Talk:Phoney War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why "phony"?

Why "phony", why is it fake? Or is Phony a placename? --Menchi 03:24 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was called 'the phoney war' because very little was actually happening in terms of military activity. Not like a 'real war' Mintguy
And this is seriously the official name that government and academic historian use? --Menchi 03:56 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Historians certainly use the term. Official? By whose authority? Who officially uses the term "Cold War"? Mintguy
I mean "official" in the sense of "official government documents in English", legal documents, for example. --Menchi 04:31 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I doubt you'll see it used as an official government term - govt tends to organize by campaigns, and the characteristic of the Phony War was the absence of any land campaigning. But that doesn't matter, because we title articles with the most common unambiguous term, and "Phony War" is exactly right. Stan 06:15 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Great. I thought the article needed something more, terminology-wise. That cleared it up. --Menchi 06:21 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've never heard of the term Phoney war being used before, people more commonly refer to this part of the second world war as a pre-phase 'The calm before the storm'. Phoney war sounds somewhat comedic and disrespectful. the fact that it's 'Phoney War' also misleads, as most would assume 'Phoney war' was a completely different war in itself. (As i did until reading.) :::Yatamazuki 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) rfc
Commonly on Mars perhaps. Try reading a book once in a while. Jooler 11:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question is: why does the title go with the American spelling when it's about the period before America was in the war? "Phoney war" is a British English term for that period. Totnesmartin 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Americans also called it 'Sitzkreig' (not sure if that's how to spell it)--LtWinters 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"-ey" endings are far more common in US English, in cases where "-y (without an e)" is used in British English — e.g. whisky/whiskey — so it's not hard to see why confusion would arise. I used to insist on "Phony" because I assumed that was "British" and "Phoney" was "American". But from what I've read below, it seems I was wrong. Grant | Talk 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This keeps coming up over and over again. See Talk:Phoney_War#Phony or Phoney for the answer. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

date for the end of the Phony War

On World War II two different dates existed for the end of the Phony War, why I made a quick-and-dirty googling:

I note following relevant www-pages among the first listed by google, searching for "phony-war 1940 april OR may":


It seems to me as it's merily a matter of taste whether one regards the Phony War to have lasted until the assault on Denmark and Norway, or until the assault on Benelux and France.


I would wish to coordinate the date given in [[Phony War]] with the date in [[World War II]]. I've recently reverted changes made by other users, in order to escape the situation with two different dates given, but in reality I've no certain knowledge or preferences. I do however understand the "Phony War" as a direct synonym to the German term der Sitzkrieg, and my fussy memory would count the assault on the Benelux countries to be the end of the Sitzkrieg.

-- Ruhrjung 16:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I consulted my (sadly few) authorities who comment, and both Churchill (who called it the "Twilight War") and Liddell-Hart say 10 May. At least from the British point of view, the Denmark and Norway actions were smaller-scale actions, more like the naval battles that were already going on. This article could explain the two different reckonings, and the main WWII article doesn't actually need to commit itself to a particular date; just say something like
"The relatively quiet period later known as the Phony War came to an end in the spring of 1940; the German invasions of Norway and Denmark in April were followed immediately by the Western Offensive of 10 May into Benelux and France."
Readers not really interested in the Phony War learn how it fits in and can then move on to the rest of the narrative, while interested person can gorge themselves on the minute detail in Phony War. Stan 19:03 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I fear the date(s) will return in the World War II, unless it becomes an protected page. Otherwise I would agree with you. Thank you for checking, by the way. :-) -- Ruhrjung 19:58 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

National government

Thank you, Mintguy, for your splendid expansion. Please note http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=National_government&action=history where User:Hephaestos obviously reacted like I myself had done before, redirecting "national government" to "government" instead of "coalition government", why I took the liberty to make yet another change. :->>

I hope [[government]] (...) of national unity ("national government") will be to your liking.
-- Ruhrjung 06:12 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos (I keep forgetting about the apostrophe's that Word puts in and Wiki doesn't like). To my knowledge, Britain had four coalition governments (1916-1919; 1931; 1931-1935; 1940-1945) all of which were contemporaneously known as the "national government" or more formally the government of national unity. A redirect to "government" is simply inadequate. At some stage in the futre I'll write an article at government of national unity and redirect national government (or maybe National Government) to there. Mintguy 08:01 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Public Opinion and the Winter War

Many thanks, Tannin, for your work on my (pidgin) English. I'm glad for your attemt to make the paragraph in Phony War "less strident".

