How to Use Semicolons Correctly

By Sara Richmond, Nov 9, 2023 8:00:00 AM

“How hideous is the semicolon,” Samuel Beckett said.

If we had to guess, we’d say Sam received a particularly excruciating rejection letter from his first crush, complete with multiple semicolons.

We bear no such resentment. In fact, we think semicolons are incredibly useful. But let’s start at the beginning so everyone can join in the fun.

What Is a Semicolon?

A semicolon is a little punctuation person about to dance.

See here ; . Such incredible form! Such armless fluidity!

A semicolon is more forceful than a comma, but weaker than a period. It’s a way to separate two full sentences without breaking them apart, or a way to clarify a long sentence with two or more sections.

To be more specific, there are five common instances when you should use a semicolon.

5 Times to Use a Semicolon

Read more »

1. Between two full sentences (called “independent clauses”) not joined by a conjunction.*(An independent clause is a group of words containing a subject and related verb that expresses a complete thought.)

Example 1: Samuel Beckett hates semicolons; who hurt him?

Example 2: We all have our favorite punctuation marks; I’m partial to em dashes myself.

2. Between two independent clauses joined by adverbs “however,” “therefore,” and the like.

Example 1: Abraham Lincoln values the humble semicolon; however, Samuel Beckett hates it furiously.

Example 2: Sam hated semicolons thoroughly; therefore, he suggested people never use them.

3. Before an expression such as “that is,” “for example,” or “namely,” when it introduces an independent clause.

Example 1: Sammie told everyone how much he loathed semicolons; namely, that they were “hideous.”

Example 2: Sam had a pretty dire view of more than just semicolons; for example, “Dream of Fair to Middling Women: A Novel” explores his disgust with romantic relationships.

4. Before a conjunction introducing an independent clause (instead of a comma) to separate the clauses more effectively or when the second independent clause has internal punctuation.

Example 1: Abraham Lincoln wasn’t known for his looks; yet some modern afficionados refer to him as “Baberaham” Lincoln.

Example 2: Honest Abe professed an affinity for semicolons; but his most famous speech, “The Gettysburg Address,” doesn’t have a single one, though it’s rife with commas.

5. In a complex series to avoid confusion or ambiguity.

Example 1: The total gold medals awarded during the Winter Olympics were as follows: France, 3; China, 8; United States, 7; Germany, 3; Great Britain, 5.

Example 2: The defendant, in an attempt to mitigate his sentence, pleaded that he had recently, on doctor’s orders, gone off his medications; that his car—which, incidentally, he had won in the late 1970s on Let’s Make a Deal—had spontaneously caught fire; and that he had not eaten for several days.**

When Not to Use a Semicolon

If your sentence is a combination of two independent clauses joined by a conjunction, use a comma.
 

Example 1: I hate ice cream, but I still eat it every day.

Example 2: She will walk to school, and she’ll probably complain the whole way.

If there isn’t much of a chance you’ll confuse readers while writing a series, use commas.

Example 1: Don’t you just love learning about commas, semicolons, periods, and all things grammar?

Example 2: If the answer to the prior question wasn’t “Yes,” or “Yeehaw,” or “I like it. I love it. I want some more of it,” then I am sad.

If you could easily divide one sentence into two without hurting readability or flow or sense, do so with a period between them.

Example 1: He told me he’d seen a butterfly shaped like a semicolon; I’m not sure what to believe. = He told me he’d seen a butterfly shaped like a semicolon. I’m not sure what to believe.

Example 2: The gastroenterologist told me he’d seen a colon shaped like a semitruck; his nurse said he was exaggerating. = The doctor told me he’d seen a colon shaped like a semitruck. His nurse said he was exaggerating.

If you’d like more information about the use of semicolons in index entries, parenthetical text citations, or with a second subtitle of a work, please comment below, and we may include it in a future post! You can also dive into The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition, for details.

*These rules are summarized from The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition section on semicolons (6.56-6.60), which ProofreadNOW.com uses as the basis for our grammar style.

**This example was taken from The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition, Section 6.60, because it’s hilarious and perfect.

From the Houston Chronicle

More than a century has passed since 110 Black soldiers stationed at Camp Logan were convicted of mutiny, murder and assault in the 1917 Houston Riot, with 19 of them executed at Fort Sam Houston. Now those convictions have been overturned.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Mahoney has directed the Army Review Boards Agency to “set aside” the convictions of all soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, U.S. 24th Infantry Regiment. The Army will recognize the overturned convictions in a ceremony Monday at the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum in Midtown. Their service records will now reflect that they served honorably.

“It can’t bring them back, but it gives them peace,” said Angela Holder, whose great-uncle, Cpl. Jesse Moore, was one of the executed soldiers. “Their souls are at peace.”

The decision, reached weeks ago by Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, restores each of the soldiers’ individual rights, privileges and properties lost — their descendants may now be eligible for benefits. An Honorable Discharge Certificate “as a testimonial for honest and faithful service” has been issued for each soldier.

The reversal is unlike any other in the Army’s history. 

“This is not only the largest murder trial in American history, this is also the largest court-martial in American history, and no case this large or this serious with this many death penalties has ever been completely overturned by the Army on review,” said historian John Haymond, who along with South Texas College of Law former professor and retired military officer Dru Brenner-Beck co-authored the petition that Wormuth based her decision on. Their work on the case was pro bono.

“In legal terms, you would say this case is sui generis, meaning that it stands alone. It is truly unique,” he added. “This is the Army recognizing it’s never too late to do the right thing and correcting its error of the past.” 

Members of the all-Black 24th Infantry Regiment, often referred to as Buffalo Soldiers, arrived on July 27, 1917, and were ordered to guard the construction of Camp Logan, a 7-acre training base that is now part of Memorial Park, after the U.S. declared war on Germany during World War I. 

Three African American soldiers pose against a fence at Camp Logan.

Soldiers marching from Camp Logan to a tabernacle on Vida Street, now Waugh Drive.

GIs’ tent city – World War I soldiers at Camp Logan. (Houston Chronicle Files)

The city they encountered was a hostile one. Houston strongly enforced the Jim Crow segregation laws of the South.

On the night of Aug. 23, 1917, Camp Logan soldiers clashed with whites. Seventeen people, including five police officers, would end up dead that night —  most of them white. 

The violence had roots in Houston’s racial strife. The regiment was staying near the construction site in the Washington Avenue area. Disputes at the site included insults involving white workers, police and soldiers; sometimes the encounters were violent, according to transcripts from the trial, preserved at South Texas College of Law. The soldiers were often met with racial slurs. Police were known to arrest and beat soldiers who stood up to them when words were exchanged. 

The match was lit on the morning of Aug. 23, when police officers Lee Sparks and R.H. Daniels raided a craps game led by young Black men. Police assaulted a Black woman; a soldier was arrested when he protested. A few hours later, a military police officer, Cpl. Charles Baltimore of Company I, talked with officers Sparks and Daniels about the arrest.

The conversation ended with Sparks pistol-whipping the corporal, who ran, was shot at three times, and was later arrested and beaten again. Rumor got back to the camp that Baltimore was dead, sparking talk of revenge among the soldiers. He later returned alive, though bloodied. That night a shot rang out and someone cried, “The mob is coming!” prompting soldiers to rush for their rifles and set up a defensive perimeter around the 24th’s camp.

The white battalion commander abandoned his post, leaving other officers to try to control the panicking troops. At that point, Sgt. Vida Henry ordered soldiers in Company I to march out of the camp in formation. Melee ensued.

Henry was later found dead. Pvt. Bryant Watson, Pvt. Wiley Strong and Pvt. George Bevens also were killed. 

Houston was placed under martial law the following morning.

Jason Holt, a New Jersey lawyer and descendant of Pfc. Thomas C. Hawkins, who was executed, likens sending Black soldiers into a southern town to waving a red flag. “The country was still in the throes of the Jim Crow era and not many years post-slavery,” he said. “With T.C. Hawkins, there’s conflicting testimony as to where he was and what happened during the course of the incident. I’m not suggesting that there was the appropriate amount of fairness with any of the soldiers.”

One officer, Maj. Harry Grier, represented all the defendants throughout three courts-martial. Grier, who was not an attorney, was reportedly given 10 days to prepare. Haymond’s research indicates that prosecutor Col. John Hull commended Grier for not raising issues of race during the trial. Grier also made public statements on day 2 of the trials that mutiny had been proven, contrary to his clients’ best interests.

Holder and Holt bristle at the word “mutiny.” They prefer the “incident.” 

In an excerpt from his summary of the historical and legal facts of the 1917 Houston Incident, Haymond explains why: “In the list of uniquely military crimes, mutiny holds a singular position… It is natural and entirely appropriate, then, that when military personnel today first encounter the history of the Houston Mutiny of 1917, their most common immediate reaction is to condemn the men who were accused of that crime.”

His belief is the Army prosecution failed to prove that 63 soldiers participated in mutiny within the required standard of military law. Within 12 hours of Maj. Gen. John Ruckman’s sentencing in 1917, 13 condemned men were hanged. By September 1918, six additional soldiers were executed.

“If you have the largest courts-martial in the history of the United States, and you have one person representing 63 people who isn’t even a lawyer, any semblance of a fair trial kind of goes out the window,” Holt said. “Some were incarcerated, a few others were executed subsequently, but the first 13 did not have an opportunity to raise issues that could have mitigated the severity.”

On the morning of his execution, Hawkins wrote a final letter to his parents in North Carolina: “Dear Mother & Father, when this letter reaches you I will be beyond the veil of sorrow. I will be in heaven with the angels… I am sentenced to be hanged for the trouble that happened in Houston, Texas, although I am not guilty of the crime that I am accused of.”

Why did the Army’s action take more than 100 years? 

“That’s a fair question,” Haymond said. “So many of the records were classified for the longest time and not cleared for release until the 1970s. Military law is so different from civilian law.”

