Paulturtle

I suspect the recent removal of the inaccuracies section has more to do with my presence on the article than an actual concern for the material. Its a sad thing to say, but I've had run-ins with the user before and there is a clear habit of seeking out material to remove and following users to other articles. There was a previous discussion on Wikiquettte alerts about this same issue. It also seems strange the user in question would appear out of the blue on a World War II film article that I happened to have edited when the contributions to date are mainly science fiction related. In any event, this will probably result in an edit war and, based on past experiences, the user in question will space out the reverts to avoid a 3RR violation. We might need to start seeking third opinions to bolster the case. Thanks again for your support here - I don't think the entire section should be blanked either. -OberRanks (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know, I know - nonsense tends to get removed very quickly on wikipedia but it drives me up the wall when people just start deleting relevant and interesting material on a whim (while nonsense with self-serving "citations" is often allowed to stand). Still, we'll see what happens.

What appears to be happening now is users in the dispute are only re-adding the information that they want, and removing edits of other users. You may wish to visit the page and comment about the service record information, one users appears to be saying that information out of Patton's record isn't a reliable source. I've asked for comments of others as well. -OberRanks (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Complete and utter misrepresentation of what has actually happened OberRanks. I can only assume good faith so far, but you are starting to spread lies about what has actually been said about that article. That is uncivil behaviour.

You haven't provided a proper source, yet keep pleading that you have. Many editors have pointed out how wrong you are, why not actually try and read up on proper citations. You might also try looking up how to treat trivia and the BRD cycle for discussing edits. Alastairward (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's between PT and me. Since we're on it, its clear your following me to various articles that I've edited. Your recent arrival on the SS rank article all but confirms that. I guess if you have a legit interest in these other articles, welcome to the show- but it appears you are simply following me now to other articles and I would ask that you stop. -OberRanks (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

OberRanks, you weighed in before in a rather ridiculous attempt to help to have me struck down for a breach Wikiquette (here). That case was thrown out, despite the opposition. Interesting to note, that pretty much everyone who weighed in there had tried to add uncited material or trivia to articles, I had removed it (much to their ire) and since then it's remained removed.

Wikipedia relies on reliable third party sources, not "experts". I'm free to edit where ever I please on Wikipedia and am under no obligation to anyone who believes they "own" an article.

The dispute process is pretty clear, you just seem to have ignored it to date. Alastairward (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reported it to the proper noticeboards per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I suggest we fill up no more of Paulturtle's talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for brushing up the opening section. With regards to whether he was a lord or not, I didn't think so either until I saw it at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRheathE.htm It says that he joined the House of Lords in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's wrong though. See p581 of the Ziegler biog in the shops now. He stayed in the Commons until he was too old to go on, and was "Sir Edward" until the day he died.

I have protected the articles Enoch Powell and Rivers of Blood speech due to the long-term edit war that has gone on. From the edit histories, you are an involved party. Please discuss the issues at Talk:Enoch Powell#Edit warring and come to a consensus instead of reverting. Woody (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the attitude the Indian groups I fail to see what the racial origin of the laborers has to the article. What does it add? I thought I would ask before reverting, but we can take this to the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 16:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indian troops were used by the British Empire throughout its history but they hadn't performed well on the Western Front (for various reasons) early in 1915, and were no longer used there. In resource allocation disputes about Palestine and Mesopotamia, of which there were plenty, "white" divisions were counted separately from non-white. But in the Maurice Debate it goes to the heart of the issue because LG was counting men whom it would have been almost inconceivable to use as combat troops, unlike say, a white lorry driver or horse handler who could have been asked to fire a rifle at a pinch. Rightly or wrongly those were the attitudes of the time - and LG probably shared them as his comments about bombing Iraq later on suggest. He was lucky to avoid a scandal worse than Marconi.Paulturtle (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK I understand that laborers could not be expected to fight, but I don't see the racial origins as being relevant. If you are saying that some of the combat devisions could not be counted because they were Indian that would be another debate. For the moment it is surely sufficient to say that they were laborers --Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

If they had been Indian divisions (mainly recruited from "martial races" like Pathans) they would have been expected to fight, but counted as less than white ones for planning purposes (rightly or wrongly). If they were white labourers they would have been expected to fight at a pinch. But in this case he was counting "coolies". Corrigan (the reference I used when I originally did that section) dwells on this a bit. At the time, which is what matters, it was considered very important - trade unions prevented their use in the UK for example - and LG's "economy with the truth" as we would now call it would have been considered particularly scandalous.Paulturtle (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC) And one of the issues of the Tories' landslide defeat in 1906 had been "Chinese Slavery" - the use of indentured Chinese labour in South Africa, which would have made it even more embarrassing.Paulturtle (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've been having a look through my library for books that bear on 3rd Ypres, hence a few extra details here and there but Eyeserene hasn't been able to have a look at it yet (I need some help on deciding a formula for what to leave on the P' page and what to move to the battle pages etc). I'm reading the RAF OH as the importance of the air element needs threading into the descriptions of ground operations. I've expanded Operation Hush and added a bit about the French. How's things at your end?Keith-264 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely fine - am intending to post another reply on the Passchendaele thread but it's taking me a while to plough through a dozen books (P&W, Terraine's R2P, a load of recentish Haig biogs including J.P. Harris' academic tome etc etc) in between doing my day job and being out most evenings.

I'd be interested to hear why you think no "breakthrough" was intended. I've found a few references to Haig looking for "penetration" in 1917, although none for him looking for the sort of Murat-after-Jena cavalry pursuit for which he was looking in July 1916 ("I am not making this up" as the saying goes). Apart from the Tavish Davidson suggestion of a shallower attack on 31 July, there's also the dispute over exactly what Gough was told by Haig - whether to clear the Gheluveld Plateau or drive hard for Roulers etc (see an American academic called Wiest who argued that Gough was just too thick to understand what DH wanted) - he was certainly keen to blame Haig afterwards! I certainly take the point that - except for a brief moment at the Marne in 1914 - armies on the western front were unlikely to have to pull back when threatened with encirclement (unlike in the east), for reasons which are mainly due to the force-space ratio, and in practice a continous line would have remained in place almost all the time as in 1918. But that's not to say that Haig didn't aspire to break through the last of the fixed defences beyond Passchendaele Ridge and restore open warfare.

Please don't take this personally, it's not intended that way at all, I just think an article based largely on the Official History and operational detail isn't really historically sustainable - not least because it leaves the reader wondering why on earth the battle has been such a source of controversy, condemnation, apologia and buck-passing ever since the 1930s and why the entire Cabinet and the new CIGS all thought Haig should be sacked afterwards - and is going to get a bias tag slapped on it sooner or later, which would be a pity after a lot of work has gone into it.

