Talk:Second Battle of the Aisne

Map Boxing

So, should the map be placed in the Battbox? (where it will be less intrusive to the main body of the article) Or is it more handy to keep it where is for reference? YOU make the call! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I put the map inside the battle box because of one reason; when it was below the battle box, it created this huge gap in the writing. So I moved it to the battle box to see if it would change the gap, & it did. The only thing is that when I fiddled with map, I still couldn't find a way to get rid of the box surrounding it... Spawn Man 23:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I fixed the box in box appearance of the map R.D.H... Spawn Man 00:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I also created some of the red links on this page, Moronvilliers, Charles Mangin & Francois Anthoine.

Good calls again Spawn my man. I'm also glad that, unlike certain other editors, we bother to DISCUSS things first instead of doing large edits and leaving lectures on "style" in the notes. I know they mean well and are within their rights, but it is more polite to consult and discuss things first. Please, let us try to not only be good editors but good collaborators as well. "Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me." --Dr. Hannibal Lecter :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, the Francois Anthoine article I made was deleted because they said it was too close to the firstworldwar.com article on him. I did use their article as a source (as it was the only internet source), & tried to rewrite it as best as I could... Obviously not well enough... Ahhhh well, win some, lose some... Spawn Man 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you went an "Article Too Far". Better keep such articles in your sandbox from now on until I can have a look at them and pound em into an unrecognizable pulp.

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) PS Don't let the bastiches get ya down!

I won't... You're a good friend R.D.H. Besides, I bet everyone will or already has had a problem with copy right or regulations... Spawn Man 06:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

0.5 nom

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 I failed this article because it has no references, also on the shorter side. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mergence!

I Strongly oppose this article being merged with the 2nd battle of the aisne! Gosh! The battle was only a battle, where as the nivelle offensive was the whole campaign movement. They deserve two different articles at least! If it was an article such as "The part of the aisne where it got shelled", then that should be merged into the aisne article, not the entire campaign which over saw tens of battles!!!!!!! Gosh, get a grip everybody, the articles stays I say. Spawn Man 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent figures

The casualty figures in the box don't match those in the text. Which is accurate? Kevink707 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image 'German trenches on the Aisne'

I very much doubt that this is a picture from 1917. Not a single steel helmet in sight. To my knowledge, they were commonly worn in front line trenches in 1917. If the picture was taken in the Aisne aera, it seems much more likely that it dates back to the First Battle of the Aisne in 1914.
Nanoktom (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done some more research into this problem. The picture obviously originates here: [1] In the caption recorded there, there is no mention of the date. Also, there is a remark saying: Title from unverified data provided by the Bain News Service on the negatives or caption cards.

So, even the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division doesn't know exactly where and when this image was taken.

In my opinion, it should be removed from this article, as it gives a wrong impression of how the trench war in 1917 looked like. Nanoktom (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No helmets = not 1917. I've removed the photo. The soft caps headgear looks like much earlier in the war or even prewar training. Rcbutcher (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Casualty figures

Will someone please verify the so-called casualty figures cited in this article's Infobox from the British book noted below, which is footnoted as the source:

• Source: P Simkins, G Jukes, & M Hickey (2003). The First World War: The War To End All Wars. Osprey Publishing. p. 123

Reportedly for France: 118,000 casualties (!); for Germany: (only) 40,000 casualties (!)

The numbers are not anywhere close to what I have in my French language sources, which happen to match French Wikipédia, by the way. (I am not responsible for putting them there.):

• My source: Pierre Miquel (2000). Les Poilus, La Flèche: Plon, p. 342

For France: 187,000 casualties; for Germany: 163,000 casualties

I believe that the British source probably is for confirmed numbers of deaths only, not casualties, i.e. deaths & wounded. If it is not clear in the British book, please find another English language book on this battle to get better figures. The numbers are in very serious need of a revision. Thanks. Charvex (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Text park

On 16 April 1917, after a week of diversionary attacks by the British at Arras, nineteen divisions of the French 5th and 6th armies, led by Mazel and Charles Mangin, attacked the German line along an 80 kilometres (50 mi) stretch from Soissons to Reims. An impressive amount of artillery firepower was concentrated on the German lines, but to no avail since the ridge was underlain by underground quarries that served as deep shelters. Forewarned, the Germans had concentrated about 100 machine guns, including the new MG08/15 light machine guns, for every 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) of front; they were also well entrenched, and their positions were deep. Situated on the high ground overlooking the valley of the Aisne River, the German 7th Army (under Max von Boehn) had little difficulty holding their positions. On the first day the French suffered over 40,000 casualties and lost 76 tanks. The creeping barrage was also poorly executed and failed adequately to cover the advance.