Holder submitted the original petition, a posthumous pardon request, through the Department of Justice in 2017, but that document only addressed the first 13 men who were executed. Much of her case was based on a presentation between Fred Borch, one of the few people publicly discussing Camp Logan at the time, and then-South Texas College of Law Houston professor Geoffrey Corn.

Corn took an interest in Holder. Within two years, he brought key players into the fold, including fellow former intelligence officer Brenner-Beck. In 2019, they presented their findings to regional NAACP representatives.

“We had two principal objectives — explain that they’d done it wrong, you have to go through the Secretary of the Army, and that the NAACP should endorse a resolution at the national level,” Corn said. “We were way too under-inclusive. Every one of those soldiers suffered an injustice, and the Army deserves to give them remedy for that.”

Approval was unanimous. The NAACP supplied funding, and South Texas College of Law designated Brenner-Beck an adjunct professor under the Actual Innocence Clinic, where dozens of students worked on a petition for clemency over a two-year period.

“We had students working on the project who were themselves veterans. They had a nuanced understanding of command structure, mutiny and the Army’s responsibility for what may have occurred,” says South Texas College of Law vice president, associate dean and clinical professor Cathy Burnett. “When they read the transcripts and saw what happened, their views changed.”

Brenner-Beck and Haymond’s petition for clemency landed on Mahoney’s desk of the Army Review Boards in January 2022. Three groups studied and reviewed files requested from the national records agency on the 110 convicted soldiers.

Mahoney never felt pressure to predetermine any outcome, he said. He was tasked to investigate and provide a recommendation, which is what the Army Review Boards did, following a process used for tens of thousands of cases prior.

“In the end, I recommended to the Secretary of the Army in May 2022 that the convictions be set aside and are now honorable discharges,” he said. “There’s no physical evidence. And eyewitness accounts, with 1917’s level of outdoor electrical lighting, produced inconsistent testimony. One, single defense attorney had to represent all 110 officers. We would not do that today obviously. None of the white officers were charged or convicted. None of the white citizens were charged or convicted of anything.”

Setting aside the convictions acknowledges they were never guilty, he said. 

Holder cried when she got the call that the decision had been made. 

As a young girl, she had vowed to find her great-uncle. In 2001, she finally visited the graves of Moore and his comrades at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery in San Antonio. A marker stands where 17 of the regiment’s soldiers are buried.

 “I remember going to each tombstone and saying, ‘I’m going to do something,'” she said. “The wheels of justice turn. They turn slowly, but they do turn. With this decision, the promise has been kept. It’s been a lifelong mission for me.”

Holder and Holt will attend the ceremony Monday where the Deputy Secretary of the Army and Under Secretary of the Army will discuss the 1917 Houston Incident and corrective action. The Army also will launch a website directing people to the National Records Agency to potentially identify more descendants, Mahoney said.

“One hundred and six years ago, when this happened, I would dare say the men of the 124th Infantry would not have thought this would be possible,” Holt said. “It’s a tremendous loss. At the same time, we’re gratified and grateful the clemency petition has been successful and the convictions have been set aside.”

From the Houston Chronicle

More than a century has passed since 110 Black soldiers stationed at Camp Logan were convicted of mutiny, murder and assault in the 1917 Houston Riot, with 19 of them executed at Fort Sam Houston. Now those convictions have been overturned.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Mahoney has directed the Army Review Boards Agency to “set aside” the convictions of all soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, U.S. 24th Infantry Regiment. The Army will recognize the overturned convictions in a ceremony Monday at the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum in Midtown. Their service records will now reflect that they served honorably.

“It can’t bring them back, but it gives them peace,” said Angela Holder, whose great-uncle, Cpl. Jesse Moore, was one of the executed soldiers. “Their souls are at peace.”

The decision, reached weeks ago by Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, restores each of the soldiers’ individual rights, privileges and properties lost — their descendants may now be eligible for benefits. An Honorable Discharge Certificate “as a testimonial for honest and faithful service” has been issued for each soldier.

The reversal is unlike any other in the Army’s history. 

“This is not only the largest murder trial in American history, this is also the largest court-martial in American history, and no case this large or this serious with this many death penalties has ever been completely overturned by the Army on review,” said historian John Haymond, who along with South Texas College of Law former professor and retired military officer Dru Brenner-Beck co-authored the petition that Wormuth based her decision on. Their work on the case was pro bono.

“In legal terms, you would say this case is sui generis, meaning that it stands alone. It is truly unique,” he added. “This is the Army recognizing it’s never too late to do the right thing and correcting its error of the past.” 

Members of the all-Black 24th Infantry Regiment, often referred to as Buffalo Soldiers, arrived on July 27, 1917, and were ordered to guard the construction of Camp Logan, a 7-acre training base that is now part of Memorial Park, after the U.S. declared war on Germany during World War I. 

Three African American soldiers pose against a fence at Camp Logan.

Soldiers marching from Camp Logan to a tabernacle on Vida Street, now Waugh Drive.

GIs’ tent city – World War I soldiers at Camp Logan. (Houston Chronicle Files)

The city they encountered was a hostile one. Houston strongly enforced the Jim Crow segregation laws of the South.

On the night of Aug. 23, 1917, Camp Logan soldiers clashed with whites. Seventeen people, including five police officers, would end up dead that night —  most of them white. 

The violence had roots in Houston’s racial strife. The regiment was staying near the construction site in the Washington Avenue area. Disputes at the site included insults involving white workers, police and soldiers; sometimes the encounters were violent, according to transcripts from the trial, preserved at South Texas College of Law. The soldiers were often met with racial slurs. Police were known to arrest and beat soldiers who stood up to them when words were exchanged. 

The match was lit on the morning of Aug. 23, when police officers Lee Sparks and R.H. Daniels raided a craps game led by young Black men. Police assaulted a Black woman; a soldier was arrested when he protested. A few hours later, a military police officer, Cpl. Charles Baltimore of Company I, talked with officers Sparks and Daniels about the arrest.

The conversation ended with Sparks pistol-whipping the corporal, who ran, was shot at three times, and was later arrested and beaten again. Rumor got back to the camp that Baltimore was dead, sparking talk of revenge among the soldiers. He later returned alive, though bloodied. That night a shot rang out and someone cried, “The mob is coming!” prompting soldiers to rush for their rifles and set up a defensive perimeter around the 24th’s camp.

The white battalion commander abandoned his post, leaving other officers to try to control the panicking troops. At that point, Sgt. Vida Henry ordered soldiers in Company I to march out of the camp in formation. Melee ensued.

Henry was later found dead. Pvt. Bryant Watson, Pvt. Wiley Strong and Pvt. George Bevens also were killed. 

Houston was placed under martial law the following morning.

Jason Holt, a New Jersey lawyer and descendant of Pfc. Thomas C. Hawkins, who was executed, likens sending Black soldiers into a southern town to waving a red flag. “The country was still in the throes of the Jim Crow era and not many years post-slavery,” he said. “With T.C. Hawkins, there’s conflicting testimony as to where he was and what happened during the course of the incident. I’m not suggesting that there was the appropriate amount of fairness with any of the soldiers.”

One officer, Maj. Harry Grier, represented all the defendants throughout three courts-martial. Grier, who was not an attorney, was reportedly given 10 days to prepare. Haymond’s research indicates that prosecutor Col. John Hull commended Grier for not raising issues of race during the trial. Grier also made public statements on day 2 of the trials that mutiny had been proven, contrary to his clients’ best interests.

Holder and Holt bristle at the word “mutiny.” They prefer the “incident.” 

In an excerpt from his summary of the historical and legal facts of the 1917 Houston Incident, Haymond explains why: “In the list of uniquely military crimes, mutiny holds a singular position… It is natural and entirely appropriate, then, that when military personnel today first encounter the history of the Houston Mutiny of 1917, their most common immediate reaction is to condemn the men who were accused of that crime.”

His belief is the Army prosecution failed to prove that 63 soldiers participated in mutiny within the required standard of military law. Within 12 hours of Maj. Gen. John Ruckman’s sentencing in 1917, 13 condemned men were hanged. By September 1918, six additional soldiers were executed.

“If you have the largest courts-martial in the history of the United States, and you have one person representing 63 people who isn’t even a lawyer, any semblance of a fair trial kind of goes out the window,” Holt said. “Some were incarcerated, a few others were executed subsequently, but the first 13 did not have an opportunity to raise issues that could have mitigated the severity.”

On the morning of his execution, Hawkins wrote a final letter to his parents in North Carolina: “Dear Mother & Father, when this letter reaches you I will be beyond the veil of sorrow. I will be in heaven with the angels… I am sentenced to be hanged for the trouble that happened in Houston, Texas, although I am not guilty of the crime that I am accused of.”

Why did the Army’s action take more than 100 years? 

“That’s a fair question,” Haymond said. “So many of the records were classified for the longest time and not cleared for release until the 1970s. Military law is so different from civilian law.”

Holder submitted the original petition, a posthumous pardon request, through the Department of Justice in 2017, but that document only addressed the first 13 men who were executed. Much of her case was based on a presentation between Fred Borch, one of the few people publicly discussing Camp Logan at the time, and then-South Texas College of Law Houston professor Geoffrey Corn.

Corn took an interest in Holder. Within two years, he brought key players into the fold, including fellow former intelligence officer Brenner-Beck. In 2019, they presented their findings to regional NAACP representatives.

“We had two principal objectives — explain that they’d done it wrong, you have to go through the Secretary of the Army, and that the NAACP should endorse a resolution at the national level,” Corn said. “We were way too under-inclusive. Every one of those soldiers suffered an injustice, and the Army deserves to give them remedy for that.”

Approval was unanimous. The NAACP supplied funding, and South Texas College of Law designated Brenner-Beck an adjunct professor under the Actual Innocence Clinic, where dozens of students worked on a petition for clemency over a two-year period.

“We had students working on the project who were themselves veterans. They had a nuanced understanding of command structure, mutiny and the Army’s responsibility for what may have occurred,” says South Texas College of Law vice president, associate dean and clinical professor Cathy Burnett. “When they read the transcripts and saw what happened, their views changed.”