As you've probably noticed I've been working on the Haig biog in recent months, still very much a work in progress as I've started with Groot as the most critical of the serious biographers. Should be ready to write up the Third Ypres section there soon. The more comprehensive it is, the more it will dilute stupid vandalism, even if some of it has to be hived off into separate articles (eg. "Historical Reputation of Douglas Haig").Paulturtle (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually I didn't know you were busy on Haig (either sort), I'll have a look (at both sorts ;O)). I think that what Haig was after at 3rd Ypres was something along the lines of Gorlice-Tarnow; the Russians were pushed back bit by bit until they had to withdraw on the flanks for fear of being cut off ('to wear down the enemy but at the same time to have an objective....' which sounds like a description of schwehrpunkt to me), see also App XII, 12 June, pp. 423-431. The Germans did the same on the Somme in early 1917. Being Haig he also prepared for something more abrupt than the retirement to the Hindenburg line; yet before the offensive began emphasised that a German retirement before an attack would not be possible without losing the region around Ypres (the coast and airfields housing the Gotha e.g.) which the Germans ould be expected to fight hard for. I think that his intent was to have the certainty of an attrition battle which the Germans would lose and the hope of a substantial advance at the end of it (which is why he wouldn't allow Hush to go off regardless). To an extent this might come down to terminology - I think that I have a 'strategic' definition of breakthrough (leading to freedom of manoeuvre) and some others a smaller version (forcing the opposition to make a substantial withdrawal). I'm a lot more accepting of the OH than many, (especially those who haven't read it) after deciding to have a punt on OH 1916II, on the grounds that I hadn't even judged it by its cover and that having pretentions to scholarship meant that I should take the plunge;O). Robert Dunlop's research shown on the GWF has scotched the claim that Gough didn't give Haig what he wanted - a step-by-step plan or that he 'neglected' the Gheluvelt plateau as does the OH. A flaw that does exist in this volume though is incoherence. At p. 131 the 30 June meetings where Haig discussed the plan with Gough and Plumer (separately) are described; the decision on 27 June to reinforce II Corps isn't mentioned until the paragraph afterwards.* I think that this may have misled some readers who overlook the fact that II Corps, already with a disproportionate amount of artillery, had been given more and an extra division; this isn't neglect except with hindsight. Edmonds also fails to emphasise that the red line on 31 July wasn't the intended objective (the green line) unless the Germans had folded - perhaps he hadn't read his appendices!

I wouldn't agree that all I've done is interpolate detail from the OH. I would point out that much of the case against it comes from itself! I've put in plenty from the German sources which have been translated, most from Sheldon who is no Edmonds fan and some from Terraine who is. The page is by no means satisfactory, much of the form needs revision as I mentioned above but a conclusion is going to have to be a compromise because the quantity of sources is anglocentric and mostly obsolete.

I haven't got Groot's book but Sheffield's recent one is I think the fairest of those I've seen, even though he gets 3rd Ypres wrong on the Gough question. Harris's book was comprehensively and forensically rubbished as soon as it was published. I think that a claim of bias would be difficult to sustain, given the lack of German sources before I got busy. I notice that there is a caveat on the Somme page about it being Anglocentric, something which will be harder to demonstrate on the P'daele page now.

• Bugger! I'm misreading it now! P.129, H, P and G met on 28 Jun and discussed Davidson's memo. P.131, at a conference 5 Jul Haig said that AFTER the P'daele-Staden ridge was in the bag there might be a chance for the cavalry. P.131, he met G & P separately on 30 Jun and then pp.131-132 on 27th Jun increased II Corps.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

ISBN 0-8371-5029-9 If Germany Attacks: The Battle in Depth in the West by G. C. Wynne (1940, 1976 edn) p. 131 gives 465,000 German casualties and 419,000 British and 204,000 French.Keith-264 (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC) well, do you want to post that then?Paulturtle (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I'll leave it up to you, I thought you were asking for a source.Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I'm just reluctant to post that as I've never seen a copy of that book, so it wouldn't be entirely honest of me. "The dear old lunatic" Wynne was of course the author of the first of the many drafts of the 1917 OH ...Paulturtle (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Apparently it got rejected for being too 'pro-Haig'! (See Andrew Green, 'Writing the Great War' which is one of the books that reduced my confidence in Tim Travers, the other one being his Gallipoli book). His analysis of German methods is very convincing, especially the tension between 'elastic defence' and Lossberg's rejection of it, especially at Ypres in 1917. His loss statistics seem conventional so if I find them elsewhere I'll let you know.Keith-264 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A lot of Edmonds' work was quietly "pro-Haig" in that it tried to pin the blame for things on other people. The drafts were then shown to others who were allowed to propose changes, eg. Montgomery-Massingberd (CGS Fourth Army in 1916, CIGS in early 1930s when that Vol was written) had a few changes made to the Somme volume. In Gough's case he went ballistic about what was being written about him - Wynne was quite open about the fact he was writing a hatchet job on Gough - so changes were made. Even though a lot of what Gough was claiming by the late 1940s was demonstrably false (eg. denying that Cavan and Davidson had been urging him to greater caution - he seems to have been losing his marbles a bit by then, although his comment on Plumer is hilarious and rings true) other people chipped in to say that Haig was pressuring him for "breakthrough". In his 1931 memoirs Gough had confined himself to a few obviously self-serving claims, eg. that he was more cautious than Plumer, knew it would have to be a series of short steps etc. Note that people were still using the term "breakthrough" to mean blasting through to Roulers or whatever. Even if in practice the Germans would have shuffled back and dug another line of trenches - and I'm happy to accept that after Nivelle's failure Haig seems to have moved on a bit from him previous Napoleonic fantasies about imminent enemy collapse and strategic cavalry pursuit - not everybody grasped this.Paulturtle (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Operational Role of British Corps Command on the Western Front, 1914-18, Simpson, A. (2001) collected here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox#Gough_II has much sense due to being based on primary sources about Gough and his early plans. His PhD is free on Ethos if you're interested. I put quite a bit of paraphrase on the P'daele page yesterday.

There's this from a German source too: "Even the subsequent battles show the same: destroying by "drum" fire a relatively small sector of the front line through enormous artillery effect; the attacking infantry satisfied with assaults of minor depth; the advantages of surprise, not utilized." Development of Tactics, World War (1922), Balck, W. trans Bell, H. p. 103; Ch III, position Warfare in the West pp. 47-107. (2010 edn)Keith-264 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have as much credibility these days as Tim Travers....Keith-264 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think that's fair. They are both well-respected academics, whose sceptical view of British political and military leadership shows a bit more perspective than some internet-based enthusiasts I could think of. I think they exaggerate both Haig's and Lloyd George's freedom of action (and Lloyd George's political security in 1917), but nobody's perfect.Paulturtle (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I think that they have fallen into the trap of publishing quantity over quality as their Somme and Passchendaele books show. I hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater but (Somme) "Unfortunately, P&W have missed two significant issues. Firstly, there were significant differences in the artillery barrages employed along the front. Failures were associated with barrages that lifted off the German trenches as the British left their trenches. No surprise, therefore, that the German machine gunners and riflemen were able to get out fast enough and take a terrible toll. Doubling, trebling or quadrupling the tonnage of shells would not have made a difference to this tactic. More shells would have been used inappropriately. (NB: 36th Division overcame the problem by getting men forward into No Man's Land, so the distance to the German line was short, akin to the effect of maintaining the barrage on the German front line until the advancing Tommies arrived." raises a serious question about their scholarship interweb or not.Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Virtually any book is going to make the odd slip or say things you don't agree with, and this is true of internet pundits as well. Just because somebody says something you don't agree with doesn't "raise serious questions about their scholarship" as if they were Denis Winter or John Mosier (on a similar note, querying J.P.Harris' account of the fate of corps commanders after Cambrai, or his slight exaggeration that Haig's behaviour towards Sir JF was tantamount to mutiny does not amount to a "forensic demolition" - any more than I have "forensically demolished" Hart's book on the Somme if I point out that he is mistaken to write that Sir JF was "summarily dismissed", whereas in fact he resigned and was kicked upstairs on pain of summary dismissal if he refused to play ball - it's just a slipup in a long book).

