Talk:Hindenburg Programme

Stevenson Book has a lot of detail on this program...

This is missing a lot of the detail.. it was a very big part of closing the war down.. See Stevenson's book on 1918 close of the war... plam to add some material to improve article... thanks .. Risk Engineer (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It does indeed, as does Stevenson's single-volume history of the war from 2004. Ian Beckett paints a very similar story, and both these heavyweight historians tell a somewhat more nuanced story than the tale, beloved of what might politely be called "a certain kind of British milhist", of Germany struggling to stave off inevitable Allied victory. In terms of armaments the plan seems actually to have been something of a failure - production actually fell in some key areas and Germany was deprived of export earnings to neutrals, and they still put up a good fight despite that. In fairness the article does sort-of point out that Germany was not particularly short of men in uniform in 1916; Stevenson suggests that the real manpower shortage was on the eastern front after the Brusilov Offensive, not the western front from which there was a net transfer of divisions despite the Somme. The claim that Germany was close to starvation by the end of 1918, cited to Paul Kennedy's history of international relations since the 1500s, is seriously overstated as well - my recollection of reading Chickering (over 15 years ago and I no longer have a copy to hand) is that there was some increase in mortality rates in infants and the elderly, but not much more than that - there were important shortages of raw materials but it's open to debate (depending on who you read) whether the Germans were quite "starving" even in spring 1919 when they were still being blockaded until they signed the Versailles Treaty. As to what caused the Central Powers to implode, well "it's complicated" ... Paulturtle (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You will increase the credibility of your comments if you refrain from Mainwaring-esque bluster. The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation. (Oxford, 1990, ISBN 0198219466) shows that food shortages in 1918 were mainly due to transport shortages caused by the demands of the war effort, that they were short-lived but of great impact. Quibbling about manpower shortages in one part of the war, when the war was a single event and the Entente offensives were intended to cause this, is rather monocular don't you think?Keith-264 (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

Added detail used in other articles.Keith-264 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pointless addition

Why have a sub heading with the same name as the whole page? Leutha (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It barely scratches the surface. Analysis needs to be in the Aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

How about now? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Found some detail to add, changed online to printed sources, improved citation and refs, plenty more narrative needed. Keith-264 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved from editor talk page

You’ve reinstated a plainly ungrammatical construction

“Its goal was to make the most efficient use of civilian and military resources vastly to increase Germany production of weapons and munitions” is not grammatical.

I amended it to “Its goal was to make the most efficient use of civilian and military resources to vastly increase Germany [sic — we both missed this] production of weapons and munitions”. This correction is grammatically sound, and you were wrong to revert it.

Your edit summary — “vastly is not a verb” — is a non-sequitur; it explains nothing. Vastly is an adverb, and its adverbial function where I used it is obvious: it modifies the verb “to increase”. What else could it possibly modify?

“To make the most use of civilian and military resources […] vastly” is clearly nonsensical. So is “vastly to increase Germany production”.

I cannot for the life of me work out why you’ve reinstated an unambiguous grammatical error. Neither your revert nor your edit summary make any sense to me. Foxmilder (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Foxmilder: "to increase" puts 'to' next to the verb, 'to increase'; 'to vastly' juxtaposes 'to' with an adverb. Overdoing adverbs and adjectives is a bad thing and confusing them with verbs is worse. Note that the article is in BritEng, not AmEng. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, the phrasing you reinstated is ungrammatical — not “a bad thing”, in the purely aesthetic sense of your objection to my correction, but by the universally observed standards of English composition.

There is no variety of English in which “Its goal was to make the most efficient use of civilian and military resources vastly to increase Germany production of weapons and munitions” is an acceptable construction.

I ask again: what verb does “vastly” modify in the passage you insist on reverting to? You may not like “to vastly increase” for aesthetic reasons, but it’s grammatical. The original phrasing is not.

Please actually explain this time — as you should have done to begin with. Foxmilder (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You're wrong, however many times you write the same thing and should be addressing this on the article talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved thread here where it belongs. Please stop edit warring, gain consensus and try writing civilly, rather than making accusations. Keith-264 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I made two distinct edits.

The first you reverted, believing I had introduced a grammatical error. I should acknowledge, first of all, that this was clearly a sincere belief, arrived at in good faith — but I quite honestly had no idea what your objection was (and apparently still is… ?).

Every editor who has attempted to rephrase that passage — myself included — would undoubtedly agree that “vastly is not a verb”. Conversely, I’d be surprised if a single person here could explain how the edit summary “vastly is not a verb” functions as an explanation for your repeated reverts of my edits — the second of which expressly avoids the use of “vastly” entirely!

If it turns out these other editors had no trouble understanding your explanation, I will happily concede I failed to adequately explain my own edits, build consensus, et al.

