Talk:Siegfried Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siegfried Line article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Siegfried Line as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

A request has been made to translate de:Westwall into this article. If you are able to do this please make a note on Wikipedia: Translation into English Ellsworth 15:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

There appears to be contradiction between the de:Westwall and Siegfried Line.

"Adolf Hitler ließ die Anlage, die eher von propagandistischem denn strategischen Wert war, zwischen 1938 und 1940 erbauen"
"The first was built in 1916-1917, during the First World War."

There is no mention in de:Westwall of what happened before 1938.

Aimaz 11:27, 30 June 2004 (UTC)

(from Wikipedia:Translation into English)

  • Article: de:Westwall
  • Corresponding English-language article: Siegfried Line
  • Worth doing because: English version is a stub, German looks comprehensive
  • Originally Requested by: Ellsworth 23:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Status: Claimed - am going to start work on this Saintswithin 18:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: Appears completed, I'm editing. -- Jmabel 18:54, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Westwall before 1938?

As I know was the beginning of building up the westwall known in english as siegfried line in the year 1938.

[edit] Confusing sentence

It is most likely that the name simply came into use from the end of 1938, without Nazi propaganda using the term to a great extent.

I'm not sure I follow this exactly. Would it be accurate to say "It is most likely that the name simply came into popular use toward the end of 1938; at that time it had not been heavily used in Nazi propaganda, although the Nazi regime later used the term." I'd like to substitute that, but I want to make sure it is factually accurate. -- Jmabel 18:57, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

After consultation with German speaker about the "zunächst", have changed it.Saintswithin

[edit] Caption wrong?

The caption to one of the Dragon's Teeth photos says 5 "teeth" . There are definitely more than 5 in the photograph. Perhaps it is meant to say 5 foot teeth?

Each section has five teeth, as far as I understand it. Take a look at the article next to the photo where it describes how they're made. Saintswithin 15:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

This is a brilliant article. It is comprehensive, and wholly interesting. I appreciate the work that has gone into this. glasperlenspiel 20:17, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Very comprehensive, and a fascinating read! One of the best WW2-related articles I've read! Devari 05:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huertgen/Vietnam comparison is nonsense !

Claims that more than 50,000 US soldiers died in Huertgen battle, are pure nonsense. See de:Allerseelenschlacht for a quite detailed examination. See also: Battle of Hurtgen Forest

WernerE (german.wiki) - 05.4.2005

I have no expertise in this, but the two articles you cite both suggest that the 10,000 you have substituted is much too low. Would someone who knows more about this than I please look into this? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • In the end, nobody knows the exact number of dead: 11,827 - or 13,569 - or 9,934 - but you won't argue, that it's a big difference if I claim
    • there were more than 50,000 or
    • there were some 10,000 dead.
Bear in mind that the term "casualties" does not mean "all dead" - a point often ignored in Germany, where I come from. It matters me that the www.volksbund.de (german war graves organization) claims more than 50,000 US dead for battle of Hurtgen (see info for graveyard "Vossenack"). It's dubious to spread such information against better knowledge.
Excuse my English, WernerE - 08.4.2005
  • Agreed. But your citations don't particularly bear out your claim. Not that the previous claim was well cited, either. I am asking someone to produce citations for a reasonable range of numbers. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The article says ...With this organisation’s help, huge numbers of workers - up to half a million at a time - were found to work on the Siegfried Line... and ...Life on the building site and after work was monotonous and many people gave up and left....

It might be useful to clarify the wording "workers were found" with a note that many workers were 'recruited' in occupied territory. These workers didn't have the option to leave. My now 83-year old neighbor lived in a hole in the ground for almost 2 years with his father to escape this work.

[edit] Billy Joel

In the section The role of the Siegfried Line at the beginning of the war: "This phase of the history of the Siegfried Line is memorialized in the Billy Joel song Seigfried Line, a previously unreleased track from his 2005 boxed set My Lives." I'll presume that this is true, but is it really notable enough to belong in the article? If it is, is it really important enough, boxed set and all, to interrupt the general flow of the narrative rather than being somewhere at the bottom? It doesn't seem to me to throw any light at all on the topic for someone who turns here for research purposes. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was totally engrossed in the article, until right in the middle of important, well-written narrative, it screeches off on tangent to mention a B-side Billy Joel track. I don't even see it as being important enough to belong in a footnote; if there are any Billy Joel fans reading the article, they will probably be doing so because they are already aware of the reference in the song, whereas everyone else reading the article will hardly get a distorted view of history because they weren't made aware that someone sang about it. Mixsynth 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable link

The link to the mp3 extract of the song in English is a link to a modern commercial site of someone signing the song for a nostalgia audience. It is thus both not authentic, and commercial. This is surely a problem, but I wanted someone else's opinion before removing it. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)