You wrote:
The major event in Europe during the Phony War was the Winter War, which started with the Soviet invasion of Finland on November 30 1939. The Allies excluded the Soviet Union from the League of Nations but did little else, bar discuss a proposed Franco-British expedition to northern Scandinavia. On March 20th, after the Winter War had ended, Édouard Daladier resigned as Prime Minister in France, due to his failure to aid Finland's defense
I had written:
In the center of public interest during the Phony War stood the Winter War following Soviet's assault on Finland on November 30th, 1939. Public opinion demanded actions in support of democratic Finland in what was seen as her uneven struggle against the 50 times larger Bolshevist Soviet Union. As a consequence, the Soviet Union was excluded from the League of Nations, and a proposed Franco-British expedition to northern Scandinavia was much debated. On March 20th, after the Winter War had ended, Édouard Daladier resigned as Prime Minister in France, due to his failure to aid Finland's defense
Which in turn was my attempt to make the following paragraph less of advocacy and more factual:
Finland was invaded by the Soviets on November 30th 1939. This began the Winter War, which came to stand in the center of the worlds interest during the Phony War. Democratic Finland being assaulted by the 50 times as big Communist dictature made the moral judgement easy for all but the Germans.

Confessing that the League of Nations is almost a white spot on my knowledge, and that my understanding is clearly coloured by both the 1½ year I lived in France, by my frequent visits to Helsinki, and by my current location to Copenhagen, I wonder if:

  1. It really was "the Allied" who excluded Soviet.
  2. If it isn't more appropriate to say that the event was "in the center of the europeans' interest," rather than "in Europe." Most people I know (outside of Scandinavia) would say that the war returned "to Europe" on May 10th. In their opinion the Winter War was equally much a morally black-and-white affair, as the war against Nazi-Germany, but I believe the war in the Far North was more of "a war by deputies," than the war in Poland had been - Poland was certainly on the other side of Germany, and had certainly been ruled by Russia - but I believe there was more of identification with the Poles. Finland was definitely a "lesser known country" virtually on the edge of the world.
  3. If it isn't relevant to stress that at this point in the war the Public Opinion actually influenced the governments more than the government influenced the public opinions. Even in Germany there was registered a certain amount of discontent among Wehrmacht officers over the unsupportive ("strictly neutral") attitude vis-à-vis Finland. My understanding is that much of the frustration over France's and Britain's inability to fulfill their duties towards their allied Poles were expressed as requests to support "the brave Finns" instead.

Best regards!
-- Ruhrjung 07:29 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Hi Ruhrjung. Thanks for your very friendly and civilised response to what was a rather short-tempered edit summary of mine! (Friday is my day for being grumpy.) To business: I used "in Europe" because to those of us who live in other parts of the world, Scandanavia is very much a part of Europe. (I'm in Australia, but my comment applies, I'm sure, equally well to Canadians and Brazilians and Chinese and so on.) A great deal of the WW2 entry and its related sub-pages manages to forget that there are two hemispheres in the world, and thinks that the entire war happened in Europe (counting the bits that spilled over into nearby areas, such as North Africa and the Atlantic as "Europe"). But how to reconcile this with your equally valid point about public opinion? Hmmmm... Re-write the whole sentence, I guess. I take your point about public opinion. Although I have read widely on WW2, this is a part of it on which I am weak. But yes, even I could not miss the frequent references in the UK at that time to "the brave Finns". I imagine that the French felt similarly.
Best regards,
Tannin

I realize (I realized! - actually already while writing) that Eurocentrism probably was a concern for you, and many others. But isn't the concept of the Phony War very much a result of an Eurocentric outlook all the way (where even Russia and Scandinavia are virtually excluded from what's felt as real "Europe"). But, ...back to business: My highest wish is that someone with English mother tongue, and the native's command of nuances, make some more polishing of the language:

