Talk:Hundred Days Offensive

First comment

This article needs a serious edit, as to read it one would wonder where the Canadians are. Strikes me that was Arthur Currie and the CEF that was tne central story of the Hundred Days.

Is there someone who has a better grasp of this and the Battle of the Hindenburg Line who could do an edit?

139.142.75.220 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Kim Anderosn

"Somme Offensive"?

I could find no other sources that call this the "Hundred Days Offensive." I did find it named the "Somme Offensive", though. Perhaps someone could check it out? ([1]) I made the redirect, but if I'm in error then I hope someone will correct me. --DVirus101 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking for a book which mentions it, but it is packed away in my attic and I can't lay my hands on it. However a google search [Haig "100 days" 1918 -wikipedia] returns "about 328 English pages for Haig "100 days" 1918 -wikipedia". It is a well known that the "100 days" won Haig his earldom (because the First Battle of the Somme defiantly did not), also I suspect it is to draw a parallel with Napoleon's last campaign which 100 years earlier is also known as Hundred Days. So I think the article should remain under its current name --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The name was deliberately chosen - I think it was by Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson -- to draw a parallel with Wellington's defeat of Napoleon, which was more obvious at the time -- Hawkeye7 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian Imperial Force

Seeing as the AIF was part of the British Expeditionary Force does it need to be included. If they are included we might as well include all of the seperate British units and French Units.

Separate please. It hints at the increasing disenchantment with BEF command felt by the AIF and Australian government. This returns as a major theme in 1942, with the AIF in Africa under British command whilst Japanese forces are 300Km from Australia. 150.101.30.44 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tactics

I think that this article needs a section on tactics and how the Allies had learnt the lessons of stormtrooper infiltration tactics that were used againt them in the German offensive of 1918 (Operation Michael et al), and how the Allies used "combained arms" coupling the use of tanks with infantry and close air support which for the Germans who were on the on the recieving end was the initiator for the development of the ideas which led to blitzkrieg, and has influenced military thinking throughdesert storm to today. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's something of an oversimplification to say the allies learnt from the Germans. 'Stormtroop' tactics emerged well before 1918 and in both the British and French armies independently. IxK85 02:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To add on to IxK85's point - ironically, some historians give some of the credit for Germany's 'stormtrooper' tactics to the Canadians. The line of reasoning says that many of the tactics developed or refined by Byng and Currie for the overwhelmingly successful assault on Vimy Ridge were hard learned lessons the Germans studied and employed themselves in the 1918 offensives. But then, Currie had studied French, German and British successes earlier in the war to develop those tactics. Fair said perhaps that it becomes a fairly circular argument to say 'who taught who' Whiskymack (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to first be more specific about which "storm troop" tactics you are talking about. To the Allies, with their heavy weaponry, and well planned assaults, especially vs. the Belgian forts, the tactics the German's used at the very outbreak of war were those of "storm troops". It is term that gets overused, but never more so than in WWI as a topic. Later on, having developed their own effective tactics vs. the Germans, the colonial troops were referred to as storm troops by the Germans. Then, as was mentioned above, the Germans, and the Australians/Canadians continued to learn and adapt to each other on the battlefield. I would strongly suggest an absolutely minimal use of this particular term. It probably has to be used with regard to the Belgian forts and German tactical superiority in the first part of the war. It should probably be mentioned again with regard to German opinion of the colonials that were defeating them on the battlefield. These would both be passing uses of the phrase. Anything more and it could go in circles with every second sentence using the term as every lesson the enemies learned from each other leading to an advancement to the level of a storm troop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.4.118 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Corps Participation

I originally wrote this as a reply to Bullseye30's "terrible, biased article" but later thought it to be a good topic.

The problem with a colonial country that carries the same flag into battle is that all the accomplishments and merits are rolled up into the mother country. As time goes on, and as scholars dig deep into history, a truth starts to emerge. Canada now has its own flag and with its new constitution is a totally sovereign nation. Historians must now ask this question, should Canada's rightful place in the Hundred Days Offensive continue to be suppressed or should historians acknowledge Canada's pivotal contribution and sacrifice in this campaign?