Brenner-Beck and Haymond’s petition for clemency landed on Mahoney’s desk of the Army Review Boards in January 2022. Three groups studied and reviewed files requested from the national records agency on the 110 convicted soldiers.

Mahoney never felt pressure to predetermine any outcome, he said. He was tasked to investigate and provide a recommendation, which is what the Army Review Boards did, following a process used for tens of thousands of cases prior.

“In the end, I recommended to the Secretary of the Army in May 2022 that the convictions be set aside and are now honorable discharges,” he said. “There’s no physical evidence. And eyewitness accounts, with 1917’s level of outdoor electrical lighting, produced inconsistent testimony. One, single defense attorney had to represent all 110 officers. We would not do that today obviously. None of the white officers were charged or convicted. None of the white citizens were charged or convicted of anything.”

Setting aside the convictions acknowledges they were never guilty, he said. 

Holder cried when she got the call that the decision had been made. 

As a young girl, she had vowed to find her great-uncle. In 2001, she finally visited the graves of Moore and his comrades at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery in San Antonio. A marker stands where 17 of the regiment’s soldiers are buried.

 “I remember going to each tombstone and saying, ‘I’m going to do something,'” she said. “The wheels of justice turn. They turn slowly, but they do turn. With this decision, the promise has been kept. It’s been a lifelong mission for me.”

Holder and Holt will attend the ceremony Monday where the Deputy Secretary of the Army and Under Secretary of the Army will discuss the 1917 Houston Incident and corrective action. The Army also will launch a website directing people to the National Records Agency to potentially identify more descendants, Mahoney said.

“One hundred and six years ago, when this happened, I would dare say the men of the 124th Infantry would not have thought this would be possible,” Holt said. “It’s a tremendous loss. At the same time, we’re gratified and grateful the clemency petition has been successful and the convictions have been set aside.”

Whether you are a seasoned history buff or a curious mind eager to uncover the less popular wartime events, we recommend you explore The National World War II Museum’s website. This article is about a Operation Clipper, an offensive to reduce the Geilenkirchen salient in Germany, highlighted the value of specialized tanks in a combined US-British operation.

In October 1944, the Allied advance on Germany stalled in the face of stiffening enemy resistance. Allied leaders believed this was a result of the serious logistics shortfalls that had plagued the Allies since the breakout from Normandy. They did not know, however, that the Wehrmacht had achieved a remarkable resurgence, known today as the “miracle of the West.”

Unbeknownst to the Allies, German war production increased each year of World War II, finally reaching its peak in the fall of 1944. With the resulting influx of new tanks, machine guns, and other weapons, and with a large pool of new military recruits, the Wehrmacht refit 50 burned-out divisions as new Volksgrenadier formations, while secretly mobilizing another 30 divisions in preparation for the Ardennes Counteroffensive.[1] While not the caliber of the originals, these newly formed divisions significantly bolstered the strength of the German defense, especially given the added benefit of the Siegfried Line’s fortifications. Thus, the Allies faced the dual threat of a resurgent Wehrmacht and an anemic logistics system.

This led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, to pause operations from October 25 to early November, when the offensive would resume. During this pause, General Omar N. Bradley, commander of the 12th US Army Group, reorganized his front lines. He had only recently incorporated Lieutenant General William H. Simpson’s Ninth US Army headquarters into his army group, assigning Simpson to a sector opposite the Ardennes Forest. Bradley soon reconsidered this assignment.

Eisenhower seemed increasingly likely to place a US field army under British Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery’s 21st Army Group, to bolster his combat power for the next phase of the campaign. Bradley wanted to ensure that if he lost a field army, it would be his newest army, the Ninth, rather than the more experienced First or Third Army. Therefore, he ordered Simpson to move his headquarters to a narrow sector next to the 21st Army Group, north of the First US Army and south of the British Second Army. As General Bradley wrote after the war, “Because Simpson’s army was still our greenest, I reasoned that it could be the most easily spared. Thus rather than leave First Army within Monty’s reach, I inserted the Ninth Army between them.”[2]

With fuel, ammunition, and transportation assets stretched thin across the broad Allied front, Bradley minimized the logistical burden of this move by shifting headquarters and boundaries, rather than corps and divisions. Thus, when the Ninth Army headquarters moved north, Simpson assumed command of the XIX Corps in its current location, leaving the VIII Corps and its divisions behind under First Army command. The narrow Ninth Army sector reflected the limited combat power available to Simpson.

The Ninth Army was the newest of Bradley’s field armies, and Simpson did not yet have his full complement of subordinate units. US Army ground force strength in western Europe grew quickly in the fall of 1944. As new divisions arrived from the beachhead in Normandy, the 12th Army Group assigned them to its field armies. This gradually increased each field army’s strength to three corps headquarters with four divisions each, for a total of 12 divisions per field army. However, these troop movements took time and competed for scarce transportation assets.

As planning began for the November offensive, Simpson had just one corps: the XIX Corps, with the 29th and 30th Infantry Divisions, the 2nd Armored Division, and the 113th Cavalry Group available for combat operations. Bradley had recently assigned Major General Alvin C. Gillem’s XIII Corps to Ninth Army, but Gillem did not yet have any troops assigned. Simpson also had the 7th Armored Division and the 102nd and 104th Infantry Divisions nominally under his command, and he would soon receive the 84th Infantry Division, but of these units, only part of the 102nd Division was available to him on November 1.

The Siegfried Line Campaign, 11 September – 15 December 1944. U.S. Army Center of Military History.

With this limited force, Simpson faced a significant challenge. The next stage in the Allied advance in the north involved advancing to the Roer River. This would put the 12th and 21st Army Groups in position for the next major offensive: Operation Grenade, the drive to the Rhine River. In bitter fighting north of Aachen, Germany, the XIX Corps, under First US Army command, had broken through the Siegfried Line on October 16. This costly operation proved invaluable in developing techniques to penetrate the German defensive belt. It also gave the XIX Corps valuable combat experience. However, German preparations for the Ardennes Counteroffensive in early November involved key troop movements, concealed from the Allies through elaborate deception operations, which enhanced the German defenses.

Major General Raymond S. McLain, XIX Corps Commander. ibiblio.org

Other factors complicated Simpson’s mission as well. Along the northern boundary of the Ninth Army sector, the Germans occupied the village of Geilenkirchen with a sizable force, creating a salient in the Allied line. This village, situated in one of the most heavily fortified parts of the Siegfried Line, gave the enemy a powerful strongpoint from which to launch counterattacks into the XIX Corps flank. Therefore, Simpson knew he would have to clear Geilenkirchen if his push to the Roer were to succeed, but with only one operational corps, he lacked the combat power to do so.

The Geilenkirchen salient sat astride the boundary between the 21st and 12th Army Groups, with the British XXX Corps to the north and the US XIX Corps to the south. This made a combined operation the obvious approach, but Commonwealth troops would be heavily engaged in operations to clear the Peel Marshes in Holland through mid-November, limiting their available combat power. Fortunately, after holding a series of conferences with Montgomery and his field army commanders, Bradley postponed the coming operation until November 11. This gave time for the British to complete their operations in the Peel Marshes and for more American divisions to augment the 12th Army Group’s combat power.

Major General Alvan C. Gillem Jr., XIII Corps Commander, U.S. Army Center of Military History,

With this change, the situation developed quickly. The 84th Infantry Division arrived in the Ninth Army sector on November 3, and the next day, Simpson assigned it plus the 113th Cavalry Group and the 102nd Infantry Division (now full-strength) to the XIII Corps, with the mission of defending Ninth Army’s northern flank. The 7th Armored Division returned from its temporary assignment to the British Second Army on November 8, rounding out the XIII Corps’ combat power.

The arrival of so many new units in the narrow Ninth Army sector clogged roads and complicated preparations, but further delays gave Simpson time to get his sector organized. The delays resulted primarily from Bradley’s decision to use air power to support the offensive. At a conference on November 7, air and ground planners developed the blueprint for Operation Queen, a preliminary aerial bombardment of unprecedented size that would employ both American and British heavies, mediums, and fighter-bombers.

Bradley was optimistic that Operation Queen would significantly lessen enemy resistance to the ground assault, but he realized it would require clear weather that might be days away. To ensure participation by the maximum possible number of bombers, he agreed to a potential delay. Although the target date for the operation remained November 11, Bradley would approve a 24-hour delay each day the weather kept the bombers grounded. Bradley chose November 16 as the deadline; if the weather did not clear by the 16th, the offensive would begin without air support.

With two corps now available, Simpson found himself in the unusual situation of having more troops than he could employ simultaneously along his limited 10-mile front. Simpson’s mission required him to clear the Roer plain in sector and seize crossing sites over the Roer River. After jumping the Roer, the XIII and XIX Corps would drive northeast to the Rhine at Düsseldorf. Simpson decided to deal with this limited frontage by first committing the XIX Corps as the main effort to clear the Roer plain and drive on Jülich. Once the XIX Corps made sufficient progress, temporary boundary shifts would allow for the commitment of the XIII Corps, which would attack to the Roer along the northern flank and seize crossing sites at Linnich. To deal with the threat posed by the Geilenkirchen salient, Simpson found a solution in Allied cooperation.

Lieutenant General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks, British XXX Corps Commander. Imperial War Museum, Catalog Number B 9302

The British XXX Corps, commanded by Lieutenant General Brian Horrocks, assumed responsibility for protecting the Ninth Army’s northern flank on November 12. In discussions over the coming operation, Simpson and Horrocks developed a plan for dealing with Geilenkirchen called “Operation Clipper.” Another temporary boundary change would give the XXX Corps responsibility for the salient, and the temporary assignment of the 84th Infantry Division to his corps would give Horrocks the combat power needed to clear the town and reduce its fortifications.[3]

This arrangement had the benefit of keeping the XIII Corps focused on its mission in the Roer plain, while enabling Simpson to get the 84th Division into the fight from the start. Once the 102nd Infantry Division captured Gereonsweiler and the British XXX Corps cleared Geilenkirchen, bringing Operation Clipper to a successful end, the 84th Division would return to the XIII Corps command in an extended sector. This would give Gillem the space and combat power needed to advance to the Roer River, seize crossing sites in the vicinity of Linnich, and release the 7th Armored Division to exploit the river crossing operation.

