This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One editor rejects the idea that the French army decided to wait for the Americans to arrive. However that is what the RS say. 1) "Instead the French army would sit tight and wait for the Americans" says Martin Evans (2014). France 1815-2003: Modern History For Modern Languages. Routledge. p. 84. 2) "French policy in the last year of the war was to remain on the defensive and wait for the Americans to arrive on the Western Front." [Rossof 1982]; 2) "Even after Petain's skilful mixture of tact and firmness had restored military discipline, the French army could only remain on the defensive and wait for the Americans." [Andrew 1981]; 3) "He also had the good sense to indulge in no more great offensives, but to wait for the Americans and the tanks." [Paul Hayes, 2002]; 4) "Instead the French army would sit tight and wait for the Americans." [Martin Evans 2014]; 5) Clemenceau told Wilson in June 1917, [he would] wait for the Americans & meanwhile not lose more." [Brock Millman, 2014]; 5) "Pétain's watchword was that 'We must wait for the Americans and the tanks'" [David Stevenson, 2011]. Rjensen ( talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help) Buistr misreads the claim: historians, Petain and Clemenceau all said that from June 1917 the French policy was to avoid offensive attacks against the German lines, and they all link that to the mutinies. The Paris promised its soldiers no more Nivelle-like offensives. (casualty rates did in fact fall sharply and the French launched only three small attacks in the second half of 1917...Stevenson With our Backs to the Wall p 269] Everyone knew in 1917 it would take a long time for the US soldiers to arrive. That is why the British had to do so much of the fighting in 1917. In his statement Buistr seems to agree with these points: the French indeed did not make any offensive moves for about a year, and then only did so when the Americans were arriving at 10,000 a day.
According to this article 'there were no politics involved just despair'. This in total contrast with the story told in the BBC witness program that says the Internationale was played and soldiers formed Sovjet like groups. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p051b9xw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 ( talk) 23:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that adding an infobox as this was done the 3 August 2018 at 16:43 and 16:46 is pertinent. It provides the reader with no relevant abstract of the article and instead mereley repeats what is written in the first two paragraphs of the header. Other articles about mutinies like here /info/en/?search=Kiel_mutiny and here /info/en/?search=%C3%89taples_mutiny don't feature any such infobox and I think it makes more sense this way. I'll remove it in a few days unless someone disagrees. Dyadique78 ( talk) 20:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The French most likely suffered about 187,000 casualties (Nicholson) or perhaps 134,000 (Doughty) and the Germans 163,000 including 28,500 prisoners during the Second Battle of the Aisne. The term 'disastrous' is not correct. However the battle failed to bring a quick end to the war as promised by Nivelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyadique78 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In the introduction, a 2018 BBC source is cited in support of a statement of 554 death sentences and 26 carried out executions, but in the Repression section quotes research published in 1968 that the respective figure was 629 sentences and 43 executions. Some reconciliation and explanation of the difference ought to be added. Which set of statistics is more trustworthy? Cloptonson ( talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If the article says it is not mutiny why not calling the article "1917 French Army desobedience"? And saying that officially or usually it is refered incorrectly as mutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:3D4A:8EAA:4353:F5BA ( talk) 09:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Homogenised citations but some lack page numbers. Auto ed, cite scan, dupe wl scan. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One editor rejects the idea that the French army decided to wait for the Americans to arrive. However that is what the RS say. 1) "Instead the French army would sit tight and wait for the Americans" says Martin Evans (2014). France 1815-2003: Modern History For Modern Languages. Routledge. p. 84. 2) "French policy in the last year of the war was to remain on the defensive and wait for the Americans to arrive on the Western Front." [Rossof 1982]; 2) "Even after Petain's skilful mixture of tact and firmness had restored military discipline, the French army could only remain on the defensive and wait for the Americans." [Andrew 1981]; 3) "He also had the good sense to indulge in no more great offensives, but to wait for the Americans and the tanks." [Paul Hayes, 2002]; 4) "Instead the French army would sit tight and wait for the Americans." [Martin Evans 2014]; 5) Clemenceau told Wilson in June 1917, [he would] wait for the Americans & meanwhile not lose more." [Brock Millman, 2014]; 5) "Pétain's watchword was that 'We must wait for the Americans and the tanks'" [David Stevenson, 2011]. Rjensen ( talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help) Buistr misreads the claim: historians, Petain and Clemenceau all said that from June 1917 the French policy was to avoid offensive attacks against the German lines, and they all link that to the mutinies. The Paris promised its soldiers no more Nivelle-like offensives. (casualty rates did in fact fall sharply and the French launched only three small attacks in the second half of 1917...Stevenson With our Backs to the Wall p 269] Everyone knew in 1917 it would take a long time for the US soldiers to arrive. That is why the British had to do so much of the fighting in 1917. In his statement Buistr seems to agree with these points: the French indeed did not make any offensive moves for about a year, and then only did so when the Americans were arriving at 10,000 a day.
According to this article 'there were no politics involved just despair'. This in total contrast with the story told in the BBC witness program that says the Internationale was played and soldiers formed Sovjet like groups. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p051b9xw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 ( talk) 23:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that adding an infobox as this was done the 3 August 2018 at 16:43 and 16:46 is pertinent. It provides the reader with no relevant abstract of the article and instead mereley repeats what is written in the first two paragraphs of the header. Other articles about mutinies like here /info/en/?search=Kiel_mutiny and here /info/en/?search=%C3%89taples_mutiny don't feature any such infobox and I think it makes more sense this way. I'll remove it in a few days unless someone disagrees. Dyadique78 ( talk) 20:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The French most likely suffered about 187,000 casualties (Nicholson) or perhaps 134,000 (Doughty) and the Germans 163,000 including 28,500 prisoners during the Second Battle of the Aisne. The term 'disastrous' is not correct. However the battle failed to bring a quick end to the war as promised by Nivelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyadique78 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In the introduction, a 2018 BBC source is cited in support of a statement of 554 death sentences and 26 carried out executions, but in the Repression section quotes research published in 1968 that the respective figure was 629 sentences and 43 executions. Some reconciliation and explanation of the difference ought to be added. Which set of statistics is more trustworthy? Cloptonson ( talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If the article says it is not mutiny why not calling the article "1917 French Army desobedience"? And saying that officially or usually it is refered incorrectly as mutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:3D4A:8EAA:4353:F5BA ( talk) 09:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Homogenised citations but some lack page numbers. Auto ed, cite scan, dupe wl scan. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)