Talk:Maurice Gamelin

Maintenance tags

I've added tags for irrelevant information and a lack of citations. There is a ridiculous amount of irrelevant or peripheral context given in the Interwar period and Second World War sections. This is supposed to be a biographical entry on Maurice Gamelin yet there's so much entry level explaining going on in the Interwar period section that the actual material on Gamelin is pretty slim. Gamelin's own life and movements are very poorly sourced or completely absent. This is contrasted by an unorganised mass on niche exchanges and operational decisions in the Second World War section.

Frankly, I believe this article should be rewritten-- it appears to be written by people without a firm grasp on the subject matter. I'd be researching this from a fairly light position myself. Perhaps. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:3C5C:2C86:3194:E60 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

[same user] Currently in the process of rewriting with the help of two biographies and a few more books. IP user in the above topic is not me. Joko2468 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I see what happened to the Interwar period section-- someone used Martin S. Alexander's book thinking from the title that it was written about Gamelin. In reality the book barely mentions him in a biographical context and is more so a study of the problems he faced, at least according to a scholarly review. Joko2468 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Notes on rewrite

• Jean-Jacques Ulrich being Gamelin's great uncle rather than his grandfather was previously present on his Wikipedia page and the one in French. However, though it is supported by genealogy websites, I was unable to find this fact in the sources cited in the bibliography that I could access. The article needs a source from a historian.
• Pierre Le Goyet is an old source but Julian Jackson (2004: p.11) describes his book as being "the best biography of him". Schiavon describes it as the first and only other biography.
• There is a long list of positively glowing references from instructors/ commanding officers throughout his early career. I haven't included any of these because I think what's there speaks for itself and to my taste it's a little UNDUE/ unencyclopedic/ missing appropriate context to be useful to the reader.
• Schiavon dismisses some authors' claims that the Gamelin-Daladier relationship broke down in the late 1930s-- I've seen Adamthwaite (1977: p.170) say this. Things become more tense between them in 1940 but they ultimately stick together.
• The following is quoted from Schiavon: On a purely military level, from September 2nd, Gamelin held the title of Chief of the General Staff of National Defense, Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces, and Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies in France. Either of the latter two titles could be placed in the infobox-- in my view I think the final one is most significant.
• Gamelin's initial support in September 1939 for a Balkan front just isn't notable, he opposed this soon after. The minutiae of discussions within the Supreme War Council that didn't amount to anything isn't appropriate for inclusion in my view.
• In case a future editor thinks one of the occasions where Gamelin threatened to resign is notable, his personal archives contain ten draft resignation letters. According to Schiavon, the one he drafted in April 1940 was designed to cement Daladier's support and he had no intention of resigning.
• The Postwar analysis section could maybe do with expansion but the two other books I've read on the fall of France largely repeat these points. In my opinion, Shirer's views aren't appropriate for inclusion on the basis that much of his analysis appears to be WP:FRINGE nowadays. Le Goyet's biography takes its name from Romains's 1940 article.
• There's some ambiguity around the date of his transfer to Castle Itter. Schiavon says that he was transferred there on 3 May while Harding goes into more detail and says they arrived on 2 May. I've gone with Harding but there's a couple of dates that he gets wrong.

Joko2468 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Good photo to include

If there's ever space (check with the appearance tab hidden as well), I would recommend adding this photo of Gamelin in Syria: File:Gamelin levant 1925.png Joko2468 (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maurice Gamelin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Joko2468 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrueMoriarty (talk · contribs) 16:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It certainly meets the GA standards. It is extremely informative and properly citationed. It also provides a satisfying read. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @TrueMoriarty! I’m a coordinator for the GA backlog drive. I notice this review is a little short for it to be counted. Do you mind making a more in-depth review before this is counted? I also noticed that while you say it meets GA standards and you counted it as a done GA on the drive page, the page isnt a GA yet. If you don’t know it, the GANReviewTool helps a ton! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Much better! Crystalite13 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. That's odd. The GAN page didn't list it as taken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I am going to do a review as an example and Moriarty can claim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I’d rather you re review this one, thanks! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Overall

Very well written, referenced and comprehensive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Great thanks! I'll make a start, I didn't get a notification on this for some reason. Joko2468 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Citations spot check

In June 1915, Gamelin was appointed head of the 3rd Bureau for the armies of the north and east and prepared the Franco-British offensives in Artois and Champagne that would be launched that autumn.[39]

• French: En juin 1915, ayant fait une nouvelle fois ses preuves, Gamelin devient chef du 3e bureau du GQG des armées du Nord et de l’Est, en remplacement du lieutenant-colonel Pont. Il a désormais la haute main sur les plans de guerre et prépare les offensives franco britanniques qui seront déclenchées au début de l’automne en Champagne et en Artois.
• English: In June 1915, having once again proven himself, Gamelin became head of the 3rd Bureau of the General Headquarters of the Armies of the North and East, replacing Lieutenant-Colonel Pont. He now had complete control over the war plans and prepared the Franco-British offensives that would be launched in early autumn in Champagne and Artois.