November Offensive: The Drive to the Roer, 16 November – 9 December 1944. U.S. Army Center of Military History.

The battle would take place in the Roer plain, a 200-square-mile triangle of low, flat terrain featuring many enemy obstacles and fortifications. A network of improved secondary roads connected more than a hundred small towns and villages, each of which served as an enemy strongpoint. Adding to the challenge presented by these fortified positions, the region experienced an especially rainy November in 1944, with some amount of precipitation during all but two days of the month.[4] This turned the ground into a slick mess that made mobility a serious challenge.

Operation Clipper would take place in the northern part of the Ninth Army sector, in an area defended by General Günther Blumentritt’s XII SS Panzerkorps. With only two divisions, the 176th Infantry and the 183rd Volksgrenadier, Blumentritt had to defend a 22-mile front. Still, these divisions had recently refit and reorganized, and they had relatively high morale. The two divisions that made up the theater reserve in this sector, the 9th Panzer and the 15th Panzergrenadier, were also well-trained and equipped, and located near Linnich where they could intervene quickly in the XIII Corps zone.

Blumentritt paid particular attention to the defense of Geilenkirchen. He positioned his antitank defenses near the town, consisting of 20 assault guns and the full complement of both divisions’ 75-mm and 88-mm antitank guns. He positioned his two-battalion reserve near Geilenkirchen and ordered all his artillery batteries to prepare to mass fire there on order. Finally, he kept in reserve the 301st Tank Battalion with 31 Tiger tanks and the 559th Assault Gun Battalion with 21 guns.

As D-Day approached, low clouds and poor visibility led Bradley to order 24-hour delays until November 15. Up against Bradley’s deadline, McLain knew the mission would begin the next morning, with or without air support. Morale in the XIX Corps was high on the eve of the attack. As recorded in the official history, “In approving a policy of rest before the jump-off, the XIX Corps Commander, General McLain, told one of his division commanders he would need plenty of rest, because ‘when you go again it will be a long drive. Right into Berlin.’” Simpson was confident but measured, noting that even second-rate troops “can fight well from fortified areas like the towns of the Roer Valley.” As he told his staff, “I anticipate one hell of a fight.”[5] Still, Simpson and McLain believed it would take just five days for the XIX Corps to reach the Roer.

While the XIX Corps attack would begin on D-Day, Operation Clipper would start two days later, on November 18. This would hopefully lead some German reserves to reposition to the south in response to the attack in the Roer plain. The successful conclusion of both the XIX Corps offensive and Operation Clipper would give the Ninth Army five more miles of frontage, where Gillem’s XIII Corps would assault across the Roer northwest of Linnich.

Major General Alexander R. Bolling (right) with Major General Gillem of XIII Corps at a farewell party. The 84th Infantry Division In The Battle Of Germany

The 84th Infantry Division, commanded by Major General Alexander R. Bolling, arrived in the Ninth Army area on November 10. Most units newly arrived from the Normandy beachhead gained combat experience in the defense of a relatively quiet sector, giving them a chance to experience enemy fire before commitment to an offensive. Bolling soon learned that his division would not have this opportunity. With only six days’ preparation time, his staff had much work to do to prepare for Operation Clipper. While planning for the offensive, Bolling had to coordinate with the British XXX Corps, which would exercise operational control of the 84th Division, while the XIII Corps remained responsible for administration, evacuation, and supply.

Intelligence revealed that Geilenkirchen, a rail and road center on the Siegfried Line, bristled with defensive fortifications and obstacles. This included nine pillboxes, 14 concrete shelters, and a three-and-a-half-foot-high antitank wall made of five-inch square steel posts mounted in a concrete base. The 2,000-meter-long antitank wall ran parallel to the Wurm River and the Palenberg-Geilenkirchen railroad, creating a significant countermobility obstacle.

Two divisions would execute Operation Clipper. Two regiments of the 84th Infantry Division, the 333rd and 334th, would attack from the south, while the British 43rd Wessex Division would attack on their left flank, striking the salient from the west. The attack would take place in four phases, beginning on November 18, or D+2 (two days after the launch of the XIX Corps main effort in the Roer plain). In the first phase, the 334th Infantry would attack to capture Prummern and the adjacent high ground southeast of the town. The second phase would begin at noon on the 18th, with the 43rd Division’s attack east toward Geilenkirchen to capture the villages of Tripsrath and Bauchem. This would squeeze the enemy defense, protecting the flanks of the 333rd Infantry during phase three, when it attacked on the morning of November 19 to clear Geilenkirchen and the surrounding fortifications up to Süggerath in the Wurm River valley. Finally, in the fourth phase, the 43rd Wessex Division would continue its advance up the west bank of the Wurm to Hoven, while the 84th Division pushed past Süggerath and Prummern to seize the villages of Müllendorf, Würm, and Beeck.

Dragons Teeth of the Siegfried Line, near Geilenkirchen. The 84th Infantry Division In The Battle Of Germany

Given its delayed start, Operation Clipper would not benefit directly from the Operation Queen preliminary bombardment. Horrocks could count on fighter-bomber support, however, from the Second British Tactical Air Force and the XXIX Tactical Air Command. This support began on November 8 with napalm strikes to soften the enemy defense. The 84th Infantry Division would also enjoy the support of British armor. This included Sherman tanks of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Regiment, and specialized tanks of a unit named Drewforce. The British used a wide variety of specialized tanks, collectively known as “Hobart’s Funnies” after the 79th Armoured Division commander, Major General Percy Hobart.

In the pre-dawn hours of November 18, two battalions of the 334th Infantry, supported by two troops of specialized “Flail” tanks, approached enemy lines south of Prummern. The operation took place under artificial moonlight, generated by bouncing giant searchlights, also operated by Drewforce, off the clouds. This cast a dim glow over the area, helping the infantry advance without undue exposure to enemy observation. The 84th was the first US division to employ this British method, which other units adopted as the campaign continued.[6]

Patrols had detected a 25-yard-wide mine belt that the armor and accompanying infantry would have to cross to begin the attack. The Flail tanks began to beat two wide paths through the minefield under sporadic German small-arms fire, clearing the way for the tanks and infantry to attack. The Flails made some progress but gradually became stuck, ultimately forcing the Sherwood Rangers to bypass them and force their way through, losing one tank in the process and delaying the advance.

A Teller mine explodes as British Flail tanks conduct mine clearance on a road near Geilenkirchen, 19 November 1944. National World War II Museum ACCESSION NUMBER: 2013.495.1263  Gift of Mr. Thomas J. Hanlon. 

Still, the attack pressed on, gaining the high ground east of Geilenkirchen by midmorning. German resistance gradually intensified, reaching its peak as the infantry approached a group of pillboxes between the minefield and Prummern. Supporting armor proved essential in reducing these fortifications, as did the fire of two artillery battalions, directed by forward observers riding in the Sherwood Rangers’ tanks. As troops had learned in earlier engagements along the Siegfried Line, they first had to force the enemy infantry out of their trenches and into the pillboxes with small arms, mortar, and artillery fire. Once the enemy infantry “buttoned up” in the pillboxes, it was relatively easy to reduce each one in turn.[7]

Leading elements of 1st Battalion, 334th Infantry captured the pillboxes by 9 a.m., but it took another three hours for the troops to consolidate and prepare for the assault on Prummern. A 10-minute artillery barrage preceded the attack, which progressed over flat ground with no cover or concealment. Fortunately, enemy opposition was light. Once the infantry reached the town, opposition ceased quickly, and Volksgrenadiers spilled out of the buildings to surrender.

Meanwhile, the 2nd Battalion drove a wedge into the Geilenkirchen salient just west of Prummern, cutting the road to Immendorf and seizing high ground southeast of Süggerath. Northwest of the salient, the 43rd Wessex Division began its attack at noon on the 18th. The thick mud made off-road travel extremely difficult, and many vehicles bogged down. Nevertheless, by the end of the day the division had advanced two miles, seizing Tripsrath and most of Bauchem and taking 800 German prisoners. With the Allies occupying high ground on three sides of Geilenkirchen, conditions were set for the continuation of the assault.

Forward Artillery Observers Supporting the 84th Infantry Division. The 84th Infantry Division In The Battle Of Germany

On the afternoon of November 18, Horrocks, pleased with the progress made to that point, directed an increase in the speed of the attack. Hoping to take advantage of the attack’s momentum, he directed his divisions to execute the third and fourth phases of the operation on the 19th. This led Bolling on the evening of the 18th to order a final push to seize Hill 101 overlooking Süggerath, and Mahogany Hill overlooking Beeck. Hill 101 fell with relative ease, but a reconnaissance patrol to Mahogany Hill spotted six German tanks headed toward Prummern.

This was the vanguard of a counterattack force composed of two companies of the 10th Panzergrenadier Regiment, reinforced by six tanks. Troops of the 2nd Battalion, 334th Infantry repulsed the attack, but it delayed their move on Mahogany Hill until midday on the 19th. Only then did the regimental commander commit his reserve battalion to the task. Stiff resistance from pillboxes north and east of Prummern repulsed this attack as the rest of the regiment continued to deal with pockets of enemy resistance in Prummern. Finally, late on November 20, support from flame-throwing British “Crocodile” tanks enabled the 334th to reduce the pillboxes. This opened the way to Mahogany Hill, which finally fell on the 22nd.

