Talk:Battle of Passchendale

Passchendaele

Please excuse any sarcasm during my comments; but nearly everything that could go wrong with this tiny article has… It is Passchendaele, not Passchendale. It is states that it was the Third Battle of Ypres, then goes on to make really sure that we understand the meaning of “Third’; and that it was at Ypres. (30 odd words when 10 would do. There goes a third of the article.) It states the battle lasted 17 months, which, by my reckoning, has it ending in the middle of January 1919 –over two months after the Armistice. (It was really 4 months) It was not a failure. A helluva waste of youth on both sides and probably the best example of what was wrong with that awful war, but its consequences were immense. British, British, British. Yes British high command for sure, but if you have read any reputable history of the battle it is the men of the Empire that died as much as the Brits. Ask any educated Canadian. Why the anti-Brit insertion of the “for the British”? If the plan with the mines had worked America would have had an easier time of it. America was an ally by then. (Would you include “unfortunately for the Americans” in a similar case?)

I don’t like WWI. I refuse to go into those books or sites that would allow me to do an article this subject deserves. If I can do the above without looking anything up, surely there is someone out there who has the necessary nous!AlanE 22:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Further to the above....I see there is a article for Third Battle of Ypres. Perhaps the Passchendale article should be put out of its misery AlanE 04:01, 22 May 2007 (EDT)