There are two relatively new historical texts that come to mind. The first <ref> How Canada Won the Great War by Robert Child | Mar 27, 2016 <ref> Robert Child: "Award winning author, ... Aside from his independently published works he is currently authoring a new WWII novel, The Lost Eleven, with coauthor, Denise George, which will be published by Random House / Penguin in the Feb 2017. Military history is one of his long time passions. He has produced a number of films on this topic and has won more than 25 film and television awards plus an Emmy® nomination." Quote from Amazon Books. Robert Child is an American.

In his preface he states, "Yes, I agree the title of this book is provocative but it is my opinion based on working in Toronto for fifteen months on this project. The record is clear to anyone who bothers to look. But that opinion does in no way lessen my respect and regard for what the French, British, Australian and American armies accomplished in some of the most terrible fighting soldiers ever faced."

The other historical text, <ref> The Greatest Victory, Canada's One Hundred Days, 1918, by J.L Granatstein 2014 <ref> is yet another example of how Canadian Corps' participation played a fundamental part in the success of the campaign and why. Mr. Granatstein had been the chair of the Advisory Board of the Vimy Foundation among other things. He is a distinguished research professor Emeritus in the Department of History at York University.

In his introduction I quote, "... the greatest victories of the Canadian Corps took place in the critical period from August 8, 1918 to the Armistice of Number 11, universally known as the Hundred Days..... these soldiers played a huge role in the Allied victory over Germany in the First World War. The cost in lives was terrible. But there were measurable gains and decisive results."

In the text General Horne was quoted to say, "the Canadian Corps is perhaps rather apt to take all the credit it can for everything and to consider that the BEF consists of the Canadian Corps and some other troops." Sarcasm at its best. There was truth in that but Currie was unfazed: "We took care of 25% of all the total German Army on the Western Front.... 47 divisions,... leaving the rest to the American Army, French Army, Belgian Army, and the rest of the British Army to look after the rest."

As in life, there are leaders. Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Maj-Gen Issac Brock, President Kennedy. You get the idea. There are leaders that are trailblazers and have this tenacity to spur everyone else to do more than their best. This was the Canadian Corps. Yes, they didn't have the numbers, but what they had in esprit de corps and ingenuity with advanced logistics and tactics and courage far outweigh their size and with it smashed through the German lines to lead the way. It would be sad, as historians, to allow our emotions to get in the way of fact. Torontofred (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC) <ref> How Canada Won the Great War by Robert Child | Mar 27, 2016 <ref> <ref> The Greatest Victory, Canada's One Hundred Days, 1918, by J.L Granatstein 2014 <ref> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would say General Horne's remark sort of indicates a realisation of the problem you've just exemplified; there is considerable Canadian bias regarding their contribution, and they do tend to over-inflate what they have done and how they did it; Currie there overestimates exactly what he took care of, makes no mention of Canadian divisions being much larger than other divisions, and then there's the whole Vimy Ridge thing, which many Canadians still believe, erronously, they captured in the face of repeated French and British failures.

Every country should rightfully get their due, their credit, and be able to be proud of certain things. But the problem emerges when one feels neglected, the pendulum swings too far the other way, and we have lies instead of lies of omission. The Canadians still believe their troops were the finest Allied troops of WW1...which is fine to believe that, but when you start trying to put it down as factual is when the cracks begin to show. Alooulla (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Overall

This page seriously needs a re-edit. It's become so biased that it's of dubious worth.

Apart from 'a British division' it appears the war was actually won by the Canadians and an American unit! The sources give a clue, mostly being Canadian sources.

As Philip says above important details are completely missing making me question the knowledge of whoever wrote it originally.