A Churchill tank fitted with a Crocodile flamethrower in action. This flamethrower could produce a jet of flame exceeding 150 yards in length. Imperial War Museum. TR 2313

The 333rd Infantry’s assault began on November 19. The GIs were surprised to find Geilenkirchen only lightly defended. The Germans in the town, surrounded on three sides by US and British troops, fought a delaying action before melting away. Leaving one battalion behind to clear the town, the rest of the regiment continued toward Süggerath. They encountered two pillboxes guarding the road into town, but a few squirts from the Crocodiles quickly flushed out the occupants. Strongpoints in Süggerath put up tougher resistance, but they finally fell before midnight, when the attack ended with the 333rd still a mile from Würm, its final objective.

British Infantry in Action in the Streets of Geilenkirchen, Germany, December 1944.   Imperial War Museums BU 1335 

Bolling, concerned about rear security and the possibility of further counterattacks, directed his troops on November 20 to clear the last enemy resistance from Prummern and Süggerath, after which they would continue the attack to Müllendorf, Würm, and Beeck. However, a deluge of rain on the morning of November 21 turned the muddy ground into a quagmire that made armored operations nearly impossible. An attack planned for the 22nd started late because of delays clearing debris from a demolished underpass in Süggerath. The infantry began the attack without armored support but soon went to ground in the face of stiff resistance from enemy pillboxes. Finally, in midafternoon the British armor rejoined the infantry. Once again, as soon as the Crocodile tanks’ flamethrowers went to work, the Germans emerged from their pillboxes, hands in the air.

Still, the attack was 500 yards short of Müllendorf. Further attempts by the 84th Infantry Division to renew the attack were similarly frustrated, while the 43rd Wessex Division also encountered both the deluge of mud and stiffening enemy resistance. The Allied commanders evaluated the situation. With the majority of the Geilenkirchen salient cleared and Gereonsweiler captured by the XIX Corps, Operation Clipper had achieved its main objectives. Ninth Army troops had met the two conditions needed to give the XIII Corps its own zone as well. Finally, on November 23, the 84th Infantry Division and its attachments returned to the XIII Corps command and began preparations to continue the drive to the Roer River after an operational pause.

The two regiments of the 84th Division involved in Operation Clipper incurred 2,000 battle casualties. This included 169 killed and 752 missing. Nonbattle injuries added another 500 to the roster of casualties.[8] The Sherwood Rangers suffered 63 casualties, including 16 killed and another 3 who later died of wounds. They also lost 10 tanks, with 15 damaged but recoverable and another 12 so deeply mired in mud that they were unrecoverable.[9] As stalemate once again took hold along the Allied lines, commanders and troops alike pondered the future, painfully aware that the road to Berlin would be long, and fraught with danger.

Whether you are a seasoned history buff or a curious mind eager to uncover the less popular wartime events, we recommend you explore The National World War II Museum’s website. This article is about a Operation Clipper, an offensive to reduce the Geilenkirchen salient in Germany, highlighted the value of specialized tanks in a combined US-British operation.

In October 1944, the Allied advance on Germany stalled in the face of stiffening enemy resistance. Allied leaders believed this was a result of the serious logistics shortfalls that had plagued the Allies since the breakout from Normandy. They did not know, however, that the Wehrmacht had achieved a remarkable resurgence, known today as the “miracle of the West.”

Unbeknownst to the Allies, German war production increased each year of World War II, finally reaching its peak in the fall of 1944. With the resulting influx of new tanks, machine guns, and other weapons, and with a large pool of new military recruits, the Wehrmacht refit 50 burned-out divisions as new Volksgrenadier formations, while secretly mobilizing another 30 divisions in preparation for the Ardennes Counteroffensive.[1] While not the caliber of the originals, these newly formed divisions significantly bolstered the strength of the German defense, especially given the added benefit of the Siegfried Line’s fortifications. Thus, the Allies faced the dual threat of a resurgent Wehrmacht and an anemic logistics system.

This led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, to pause operations from October 25 to early November, when the offensive would resume. During this pause, General Omar N. Bradley, commander of the 12th US Army Group, reorganized his front lines. He had only recently incorporated Lieutenant General William H. Simpson’s Ninth US Army headquarters into his army group, assigning Simpson to a sector opposite the Ardennes Forest. Bradley soon reconsidered this assignment.

Eisenhower seemed increasingly likely to place a US field army under British Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery’s 21st Army Group, to bolster his combat power for the next phase of the campaign. Bradley wanted to ensure that if he lost a field army, it would be his newest army, the Ninth, rather than the more experienced First or Third Army. Therefore, he ordered Simpson to move his headquarters to a narrow sector next to the 21st Army Group, north of the First US Army and south of the British Second Army. As General Bradley wrote after the war, “Because Simpson’s army was still our greenest, I reasoned that it could be the most easily spared. Thus rather than leave First Army within Monty’s reach, I inserted the Ninth Army between them.”[2]

With fuel, ammunition, and transportation assets stretched thin across the broad Allied front, Bradley minimized the logistical burden of this move by shifting headquarters and boundaries, rather than corps and divisions. Thus, when the Ninth Army headquarters moved north, Simpson assumed command of the XIX Corps in its current location, leaving the VIII Corps and its divisions behind under First Army command. The narrow Ninth Army sector reflected the limited combat power available to Simpson.

The Ninth Army was the newest of Bradley’s field armies, and Simpson did not yet have his full complement of subordinate units. US Army ground force strength in western Europe grew quickly in the fall of 1944. As new divisions arrived from the beachhead in Normandy, the 12th Army Group assigned them to its field armies. This gradually increased each field army’s strength to three corps headquarters with four divisions each, for a total of 12 divisions per field army. However, these troop movements took time and competed for scarce transportation assets.

As planning began for the November offensive, Simpson had just one corps: the XIX Corps, with the 29th and 30th Infantry Divisions, the 2nd Armored Division, and the 113th Cavalry Group available for combat operations. Bradley had recently assigned Major General Alvin C. Gillem’s XIII Corps to Ninth Army, but Gillem did not yet have any troops assigned. Simpson also had the 7th Armored Division and the 102nd and 104th Infantry Divisions nominally under his command, and he would soon receive the 84th Infantry Division, but of these units, only part of the 102nd Division was available to him on November 1.

The Siegfried Line Campaign, 11 September – 15 December 1944. U.S. Army Center of Military History.

With this limited force, Simpson faced a significant challenge. The next stage in the Allied advance in the north involved advancing to the Roer River. This would put the 12th and 21st Army Groups in position for the next major offensive: Operation Grenade, the drive to the Rhine River. In bitter fighting north of Aachen, Germany, the XIX Corps, under First US Army command, had broken through the Siegfried Line on October 16. This costly operation proved invaluable in developing techniques to penetrate the German defensive belt. It also gave the XIX Corps valuable combat experience. However, German preparations for the Ardennes Counteroffensive in early November involved key troop movements, concealed from the Allies through elaborate deception operations, which enhanced the German defenses.

Major General Raymond S. McLain, XIX Corps Commander. ibiblio.org

Other factors complicated Simpson’s mission as well. Along the northern boundary of the Ninth Army sector, the Germans occupied the village of Geilenkirchen with a sizable force, creating a salient in the Allied line. This village, situated in one of the most heavily fortified parts of the Siegfried Line, gave the enemy a powerful strongpoint from which to launch counterattacks into the XIX Corps flank. Therefore, Simpson knew he would have to clear Geilenkirchen if his push to the Roer were to succeed, but with only one operational corps, he lacked the combat power to do so.

The Geilenkirchen salient sat astride the boundary between the 21st and 12th Army Groups, with the British XXX Corps to the north and the US XIX Corps to the south. This made a combined operation the obvious approach, but Commonwealth troops would be heavily engaged in operations to clear the Peel Marshes in Holland through mid-November, limiting their available combat power. Fortunately, after holding a series of conferences with Montgomery and his field army commanders, Bradley postponed the coming operation until November 11. This gave time for the British to complete their operations in the Peel Marshes and for more American divisions to augment the 12th Army Group’s combat power.

Major General Alvan C. Gillem Jr., XIII Corps Commander, U.S. Army Center of Military History,

With this change, the situation developed quickly. The 84th Infantry Division arrived in the Ninth Army sector on November 3, and the next day, Simpson assigned it plus the 113th Cavalry Group and the 102nd Infantry Division (now full-strength) to the XIII Corps, with the mission of defending Ninth Army’s northern flank. The 7th Armored Division returned from its temporary assignment to the British Second Army on November 8, rounding out the XIII Corps’ combat power.

The arrival of so many new units in the narrow Ninth Army sector clogged roads and complicated preparations, but further delays gave Simpson time to get his sector organized. The delays resulted primarily from Bradley’s decision to use air power to support the offensive. At a conference on November 7, air and ground planners developed the blueprint for Operation Queen, a preliminary aerial bombardment of unprecedented size that would employ both American and British heavies, mediums, and fighter-bombers.

Bradley was optimistic that Operation Queen would significantly lessen enemy resistance to the ground assault, but he realized it would require clear weather that might be days away. To ensure participation by the maximum possible number of bombers, he agreed to a potential delay. Although the target date for the operation remained November 11, Bradley would approve a 24-hour delay each day the weather kept the bombers grounded. Bradley chose November 16 as the deadline; if the weather did not clear by the 16th, the offensive would begin without air support.

With two corps now available, Simpson found himself in the unusual situation of having more troops than he could employ simultaneously along his limited 10-mile front. Simpson’s mission required him to clear the Roer plain in sector and seize crossing sites over the Roer River. After jumping the Roer, the XIII and XIX Corps would drive northeast to the Rhine at Düsseldorf. Simpson decided to deal with this limited frontage by first committing the XIX Corps as the main effort to clear the Roer plain and drive on Jülich. Once the XIX Corps made sufficient progress, temporary boundary shifts would allow for the commitment of the XIII Corps, which would attack to the Roer along the northern flank and seize crossing sites at Linnich. To deal with the threat posed by the Geilenkirchen salient, Simpson found a solution in Allied cooperation.