  1. to escape the contradictions - or the implication that the assault on Denmark and Norway was "no significant attack" and that that USSR was not a "great power of Europe" (alternatively: that also the Soviet assault on Finland was "no significant attack"), or at least to make it somewhat more clear that these campaigns are thought of as "no significant attacks" which I don't really believe.
    If I have a point, be it then that the Phoney War/the Sitzkrieg was a state of mind which remains somewhat evasive of our later attempts to make it fit into our definitions and understandings and... etc.
  2. to escape the impression (not uncommon in Finland) that the outburst of sympathy and support (mainly in words, though) is something which the rest of the world tries to hide/forget about
  3. to make something editorial to highlight at least parts of the chain of causes (according to my understanding):
    1. Democratic-Bolshevist mistrust
    2. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
    3. Franco-British inability to support Poland
    4. Winter War (and some German unease)
    5. Public disappointment and demands in the democratic Great Powers
    6. Governmental unease over USSR's failing invasion, and the threatening prospect of a military clash between the democracies and USSR, which in the long run was ideal for Germany, but in the short run scary also for the Nazis, as it could lead to the loss of crucial iron ore and/or consuming battles on the vaste Scandinavian Peninsula
    7. Actualized plans for an Allied capture of neutral Scandinavia (ostensibly following the public demands)
    8. Actualized plans for a German capture of neutral Norway (important to do before the Allied), Denmark was only coincidentially on the way thereto
    9. These plans being put into reality, coincidentially simultaneously
    10. Daladier's resignment
    11. Chamberlain's resignment (coincidentially simultaneously with the end of the Phoney War)

regards too!
-- Ruhrjung 15:47 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

date for the beginning of the Phony war

I wanted to add a paragraph that the very existence of Phony War was breaking the treaties the western powers had with Poland, but I'm not sure how to do it in a NPOV way. Could anyone help?Halibutt 04:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In France this period is known as "drole de guerre" (strange war, coined by a journalist Roland Dorgelès). However, the French consider the official declaration of war by France and Britain on Sept. 3 to mark the beginning of this period. I don't understand why Phony War should begin only in October if it was just as phony throughout September (though it wasn't phony at all in Poland).
Besides, this article should put more emphasis on British and - especially French - military inactivity until the German invasion on Benelux and France. And explain why, although many British and French believe their counrties did what was right to help Poland, most Poles feel they were betrayed by their western "allies". Kpalion 20:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Check my ongoing project at User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. Does t explain it a little?Halibutt 23:26, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Kpalion since in the (English) usage I've acquired, the Phoney War starts when the occupation of Poland is finished. It must be noted that the October-date has survived dozens of edits.

I agree with User:Halibutt and Kpalion that the issue of how it came that Poles (and Finns) felt utterly betrayed by Western Europe is important, but I think this very article is not the right place for more than a one-sentence mentioning including ordinary wikilinks to the relevant articles.
--Ruhrjung 08:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a separate paragraph about French, Polish and German terms for the Phony War and their usage. I can see that Halibutt has changed the starting date for Phony War from Oct. 6 to Sept. 12; I don't know if he's right or wrong, I'm only sure about what drole de guerre and dziwna wojna mean in France and Poland respectively.
As Ruhrjung suggested, I included there a small mention of the betrayal issue with a link to the yet inextant article on Western betrayal Halibutt is working on.
--Kpalion 12:06, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I made some further work. I hope not to anyone's dislike. I do still believe that the notion of September 12 as the start point is better to mark clearly as the Polish notion.
--Ruhrjung 12:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I moved the Oct 6th to the end of the paragraph since it's the only date given without explanation of usage. This is a temporary solution until someone writes a little about the English usage. However, I believe that the order of terms should be chronological (French, Polish, English), since Churchill was the last one to use it and his version did not become popular in English language.Halibutt 17:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"The Phoney War was a phase early in World War II—in the months following Britain's declaration of war on Germany (shortly after the German invasion of Poland) in September 1939 and preceding the Battle of France in May 1940—that was marked by a lack of major military operations in Continental Europe. "

Isn't Poland part of continental europe ?Eregli bob (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Phony or Phoney

