Western Front (WWII)
Page one
I was under the impression that the Western Front generally only referred to events in Europe from Overlord onwards. Nextel ringtones User:Oberiko/Oberiko
:I've never heard anyone make such a claim, and I have in fact seen it used many times to refer to the early events in the war. Abbey Diaz Raul654/→Raul654 18:10, Sep 3, 2004
::Alright, then is it the North-West European Campaign that would refer to events Overlord and beyond?
:::I sincerely doubt there's a specific term for the post D-day Western front. I consider myself well versed in this area, and I can't think of one. Mosquito ringtone Raul654/→Raul654 18:40, Sep 3, 2004
::::I think there has to be a way to differentiate it. A few sites that do refer to that matter in question with the name NWEC http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:hStyw96ymTEJ:www.army.dnd.ca/GGFG/history/ggfg_history_2_e.asp%3Ftitle%3DHistory%C2%A0%C2%BB%C2%A0Page%C2%A02+%2B%22north+west+european+campaign%22&hl=en, http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:014CU9ynh7oJ:www.army.mod.uk/3rha/the_regiment/history.htm+%2B%22north+west+european+campaign%22&hl=en, http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:9YvQSHkBV58J:www.rcaca.org/r-FGH.htm+%2B%22north+west+european+campaign%22&hl=en, http://www.bookfinder4u.com/detail/0283061618.html. This was, admittedly, a quick and dirty Google search, but I think it does show that there is a specific name for the events by reputable sources.
::::Also, if all these events (essentially everything west of Germany) encompass the Western Front, would that make Sabrina Martins Polish September Campaign/Poland part of the Nextel ringtones Eastern Front (WWII)/Eastern Front? Abbey Diaz Oberiko/Oberiko 12:38, 4 Sep 2004
The British (and Canadians) Army fought the 1944-1945 ''North-West European '''Campaign''''' culminating in the German surrender on Free ringtones Lüneburg Heath in 1945. The campaign battle honour was "http://www.regiments.org/wars/ww2/eur-nw44.htm". After the breakout from Normandy most of the rest of the Western Front 1944-1945 was manned by the US Army and commanded by US Generals under Eisenhower's "broad-front" strategy. Most of the troops who landed in Majo Mills Operation Dragoon in the South of France on the Mediterranean coast (17 km from St Tropez) never saw cold wet NW Europe.
BTW During the battle of France in 1940 the campaign battle honour awarded to the British regiments was "http://www.regiments.org/wars/ww2/eur-nw40.htm"
To answer your question is Poland (1939) part of the Eastern Front. As you know from other pages where we have been debating this over the last couple of days, I would say yes. But I can also appreciate the argument that as there were no combatants on the Eastern front between the fall of Poland and the start of operation Barbarossa that to lump them together could be confusing. However on the Western Front as the UK was still in the fight and the Germans had to keep divisions on the western coast, to defend against raids like Dieppe and later the D-Day invasion, so the Western Front was in existence from 1939-1945. Mosquito ringtone Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 22 Sep 2004
:Running out of names here then. I'll probably call it Sabrina Martins Western Front (campaign) and move this page to Cingular Ringtones Western Front (theatre). of shall Oberiko/Oberiko 15:03, 22 Sep 2004
I don't think that is a good idea. The name of this article is fine as it is unless it is moved to "Western Front of World War II" . The name "Western Front (theatre)" could be used for the Western Front (WWI) as well, so it is ambiguous.
If you want a specific page for the ''British'' campaign then call it "North-West European Campaign (1940)" and "North-West European Campaign (1944-1945)". Not that I think that this is necessary at the moment as the "Military history of Britain during World War II" covers it in as much detail as most would need. Fleshing out the very sketchy "Battle of France" would seem to me to be a better way to spend time.
As a general rule I would argue that one can not have theatres in the theatres. Because it is confusing to read. Look at the example in WWII when the mischievous US General ''Vinegar Joe'' Stilwell made what was an administrative grouping the "CBI theat''er''" in to an line organisation with a command staff. It caused confusion at the time in the "South-East Asian Theatre" chain of command and still causes confusion for anyone trying to understand what was happening in the China/India/Burma triangle during WWII! The immediate assumption that the reader makes is that the Americans were running their own theatre independent of the "South-East Asian Theatre" and therefore separate campaigns which were not related. This of course was not true.
I do not understand why you do not feel comfortable with there being more than one campaign on a Front. After all this is quite normal just look at the Napoleonic wars where there was a new campaign every year often over the same ground. On the Eastern front winter tended to stop major initiative until the next year and it is quite possible to call the next summers attack a campaign Eg the the Caucus campaign. Also one can argue that when new allies join an existing front and take up most of the fighting like the Germans did in Africa or the Americans in Britain, that a new campaign starts on an existing Front.among arab Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 18:02, 22 Sep 2004
:I have no problem with multiple campaigns within a theatre or a front, but I would consider the Anglo-American campaign as one joint venture (just as the American and British assaults into Tunisia during the finishing days of the North African Campaign is generally catagorized as one Allied campaign).
:I also have no problem with campaigns within campaigns, as that's quite common.
