![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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 through desert 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)
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> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)).
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]
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)
Should this not be "Hundred Days' Offensive" (with the apostrophe)? Brigade Piron ( talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
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 – 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. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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 through desert 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)
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> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)).
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]
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)
Should this not be "Hundred Days' Offensive" (with the apostrophe)? Brigade Piron ( talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
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 – 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. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)