I don't know if this is a American English/British English issue, but most references I've ever read spell it Phoney rather than Phony. I think the spelling Phony is a modern variant that has become more commonplace because of the use of the word telephony. Limiting google searches to site:UK produces more hits for "phoney war" than "phony war". Mintguy (T) 09:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Google produces almost 8 times more results for 'phoney' (although that is simply popular usage). I would change it but we need more consensus. Daniel (☎) 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Just spotted this. "Phony" is the AmE spelling and shouldn't be used for describing an event in Britain/Europe where "Phoney" is used. I'm afraid I don't know how to change page titles. Wiki-Ed 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to move the page if there is consensus to do so. However, it would be great if someone could also go through the text of the article and change every instance of "Phony" to "Phoney". LordAmeth 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Article moved and text changed. Jooler 12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Right answer, wrong reason. Although 'phony' is the American spelling since around 1920, in fact the U.S. newspaper which first used this expression spelled (not 'spelt' it ;-) ) in the British fashion when quoting U.S. Senator Borah. See the Post-Gazette newspaper reference recently added. If there's an earlier reference in a U.K. newspaper, we should prefer that. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Earliest ref to a British paper I can find is London News-Chronicle of January 19, 1940, headlined, "This is Not a Phoney War", cited in Safire's Political Dictionary under the entry 'Phony war' [sic], p. 539. Since the London article post-dates the American one, we should keep looking, but it lends more support that Senator Borah may have been the originator. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Narvik or Norway Debate?

This is also referred to as the Norway Debate. I'm not sure which to use, but I feel there should be a separate entry for the Norway/Narvik Debate. Rellis1067 17:44, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Norway Debate" a) in line with the page on that debate (though I must declare a bias as I started it) and b) because that's how it's most commonly called in most British (at least) histories. Timrollpickering 18:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

REPLY: Yes, the phoney war it is. "Phony" is intensely annoying to me, an Englishman, as "Phoney" was a term coined by the British, who certainly spelt it "Phoney". there were no other english speaking countries involved at the time, so this is just plain wrong.

Reference is made to "government of national unity (called a coalition government in Britin)". I don't believe that is the case. A coalition and a unity government are different beasts. A coalition is two parties cooperating to form a government; a government of national unity is all (or at least most) parties cooperating to form a government. DJ Clayworth 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Franco-British Union

I don't know if this is the right place for it, but there really should be an article somewhere about the proposed political union between France and Britain. It was a fairly radical idea and I haven't been able to find any info about it on wikipedia.

"At this fateful moment in the history of the modern world," Churchill proposed, "the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union. . . . The two Governments declare that France and Britain shall no longer be two nations but one Franco- British union. The constitution of the union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial, and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediate citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France." --203.122.193.213 06:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Phoney

Phoney is the more correct spelling as used in Britain at the time. Cites

  • A Challenge To All Nations Mr. Stanley On Real War Aims, Hint To Neutrals - The Times, Thursday, Mar 21, 1940; pg. 5; Issue 48570; col D
  • No "Phoney" Peace M. Reynaud's Pledge, Military Decision First (News) From Our Own Correspondent. - The Times Thursday, Apr 04, 1940; pg. 8; Issue 48581; col D
  • No Illusions Left (Editorials/Leaders) - The Times Friday, Apr 19, 1940; pg. 7; Issue 48594; col B
  • Sir,-Our American friends are hard to please. (Letters to the Editor) C. A. ALINGTON.. - The Times Monday, May 06, 1940; pg. 7; Issue 48608; col F

I agree --Philip Baird Shearer 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This keeps coming up over and over again. See Talk:Phoney_War#Phony or Phoney for the answer. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Action on the Western Front

Althought there was little action on the Western Front. I seem to remember the World at War series mentioning a half-hearted French advance into Germany. Any such actions should be noted in this article and it is a shame that to date none have been added. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Irony?

Just a point of irony: In the second or third paragraph, before the the Contents section "...the non-belligerent United States..." I like that. :) I'm not asking this be actually pointed out in the article, that'd kill the factual, unbiased nature of Wikipedia, but man. Come on. That's good stuff :)

Mr.troughton 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg

Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of effectiveness of any Western Front action by the Allies

67.243.7.41 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

importan events

i see that in major actions section someone putted this :Luftwaffe air raids on Britain began on 16 October 1939 when Junkers Ju 88s attacked British warships at Rosyth on the Firth of Forth. what i want to ask whether should we put :"Britain struck first in phoney war , bombing warships and light vessels in several German harbors on 3 and 4 September.Eight German Kriegsmarine men were killed at Wilhelmshaven - the war's first casualties to British bombs; attacks on ships at Cuxhaven and Heligoland followed." for me it's an important event ,which show who first begin bombing.Could i have green hand to add this text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates lack year

In several places, you name a day and month in history without naming the year.

