![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Battle of Mulhouse There is conflicting dates on the Battle of Mulhouse between this page and the link it provides. This page states 7th August, whilst the link states 9th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.79.184 ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
In the article you descib Germany's Schliefen plan, and you say that the German troops 'advanced almost unopposed' however did the Belgians resistance and the BEF do nothing to slow them down, as i thought that they did (and i need this for history project soon).
-- Death of Rats 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Much of what is written here in regards to Germany's war plan is based on incorrect assumptions, hearsay, and the author's own conclusions. Who knows if the fact the Germans used more troops in the east cost them victory in the west? This comment implies that what is known as the Schlieffen Plan (there's actually evidence that would show there never was an actual "Schlieffen Plan") would've succeeded had those troops participated. This article is accurate when discussing the French side of things, which is the point, but its information and accuracy in regards to the German side of things is questionable at best.
-- GeoffreyVS 1:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Citing from within the article: "The offensive French military strategy in World War I known as Plan XVII was initially created by Ferdinand Foch. The offensive plan used brute force and a mystical belief in the French "élan" or "fighting spirit." General Joseph Joffre adopted this plan upon becoming commander-in-chief in 1911". This statement is currently (intentionally) contradicted in the article on general Foch, where it is stated that this is little more than a widely held misconception.
-- Georgebaltz , 06 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-- The Guns of August not cited? -- I'm surprised that one of the most definitive and well known books on this subject, Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August," wasn't cited. The third chapter of her book deals with Plan XVII. Also, what "evidence" is there that there never was a Schlieffen Plan? Schlieffen's journals and notes on the subject are very well known. Andacar ( talk) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The Kiesling link doesn't resolve. Linkrot, probably. Or subscription? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 11:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Ifly6: Dear Ifly, you dropped edits into the lead yet you didn't incorporate them into the text which the lead is supposed to reflect, that's why I called them Cuckoo edits. I hope I've made my meaning clear this time. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The lead is skimpy but we ought not overstuff it with minutiae or overdo RS differences of opinion. Apropos, have you any Zuber? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Battle of Mulhouse There is conflicting dates on the Battle of Mulhouse between this page and the link it provides. This page states 7th August, whilst the link states 9th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.79.184 ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
In the article you descib Germany's Schliefen plan, and you say that the German troops 'advanced almost unopposed' however did the Belgians resistance and the BEF do nothing to slow them down, as i thought that they did (and i need this for history project soon).
-- Death of Rats 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Much of what is written here in regards to Germany's war plan is based on incorrect assumptions, hearsay, and the author's own conclusions. Who knows if the fact the Germans used more troops in the east cost them victory in the west? This comment implies that what is known as the Schlieffen Plan (there's actually evidence that would show there never was an actual "Schlieffen Plan") would've succeeded had those troops participated. This article is accurate when discussing the French side of things, which is the point, but its information and accuracy in regards to the German side of things is questionable at best.
-- GeoffreyVS 1:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Citing from within the article: "The offensive French military strategy in World War I known as Plan XVII was initially created by Ferdinand Foch. The offensive plan used brute force and a mystical belief in the French "élan" or "fighting spirit." General Joseph Joffre adopted this plan upon becoming commander-in-chief in 1911". This statement is currently (intentionally) contradicted in the article on general Foch, where it is stated that this is little more than a widely held misconception.
-- Georgebaltz , 06 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-- The Guns of August not cited? -- I'm surprised that one of the most definitive and well known books on this subject, Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August," wasn't cited. The third chapter of her book deals with Plan XVII. Also, what "evidence" is there that there never was a Schlieffen Plan? Schlieffen's journals and notes on the subject are very well known. Andacar ( talk) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The Kiesling link doesn't resolve. Linkrot, probably. Or subscription? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 11:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Ifly6: Dear Ifly, you dropped edits into the lead yet you didn't incorporate them into the text which the lead is supposed to reflect, that's why I called them Cuckoo edits. I hope I've made my meaning clear this time. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The lead is skimpy but we ought not overstuff it with minutiae or overdo RS differences of opinion. Apropos, have you any Zuber? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)