P&W's thesis is that weight of HE bombardment was the most important factor in whether or not an attack succeeded - precisely because it wasn't terribly accurate, the more you plaster the enemy with, the more likely you are to hit something. Of course there are other factors involved like wind, weather, graze fuses, the lie of the land affecting observation, but there is a fair bit of prima facie evidence that they are right - even at Gallipoli. By the latter stages of the war counter-battery fire had grown more accurate, and it may or may not be true that the sheer intensity of bombardments had reached a point of diminishing returns - which is not at all the same thing as saying that it was irrelevant.

The Somme bombardment varied a bit from corps to corps, and it was most successful in the Montauban area where they had some extra French guns and a height advantage iirc, but it is pretty much an orthodoxy that it was spread too thin, used too much shrapnel and had too many dud fuses (the first was largely DH's fault, the latter two weren't). To deny that "quadruple" the weight of shell would have cut more wire and done more damage generally (although not, of course, four times as much, and maybe more so at Montauban than at Thiepval or Serre) strikes me as just plain silly, whether or not the barrage lifted too quickly on the day. And again, once the great ballsup of 1 July was out of the way, there is plenty of evidence that concentration of fire was what made other attacks like 14 July work, although the "learning" process was not clearcut because there are other factors involved, other priorities and in the absence of computer simulations its hard to disentangle causation etc etc. I don't have books in front of me at the moment, and the Somme bombardment isn't quite at the top of the pile, so the detail will have to wait.Paulturtle (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Prior and Wilson published a book entitled 'Command on the Western Front', which focused on Sir Henry Rawlinson, GOC British Fourth Army during the Somme campaign. Much of the book is given over to a study of the Somme. In analysing the high casualty rate for the British on July 1st, P&W have made a number of assertions. One is their (inadequate) analysis of the tonnage of shells used and the number of guns per yard, statistics that are used to 'prove' that the front was too wide and that the depth of the attack was too deep. With respect to the depth of the attack, P&W accuse Haig of meddling with Rawlinson's plan, turning it from a bite-and-hold operation into an attempt at a breakthrough.* This analysis is not correct, and was based on selective quoting from the primary sources, which I have read in detail. I am uncertain if the selective quoting was deliberate (ie there was a conscious effort to suppress evidence that did not fit) or not (ie P&W only read what they wanted to hear, if you will). Either way, their books appear to be very well researched, and therefore very credible, but there are serious problems with their scholarship and with their conclusions."

• See the Somme page for some quotations from Haig I put in a while back.

P&W mention French artillery in the south but seem to overlook that a lot of it was further north. They also ignore the topography south of the Albert-Bapaume road where German defences were on forward slopes so even British gunners could see what they were hitting. 'Quadrupling' the artillery fire, (when it was lifting off German defences too soon as it was believed to be a destructve rather than suppressive bombardment) would only quadruple the waste of ammunition. Much of the success in the south was due to a rudimentary creeping barrage not French marksmanship. As for counter-battery, artillery was never accurate enough to do much more than force german Gunners under cover, put them to the trouble of moving guns around and masking guns before attacks. See Uniacke's analysis here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox#Uniacke

Shrapnel - quicker to make than HE so given the choice between shrapnel and nothing, anyone woud have taken the bird in the hand.Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I said I don't have books in front of me at mom so will hold off on what P&W do or do not say about the bombardment, but "'Quadrupling' the artillery fire ... would only quadruple the waste of ammunition" yes, but it would also quadruple, or at any rate increase, the amount of shell which actually hit something. That is precisely the point.Paulturtle (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Four times the ammunition used incompetently (i.e. for destruction) multiplies the incompetence. It's the changes in; the area of attack (reinforcing the big success in the southern more helpful terrain); trying to repeat the encouraging success of the primitive creeper used by XV and XIII corps and building on the attrition inflicted on the local German troops. Notice that the conventional criticism of the August operations (small, piecemeal narrow-front attacks) reflects the ammunition shortages that creeping barrage exacerbated and the effect on the Germans who were equally forced into piecemeal defence.Keith-264 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given the way it used so often to used by under-informed commentators (c1960-2000) to criticise British generalship, I prefer not to sling the term "incompetence" in such an intemperate way. "Incompetence" means a doctor who cuts off the wrong leg by mistake, not a doctor who makes a misdiagnosis when the symptoms admit of several different interpretations. What you say about the advantage in the south is obviously true, and is widely accepted. What you say about the creeping/lifting barrage being of supreme importance may or may be true, but it is just another theory, and needs to be cited as such from a reputable book.

Is it simplistic just to say the sheer numbers of guns is the only thing that matters? Yes. Would it have been better if gas and HE shells with graze fuses had been available? Yes. Does that mean you can simply dismiss the intensity of fire as a factor? No, it doesn't. Four times as much shrapnel at Thiepval or Serre would have done more damage - mainly cut more wire, but also caved in the doors of few more dugouts, caused a few more communication trenches to fall in, damaged a few gun/machine gun positions beyond the point of use, shell-shocked a few more German dugout-dwellers, whatever - if not necessarily four times as much, and as I've said before to claim otherwise is just plain silly. If the existing shelling did any damage at all, it is reasonable to suppose that more if it would have caused more damage.