Lieutenant General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks, British XXX Corps Commander. Imperial War Museum, Catalog Number B 9302

The British XXX Corps, commanded by Lieutenant General Brian Horrocks, assumed responsibility for protecting the Ninth Army’s northern flank on November 12. In discussions over the coming operation, Simpson and Horrocks developed a plan for dealing with Geilenkirchen called “Operation Clipper.” Another temporary boundary change would give the XXX Corps responsibility for the salient, and the temporary assignment of the 84th Infantry Division to his corps would give Horrocks the combat power needed to clear the town and reduce its fortifications.[3]

This arrangement had the benefit of keeping the XIII Corps focused on its mission in the Roer plain, while enabling Simpson to get the 84th Division into the fight from the start. Once the 102nd Infantry Division captured Gereonsweiler and the British XXX Corps cleared Geilenkirchen, bringing Operation Clipper to a successful end, the 84th Division would return to the XIII Corps command in an extended sector. This would give Gillem the space and combat power needed to advance to the Roer River, seize crossing sites in the vicinity of Linnich, and release the 7th Armored Division to exploit the river crossing operation.

November Offensive: The Drive to the Roer, 16 November – 9 December 1944. U.S. Army Center of Military History.

The battle would take place in the Roer plain, a 200-square-mile triangle of low, flat terrain featuring many enemy obstacles and fortifications. A network of improved secondary roads connected more than a hundred small towns and villages, each of which served as an enemy strongpoint. Adding to the challenge presented by these fortified positions, the region experienced an especially rainy November in 1944, with some amount of precipitation during all but two days of the month.[4] This turned the ground into a slick mess that made mobility a serious challenge.

Operation Clipper would take place in the northern part of the Ninth Army sector, in an area defended by General Günther Blumentritt’s XII SS Panzerkorps. With only two divisions, the 176th Infantry and the 183rd Volksgrenadier, Blumentritt had to defend a 22-mile front. Still, these divisions had recently refit and reorganized, and they had relatively high morale. The two divisions that made up the theater reserve in this sector, the 9th Panzer and the 15th Panzergrenadier, were also well-trained and equipped, and located near Linnich where they could intervene quickly in the XIII Corps zone.

Blumentritt paid particular attention to the defense of Geilenkirchen. He positioned his antitank defenses near the town, consisting of 20 assault guns and the full complement of both divisions’ 75-mm and 88-mm antitank guns. He positioned his two-battalion reserve near Geilenkirchen and ordered all his artillery batteries to prepare to mass fire there on order. Finally, he kept in reserve the 301st Tank Battalion with 31 Tiger tanks and the 559th Assault Gun Battalion with 21 guns.

As D-Day approached, low clouds and poor visibility led Bradley to order 24-hour delays until November 15. Up against Bradley’s deadline, McLain knew the mission would begin the next morning, with or without air support. Morale in the XIX Corps was high on the eve of the attack. As recorded in the official history, “In approving a policy of rest before the jump-off, the XIX Corps Commander, General McLain, told one of his division commanders he would need plenty of rest, because ‘when you go again it will be a long drive. Right into Berlin.’” Simpson was confident but measured, noting that even second-rate troops “can fight well from fortified areas like the towns of the Roer Valley.” As he told his staff, “I anticipate one hell of a fight.”[5] Still, Simpson and McLain believed it would take just five days for the XIX Corps to reach the Roer.

While the XIX Corps attack would begin on D-Day, Operation Clipper would start two days later, on November 18. This would hopefully lead some German reserves to reposition to the south in response to the attack in the Roer plain. The successful conclusion of both the XIX Corps offensive and Operation Clipper would give the Ninth Army five more miles of frontage, where Gillem’s XIII Corps would assault across the Roer northwest of Linnich.

Major General Alexander R. Bolling (right) with Major General Gillem of XIII Corps at a farewell party. The 84th Infantry Division In The Battle Of Germany

The 84th Infantry Division, commanded by Major General Alexander R. Bolling, arrived in the Ninth Army area on November 10. Most units newly arrived from the Normandy beachhead gained combat experience in the defense of a relatively quiet sector, giving them a chance to experience enemy fire before commitment to an offensive. Bolling soon learned that his division would not have this opportunity. With only six days’ preparation time, his staff had much work to do to prepare for Operation Clipper. While planning for the offensive, Bolling had to coordinate with the British XXX Corps, which would exercise operational control of the 84th Division, while the XIII Corps remained responsible for administration, evacuation, and supply.

Intelligence revealed that Geilenkirchen, a rail and road center on the Siegfried Line, bristled with defensive fortifications and obstacles. This included nine pillboxes, 14 concrete shelters, and a three-and-a-half-foot-high antitank wall made of five-inch square steel posts mounted in a concrete base. The 2,000-meter-long antitank wall ran parallel to the Wurm River and the Palenberg-Geilenkirchen railroad, creating a significant countermobility obstacle.

Two divisions would execute Operation Clipper. Two regiments of the 84th Infantry Division, the 333rd and 334th, would attack from the south, while the British 43rd Wessex Division would attack on their left flank, striking the salient from the west. The attack would take place in four phases, beginning on November 18, or D+2 (two days after the launch of the XIX Corps main effort in the Roer plain). In the first phase, the 334th Infantry would attack to capture Prummern and the adjacent high ground southeast of the town. The second phase would begin at noon on the 18th, with the 43rd Division’s attack east toward Geilenkirchen to capture the villages of Tripsrath and Bauchem. This would squeeze the enemy defense, protecting the flanks of the 333rd Infantry during phase three, when it attacked on the morning of November 19 to clear Geilenkirchen and the surrounding fortifications up to Süggerath in the Wurm River valley. Finally, in the fourth phase, the 43rd Wessex Division would continue its advance up the west bank of the Wurm to Hoven, while the 84th Division pushed past Süggerath and Prummern to seize the villages of Müllendorf, Würm, and Beeck.

Dragons Teeth of the Siegfried Line, near Geilenkirchen. The 84th Infantry Division In The Battle Of Germany

Given its delayed start, Operation Clipper would not benefit directly from the Operation Queen preliminary bombardment. Horrocks could count on fighter-bomber support, however, from the Second British Tactical Air Force and the XXIX Tactical Air Command. This support began on November 8 with napalm strikes to soften the enemy defense. The 84th Infantry Division would also enjoy the support of British armor. This included Sherman tanks of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Regiment, and specialized tanks of a unit named Drewforce. The British used a wide variety of specialized tanks, collectively known as “Hobart’s Funnies” after the 79th Armoured Division commander, Major General Percy Hobart.

In the pre-dawn hours of November 18, two battalions of the 334th Infantry, supported by two troops of specialized “Flail” tanks, approached enemy lines south of Prummern. The operation took place under artificial moonlight, generated by bouncing giant searchlights, also operated by Drewforce, off the clouds. This cast a dim glow over the area, helping the infantry advance without undue exposure to enemy observation. The 84th was the first US division to employ this British method, which other units adopted as the campaign continued.[6]

Patrols had detected a 25-yard-wide mine belt that the armor and accompanying infantry would have to cross to begin the attack. The Flail tanks began to beat two wide paths through the minefield under sporadic German small-arms fire, clearing the way for the tanks and infantry to attack. The Flails made some progress but gradually became stuck, ultimately forcing the Sherwood Rangers to bypass them and force their way through, losing one tank in the process and delaying the advance.

A Teller mine explodes as British Flail tanks conduct mine clearance on a road near Geilenkirchen, 19 November 1944. National World War II Museum ACCESSION NUMBER: 2013.495.1263  Gift of Mr. Thomas J. Hanlon. 

Still, the attack pressed on, gaining the high ground east of Geilenkirchen by midmorning. German resistance gradually intensified, reaching its peak as the infantry approached a group of pillboxes between the minefield and Prummern. Supporting armor proved essential in reducing these fortifications, as did the fire of two artillery battalions, directed by forward observers riding in the Sherwood Rangers’ tanks. As troops had learned in earlier engagements along the Siegfried Line, they first had to force the enemy infantry out of their trenches and into the pillboxes with small arms, mortar, and artillery fire. Once the enemy infantry “buttoned up” in the pillboxes, it was relatively easy to reduce each one in turn.[7]

Leading elements of 1st Battalion, 334th Infantry captured the pillboxes by 9 a.m., but it took another three hours for the troops to consolidate and prepare for the assault on Prummern. A 10-minute artillery barrage preceded the attack, which progressed over flat ground with no cover or concealment. Fortunately, enemy opposition was light. Once the infantry reached the town, opposition ceased quickly, and Volksgrenadiers spilled out of the buildings to surrender.

Meanwhile, the 2nd Battalion drove a wedge into the Geilenkirchen salient just west of Prummern, cutting the road to Immendorf and seizing high ground southeast of Süggerath. Northwest of the salient, the 43rd Wessex Division began its attack at noon on the 18th. The thick mud made off-road travel extremely difficult, and many vehicles bogged down. Nevertheless, by the end of the day the division had advanced two miles, seizing Tripsrath and most of Bauchem and taking 800 German prisoners. With the Allies occupying high ground on three sides of Geilenkirchen, conditions were set for the continuation of the assault.

Forward Artillery Observers Supporting the 84th Infantry Division. The 84th Infantry Division In The Battle Of Germany

On the afternoon of November 18, Horrocks, pleased with the progress made to that point, directed an increase in the speed of the attack. Hoping to take advantage of the attack’s momentum, he directed his divisions to execute the third and fourth phases of the operation on the 19th. This led Bolling on the evening of the 18th to order a final push to seize Hill 101 overlooking Süggerath, and Mahogany Hill overlooking Beeck. Hill 101 fell with relative ease, but a reconnaissance patrol to Mahogany Hill spotted six German tanks headed toward Prummern.

This was the vanguard of a counterattack force composed of two companies of the 10th Panzergrenadier Regiment, reinforced by six tanks. Troops of the 2nd Battalion, 334th Infantry repulsed the attack, but it delayed their move on Mahogany Hill until midday on the 19th. Only then did the regimental commander commit his reserve battalion to the task. Stiff resistance from pillboxes north and east of Prummern repulsed this attack as the rest of the regiment continued to deal with pockets of enemy resistance in Prummern. Finally, late on November 20, support from flame-throwing British “Crocodile” tanks enabled the 334th to reduce the pillboxes. This opened the way to Mahogany Hill, which finally fell on the 22nd.