A balanced, accurate article giving credit where it's due is seriously needed. If I have time I'll try to write a whole new, balanced, article for submission

Roger

83.67.126.86 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow this article was written without any citations. Is this just because it is primarily a summary of other articles, or is a binge of fact tags needed?LeadSongDog 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support merger --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed that the Canada's Hundred Days be merged into this article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• My first reaction is to oppose this merger. I am not strong on this, though. Would you be able to provide a rationale as to why and how these two articles would be merged? Sunray (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• The content in the Canada's Hundred Days article is a largely uncited regurgitation of content presented in other articles. The useful content should be merged into Hundred Days Offensive, any Canadian spin would possibly be useful in the content pages of the respective battles and possibly in Military history of Canada during World War I. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this merger. While I do feel that Canada's Hundred Days needs extensive work done on it, there is enough of a difference in the Canadian view from the world view on the subject in that it is of particular importance in Canada. Otonabee (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Otonabee. It is a nationally significant time for them, at least in their minds, and even Belgium and France recognize that period as “Canada’s Hundred Days” That’s if you believe what you read on Wiki.(Brocky44 (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
• The Canada's Hundred Days is nothing but duplicate material. I agree that the offensive was of great military importance to Canada however this is already noted under Military history of Canada during World War I. The Canada's Hundred Days article clearly meets a 4 criteria for merger. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any topic where a huge chunk of the content is relevant to an entire other topic is quite appropriately split. If it is a "regurgitation" of other material from another page that is not in itself a justification for merger. It is just as likely a justification for editing the Canada's Hundred Days topic so that it is more expansive. The four Canadian divisions defeated no less than 44 German divisions over this period of time. It is unfortunate, that due to the Australian and Canadian collective psyche's that these two nations do not get the appropriate credit for being almost single-handedly the reason for the Allied victory. That is not hyperbole. Until the "colonials" started fighting the Germans on their own terms, the British and French leadership were content to hurl bodies against machine gun fire. The colonial troops invented counter-battery fire, the creeping barrage and unlike the other allies learned from their encounters with the enemy and adapted their strategies to include sufficient machine-gun fire and other heavy weaponry. This was a legacy that would be repeated again in WWII, although the differences between their ability to meet the enemy on their own terms compared to the other allies in the second conflict were far less dramatic. I would suggest you read Mosier's "The Myth of the Great War" He has a subtitle on the front page: "How the Germans won the battles and the American's saved the Allies". It is a very well researched book that lays out in detail what it took to beat the Germans and why the Allies couldn't contend with them until 1917 and later. It is of course deeply flawed. Early on he gives credit to the Australians and Canadians in a short statement (I'm paraphrasing) that they were the only troops capable of taking it to the Germans but they were too few. He then goes on and describe how the Allies ultimately won, claiming that it was because the Americans analysed the situation, recognized the superiority of German tactics, and chose those tactics over those of the Allies. This is of course completely transparent American-centric propaganda. It is also a perfect example of why this article titled as "CANADA's Hundred Days" must remain as such. The fact that a competent and capable military historian can publish a book that while almost unchallengeable in its assertions on military tactics, could posit: 1. American leadership learned tactics from the Germans rather than the Allied units that had already learned how to fight the Germans! LUDICROUS. How, precisely, would that be possible? He is essentially arguing that the limited knowledge one can gain from analysing the enemy from a distance, (in the case of the Americans, this is distance in BOTH space and time) could in any way equal the knowledge gained by observation of their own allies in actual combat, in great gory detail first-hand, with all the details laid out unvarnished and unmasked before them so stretches the bounds of credulity as to boggle the mind. Not to mention, no matter how well trained and competent the force, actually joining the enemy in combat invariably teaches things that can be learned no other way. Mosier is essentially positing that the Americans learned what they needed from a sober analysis essentially prior to even gaining the first hand-experience of facing their enemy in combat. In doing so they ignored the tactics of the Canadians and Australians that he concedes had already learned to fight that enemy! I can guarantee you his book is being used as a teaching aid on the conflict at Westpoint. 2. By this period, even the British and French leadership had recognized their folly and started to adapt the tactics from the Australians and Canadians. The idea that the U.S. came in and turned everyone on their head is unsupportable. This does not in any way detract from the fighting done by the Americans in either quantity or quality. Nor does it detract from the good sense of the American leadership to recognize that they should in their own best interest maintain themselves as an American fighting force rather than as mere replenishments for the allies (sound familiar to the experience of any other allies?...anyone? I wonder, from whence could that lesson have been learned? The Germans perhaps?). And it does not detract from the good sense of the American leadership to recognize that the British and French leadership were not the ones to be learned from. However, to premise that the American leadership and the American fighting man was the source is an unacceptable bit of propaganda and a callous and immoral slight to those who did the fighting and dying to find a way to win. Finally, I would suggest, that if anyone wants to merge this topic with the other "hundred days" topic, they should first document for us, how many German divisions were defeated by how many American divisions in this period, so we can compare the relative importance of this topic to the history of WWI on equal footing. If they have a record of 10 or 11 to one as well, then perhaps this does give too much focus. I'm not sure I would agree as I believe the more detail on all participants, no matter how small their contribution is appropriate, and respectful. But at least we would be arguing apples and apples, rather than the perception of some that this topic is merely out of control and unjustified patriotic fervour by a few Canadians. Statements like "It is a nationally significant time for them, at least in their minds" can easily be interpreted as insulting. I recognize that it is unlikely that it was intended as such, but it is an indicator that most of those discussing whether this topic should be merged, whether they are for or against it, are in fact spectacularly ignorant of the actual facts that justify its separate existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.176.233 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Complete and utter Canadian pro bias propaganda. Yes theres no doubt of the achievements that the Dominion divisions accomplished but much of that was done belittling the massive bulk of fighting done by the British Divisions, many of whom were just as or even better than the Canadian corps. This view above does nothing but instills the same old myth that British Divisions were useless while Dominions were invincible. Total garbage. The British were very much the co stars and victors of this Offensive, and half of those "Canadian" troops in 1918 were British born, not to mention seen as British. (75.118.14.255 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