There's quite a good discussion (ie. some evidence of correlation between intensity of bombardment and success, although other factors are also important) of this in Paddy Griffith "Battle Tactics".Paulturtle (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hart (2006) states that the creeping barrage in the south was innovative but too thin to be effective, but the stronger barrage there was more effective at cutting wire and suppressing German batteries (which elsewhere were very effective on 1 July at cutting off British who had crossed into the German lines). Philpott (2009) attributes it to XV Corps artillery letting off double the recommended amount of shell.Paulturtle (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the dates for the various 1916 & 1917 Ypres plans?Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Will check this evening.Paulturtle (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's a bit in OH 1917 I which might help.Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw the 'butcher' nickname so put in a bit of balance. There's a bigger quotation in Davidson and the writer was Friedrich von Cochenhausen (1939) if you're interested.Keith-264 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

oh, I know, but I'm not getting into that argument for the moment. At the time he was known as "the Chief" (semi-official, Sir JF and Allenby in Palestine were called same), "DH" by players in London, occasionally as "Dougie" by his men. AFAIK there is no contemporary evidence that he was called "Butcher of the Somme" before the 1960s (at the time it was Third Ypres which was regarded as the blot on his reputation), and the earliest use is Robert Graves essay "The Butcher and the Cur" - it was never very widespread so the National Army Museum website has a lot to answer for. This is Xmas so expect vandals to be about ...Paulturtle (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

http://frontforum.westernfrontassociation.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=510 this is the critique of the J.P. Harris book.Keith-264 (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, I've already read it - despite the fact French was badly treated over the specific issue of the reserves at Loos, my sympathies are largely with DH on that one, not least as I had a not dissimilar experience to the DH-Sir JF bustup in my own working life about 8 years ago. Sadly having a go at a writer for overstating the case a little doesn't constitute a "demolition" as if he were Denis Winter or John Mosier. Elsewhere iirc there is also bit of sniping about the fate of corps commanders after Cambrai (were they fired or did they quit?) and about him quoting only the Sheffield&Bourne edited version of some 1915 DH diary comments about artillery. Well, almost any book is going to contain a few slipups - a published book is far, far longer than anything these web pundits have ever written - and if that's the best they can come up with... It's rather a pity that the GWF gang - who are often obsessed with tactical & operational minutiae to the extent of missing the bigger picture about manpower and domestic Allied politics - have, to judge from the apoplectic Amazon reviews, to be so rude about a book which regards DH'a abilities as a battlefield commander with less than glowing praise.Paulturtle (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

While not as critical as Harris's hatchet job, Sheffield's recent book is by no means a Haigiography, yet it has excited little comment (except from me for getting 3rd Ypres wrong). Harris seems a polemic by comparison. I haven't read it as I'm not really interested in biography ('Men, Ideas, Tanks' seemed a fascinating subject, but he managed to make it dull as ditchwater) but in the examples given Harris seems to have overlooked the last 25 years of research.Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sheffield's book seemed a bit bland to me although there is some good stuff in there. I thought he skated over Third Ypres - both the political aspects of relations with the War Cabinet/W Policy Committee and the historiographic minefield of exactly what Gough was told, what DH's intentions were and why it went so badly wrong, which is very disappointing as it was (at the time) the main blot on Haig's reputation. All of that is more a matter of what interpretation one puts on the evidence than on finding anything "new". There's been research done on artillery & infantry tactics in recent years but as far as the interplay of personalities goes it never fails to astonish me how little new there is to say about WW1 - you just need to get back to detailed older accounts rather than shoddy pop rubbish written after WW2.Paulturtle (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Gough question was answered by the records of the time, available now but not until the 30-year rule began. It wouldn't have been a question if the OH hadn't been poorly edited (see pp. 131-132; II Corps had already been reinforced before this meeting!). Green's exposition of the genesis of OH 1917 II makes one marvel that it was as good as it was, considering. I can't disagree more that there's nothing left but competing interpretations of a fixed body of material. As an attritional campaign 3rd Y was a success. Tactically the Germans were beaten, operationally they were beaten and strategically they hung on by the skin of their teeth. Oddly enough, its the older accounts (pre-1940 really) that treat the campaign as a military operation rather than a polemic and which contemporary historians have returned to. This is particularly evident in the German writing between the wars - Ludendorff, Rupprecht, Kuhl, Lossberg all had their say and all said that they were saved by time not their unaided efforts. That the British weren't exhausted by the effort is demonstrated by their gig at Cambrai a fortnight later.Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually it was the 50 year rule, the records became available in the 1960s, and their interpretation is very far from clearcut, especially as some things need to be inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g. DH pushing for "breakthrough" and generally breathing down people's necks whilst at the same time not taking a tight enough grip on tactics - or so runs the argument) or other testimony (e.g. officers at the time complaining that Fifth Army was slipshod and badly run - that is not disproved by the "fact" that operational orders were nicely typed up, any more than the fact of a business bankruptcy is not "refuted" by the existence of nice clear business plan). A naiively literal reading of a handful of documents (despite the fact that everybody else has seen them) to insist that everybody else is "wrong" is one of the worst sources of error in amateurish history.

It is simply not correct to describe Third Ypres as an "attritional success" - even in relative terms it arguably hurt the British more than the Germans, at the very moment the Germans were about to be massively reinforced by the peace dividend from the East. That is why it was regarded by most as a source of horror and buck-passing - attested to by the many drafts of the OH, if not by Edmonds' eventual special-pleading conclusion. The apologias of German generals, whilst not entirely untrue, are hardly new - they have been dredged up by every apologia since the 1930s and are treated with a degree of caution by most historians. The British lack of reserves at Cambrai, and manpower shortage in the winter of 1917-18 and thereafter, are amply attested to if you read more widely. Even DH himself complained of these things.Paulturtle (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Paul, it's been a while. Have you been keeping well? There are contemporary sources in which Haig makes it clear that the western Allies had a comparative advantage while the Russians were still in the war. All of the records from the time describe a staged offensive at the end of which the Germans might crumble, there was never an expectation of a 'breakthrough'. Haig also pointed out that given the enfeeblement of the French, his early assumptions of substantial support from them were unrealistic so that only the first part of the Flanders plan might come off - the capture of Passchendaele ridge. As for the Fifth Army, has it not occurred to you that the Second Army had been in the Salient since 1914 and had the most developed infrastructure of the BEF? The Fifth army was created as an exploitation force in 1916, made into an improvised holding force at the north end of the Somme front, advanced into the supply desert created by the Germans as they retired to the Hindenburg Line and then had to concentrate in Flanders while the Second Aermy was rebuilding the communications to the new front line at Messines. There are plenty of objective reasons for the Fifth Army looking sloppy in comparison.

There are plenty of contemporary records on the number of trained troops in Britain and the debilitating effect of manpower shortages on the Germans (and French) after the Somme. All three armies had to make sacrifices in France to reinforce Italy and the fact that the Cambrai gig was staged at all says something for both armies' ability to recuperate after 3rd Ypres. Green's exposition of the gestation of OH 1917 II demonstrates that the published version is far less complimentary to Haig than rejected drafts. There are also contemporary German sources describing the unstoppable nature of the British attacks. German preparations were begun after Broodseinde for a retirement beyond artillery range and possibly further, it really was the rain that came back on 3-4 October that dished the British; nonetheless Poelcappelle added to the damage done to the Germans on the 4th (half the number of prisoners of Broodseinde hardly amounts to a disaster). The shock of Cambrai meant that the Germans could no longer strip quiet fronts to feed defensive battles elsewhere and that anti-tank defences needed to be prepared anywhere that tank operations were feasible. The one-off eastern front peace dividend wouldn't last if it were to be used defensively like this. Considering the failure of the German spring offensives the only verdict on them must be that they were considerable British-Allied defensive successes.

