Ditto.
 * As far as I can see, they were volunteers but I cannot find any source which deals directly with this (during the war at least)


 * Was the Belgian brigade allowed to take part in serious fighting in 1944? Given the small size of the force and the lack of a supply of reinforcements it may have had to have been assigned relatively low-risk duties to prevent it from being destroyed
 * Watch out for over-linking (for instance, in the first sentence of the 'Liberation' section)
 * "A post-war SHAEF report estimated V-Bombs had been responsible for killing 5,000 people" - is there a more recent source you can reference for this than a 1945 provincial Australian newspaper? (in 1945 Canberra wasn't much more than a large country town)
 * Many of the websites used as references don't seem reliable at first glance. For instance:
 * What makes http://www.waroverholland.nl/ a reliable source? I note that its author describes himself as a historian, but doesn't say which of his works have been published. If he's had works on this topic published by reputable firms or in academic journals or the site itself is referenced in such sources it's OK.
 * Likewise, what establishes http://home.scarlet.be/vdmeiren/The%20Campaign%20of%20the%20Belgian%20army%20in%20May%201940.html, http://www.brigade-piron.be/ as reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - my rationale behind these sources is that they do not make outrageous claims (and because exact references are impossible in the franco-english language writing I have at my disposal) while they are cited to substantiate facts rather than as legitimation for opinions or interpretations. In the case of brigade-piron.be I stand behind it as a reputable source in all regards (it's as much of a veterans group as it is of history) but I agree, the others are less so. Where I can find alternative references, I of course will replace them however much of the literature on really specific aspects of this topic remains elusive!
 * Sorry, but for A-class status clear-cut reliable sources are needed to support all material. Veterans groups do not generally qualify as reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)' As former GA reviewer I thought I might make a few comments, hope no one minds.
 * As it is the lead doesn't really touch on either the Belgian Congo or Leopold III sections of the article, could this be recitified?
 * That's a very good point. I'll do something about it now.


 * "King and commander in chief of the Belgian army" Perhaps change to "King of Belgium and commander in chief of the Belgian army"?
 * This is the problem - constitutionally, Leopold is "King of the Belgians", not "King of Belgium" (as a constitutional monarch) but "King of the Belgians and commander in chief of the Belgian army" sounds a bit long winded.

That's all for now,  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that,  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think the article name should replace 'in' with 'during' to match some of the other similar articles (Military history of Australia during World War II, Australian Army during World War II
 * Add an infobox.
 * In the background, add more on the pre-war fortifications - they took years to construct, cost a lot which meant they did not purchase modern tanks and aircraft and basically useless.
 * Speaking of useless, there should be more description on why these static fortifications were easily defeated.
 * Neutrality was a big deal in the defense strategy of Belgium and I think this could be expanded.
 * I'm not a fan of that block quote.
 * The capture of the Eban-Emael forts in the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael deserves a little more discussion, and a link.
 * The Battle of Belgium explains to me why that section is called the "18 Days' Campaign" of 1940 but the latter is probably a better section name for an English language article, plus I think you are should avoid quotes in section titles.
 * Almost all of the air force's... How many? Which airforce?
 * Note 1 can go in the text as far as I can tell.
 * several hundred -> pick a number or a range of numbers. This type of phrasing is common throughout the article and the sources hopefully have more specific numbers.
 * Of the 25,000 deported, over 24,000 were killed. Fewer than 1,000... -> Of the 25,000 deported, fewer than 1,000...
 * Free Belgian forces or Belgian forces in exile? The former sounds better to me.
 * No bibliography? Kirk (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.