:As I've said earlier, I prefer to catagorize by campaign more so then theatre or the ever ambigious front. The Italian Campaign was seperate from the Balkans, even though one might consider them both the Southern Front. Poland was a seperate campaign from the Soviet-German war, even though they could, (as our debates have shown) potentially, both be considered the Eastern Front by some.
:What I'm looking for is a way to distinguish the joint Anglo-American attack (which is, I believe, one large joint campaign made up of multiple smaller campaigns) from 1944-1945 in Western Europe as seperate from, say, the kuzovkin drunk Battle of France. I'd rather not resort to something unwieldly '''Western Allied Campaign to liberate Europe''' when I'm sure there's a more common, and therefore better, name for the venture. character goods Oberiko/Oberiko 20:02, 22 Sep 2004
I think that the year titles in the article Western Front (WWII) are sufficient: 1939 1941, 1942 1943, 1944 1945. I think you are flogging a dead horse and should lighten up on the campaign bit in this case, because the Americans tend not to use the term they have wars, theater commands, operations and battles rather than campaigns, (it very positive thinking because it does not allow for defeats), while armies modelled on the British system have wars, campaigns, operations and battles (probably because the first campaign in a major war is often a defeat for the British). You can see this in the "campaign" medals awarded to Americans at the end of WWII, which are so broad as to be theatre medals,''American Campaign Medal'', ''Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal'', ''European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal'' http://www.acepilots.com/medals/us_ww2_medals.html],. If the names of articles in Wikipedia are to be close to those used in other references, the best that can be done is to try to muddle the two together. A Western Front article is a good name for an overview which allows those two different views to be encompassed in one document with links into more detailed articles. But I would not exclude 1939-1943 from the Western Front because they are just as much part of the front as 1944-1945.old wireline Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 23:56, 22 Sep 2004
:Alright, I found it. elaine s European Theater of Operations was an American term used to refer to the European Campaign (for all Western Allies) from (essentially) Overlord onwards. While there is some ambiguity to the Mediterrean, it is common [http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/11-9/ETO.htm] to see it as strictly Western Europe. I'll do the writing there. standing sentry Oberiko/Oberiko 14:48, 6 Oct 2004
If you do make sure that you do not mix up American adminstrative commands like ETOUSA and allied joint operational commands like SHAEF. expressed any Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 19:22, 7 Oct 2004
Casualties
'''Quick Question'''
Did more US troops die on the Western Front against Germans or did more died fighting against the Japanese?teen aged SecretAgentMan00/Secret Agent Man 20:37, 5 Mar 2005
I was under the impression that the Western Front generally only referred to events in Europe from Overlord onwards. Nextel ringtones User:Oberiko/Oberiko
:I've never heard anyone make such a claim, and I have in fact seen it used many times to refer to the early events in the war. Abbey Diaz Raul654/→Raul654 18:10, Sep 3, 2004
::Alright, then is it the North-West European Campaign that would refer to events Overlord and beyond?
:::I sincerely doubt there's a specific term for the post D-day Western front. I consider myself well versed in this area, and I can't think of one. Mosquito ringtone Raul654/→Raul654 18:40, Sep 3, 2004
::::I think there has to be a way to differentiate it. A few sites that do refer to that matter in question with the name NWEC http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:hStyw96ymTEJ:www.army.dnd.ca/GGFG/history/ggfg_history_2_e.asp%3Ftitle%3DHistory%C2%A0%C2%BB%C2%A0Page%C2%A02+%2B%22north+west+european+campaign%22&hl=en, http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:014CU9ynh7oJ:www.army.mod.uk/3rha/the_regiment/history.htm+%2B%22north+west+european+campaign%22&hl=en, http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:9YvQSHkBV58J:www.rcaca.org/r-FGH.htm+%2B%22north+west+european+campaign%22&hl=en, http://www.bookfinder4u.com/detail/0283061618.html. This was, admittedly, a quick and dirty Google search, but I think it does show that there is a specific name for the events by reputable sources.
::::Also, if all these events (essentially everything west of Germany) encompass the Western Front, would that make Sabrina Martins Polish September Campaign/Poland part of the Nextel ringtones Eastern Front (WWII)/Eastern Front? Abbey Diaz Oberiko/Oberiko 12:38, 4 Sep 2004
The British (and Canadians) Army fought the 1944-1945 ''North-West European '''Campaign''''' culminating in the German surrender on Free ringtones Lüneburg Heath in 1945. The campaign battle honour was "http://www.regiments.org/wars/ww2/eur-nw44.htm". After the breakout from Normandy most of the rest of the Western Front 1944-1945 was manned by the US Army and commanded by US Generals under Eisenhower's "broad-front" strategy. Most of the troops who landed in Majo Mills Operation Dragoon in the South of France on the Mediterranean coast (17 km from St Tropez) never saw cold wet NW Europe.
