Talk:Hundred Days Offensive

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.

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) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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)).

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)

terrible, biased article

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.

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)).