PS I got the Harris book out the library - it was infuriating in its combination of anti-Haig prejudice and semi-constructive exposition of the rise to dominance of the British army 1916-1918.Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just in case you hadn't got these

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=68452

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=68460

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=68468

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=68446 Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - seen 'em already and they're actually photocopies of the appendices to Churchill's World Crisis - a classic example of how there is surprisingly little new to say about WW1 once you get back to detailed older accounts and filter out the rubbish, eg. Wolff's patent error about Third Ypres, refuted by Terraine, or Mosier's very low German figures, which is what got me interested in casualty analysis in the first place - his figures were clearly rubbish as impossible to reconcile with any other figures I'd ever seen from historians I respected - I later learned that you have to roughly double German KIA figures to account for wounded who died and missing who were lost, all of which is explained in the footnotes to the figures. Will post a summary of Edmonds' and Oman's attack on Churchill and Prior's comprehensive demolition thereof when time allows, but they are quite complex. Churchill was, to be fair to him, basically right about Somme casualties, if perhaps more by luck than judgement as he also thought the same about Third Ypres, probably wrongly.Paulturtle (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

There's a series of posts somewhere on the interweb that I can't find http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?s=ee0c804abc927bfe40999ad54643e62f&showtopic=159151&st=0 which might help which studies Edmonds's claim about adding 30% and concludes that he gave too much credence to a remark in one document and that the zentrale nachweiseamt figures are accurate and include the lightly wounded. This is certainly one of the areas where mistakes in early work have been replicated ad infinitum by subsequent writers. Remember Gough's impetuousness at 3rd Ypres? Looking in divisional histories recently, shows that the operations after 31 July were intended to reach the black and green lines, which means even his plans to be ready to exploit a German collapse on 31st (which were separate to the short, staged advance planned) were scrapped the same day.Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is the one I found most interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox#Somme_losses Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think your wording is as satisfactory as it's going to get. I thought that my alterations helped but I wasn't satisfied with them.Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Socialists aren't moderate, they're crypto-fascists. The Bolsheviks turned into socialists when they suppressed the Kronstadt mutineers in 1919. Since then USSR-Russia has been an anaemic version of the USSA.Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

By Russian standards Kerensky was probably a fairly moderate socialist, he was a Trudovik, similar to the SRs. He was neither a liberal (Kadet) nor a Menshevik, and obviously not a Bolshevik.Paulturtle (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Neither were the Bolsheviks after the Kronstadt betrayal. Apparently in this matter I'm a 3rd Period Stalinist, which (when I'd looked it up) left me thinking that 3rd Period Stalinists were actually forerunners of me.:O)

PS this: "Splendid! I've put a lot of detail on the page and also on some new linked pages courtesy of Labatt' who's been a great help. I/we need a formula or convention for what to leave on the main page - 2 or 3 [short] paragraphs under the link to the 'Battle Page' for e.g. I looked at the page for Arras and thought that those were a bit sparse but something on similar lines might do. I think the page could really do with a Haig-British Army hating smoker-out-of-anglocentric-bias sceptic looking it over and also a view on how much of the narrative on the page reflects historians' consensus rather than the synthesis of the sources I have available, which isn't necessarily the same thing. The subject still lacks English translations of lots of German & French work, apart from fragments in Terraine and Sheldon. I've got quite into the gig recently but feel the need to avoid being proprietorial. That said there doesn't seem to be much interest from the milhist aficionados."

is what I think about the P'daele page. There is quite a bit on the page because there was nowhere else to put it, so I'm not averse to shifting things to the linked pages and creating more; Labatt did one on Eingreif divisions for eg. Are you a "Haig-British Army hating smoker-out-of-anglocentric-bias sceptic"? Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would you consider putting the lead back to the way it was on these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section), others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles).

grounds? Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi good work on British Army during World War I, I have done a minor copy edit and there is a citation still required. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Edward VII, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Long (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it was late at night!Paulturtle (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Many thanks for the good material you have added to the article on French. Please can you watch very carefully to ensure you insert all the links to battles, other officers etc. I think I have added all the links for the stuff you have added so far. Having got the article up to 'B' class we need to ensure we maintain the standard. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll do my best but you're never going to please everybody. There are some people (I don't mean you) on this esteemed organ who get more worked up about whether references are formatted in the exact format they think correct, whether there is a space between the reference and the fact (I kid you not), "overlinking" and quibbles about punctuation than they do about the content and accuracy of information. Will work my way through Holmes when time allows.Paulturtle (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Very much appreciated. Best wishes and happy editing! Dormskirk (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Henry Hugh Tudor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Craig

Nevil Macready (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Craig

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Lloyd George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campbell, John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enver Pasha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fall of Baghdad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Joseph, Namur and Battle of Lodz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John French, 1st Earl of Ypres, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sixth Army (Germany) and Fourth Army (Germany) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Curragh incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Role of Douglas Haig in 1918, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - that project had been "on hold" for a year while I worked on the biogs of other generals.Paulturtle (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paul - I suggest you carry on and make the changes you wanted to make to the article on Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig anyway (including slimming down the 1918 section) - otherwise we could be waiting for some time! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

sure, thanksPaulturtle (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hubert Gough, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aylmer Hunter-Weston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 52nd Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hubert Gough may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Division, and Monro being promoted to command the new [[Third Army (United Kingdom)|Third Army]]), Gough was appointed GOC [[I Corps (United Kingdom)|I Corps]] (2nd, 7th and later also 9th

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John French, 1st Earl of Ypres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erskine Childers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John French, 1st Earl of Ypres, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Erskine Childers and Royal Irish Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry, I missed your content alterations amid the structural changes -- tks for adding your stuff back in while leaving the sections as they were. Happy New Year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

No worries.Paulturtle (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maurice Sarrail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 11 December Kitchener, Grey, Briand, Gallieni and Joffre met in Paris and agreed to hold Salonika (Joffre had humoured an impractical Russian proposal that Budapest be taken by converging Italian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maurice Sarrail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Marne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Maurice Sarrail page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Paul, I did a few superficial edits on Hubert's page as I'd noticed it when looking for the Reserve Army article. I think it's pretty good but I'm curious about a couple of things. Do any of your sources notice that the Fifth Army was the newest and the most peripatetic, so that invidious comparisons with the standard of organisation of the Second Army might not be entirely down to Gough's personality? Quite a lot of the literature also frames him as a haroosher but do any of them note that his reluctance to attack the Gheluvelt Plateau in June, straight after the Messines gig contradicts the stereotype? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The answer is "no" to both, despite my going through literally every index reference to Gough and the Fifth Army in every book I could get my hands on last year. To be honest I doubt it made much difference, given how much corps and divisions shuffled around, and certainly not compared to Gough's thoroughly documented personal idiosyncracies. If Gough did trot that out as an excuse (other than that Plumer knew the ground in the Ypres Salient a lot better than him) then it has not been kept up by modern historians. That means it can't really go in the article, at least not in a way which invites the reader to draw a conclusion which historians do not hold.