Until then, I must be honest with you: I have no idea what you are objecting to, why you are objecting to it, or what you are trying to say to me. I am not “edit warring”, obviously. I made one edit, which you reverted. I tried to make sense of your cryptic edit summary, including by asking you directly what it meant. You declined to tell me, so I made another attempt at a minor edit, this time removing the word “vastly” — to which you had so emphatically objected — entirely. You reverted that too (edit summary: “vastly is not a verb”.)

I note that other editors have attempted to help us move past our petty dispute about [you tell me]. Their edits appear to me to constitute a clear improvement to the passage in question. I gather, from your latest talk-page missive (“Eh? Take it up with Watson”) that you disagree — but I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Both your personal talk page and this one have one striking pattern in common:

1. somebody else makes a good-faith contribution to an article you’ve edited extensively
2. you dismissively insult them, then insultingly dismiss them

It’s quite clear to me there’s nothing I can say here that you won’t object to. I’m not the first person to come to this conclusion, and I doubt I’ll be the last.

I’ll do the one thing I’m sure you won’t mind: I’ll refrain from making even the slightest edit to this page.

It’s all yours! Drive it like you own it. Foxmilder (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind constructive criticism and thank people for it; reiteration isn't constructive. I wish you well. Keith-264 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

@ThoughtIdRetired: Eh? Take it up with Watson. Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Resistance to copy editing

All these efforts at improving the article have been reverted: . I am not suggesting that they universally had value, but they make clear that several editors were trying to improve the language of the article. The most recent reverted copy edits were reinstated by me () as I felt they had particular merit. This was also reverted.

I am concerned that genuine efforts to improve the article are being prevented by User:Keith-264. This is the opportunity for that user to spell out exactly what is wrong with the improvements. This should expand on the uninformative or inappropriate edit summaries given with the reversions. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I don't believe that the copy edits that I reverted were improvements but am willing to go through them here one at a time. Genuine efforts do not preclude poor grammar and syntax. Your opinion is not a matter of fact and we've been through this before. Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The floor is yours to explain your case. All that I would add is that a number of editors have attempted to improve the readability of the article. That suggests that these editors think that it needs fixing. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You want changes, the onus is yours. Keith-264 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that you withdraw your offer to go through them here one at a time? That rather suggests that you are finding your actions difficult to justify. On the other hand, you have the original editor and me both thinking the changes are a good idea. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep the sophistry to yourself. You want changes, produce your fist candidate.Keith-264 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, let's pick the most recent one: . First, this reversion removes the "a" from
(v.1) Falkenhayn held that a decisive military victory against Russia was impossible.
giving:
(v2) Falkenhayn held that decisive military victory against Russia was impossible
Version 1 has an implicit "at that point in time". If you consider all the possible points throughout history where decisive victory is or is not possible, this is one of those points. Therefore, "a" is appropriate. Version 2 implies that a decisive victory against Russia is impossible in all cases. Perhaps that is what Falkenhayn meant, but I rather feel that he did not.

Second: "mad commas". Well, they are not mad. Like all punctuation, they are there to help the reader. The best test of that is to imagine someone reading the text out loud, without having seen it before, and there is an unhelpful page break following the word after the comma.
Consider From July to August, the.... (and then you have to turn the page). The comma tells you that the date range phrase has finished. The sentence cannot say, for instance, "...to August the fifteenth...". That is why From July to August, the Westheer had fired the equivalent of 587 trainloads of field gun ammunition, against the receipt of only 470 from Germany; the munitions shortage was worsening. is correct.

To pick another "comma" example: Of the 110 French divisions in France, 16 were in reserve, and another 10 to 11 divisions could be obtained by swapping tired units for fresh ones on quiet parts of the front. If you were reading this out loud and at the end of the page it said "Of the 110 French divisions in France, 16 were in reserve and", what does it say next? It might say "in reserve and able to be rested". Here, the conjunction is continuing the phrase. But the full sentence is not like that. The conjunction introduces a new phrase, and the comma is needed to alert the reader to this.

There is a lot more to say on the wider subject of reverted improvements, but I will let you digest this first. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Decisive has two meanings, the Clausewitzian meaning of a victory that had political results ergo there can only be one and an amateur meaning as a synonym for 'big'.

Your claims about commas continue your assumption of omniscience about the minds of other readers, you really don't need to punctuate conjunctions because they are redundant.

As above, a comma before 'and' ignores the pause for 'and' that is inherent. You have even started a sentence with one. What next, "fish, and chips"?

Are you pulling my leg? Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You have not really engaged with the points made to you. Please take into account the many instances in which other editors have attempted to improve the language in this and other articles. Is this not a clue that there is an issue? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)