This practice is pandemic in Wikipedia, and it is invalid for public writing.

There are two flavors of deficiency here:

1. In every section of an article where dates are named, the first date named should include the year. Here, sections 'Saar offensive', 'German invasion of Denmark and Norway', and 'Change of British government' fail to do so.

Once the first date is so completely named, then yes, for the rest of the section and the rest of that year (only), you may elide the year.

This mandate applies notwithstanding that at the top of the article you state that the topic in question lasted from September, 1939 to May, 1940. For one thing, an article can be read out of sequence, or only partially, or both. For another, even if that were not true, each section should exhibit some independent integrity.

2. Whenever the year increments, you should state the new year. In 'Winter War', you name '30 November 1939' followed by '20 March' [sic]. To what year does the latter refer? Don't foist onto the user the double mental burden of back-calculating the year, followed by the anxiety of not seeing it confirmed in the text.

By contrast, 'End of the Phoney War' invokes both of these situations and the year is properly named in both. --Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Was Italy a "belligerent" in the Phoney War?

I was under the impression that Italy entered the war in June 1940.216.12.56.102 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC) vandrare 24 April 2011

You are correct. I have removed Italy from the list of belligerents; there as no mention of Italy in the text of the article. MayerG (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Poland a "belligerent" in the Phoney War?

I think it is misleading to list Poland in the parties, as unlike France and UK, Poland was engaged in the full-out battle (the German invasion of Poland). At the very least, some footnote should be added to the infobox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical Analysis

Missing from the article is any analysis of motive of Britain and France in not aggressively reacting. Obviously such analysis will express opinions, rather than objective facts. But Wikipedia's viewpoint neutrality can still be maintained by reciting competing beliefs on the subject. Allan Marain 10:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marainlaw (talk • contribs)

Relevance of importing dogs and foxes

I don't understand why the importation of foxhounds, beagles and foxes is relevant to the Phoney War. It is also unclear where these animals are coming from and where they are going to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.231.61 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree I'm inclined to think its some kind of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:2B88:5700:FD7E:D25B:FF13:6ECE (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

What's the point of the infobox? There is no strength, casualties or whatever to make it relevant. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hitler's words regarding his attempts at peace between Germany and France (and Britain)

See the speech: ADDRESS BY CHANCELLOR ADOLPH HITLER TO REICHSTAG, Berlin, Germany, May 4, 1941. He had no wish to attack France. Hitler ceded the Alsace Lorraine region to France in an attempt to secure peace, even though the Germans there outnumbered the French by 250 to 1. France declared war against Germany. France attacked Germany. Hitler did not respond for eight months. He defeated France.

In the speech (above), Hitler states that every attempt by him to ensure peace was regarded as a sign of weakness and therefore ridiculed.

Propaganda liars afterwards presented a doctored film to show Hitler dancing after defeating France but Hitler was described as being "particularly sober" on that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.118 (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hitler's France

The French incorrectly feared that the German invaders would treat the French as badly as the French treated the Germans after WW1 but the disciplined German soldiers allowed business as usual in France. The German soldiers were regarded as naive tourists when they visited French restaurants and theatres. (If I recall correctly, after the victory, German soldiers gave French soldiers taxi money so that they could return to Paris (not sure which war))

The Germans did not want to remain in France permanently and did not want to incorporate non-German peoples from other countries into Germany. Germany never seized the governments of countries it occupied and never seized an inch of territory permanently unless it was formerly part of Germany. Germany allowed France to keep warships to protect France's colonies but Britain destroyed them and their sailors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.25 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Title image location

I wanted to add a location to the image caption of File:8inchHowitzerCamouflagedLaquielle20October1939.jpg, this article's current title image.
But where was that photograph taken?
The file description page gives "Laquielle", the Imperial War Museum's page gives "Laquielle" and "Laqueille, Cantal, France". Google Maps has a "Cantal" in the Massif Central, at about the furthest possible distance from any French border. I can't find any Laquielle (or Laqueille) anywhere close to the French border. Any ideas? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoney_War/Archive_1&oldid=1148692775"