The harroosh business is, as you probably know, "complicated" like all these things but basically it refers to his wanting to push his infantry too far, too fast and too often once an attack was under way, perhaps more so in 1915 and 1916 (yep, the dreaded "learning curve" - it wasn't all down to inadequacy of artillery support, and anyway Gough never seems to have had much grasp of artillery tactics) than in 1917. Strictly speaking not wanting to rush into an attack after Messines is a slightly different matter: not wanting to launch an ill-prepared attack in the first place. One of his objections to Tavish Davidson, who wanted modest attacks every three days iirc, was that Gough felt that launching repeated attacks like this was logistically unfeasible and that that was another reason why trying to grab as much ground as possible on Day One was better. But in practice, of course, both on the Somme and at Third Ypres, attacks intended to make the most of German weakness had a habit of degenerating into costly small-scale attacks anyway.

What you've written about this in the Messines article is not quite right, unless you've changed it since I last looked at it. Andy Simpson's opinion that the offensive took weeks to get ready is not really under dispute (which is not to say that more effort could not have been made, e.g. to avoid the delay at the end while Anthoine got ready) but if you read what he writes closely it is an opinion, not in any meaningful sense a "research finding". Then you critique Prior & Wilson for their complaints about the delay - but what they are really driving at, as in this article, is the failure to seize the high ground after Messines. Their account is lifted from the Official History.

More on this kind of thing anon.Paulturtle (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply, just curious if you'd found anything in your reading, Flanders had been a backwater since mid-1915. It was Brown who pointed out that connecting the new front line east of Messines ridge was a cause of delay. P and W seem to have overlooked the rushed nature of the Messines attack and that going in June slowed preparations for the main event. Their writing seems to me to be a classic case of the choice not taken - everyone they don't like, should have taken the other choice and possible response costs are ignored. On the question of the Gheluvelt plateau, they seem to think that a different approach would have had more success, rather than that any form of attack would meet the most determined German resistance. I thought that Gough's (and Plumer's) reasons were sensible. I still find it odd that I'm the only person who has noticed that the OH creates a false impression, by describing two meetings back to front, surely someone should have got it into print by now?. Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Brown pp 228-229

It has been argued that the next big British attack (Third Ypres, or Passchendaeles) hould have followed immediately on the heels of Messines' .success.7 This, no doubt, would have helped Third Ypres, but, could it have been done? It seems highly improbable because of the demands that had been necessary for Messines. The preparation of the Messines battlefield had begun in the autumn of 1916, and the final stage of preparation had taken fully three weeks of intensive work. The battle itself had moved the line forward a considerable distance, saturated the area captured with millions of British and German shells, and left nineteen enormous craters on Messines Ridge itself. Across this newly shattered landscape railheads had to be advanced, roads and light railways laid, and extensions built to water lines before the newly won terrain could be considered secure. This could not be done at will. The pause which preceded the opening of Third Ypres proved relatively short, but it had been mandated by the need to both consolidate Messines' success and prepare a new battlefield, admittedly an adjacent one. Until the troops on Messines Ridge were secure and in possession of an intact logistics network it would have been foolhardy to launch Third Ypres immediately adjacent and leave both battlefields vulnerable to counterattack. Whether or not an attack immediately on the heels of Messines would have worked better than Third Ypres ultimately did is, therefore, of little consequence - it simply could not have been successfully launched. Indeed, the irony of the situation is that those troops on Messines Ridge proper might very well have been in a better position, logistically, than those in front of Ypres, because their rear areas, if not the front lines, were densely packed with the railheads and roads that got them on the Ridge in the first place.

Anyway, not trying to reignite a controversy, just wondered if your sources had something on it since we last discussed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

:::continued on the Battle of Messines page.Paulturtle (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Paul, your edit of 15:34, 14 November 2014 reverted my fix avoiding all caps in "Hulluch-Staelie-Haisnes". Avoiding all caps is correct even in a direct quote. See MOS:QUOTE:

• Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics, above), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining and spacing  w i t h i n  w o r d s  (as found in typewritten documents) should be changed to italics, and other unusual forms of emphasis (colored highlighting, all caps or small caps, etc.) should likewise generally be normalized to italics or boldface.

So ALL CAPS should be avoided even in direct quotes. These three words are place names in northern France. They are not acronyms like FBI or CIA.

It is also good style to avoid using both among and amongst in the same article, except if necessary because of quotations. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I hadn't seen that this new message was here before my last edit.

First of all, something doesn't become "correct" just because a Wikipedia "policy" says so, especially when a policy is being applied to something which was probably not in the minds of the drafters at the time. It is removing meaning from a sentence to remove the emphasis altogether, especially as putting proper names in block capitals was standard practice in British Army documents of the era (possibly as they were given an extra level of encryption, but I really don't know) and they are often quoted that way in books.

The policy actually says that "most other styling should be altered ... all caps or small caps ... should likewise generally be normalized to italics or boldface". So it is non-mandatory, and if you insist on applying it then they need to be emphasised in a different way.

"Among" and "amongst" are interchangeable according to the Oxford English Dictionary and sometimes one reads better than another. "Research among (sic) the surviving evidence" reads a bit oddly to me.Paulturtle (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just a little note to the effect that after I had reverted myself and made a rather testy comment based on the assumption that the article still had the old cryptic remark about a "third" prime ministership (the self-reversion was the top priority - one is above all responsible for one's own mistakes) I DID take the time to read the passage as it stands, and it is, as I had requested, now clear, and relevant. I am assuming your facts are right - checking them might be rude? I think I've been rude enough already. Best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages are for discussing improvements of the article, not for historical discussions. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Replied to on his talk page.Paulturtle (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I've deleted the section again adding a bit more of an explanation. I do not think that placing such a para in a section headed Liberal Reunion makes sense. I can see why you placed it here as the article is largely chronological. However, I have come across wikipedia articles which have dealt with fictional/popular portrayals of individuals in a separate section, usually towards the end of an article. If it was to appear then perhaps that is the way to do it. I think that the way you wrote it would make a reader think that Huxley was actually describing Asquith, which he wasn't. I notice that the wikipedia article about this book does not even mention Asquith or the character you mentioned. Perhaps the Asquith article merits a one sentence link to this character, inviting readers to explore more information about the portrayal in the article about the book. I'm not an authority on how these things should be presented in wikipedia but I daresay that guidelines have been drawn up to help editors. I just had a strong sense that this para was out of place. I know from your edits to Violet Bonham Carter that you are careful about how you present things, so I have confidence that you will find the right way, assuming it is possible, to better present this portrayal of a fictional character. Graemp (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Deleting stuff, particularly if it is mildly notable and properly cited material, is inflammatory behaviour and best avoided, so it would have been better to move the information to a different section, or to rename the section, rather than deleting it. It does not say that Huxley was writing about Asquith; it says that it is a thinly-disguised fictionalised portrayal of Asquith. It is a notable portrayal (I first came across it mentioned in Paul Johnson’s History of the World from 1917 to the 1980s, which I read over 25 years ago, and I’ve included a cite to a more recent book about the Asquiths), in a notable book by a notable writer, not some passing and forgettable cameo in a TV drama, like Frank Finlay playing Asquith in that drama about the Lost Prince a few years back. (A similar portrayal would be “Clara in Blunderland”, a satirical text of the time mentioned in Arthur Balfour’s biog).