And that isn't pro-British propaganda? Canada's Hundred Days is a term used internationally. --PlasmaTwa2 06:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I’d oppose a merger; if the subject is the specifically Canadian aspect to this operation then it has merit. We have separate articles for particular contributions to a whole elsewhere; the Commonwealth contribution to the Korean War springs to mind.

OTOH it repeats a lot of what is in this article, and if the material there is just re-written with a Canadian slant, it’s in danger of being just another POV fork.

It would make sense to lose there much of what is already over here, and expand the specifically Canadian aspects; maybe less of what happened and more of what it meant. If the events have a resonance in Canada that aren’t felt elsewhere, then that needs to be said. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for a merger, and it looks like the discussion petered out a while ago. If there are no objections I will close it, with the conclusion no consensus for a merger.
I suggest the specific problems with the articles be addressed on the talk pages with aview to improving the articles themselves. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. Close the discussion, no consensus was reached. Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Breaking the Hindenburg Line

This part is missing a few things.

The French Fourth Army of 250,000 also attacked on the 26th at the Meuse Argonne. On the 27th the First and Third British Armies attacked. There was also a French army with Flanders Army Group. The French First Army of 14 Divisions also attacked along side the British Fourth Army at the Hindenburg line on the 29th. They took St Quentin. The 5th British Army and the French 5th and 10th armies also commenced with fighting within a few days.(Brocky44 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

The title exhibits an Allied POV. Perhaps "The Hindenburg Line breaks" would be preferable?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have always known it as the Battle of the Hindenburg Line. Breaking the Hindenburg Line would be leading towards POV. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There never was a railway from Bruges to Metz??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:1844:AF00:C1B6:1266:E23E:4CDF (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

terrible, biased article

The Canadian and ANZAC achievements were great but need to be put in perspective. Any serious historian of the First World War knows full well that it was far from the oversimplifed version of David Winters stating: Haig employed Dominion troops in favour of British when encountering serious resistance. Mostly utter bullshit. In a study of the 1918 offensive numerous British divisions performed just as well and in many cases even more so than the ANZAC and CEF divisions and yet in all of the Battle sections not much is written about them: for example the 1918 Somme offensive mentions AUSTRALIAN AND AMERICAN troops winning the battle of St. Quentin without mentioning the 46th Midlanders. In terms of Bulk of fighting the British participation outweighed all others in fighting terms, including the good Canadian troops, despite all of the bias and overemphasize on Dominion actions. This article in its state is in serious need of work. Doesn't surprise me one bit that most of the sources are written in the perspective of those countries. As said before this is in response to the ignorance and belittlement of Britains fine fighting troops of 1918. This is no Belittlement to the dominion participation but in the Articles current state with all the myth and post war writings, the campaign result might as well be changed to: Decisive Australo-Canadian Victory. Very tasteless. (75.118.14.255 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