A Churchill tank fitted with a Crocodile flamethrower in action. This flamethrower could produce a jet of flame exceeding 150 yards in length. Imperial War Museum. TR 2313

The 333rd Infantry’s assault began on November 19. The GIs were surprised to find Geilenkirchen only lightly defended. The Germans in the town, surrounded on three sides by US and British troops, fought a delaying action before melting away. Leaving one battalion behind to clear the town, the rest of the regiment continued toward Süggerath. They encountered two pillboxes guarding the road into town, but a few squirts from the Crocodiles quickly flushed out the occupants. Strongpoints in Süggerath put up tougher resistance, but they finally fell before midnight, when the attack ended with the 333rd still a mile from Würm, its final objective.

British Infantry in Action in the Streets of Geilenkirchen, Germany, December 1944.   Imperial War Museums BU 1335 

Bolling, concerned about rear security and the possibility of further counterattacks, directed his troops on November 20 to clear the last enemy resistance from Prummern and Süggerath, after which they would continue the attack to Müllendorf, Würm, and Beeck. However, a deluge of rain on the morning of November 21 turned the muddy ground into a quagmire that made armored operations nearly impossible. An attack planned for the 22nd started late because of delays clearing debris from a demolished underpass in Süggerath. The infantry began the attack without armored support but soon went to ground in the face of stiff resistance from enemy pillboxes. Finally, in midafternoon the British armor rejoined the infantry. Once again, as soon as the Crocodile tanks’ flamethrowers went to work, the Germans emerged from their pillboxes, hands in the air.

Still, the attack was 500 yards short of Müllendorf. Further attempts by the 84th Infantry Division to renew the attack were similarly frustrated, while the 43rd Wessex Division also encountered both the deluge of mud and stiffening enemy resistance. The Allied commanders evaluated the situation. With the majority of the Geilenkirchen salient cleared and Gereonsweiler captured by the XIX Corps, Operation Clipper had achieved its main objectives. Ninth Army troops had met the two conditions needed to give the XIII Corps its own zone as well. Finally, on November 23, the 84th Infantry Division and its attachments returned to the XIII Corps command and began preparations to continue the drive to the Roer River after an operational pause.

The two regiments of the 84th Division involved in Operation Clipper incurred 2,000 battle casualties. This included 169 killed and 752 missing. Nonbattle injuries added another 500 to the roster of casualties.[8] The Sherwood Rangers suffered 63 casualties, including 16 killed and another 3 who later died of wounds. They also lost 10 tanks, with 15 damaged but recoverable and another 12 so deeply mired in mud that they were unrecoverable.[9] As stalemate once again took hold along the Allied lines, commanders and troops alike pondered the future, painfully aware that the road to Berlin would be long, and fraught with danger.

It’s the time of the month when The CMOS posts their new questions and answers. Read below to find answers to your style questions or even questions you didn’t even thought you had!

New Questions and Answers

Q. Dear CMOS! I have a grammar question that has thrown our small department into a tizzy. In a sentence like “There are an even number of kittens on the veranda,” we are evenly split (pun intended!) as to whether “There are” is correct since there are a plural number of kittens or “There is” is correct because the number is (see? “is”) even. We’ve checked Garner’s entry for “number of,” which seems to throw down in favor of “there are,” but those of us in the “there is” contingent aren’t convinced. Any light the CMOS team can shed on this?

A. The expression “a number of” is an idiomatic phrase that means “some” or “several,” which is why a plural verb would normally be expected after “a number of kittens” used by itself: A number of kittens [or Some kittens] are on the veranda—or, if you invert the sentence, There are a number of kittens [or some kittens] on the veranda.

But if you change a to the, the idiom goes away, and the focus switches to the word number itself, making a singular verb the correct choice: The number of kittens on the veranda is huge. If you then invert that, however, you’re back to the plural: A huge number of kittens are on the veranda. So far, we’re mostly in line with Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (2022), under “number of.”

But huge in that inverted example keeps things idiomatically plural: A huge number of kittens simply means lots of kittens, an expression that requires a plural verb. An even number, by contrast, means just what it says: a number that’s even instead of odd. And though it isn’t one of the examples featured in Garner, an even number doesn’t seem to have an obvious plural idiomatic equivalent like some or lots that could replace it; therefore, a singular verb is arguably the better choice: There is an even number of kittens on the veranda.

In other words, the number of kittens on the veranda is even (🐈🐈🐈🐈) rather than odd (🐈🐈🐈), an observation that puts the number ahead of the kittens. Nothing is certain when it comes to kittens, but that’s our take.

Q. In CMOS 16.71, why is Leonardo da Vinci indexed under “L”? And in an article that refers to people by surnames on subsequent mention, should he be referred to as “Leonardo” or “da Vinci”?

A. You can ignore Dan Brown and others who’ve rebranded the archetypal Renaissance man as “Da Vinci.” The name is Leonardo, and he came from Vinci (da Vinci), an Italian town in the region of Tuscany.

Leonardo can be referred to in full as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (as noted on page 69 of Walter Isaacson’s 2017 biography, Leonardo da Vinci [Simon & Schuster])—in which “di ser Piero” means he’s the son of a man named Piero (ser is an old social title that was similar to “sir”). Leonardo’s father was also da Vinci, which isn’t a surname but rather an epithet (see CMOS 8.34). Leonardo and Piero are given names (i.e., first names).

Because he lacks a surname, Leonardo da Vinci is properly indexed under “L” and would be referred to in the text as Leonardo—that is, after having been introduced as Leonardo da Vinci.

Q. When is it proper to use an ampersand? Thank you.

A. In edited prose, use of the ampersand—&*—is normally limited to

terms like R&D and Q&A that are always spelled with an ampersand (see also CMOS 10.10);

corporate names like AT&T and Simon & Schuster that reflect the usage of a particular company or brand (see also CMOS 10.24); and

ampersands in verbatim quotations.

An ampersand may also be used when mentioning the title of a work that includes one (subject to editorial discretion; see CMOS 8.165). And if you’re working with HTML, you may need an ampersand in a character reference like   (for a nonbreaking space)—or & (for an ampersand).

__________

* According to the OED (and other sources), the ampersand evolved from a stylized rendering of the Latin conjunction et (and) in the form of a ligature, and the word ampersand is an English-language corruption of “& (and) per se and” (“and by itself [is] and”)—a phrase that differentiated the symbol from &c., an old-fashioned way of writing et cetera (and others).

Q. Hello, I use old-style figures in the text of my document. Do you have any recommendations for whether they should then be used also for footnote markers in the body text and/or the footer?

A. Our designers prefer lining figures for the superscript note reference numbers in the text, even in works that otherwise feature old-style figures—as in the book Eleanor of Aquitaine, as It Was Said: Truth and Tales about the Medieval Queen, by Karen Sullivan (University of Chicago Press, 2023). The corresponding numbers at the beginning of each note, however—which in Chicago style aren’t superscripts—would use old-style figures.

Superscript lining figures in the text:

Old-style figures on the baseline in the corresponding note:

Notice how the digits in the superscript 106 are all roughly the same height, ensuring that a note number 1, for example, will be about the same size as a note number 6. This matters more with the smaller superscripts than it does for the numbers that sit on the baseline—even in the text of the notes, which is slightly smaller than the main text. (The Sullivan book features endnotes, but the advice would be the same for footnotes. See also CMOS 14.24.)

Q. Have we abandoned altogether the rule to put note reference numbers (and only one per sentence, please) at the end of the sentence? I’ve prepared indexes for a number of academic monographs lately where note reference numbers are sprinkled willy-nilly throughout the text.

A. CMOS does still say that a note reference number1 is best placed at the end of a sentence or clause,2 but there isn’t any limitation—technical or otherwise3—that might prevent authors from placing such a reference4 elsewhere, or that might bar authors from using more than one in a sentence.5

So if a publisher or editor has failed to enforce the spirit of CMOS6 relative to note reference numbers—and the book’s already at the indexing stage7—​there’s not much we can do to help you.8

__________

1. Or symbol—*, †, ‡, etc.

2. See CMOS 14.26.

3. A note reference number can literally appear anywhere in a document.

4. Like this one.

5. This sentence has five.

6. See note 2 above.

7. As described in CMOS 16.108.

8. Other than show with this answer how distracting such notes can be. 🙂

Q. In a collection of (some previously published) essays all by one writer, does one cite the author as the editor too? CMOS 14.104 and 14.106 seem to come close, but they don’t address this exact situation. In the source I’m working with, the title page does not credit the author as editor, but some of the essays were previously published. Thanks!

A. No, you wouldn’t cite the author as both author and editor of the book. For example, “The Girl in the Window” and Other True Tales (University of Chicago Press, 2023) is an anthology of stories written by Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Lane DeGregory that were originally published in the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times).

The title page credits DeGregory as author of the book and Beth Macy as author of a foreword. No other contributor is listed. So even though it was DeGregory herself who compiled, edited, and annotated the stories, you wouldn’t cite her as editor also.

Besides, the words “edited by” don’t have the power to tell the reader that some or all of the essays in a book were previously published. If that info is relevant, you can say so either in the text (as we’ve done near the beginning of this answer) or in a note. But for the citation itself, follow the title page.

Q. We have to number our paragraphs in the research paper we are writing. What is the proper way to do this?

A. CMOS doesn’t cover this, but a convenient way to number paragraphs in MS Word or Google Docs is by using the feature for numbered lists.

In either program, you can start by selecting the paragraphs you want to number. Then use the numbering icon, which in Word is in the Paragraph group under the Home tab; in Docs, there’s a similar icon in the toolbar above the document.