As to it not being mentioned in the article about “Crome Yellow” it’s probably because he is a minor character in it, even if his appearance would have been instantly recognisable and amusing to well-informed contemporaries. To be honest he probably should be mentioned in that article, but the English Lit enthusiasts who wrote that article may be unaware of it, or it may be because the book is not as widely read as Orwell’s “1984” or Huxley’s “Brave New World”, whose articles spell out more of the analogies for the benefit of schoolkids and general readers.Paulturtle (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paulturtle, please see my comments here. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just to let you know I am stepping out of the fat pig conversation. The other partuy has been dishonest since the beginning, so, it is not even worth bothering with. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I know. I've come across some idiotic behaviour on Wikipedia but this really takes the biscuit. As I said, even if it's been mistranslated, that rude comment of the Tsar's is probably the single thing for which Rodzianko is remembered nowadays.Paulturtle (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just an FYI but I moved Draft:Douglas Haig in 1916 and Draft:Douglas Haig in 1917 into draftspace. That's the preferred area for the old AFC submissions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No worries. With the Somme anniversary coming up there is bound to be a flurry of interest in Haig so it's probably time I cracked on and finished them!Paulturtle (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rab Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Union of Students. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iain Macleod may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• his successes at slum clearance” <ref>Dutton 2001, p.7</ref> Macleod later told [[Alan Watkins]] (in ''“Brief Lives”'' 1982 “It was a bad book. I made a great mistake in writing it. It made me no

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Macmillan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatsworth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

This concerns you. BMK (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hubert Lyautey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Thomas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

On 16 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article André Sordet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the French General André Sordet's cavalry corps covered close to 1,500 km (930 miles) in the first month of World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/André Sordet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

[1] thought you might be interested. 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou. Will post some considered thoughts when I have them.Paulturtle (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've added: "Achieving political prominence at a very early age, and initially regarded as a potential Labour Prime Minister, he is remembered principally for his role in the 1930s as ...". I'm not too sure about using "initially" there, as he was first an MP for Harrow between 1918 and 1924, but as a Unionist and then as an Independent. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fine, we can rephrase it. From memory (it's donkey's years since I read the Skidelsky biog) he was so young in the 1918-22 Parliament that he wasn't yet seen as a big player - it was only by the 1920s when he was starting to mature that people realised he had great potential. Of course it was later said that he could potentially have been either a Tory or a Labour PM. Hence all the obituaries in 1980 stressing the tragic waste of his potential and what a great leader he might have been, much mocked by "Not the Nine O'clock News". Sorry if I was a bit grouchy in my edit summary.Paulturtle (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he was "popular and handsome as Richard Burton", allegedly. Thanks for your acknowledgement, I certainly wasn't looking for a battle. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was checking some articles that I added images to a while ago, and noticed the work you did at Marie-Eugène Debeney. I then noticed the (sometimes very detailed) work you do on British and French generals and politicians in the First World War. I am currently trying to get more of an overview of who is working on World War I topics and where, and may eventually turn that into a newsletter/summary of some sort (though finding the time is difficult). I try and keep this page updated as well (though I am a few months behind there). Do you know much about First World War politicians and generals outside of Britain and France? I thought I'd ask as I do have an old draft in my userspace at Political and military leadership during World War I (userspace draft) (see also the talk page there), and wondered how feasible an article on that topic is? Looking at it again, I should probably extend it to the signatories at Versailles (and the other treaties resulting from WWI) I could move that to the draft namespace if anyone wanted to work on it. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do know a bit about other countries, but one has to specialise in something, and the role of France in WW1 tends to be seriously under-appreciated in the English-speaking world. Just casting my eye down your draft article, you should be aware that the nature of the job "chief of staff" changed quite a bit during the war - the earlier ones were chief of staff to the Commander-in-Chief, but Petain and Foch in 1917 were, I think "Chief of the General Staff". I'd have to refresh my memory on that one. If you want information on the Versailles Signatories there is a series of short books (published by Haus) on each of them (not just the Big Four but lesser countries as well) - the one on Clemenceau (2008) is written by David Robin Watson, not to be confused with his full-length 1974 biog of Clemenceau. Margaret Macmillan's "Peacemakers" is of course invaluable. Paulturtle (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. You might be interested in Grand Quartier Général (1914–1919). I see we also have Oberste Heeresleitung (discovered from German General Staff). It is complex, yes. I only really want to try and do a general overview, but the source I was using I think has some errors, unfortunately. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Oh, I see we already have Allied leaders of World War I (which pre-dates my draft) and Leaders of the Central Powers of World War I (which post-dates it and is more recent). I suppose having two articles like that is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Foch's power was actually increased quite a lot in the final months of 1918 and some GQG functions transferred to him (eg. transport under Colonel Payot iirc). All part of the cutting-down-to-size of Petain, which perhaps ought to be mentioned in the GQG article. Britain rejected the idea of a SHAEF-style Combined HQ, then regretted it. See the works of Elizabeth Greenhalgh - her Foch biog, Victory Through Coalition and her recent work on the French Army in WW1. There's a nice photo in one of her books of some French officers chatting amicably to their US counterpart while the British one stands awkwardly on the side - there were much closer links between the French and the AEF than with the BEF.Paulturtle (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Bravo. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Very kind of you.Paulturtle (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Not at all. I appreciate fine writing and a pithy example--and I say this as someone who has written up many a biographical article. I find it tedious work, and you seem to be enjoying it, so good for you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evelyn Wood (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Helena Island. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Launcelot Kiggell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Hamley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–39, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Marne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selwyn Lloyd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Admiralty House and Chief of defence staff. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to disturb you here. I can agree that there are several other songs in the film. However have they not all of the same significance. The director uses the entire 1976 Julio Iglesias LIVE version of this song, including an introduction. This is NOT about the song as such, but how the director uses music during the last 3 minutes and 25 seconds of the film - unlike other songs (such as the National Anthem of the USSR) are not making the actors mute. Not even the sound of the gunshot, when Priveux shoots Hayden can be heard. And when Smiley returns to the Circus - and takes the chairman's thrown together with the last trumpet fanfare of this song - is about the director and art. Film and music ends in the same moment. These are the reasons why it has to be mentioned. I hope you can see my point. I've seen the film twice during 36 hrs and the end about ten times. If you would do the same, then I'm certain you would have to agree. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the film many times, but that's not the point. If you want to post commentary like that, then it needs to come from a reliable third-party source, not your own thoughts.Paulturtle (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Heseltine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenneth Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to your question at Talk:Hugh_Trenchard,_1st_Viscount_Trenchard#Febrile_political_atmosphere_in_April_1918. Greenshed (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Paul, it's been a while; do you remember the links to the GWF I added somewhere about 8-10 years ago on the planning of the attack if 31 July? I can't find them here or there. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dunno, but I'm sure if you trawl around and google people like Robert Dunlop, Philip Andrade or Jack Sheldon you'll find something.