Feel free to suggest what wording should change, providing of course that you cite WP:Reliable sources.LeadSongDog come howl 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With the rediculous overemphasize on Dominion actions (in addition to American divisions, seriously?) it strikes me as if the British won anything in 1918.

extreme bias as can be seen with a previous unsigned comment above in favour of the "Canadas hundred days offensive" disregarding the massive support they recieved from the acting British fighting armies................................[couldn't agree more,this is a by product of ninety or so years of Australian brainwashing due largely to Charles Bean thankfully now it is slowly but surely being challenged by AUSTRALIAN historians,so another generation of aussie's wont be as embarrassingly mis-informed as the previous generation's.Aussie's seem to forget that they NEVER fought a battle during ww1 without British Artillery,aircraft,tank's,logistic's even often infantry,not forgetting the fact that they were finshed as a fighting force by the end of september 1918 and of course there were around 1.5 million British troops at the end of 1918 compared with around 180.000 australian soldiers....Bullseye30 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Bullseye35 11/10/2013]

Wow, speaking of extreme bias, just who did you think was supporting whom? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bullseye30 could do with learning the proper use of the apostrophe. Catastrophe.1812ahill (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem, Bullseye30, for a colonial country that carries the same flag into battle is that all the accomplishments and merits are rolled up into the mother country. As time goes on, and as scholars dig deep into history, a truth starts to emerge. Canada now has its own flag and with its new constitution is a totally sovereign nation. Historians must now ask this question, should Canada's rightful place in the Hundred Days Offensive continue to be suppressed or should historian acknowledge Canada's contribution and sacrifice in this campaign?

There are two relatively new historical texts that come to mind. The first <ref> How Canada Won the Great War by Robert Child | Mar 27, 2016 <ref> Robert Child: "Award winning author, ... Aside from his independently published works he is currently authoring a new WWII novel, The Lost Eleven, with coauthor, Denise George, which will be published by Random House / Penguin in the Feb 2017. Military history is one of his long time passions. He has produced a number of films on this topic and has won more than 25 film and television awards plus an Emmy® nomination." Quote from Amazon Books. Robert Child is an American.

In his preface he states, "Yes, I agree the title of this book is provocative but it is my opinion based on working in Toronto for fifteen months on this project. The record is clear to anyone who bothers to look. But that opinion does in no way lessen my respect and regard for what the French, British, Australian and American armies accomplished in some of the most terrible fighting soldiers ever faced."

The other historical text, <ref> The Greatest Victory, Canada's One Hundred Days, 1918, by J.L Granatstein 2014 <ref> is yet another example of how Canadian Corps' participation played a fundamental part in the success of the campaign and why. Mr. Granatstein had been the chair of the Advisory Board of the Vimy Foundation among other things. He is a distinguished research professor Emeritus in the Department of History at York University.

In his introduction I quote, "... the greatest victories of the Canadian Corps took place in the critical period from August 8, 1918 to the Armistice of Number 11, universally known as the Hundred Days..... these soldiers played a huge role in the Allied victory over Germany in the First World War. The cost in lives was terrible. But there were measurable gains and decisive results."

In the text General Horne was quoted to say, "the Canadian Corps is perhaps rather apt to take all the credit it can for everything and to consider that the BEF consists of the Canadian Corps and some other troops." Sarcasm at its best. There was truth in that but Currie was unfazed: "We took care of 25% of all the total German Army on the Western Front.... 47 divisions,... leaving the rest to the American Army, French Army, Belgian Army, and the rest of the British Army to look after the rest."

As in life, there are leaders. Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Maj-Gen Issac Brock, President Kennedy. You get the idea. There are leaders that are trailblazers and have this tenacity to spur everyone else to do more than their best. This was the Canadian Corps. Yes, they didn't have the numbers, but what they had in esprit de corps and ingenuity with advanced logistics and tactics and courage far outweigh their size and with it smashed through the German lines to lead the way.