On the second day, the French Fourth army, led by François Anthoine, launched an attack east of Reims towards Moronvilliers, the [Bataille des Monts] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (Battle of the Hills). Fritz von Below's First Army was pushed back 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) on the first day and another 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) on the second day but French attacks gained little more ground over the followiing two days.

Nivelle continued to order full-scale attacks until 20 April 1917. Some small gains were made by Mangin to the west of Soissons and although the main offensive was over by 25 April, on 5 May the 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) eastern stretch of the Chemin des Dames Ridge in the area of the Plateau de Californie ("California Plateau") and the town of Craonne were captured, by smaller attacks with tank support, which were harder for the Germans to resist.

References

Nivelle offensive

It took a while to find the pages associated with the Nivelle Offensive but I have in mind making the Nivelle Offensive page the main one about the development of the Allied strategy for early 1917 and the aftermath and the other pages Battle of Arras (1917), Second Battle of the Aisne, Battle of the Hills for the details of the military operations. I did a campaign boxes to tie the pages together. Arras is pretty complete but the other two suffer from lack of English sources. I've gleaned enough to double the material on each page and added material from Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 but there's very little about the German defence of the Aisne. If anyone has suggestions for English-language sources I'd be grateful.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

After reading the article's recent version, I think it's hard to consider the battle as a "German victoy" as the infobox states. To illustrate, the French made some impressive gains, defeated all German counterattacks and inflicted horrendous German casualties. Therefore, I think it is convenient to identify the battle's result as "Defenvie German success", "French tactical victory, German strategic victory" instead of "German victory", which may give a false impression that the French was routed in this battle.210.245.118.154 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right but see this

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.

from Template:Infobox military conflict The trouble with the win-lose criterion is that long battles were inherently inconclusive but had effects which were cumulative, so in Great War battles 1915-1917 the result is always inconclusive. What we think matters less than the verdict in notable sources, which usually dwell on the frustration of French strategy rather than the attritional effects. Without notable sources no entry in the result can stand.Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Before reading this article, I usually thought of a powerful and almost invincible German army. However, German performance. as described here was surprisingly poor. Can you explain me about this phenomenom?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ti2008 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Start with the articlesKeith-264 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Nivelle Offensive

"The attacks became known as the Nivelle Offensive" - so why are there two articles? Are they the same? If not, where does one begin and the other end?-79.219.189.118 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Nivelle Offensive was the offensive, the 2nd B of the Aisne was part of it. The articles on Arras and the Battle of the Hills are adequate but the others aren't. One day I'll redo the Niv Off article using Prelude to Victory (among others) for the background and prelude, so the machinations of the French generals and politicians and the hiccup caused by the retreat to the Hindenburg Line are described and the military operations sketched afterwards. The military detail will go into the 2nd B of t A page; unless someone starts before me. Limited ability to read French and German means it'll take a lot of work and I'm busy finishing off the Somme pages, slowed somewhat by being laid up and working on smaller articles.Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Realised that I'd moved paragraphs around and forgot to delete them from the original positions. Added a few wikilinks and copy edited sections.Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Observatories, Times XV @ p. 395. Keith-264 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian Empire ?

The Russian Empire didn't even exist in May 1917. `01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathamibird (talk • contribs)

Number of fortified German positions lost

The article says 'The Germans had been forced out of three of the most elaborately fortified positions on the Western Front and failed to recapture them. Vimy Ridge, the Scarpe Heights, the caverns, spurs and plateau of the Chemin des Dames and the Moronvilliers massif had been occupied for more than two years, carefully surveyed by German engineers and fortified to make them impregnable.' That sounds like four: perhaps the number could be changed or the list made clearer. Jontel (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll have another look at the source, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jontel: How now? Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Yes, that fixes my query. Thanks! Great article btw. Jontel (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jontel: Thanks very much, there's a lot more to do with it because several good books have been published in English since it got a B-class but I'm snowed under with unfinished articles. It's like painting the Forth rail bridge. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)