You can then use the ruler in either Word or Docs to move the paragraph numbers into the left margin and to format the paragraphs with first-line indents (which may require setting a tab stop). See also CMOS 2.12.

In Word, adding a custom paragraph style will enable you to reapply this same formatting wherever it’s needed. In Docs, you’ll need a third-party add-on to do the same. But both programs include a format painter that can be used in a similar way, allowing you to copy the automatic numbering and other formatting from one paragraph and apply it to others as needed.

Word and Docs both allow you to stop and restart numbering as needed to skip over headings and the like. And if your document includes numbered lists in addition to the numbered paragraphs, you can use the options in either program to create multiple independently numbered lists.

If you need even more flexibility, and you’re comfortable digging a little deeper into the software, you can try using Word’s Seq field code to insert sequential numbers that are independent of the numbered list feature and can be placed anywhere in your document. For more details, see the article “Numbering with Sequence Fields,” by Word guru Allen Wyatt, at Tips.net.

October Q&A

Q. It is my contention as a longtime editor and writer (and avid amateur cook and baker) that the apostrophe in “confectioner’s sugar” should precede the “s” in “confectioners.” Yet in recipes throughout the US, for many years the apostrophe has typically followed the “s” of “confectioners.” I maintain that this is incorrect and a fairly recent (in decades) development. What do you think?

A. We agree that the spelling confectioner’s sugar makes sense—by analogy with, for example, baker’s yeast. With that placement of the apostrophe, the term refers to a type of sugar used by a confectioner (singular). But we have to side with common usage here. Not only is the spelling confectioners’ sugar more common than the alternatives (including confectioners sugar, where the plural noun is used attributively), it’s a lot more common.* The dictionary at Merriam-Webster.com doesn’t even list an alternative (as of October 2023). Neither does The American Heritage Dictionary.

So maybe just accept that the term confectioners’ sugar (with the apostrophe following the s) refers to a variety of sugar used by or typical of confectioners (plural) considered as a category or group as opposed to a type of sugar used by an individual confectioner, a relatively arbitrary distinction. Anyone who expects apostrophes to be consistent across similar terms may not be happy, but the farmers at the farmers or farmers’ or farmer’s market will probably understand.†

__________

* By way of comparison, baker’s yeast is the accepted spelling today, but that spelling was neck and neck with bakers’ yeast in published books until about 1950, after which it became the norm (or, you could say, rose to the top).

† Chicago prefers farmers’ market (see CMOS 7.27).

Q. Hello, I’m wondering how to style the name of a television program that has been assimilated into the cultural lexicon so that references to it are not truly references to the show. In particular, an author said, “When I landed at the airport, it was as if I had entered the Twilight Zone.” (He makes many references to this.) I feel it should be capitalized but not italicized, but I can’t find anything to say one way or another. Can you help? Thanks!

A. In your example, you’re right—the reference isn’t to the television show; rather, it’s to the fictional realm made famous by the show. So we agree with your treatment. Had your example been worded instead as follows, italics (and a capital T for The) would have been correct: “When I landed at the airport, it was as if I had arrived on the set of The Twilight Zone.”

Q. Does CMOS have a rule for using one el or two in verbs ending in “ing”? For example, “traveling” or “travelling”? “exceling” or “excelling”?

A. If you’re an American traveler who’s traveling in the United States, use one l; if you’re a British traveller travelling in the UK, use two. But if you plan on excelling in either region, you’ll want to use two l’s for that word.

That’s because of two competing conventions: (1) When –ing or –ed (or –er) is added to a word of two or more syllables that ends in a consonant preceded by a single vowel (like travel and excel), the consonant is usually doubled if the stress falls on the final syllable. Accordingly, you’d write traveling and traveled (because the stress in travel is on the first syllable) but excelling and excelled (the stress in excel is on the second). But (2) travelling and travelled (and traveller) are exceptions to the rule in British but not American usage.

We don’t know the reason for that exception, but we can offer as evidence this footnote from page 16 of the eighteenth edition of Horace Hart’s Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford (published in 1904, the first year Hart’s guide was offered to the public):

We must, however, still except the words ending in –el, as levelled, -er, -ing; travelled, -er, -ing; and also worshipped, -er, -ing.—J. A. H. M.

That footnoted exception applies to the rule about not doubling consonants when the last syllable isn’t stressed. “J. A. H. M.” is James Murray, the main editor of the original Oxford English Dictionary, who is also credited on the title page of that edition (and others) of Hart’s Rules as one of two people responsible for revising its “English spellings.”

The three exceptions noted in the footnote above are still followed in British English. In American English, by contrast, level and (as we have seen) travel do not double the l, but worship usually doubles the p (as in British English).

CMOS used to include a list of preferred spellings—as on pages 37 and 38 of the first edition (published 1906), which showed traveler with one l and (in a decision backed by logic that nonetheless didn’t stick) worshiper with one p. CMOS now defers to Merriam-Webster for such decisions.

Q. I can’t get a definite answer on how to punctuate a sentence that starts with “trust me.” For example, “Trust me, you don’t want to do that.” Would this be considered a comma splice? Would it be better to use a period or em dash, or is the comma okay? What about “believe me” or “I swear”?

A. Any phrase like “trust me” at the beginning of a sentence that is roughly equivalent to a “yes” or a “no” can normally be followed by a comma (as covered in CMOS 6.34):

No, you don’t want to do that.

is like

Trust me, you don’t want to do that.

whereas

Yes, I’ve edited the whole document.

is like

Believe me, I’ve edited the whole document.

and

I swear, I’ve edited the whole document.

You could use a stronger mark of punctuation for extra emphasis:

I swear! It’s not a comma splice!

or

I swear—it’s not a comma splice.

among other possibilities

But a simple comma will be the best choice in most contexts (and won’t get you in trouble for using a comma splice—at least not with us).

Q. Dear CMOS, As regards a foreign word that needs to remain in its original language in a lengthy comparative analysis, would you inflect this word so as to reflect its grammatical position in a sentence consistent with its inflection in the original language? The word at issue is Pflichtteilsberechtigter (roughly, a forced heir). In its original German, the singular of the word could be either Pflichtteilsberechtigte or Pflichtteilsberechtigter, depending on whether it is preceded, respectively, by a definite or an indefinite article. As a plural, it could be either Pflichtteilsberechtigten or Pflichtteilsberechtigte, depending on whether it is preceded, respectively, by a definite article or a zero article.

Consistent with German grammar, the word would be spelled/inflected as follows in these four sample sentences (the first two being singular usages and the second two plural usages): “A Pflichtteilsberechtigter enjoys special rights in German succession law. The Pflichtteilsberechtigte, the son of the deceased, sued the testamentary heir for a portion of the estate. Courts require Pflichtteilsberechtigte to submit certain forms. In the case at issue, the court required the Pflichtteilsberechtigten to first appear before a notary.”

Employing spellings consistent with German grammatical rules on inflection could potentially confuse readers unfamiliar with these rules (or leave them thinking the writer/editor has been careless!). But adopting a wholesale simplification (e.g., writing Pflichtteilsberechtigter whenever it is a singular usage and Pflichtteilsberechtigte whenever it is a plural usage and not further inflecting according to German grammar) could confuse—or at least annoy—those readers who will have an appreciation of German, which will likely be significant in this case. We look forward to any input you have to offer!

A. Extrapolating from CMOS 11.3, it’s usually best to inflect a non-English word that hasn’t been anglicized just as it would be in the original language, as when referring to more than one Blume (flower) as Blumen (flowers).

Accordingly, the examples in your second paragraph seem good to us, with one possible caveat. Out of context, it may not be obvious to all readers that “the Pflichtteilsberechtigten” in your last sentence is supposed to be plural. If necessary, you could rephrase—for example, as “each Pflichtteilsberechtigte,” where the German noun is now clearly singular (and inflected as it would be following the)—or whatever best conveys the intended meaning.

But you should consider explaining for your readers how these inflections work—for example, in a note the first time one of these terms appears in your text. The explanation near the beginning of your question (“In its original German, . . .”) could easily form the basis of such a note.

Q. Our style guide states that “healthcare” must be treated as one word, but would this extend to varieties, such as mental healthcare? Merriam-Webster lists “mental health” as a separate noun, so I’m genuinely confused whether it should be “mental health care” or “mental healthcare.” Thank you!!

A. Good question! The version “mental health care,” which keeps the term “mental health” intact, makes a little more sense than “mental healthcare.” A hyphen might make that pairing even clearer—“mental-health care.” But because the term “health care” belongs together just as much as “mental health” does, the unhyphenated phrasing is still better.

In your case, however, since “healthcare” is in your style guide as one word, we’d recommend going with “mental healthcare” to jibe with your use of the word “healthcare” in other contexts. Readers are more likely to be put off by an obvious inconsistency than by a slight asymmetry.

Q. Hello! Here’s a fun citation style question: How do you cite website content that’s accessible only through the Wayback Machine from Archive.org?

A. Cite the content as you normally would, but credit the Wayback Machine and include the URL for the archived page. For example, let’s say you were to mention the fact that Merriam-Webster.com still listed the hyphenated form e-mail in its entry for that term as late as January 2, 2021, with email offered as an equal variant (“or email”). You could cite your evidence in a footnote as follows (see also CMOS 14.233):

1. Merriam-Webster, s.v. “e-mail,” archived January 2, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, https://​web.archive.org​/web​/20210102004146​/https://​www.merriam​-webster​.com​/dictionary​/e-mail.

Notice the URL, an unwieldy double-decker consisting of two consecutive URLs stitched together. If you wanted a shorter URL, you could cite only the second part (i.e., the original URL for the content), as follows:

1. Merriam-Webster, s.v. “e-mail,” https://​www​.merriam​-webster​.com​/dictionary​/e​-mail, archived January 2, 2021, at the Wayback Machine.

That’s a bit more concise than the first example, but readers will need to enter the original URL at the Wayback Machine (which they’ll have to find on their own) and then use the date to get to the right version of the page.

Either approach is acceptable as long as you’re consistent.