It would be sad, as historians, to allow our emotions to get in the way of fact.

Torontofred (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic that you claimed he was biased yet you yourself have drawn exclusively from Canadian sources that exemplify the very problem he was talking about. Alooulla (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Second Battle of Arras

There seems to be confusion in terms. The Second Battle of Arras redirects to the Battle of Arras (1917). The "Second Battle of Arras" on this page seems to be referring to the Battle of Arras (1918). Should an article be made for the 1918 battle to clarify or stop re-directing Second Battle of Arras to the Battle of Arras (1917). I'm not familiar enough with this part of the war to clarify the situation.--Hantsheroes (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment as Hantsheroes. The Second Battle of Arras is commonly held to be the 1917 battle. So the statement is wrong and so is the redirect. A brief look on the Internet reveals that sometimes the 1918 battle is referred to as the Third Battle of Arras. However, my paper library contains no such description. No particular feeling as to how it should be done, but somehow the confusion needs to be resolved. Theeurocrat (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Record of Engagements... has First Battles of Arras, 1918, 28th March and The Second Battles of Arras, 1918, 26th August – 3rd September, with Battle of the Scarpe, 1918, 26th–30th August and Battle of Drocourt–Queant, 2nd–3rd September (pp. 27, 34-35)Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• The British Official History can be single handily blamed for the confusion. In their naming approach, they appended the year to the end of the name instead denoting the battles of first, second third, etc. Thus we have Arras 1914, Arras 1917 (AKA Second battles of Arras), First Arras 1918 and Second Arras 1918. There is no way to avoid the confusion other than to include the year every time first and second arras 1918 are referred. I'll correct the redirects and point them to the appropriate location.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've simply amended the text to read Second Battle of Arras 1918. Creating a link would just make it circular.--Labattblueboy (talk)

The Battles Nomenclature Committee decided on the names of battles in 1921 and in 1924 E. A. James listed the units involved

• James, E.A. (1924). A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 (London Stamp Exchange 1990 ed.). Aldershot: Gale & Polden. OCLC 250857010. I think they used years rather than numbers of battles, because they were subdivided - there were 12 battles on the Somme in 1916.Keith-264 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I do largely blame the Official Histories because they did reject the year disambiguation when they found it convenient. The First Second and Third Battle of Ypres, instead of Ypres 1914, Ypres 1915 and Ypres 1917, comes to mind.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Title

Should this not be "Hundred Days' Offensive" (with the apostrophe)? Brigade Piron (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, and I have moved it back. If you check other world history sources, it is referred to as the "Hundred Days Offensive", without the apostrophe. Wikipedia article titling guidelines support using the most common name for the subject.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 03:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"tanks attacked German rear positions, sowing panic and confusion"?

Is this what the author meant to say, or is it a reference to the Austin armoured cars of 17th Battalion, Tank Corps, which operated in the German rear during this offensive? Hengistmate (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Result

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Please take note of this before tampering with the result criterion in the infobox. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264 and his revisionism

Keith-264 started an edit war and suddenly removed "Collapse of the German Empire" from the result (while it had been there for years) because it doesnt fit his revisionist views of history (Stab in the back myth) according to which the German Empire collapsed before the end of the war. The accepted truth is that Germany collapsed because it lost the Hundred Days Offensive, not the contrary So stop with this nonse, and other confirmed users should stop nlindly backing up this adept of Hitler's revisionist theiry about WW1 just because he's a "confirmed user" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1C:8172:5400:6913:9B2E:EFD3:846A (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully draw your attention to the comment above which shows what terms can be used for the result criterion and ask you to mind your manners. Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Central Powers? or Germany?

The second sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "Beginning with the Battle of Amiens (8–12 August) on the Western Front, the Allies pushed the Central Powers back,", and the infobox lists Austria-Hungary as a belligerent. However, all of the action occurred on the western front in France, and there is no mention of any A-H troops being involved in any way. Shouldn't the second sentence be: "... the Allies pushed the German Army back...", with no mention of Austria-Hungary in the infobox? I appreciate that the offensive ended the War, but that's a larger issue, in which Austria-Hungary would be involved. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)