BTW During the battle of France in 1940 the campaign battle honour awarded to the British regiments was "http://www.regiments.org/wars/ww2/eur-nw40.htm"
To answer your question is Poland (1939) part of the Eastern Front. As you know from other pages where we have been debating this over the last couple of days, I would say yes. But I can also appreciate the argument that as there were no combatants on the Eastern front between the fall of Poland and the start of operation Barbarossa that to lump them together could be confusing. However on the Western Front as the UK was still in the fight and the Germans had to keep divisions on the western coast, to defend against raids like Dieppe and later the D-Day invasion, so the Western Front was in existence from 1939-1945. Mosquito ringtone Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 22 Sep 2004
:Running out of names here then. I'll probably call it Sabrina Martins Western Front (campaign) and move this page to Cingular Ringtones Western Front (theatre). of shall Oberiko/Oberiko 15:03, 22 Sep 2004
I don't think that is a good idea. The name of this article is fine as it is unless it is moved to "Western Front of World War II" . The name "Western Front (theatre)" could be used for the Western Front (WWI) as well, so it is ambiguous.
If you want a specific page for the ''British'' campaign then call it "North-West European Campaign (1940)" and "North-West European Campaign (1944-1945)". Not that I think that this is necessary at the moment as the "Military history of Britain during World War II" covers it in as much detail as most would need. Fleshing out the very sketchy "Battle of France" would seem to me to be a better way to spend time.
As a general rule I would argue that one can not have theatres in the theatres. Because it is confusing to read. Look at the example in WWII when the mischievous US General ''Vinegar Joe'' Stilwell made what was an administrative grouping the "CBI theat''er''" in to an line organisation with a command staff. It caused confusion at the time in the "South-East Asian Theatre" chain of command and still causes confusion for anyone trying to understand what was happening in the China/India/Burma triangle during WWII! The immediate assumption that the reader makes is that the Americans were running their own theatre independent of the "South-East Asian Theatre" and therefore separate campaigns which were not related. This of course was not true.
I do not understand why you do not feel comfortable with there being more than one campaign on a Front. After all this is quite normal just look at the Napoleonic wars where there was a new campaign every year often over the same ground. On the Eastern front winter tended to stop major initiative until the next year and it is quite possible to call the next summers attack a campaign Eg the the Caucus campaign. Also one can argue that when new allies join an existing front and take up most of the fighting like the Germans did in Africa or the Americans in Britain, that a new campaign starts on an existing Front.among arab Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 18:02, 22 Sep 2004
:I have no problem with multiple campaigns within a theatre or a front, but I would consider the Anglo-American campaign as one joint venture (just as the American and British assaults into Tunisia during the finishing days of the North African Campaign is generally catagorized as one Allied campaign).
:I also have no problem with campaigns within campaigns, as that's quite common.
:As I've said earlier, I prefer to catagorize by campaign more so then theatre or the ever ambigious front. The Italian Campaign was seperate from the Balkans, even though one might consider them both the Southern Front. Poland was a seperate campaign from the Soviet-German war, even though they could, (as our debates have shown) potentially, both be considered the Eastern Front by some.
:What I'm looking for is a way to distinguish the joint Anglo-American attack (which is, I believe, one large joint campaign made up of multiple smaller campaigns) from 1944-1945 in Western Europe as seperate from, say, the kuzovkin drunk Battle of France. I'd rather not resort to something unwieldly '''Western Allied Campaign to liberate Europe''' when I'm sure there's a more common, and therefore better, name for the venture. character goods Oberiko/Oberiko 20:02, 22 Sep 2004
I think that the year titles in the article Western Front (WWII) are sufficient: 1939 1941, 1942 1943, 1944 1945. I think you are flogging a dead horse and should lighten up on the campaign bit in this case, because the Americans tend not to use the term they have wars, theater commands, operations and battles rather than campaigns, (it very positive thinking because it does not allow for defeats), while armies modelled on the British system have wars, campaigns, operations and battles (probably because the first campaign in a major war is often a defeat for the British). You can see this in the "campaign" medals awarded to Americans at the end of WWII, which are so broad as to be theatre medals,''American Campaign Medal'', ''Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal'', ''European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal'' http://www.acepilots.com/medals/us_ww2_medals.html],. If the names of articles in Wikipedia are to be close to those used in other references, the best that can be done is to try to muddle the two together. A Western Front article is a good name for an overview which allows those two different views to be encompassed in one document with links into more detailed articles. But I would not exclude 1939-1943 from the Western Front because they are just as much part of the front as 1944-1945.old wireline Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 23:56, 22 Sep 2004
:Alright, I found it. elaine s European Theater of Operations was an American term used to refer to the European Campaign (for all Western Allies) from (essentially) Overlord onwards. While there is some ambiguity to the Mediterrean, it is common [http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/11-9/ETO.htm] to see it as strictly Western Europe. I'll do the writing there. standing sentry Oberiko/Oberiko 14:48, 6 Oct 2004
If you do make sure that you do not mix up American adminstrative commands like ETOUSA and allied joint operational commands like SHAEF. expressed any Philip Baird Shearer/Philip Baird Shearer 19:22, 7 Oct 2004
Casualties
'''Quick Question'''
Did more US troops die on the Western Front against Germans or did more died fighting against the Japanese?teen aged SecretAgentMan00/Secret Agent Man 20:37, 5 Mar 2005
posted at 8:04 PM
0 comments