With Joffre replaced by General Robert Nivelle, Gamelin was appointed Chief of Staff of the Reserve Army Group (GAR) in Dormans on 27 December under General Joseph Alfred Micheler.[45] (corroborated by [46], which further states that it was at Dormans)

• French: Le généralissime ayant été remplacé par Nivelle, Gamelin veut quitter le G.Q.G. où, dit-il, l'ambiance s'altère par l'intrusion de la politique. Le 27 décembre, il prend les fonctions de chef d'état-major du Groupe d'armées de réserve sous les ordres du général Micheler...
• English: The Commander-in-Chief having been replaced by Nivelle, Gamelin wanted to leave the G.Q.G., where, he said, the atmosphere was deteriorating due to the intrusion of politics. On December 27, he assumed the duties of Chief of Staff of the Reserve Army Group under General Micheler...

Being a public document the IGU was studied by the Germans for weaknesses, with the German military journal Militär-Wochenblatt [de] writing in October:[104]

• French: L’IGU étant un document public, les Allemands l’étudient et relèvent ses faiblesses. Le Militär-Wochenblatt publie une série d’articles à son sujet particulièrement critiques...(October 22, 1937) In the elipses is the quoted passage but the first sentence is pro-German puffery so I excluded it.
• English: Since the IGU was a public document, the Germans studied it and noted its weaknesses. The Militär-Wochenblatt published a series of particularly critical articles about it...(October 22, 1937)

In a document setting out his war strategy in February, Gamelin once again emphasised to Daladier the importance of reaching an agreement with Italy.[156]

• French: Gamelin adresse le 26 février à Daladier un document majeur – que celui-ci lu réclame depuis fin septembre 1939 –, à savoir le plan de guerre pour 1940... Sa constance quant à la problématique italienne est à noter, le général soulignant une fois de plus combien la France a intérêt à trouver un accord avec Rome.
• English: On February 26, Gamelin sent Daladier a major document—one that the latter had been requesting since the end of September 1939— namely, the war plan for 1940... His consistency regarding the Italian issue is noteworthy, the general emphasising once again how much it is in France's interest to reach an agreement with Rome.

At this point, Gamelin thought Hitler would most likely go after some easy victories in the Balkans in order to pacify discontent at home-- he was convinced the regime was close to collapse. The lede image is very concerning, I'll look into this further tomorrow (GMT time zone). Joko2468 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Just realised I had the German article as being 1936, the first sentence that I omitted is from that year (Schiavon splices together two quotes). I'll correct this. Joko2468 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay I've done it. It's a shame having to change the lede image, I thought I was going have to invoke fair use for a minute there. Obviously tell me if I'm mistaken but in "Postwar analysis" it serves as an adjective right? I changed the others. Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it. Joko2468 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, interlanguage links work off of wikidata so as long as the new page is connected to the central reference, you can have English text that wouldn't necessarily correspond to the title of the prospective article. Joko2468 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

General issues

• Endnotes a, c, e and h require references.
• Obligatory typo "neighbor"
• "Northeastern" should be "North Eastern"
• "airforce" should be "air force"
• "fulfill" should be "fulfil"
• "Postwar" should be "Post war"
• "hemorrhage" should be haemorrhage"
• Don't link present-day countries - not an issue at GA

Images

• File:Maurice Gamelin.jpg - needs US PD tag
• File:Tombe de Maurice Gamelin (1872–1958) 3.jpg - may attract comment at FAC, as there is no FoP in France

Sources

• Some inconsistency with formatting (eg fn 200 and 201) - not an issue at GA, but would come up at FAC
• Not clear where the Legion of Honour grades are referenced
• Grand Officer of the Imperial Order of the Dragon requires a reference
• Spot checks:

  39, 45, 104, 156 - I don't have these books, so can you provide some quotes?

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox length

@~2026-11582-09 I'm not sure if you saw my edit summary-- it's not about whether your additions were true but rather whether they constitute key facts, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This shouldn't be WP:EXHAUSTIVE and in my view the infobox should include only his most senior positions, otherwise it becomes quite unwieldly and hard for the reader to consume. You say this is done on other articles but Lord Gort for instance only includes the BEF (a far more significant command) in the designated 'Commands' field. Philippe Pétain includes his brief divisional command as an office-- personally I think this is a misuse of the infobox template, should a military command be considered an office? Happy to discuss, but at present you need consensus for these further changes. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsure what other examples you were thinking of but the Duke of Wellington is a good example of a high quality infobox that puts the reader first-- it only includes the most notable offices and there's a link to his many political and military offices that are presented at the bottom of the page. It seems you've done some research on this that I wouldn't want to delete-- would you be happy inputting this into a similar box at the end of the article? Joko2468 (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)