I did find this:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/topic/69261-western-front-tactics-in-1917/

Paulturtle (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, thanks Paul. Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/Margaret Thatcher. --Neve~selbert 00:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've just read and enjoyed Robertson's article, on which you did a stellar job. Thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kind of you to say so. I generally prefer to beaver quietly away rather than joining the mutual congratulation club! As per my comments on the talk page, it needs a bit more work on his fall from power, at which point it will probably be time to split the article, but that will be a job for some point in the future.Paulturtle (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Draft:Douglas Haig in 1914-15, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Douglas Haig in 1914-15 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Douglas Haig in 1914-15 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CoolSkittle (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw your very nice draft articles on Douglas Haig and notice that they seem to be of a high quality. I just wondered why you haven't submitted them to WP:AfC to get them into the article space where a lot more people could read your work. I haven't read them, just quickly looked through them, but they seem to be really nice! Trialpears (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind words, but there's still a lot of work to be done on them - fully digesting the main biographies, even before going through other books. The biographies of Sir John French, "Wully" Robertson, Henry Wilson and Hubert Gough are almost entirely written by me, and eventually I'll get Sir Douglas up to the same standard, but not just yet. To put this in perspective, I've also got multi-page articles on a number of major politicians - Rab Butler, HH Asquith, Anthony Eden - all in varying states of completion, as well as other stuff.Paulturtle (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your help. It's obviously a school that's closed down. Valetude (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pleasure.Paulturtle (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paul, thank you for all your work on the War Cabinet Crsis article. I have a pdf of David Reynolds From World War to Cold War which contains "Churchill and the British ‘Decision’ to Fight on in 1940 Right Policy, Wrong Reasons", which I can email to you if you would like. You would be far better than I would be at using it on the article. You'll need to email me first so I can attach the pdf. I hope your computer comes home soon. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Annoyingly I've just ordered a copy of the 2006 book on Amazon before reading this! But thanks anyway.Paulturtle (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's the sort of book that when I can afford a hard copy I'll buy one - pdfs are great for quickly finding a mention, but I can't sit down and read one like a can a real book. Hope you have a good Christmas, DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir William Robertson, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GOC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Surreal Barnstar

I've just discovered your draft article on the wartime premiership of H.H. Asquith. It is far and beyond anything I have ever seen in the draft namespace in my entire life. It's astounding. Just the completed content so far is of such high quality that it should be a good article or even a featured article if it was in the article namespace. You should be recognized for your efforts in contributing to British history and it's surreal that you haven't got much compared to the scale of what you're contributing. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Very kind of you. Sadly I haven't done any serious work on it for a few years - owing to real word commitments I have a lot less time for article-writing than I did a few years ago. In time Asquith's Fall From Power in December 1916 ought to be hived out into a separate article.Paulturtle (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think, but you’ll know, that much of The Fall in “your” draft, was actually written by me. KJP1 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know. The coverage on Asquith's Fall is - at the moment - a lot fuller and more comprehensive than the coverage of the rest of his wartime premiership(s).Paulturtle (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for editing down the plot summary to a reasonable length. I must confess, I would've made edits myself to truncate it, but I really didn't feel like getting into a battle with you over what details to delete, and it appears you are more capable than I of shortening the section while still making it a thorough plot summary. I was certainly not trying to provoke you; quite the opposite, and so I was a little disappointed to read your last edit summary, as it was particularly vicious towards me. But in the end, the changes to the article are what matter, so job well done. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you are quite right that the picture is from the '30s - in fact it is from 1931. It's not however possible for us to say so. The original of the Commons image is here and then there's a cropped version here which says 1930, at a dinner in honour of LlG at the San Remo Hotel London. Harvard have got both the year and the venue wrong. The dinner was in 1931, and it was at the Savoy. The original JTA report is here. Hope you are keeping well, DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lloyd George's appearance is a bit of a giveaway - hair whiter, longer and bushier, and wearing his pince nez in public. Compare that to the photo of him in the early 1920s further up the page, still looking relatively trim and alert. People often age in fits and starts and in his case he aged a lot around the age of 70, perhaps because he realised that his moment had passed and he was unlikely ever to be Prime Minister again. But that's just my speculation.Paulturtle (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is when he started to look old. There's a picture of him in full oratorical flow at the Zionist dinner in Peter Rowland's David Lloyd George, where he looks far more animated than in the seated pictures. Of course a moment did come in August - but his prostate operation in July (a few months after the dinner) left him hors de combat. I've seen a picture somewhere of him using both pince-nez AND spectacles simultaneously, which is quite a trick. DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Somebody said, I think in 1931, "if only he'd kept himself aloof as a national man of emergency" he could have returned to power - and there's a famous cartoon of him, a tiny man in a giant bed, raging on the phone that the National Government was being formed without him. I'm familiar with the book and the photo. And here's a bit of moving film of it. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lloyd+george+zionist+dinner&view=detail&mid=F72459FED0518EB365FAF72459FED0518EB365FA&FORM=VIRE Paulturtle (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the film link, I've just (literally today) started saving a collection of newsreels of him, so very good timing! Aloof wasn't really in his repertoire. I think Michael Foot wrote something about him always looking forward, there was always something that needed to be done, and C P Snow says "He could not repress the springs of hope" and writes about his love of political manoeuvrings. Alan Mumford's A Biography in Cartoons has one from Punch called "The Doctor's Mandate" of him in a chair and dressing gown, reading the National Govt manifesto with a face like thunder saying "I think it is a great betrayal of the national interest to go to the country without me" from October 1931. DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you know of any sources to help me get any of these drafts published?: Ancients (3W, 1986), MBT (Avalon Hill, 1989), Tomorrow the World (3W, 1989), 5th Fleet (Victory Games, 1989), Rise and Fall (Engelmann, 1989), and Shell Shock! (Victory Games, 1990). BOZ (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Afraid not! I remember the Victory Games Fleet series but have never heard of the others. I haven't played "Anzio" or "Napoleon At Bay" since the 1980s either, but they bring back memories ... Paulturtle (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

My friend Guinness323 has created and/or built a whole bunch of wargame articles over the past few years, if you really want to get your old memories flowing. :) BOZ (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes I know. I've contributed to wargame articles occasionally over the years. I may add some stuff from the Palmer book as and when.Paulturtle (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 80.42.143.142 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edits to the article on Lord Waverley. I have an article on Miles Dempsey up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Miles Dempsey, and if you could drop by with some comments, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your article "Draft:Reputation of Douglas Haig is currently under discussion at Here. aaronneallucas (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Paulturtle!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply