Jump to content

Talk:Battle for Caen/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Well, fancy that

3 British Division

a) The task of 3 British Division is to capture CAEN and secure a bridgehead over the R ORNE at that place.

b ) The enemy may develop his counter-attack--

i) Through CAEN ii) Across R ORNE at RANVILLE - BENOUVILLE having established himself in the area East of R ORNE from which he can dominate the beaches West of OUISTREHAM and the Northern approaches to CAEN. iii) West of Caen, between R MUE and the CAEN Canal iv) Any combination of the above

In cases (ii) and (iii) using CAEN as a pivot, if he suceeds in forestalling us there.

c) To counter these enemy measure 3 British Division should, before dark on D-Day, have captured or effectively masked CAEN and be disposed in depth with brigade localities firmly established.

i) North-West of BENOUVILLE, in support of 6 Airborne Division operating East of R ORNE (having relieved the airborne troops West of the canal and taken over the defence of the BENOUVILLE-RANVILLE crossings. ii) North-West of CAEN, tied up with the LEFT forward brigade locality of 3 Canadian Division.

Should the enemy forestall us at CAEN and the defences prove to be strongly organised thus causing us to fail to capture it on D-Day, further direct frontal assaults which may prove costly will not be undertaken without reference to I Corps. In such an event 3 British Division will contain the enemy in CAEN and retain the bulk of its forces disposed for mobile operations inside the covering position. CAEN will be subjected to heavy air bombardment to limit its usefulness and to make its retention a costly business. (I Corps Operations Order No. 1, WO 171/258)[1] My bolding. Keith-264 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Pogue supports this and simply states: Neither Bayeux nor Caen, listed as possible D-Day objectives, was seized. (Chap 10, p.173).
Excellent. So you are both now admitting (finally) that the Original Plan was for the British to capture Caen on D-Day, and that they failed. Now all you need to do is admit that Montgomery lied when he said everything went precisely according to plan. It seems however that your new strategy is to claim that, since the plan included the likelihood of failing to achieve the plan, the failure to achieve the plan actually constitutes an achievement of the plan. Effectively Monty was saying "Caen is critical and Plan A is that we must definitely capture it on D-Day (Ambrose pg 516) but IF WE FAIL TO CAPTURE CAEN ON D-DAY, then Plan B is to not capture Caen on D-Day". This is exactly like a weather forecaster who predicts that "It will be a lovely sunny day everywhere, except for all the places where its cold and dark"; and who then claims the weather worked out exactly according to his prediction. Pogue (1954) may have used the word "possible", but the Plan itself was a lot more specific. Wdford (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Which bit of captured or effectively masked have you failed to understand? Did you read the 3rd opinion??Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you two mind stopping using bold, italics is the preferred emphasis and less "shouty". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Is that a quote from WP? If it isn't I do mind. I'm under the impression that capitals ARE SHOUTY; bold and italics are for degrees of emphasis.Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
WDford, it seems you have no objectivity on this topic and are not prepared to approach it with a NPOV. You seem to be holding Monty to a different standard than other commanders, and you should refrain from further edits as you lack objectivity. You persist in pressing your case even when it has been proven false, above. As I've patiently explained, all the Allied Divisions had maximum lines of advance, none of the Allied divisions attained their maximum lines of advance. Any number of these planned objectives could have proved fatal to the invasion, if they were not captured within a few days after the invasion (Bayeux for example), with the notable exception of Caen, as events proved. The quote above shows that, for example, the 3rd Br division had Caen as it's maximum line of advance, but had alternatives prepared for with Monty's approval, as did every other division, and even Ike had a written statement prepared in case the invasion failed! Monty wanted to take Caen on 6 June, but not at any cost, since the invasion forces were too weak until they could land sufficient forces to establish a reserve to defend the beachhead in depth. Your claim has been that Monty had no alternate plans in place when Caen wasn't taken on 6 June, and this claims has been shown to be false. He planned for many eventualities, as any prudent commander would. We have all seen Monty's planned lines of advance up to D+90 and how these were actually exceeded by ~D+70. We have seen how Rommel and Runstedt wanted to abandon Caen:On 17 June, Hitler suddenly appeared in norther France (his first and only visit to the west after 1940). By that time, Rommel and Rundstedt were in agreement that their only hope was to withdraw from Caen to a strong defensive position that could be held by infantry while the panzer divisions were refitted for a powerful counteroffensive against the Americans in the Cotentin Peninsula. Characteristically, Hitler refused to consider such a proposal and insisted that the line beheld at all costs , which would have been the militarily prudent thing to do, and had they done so then Monty's planned lines of advance would have almost perfectly matched the actual situation by ~D+20. The master plan has the US Army capturing the Brittany peninsula, and to do this the US Army would have to break out of the Hedgerow country, just as they did historically, and they would have had to wheel around and drive east to cover the southern flank of the Allied advance, just as they historically did, and to do that the German armour would have to be pinned against the Commonwealth forces, just as it historically was. Monty's plan for the invasion and his masterful handling of the Allied Armies is all covered in Pogue, who was a US Army Historian. Damwiki1 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The order clearly states that: The task of 3 British Division is to capture CAEN and secure a bridgehead over the River Orne at that place. The issue about “masking” only comes deep into the text, in the section where it discusses what to do if we fail to achieve the objective. The word “masking” doesn’t appear in the Intention at all.
I see the pathetic attempt to persuade me to let you have your way with this article, partnered with the usual mendacious allegation. My objectivity is based on the sources, whereas your “objectivity” seems to be centered on protecting Monty’s reputation. You have by no means proved my “case” to be false – instead, you are gradually being forced to concede that Monty did indeed lie when he claimed that everything had gone precisely according to plan.
The “maximum lines of advance” does not mean it was a “nice to have” – the order was specific that Caen was to be captured on D-Day, Monty undertook to do so, and Ike was expecting him to deliver. There is no ambiguity anywhere other than in Monty’s retroactive dissembling.
It is irrelevant that no other divisions achieved their objectives either (assuming that is even true) because this article is about the Battle for Caen, not any other part of the Normandy campaign.
Yes. Monty did have Plan B for everything – nobody is arguing about that. The Plan B for Caen was essentially “go as far as you can until the Germans stop you, and then dig in while we bomb the city and its Allied civilians”. My “claim”, which is abundantly evidenced by the sources, was that Plan A was to capture Caen, this failed, and then MONTY LIED ABOUT IT.
You cannot make a plan based on the assumption that the enemy will get scared and run away without you having to first defeat them. In the actual event Rommel held Caen for another full month, despite heavy bombing etc.
It seems the “master plan” called for the US forces to do absolutely everything except capture Caen. The US dutifully obliged. Please note that Brittany is a long way from Caen.
The German armour was never “pinned against the Commonwealth forces”. They retired at will when the US flanking forces were approaching, and those that were not destroyed by air attacks shot their way out of the Pocket.
Pogue might have considered Monty’s handling “masterful”, although that word doesn’t appear in the internet summary you provided as a “vitally important work”. However many other sources make it abundantly clear that Ike was about to sack him, Churchill was about to sack him, and most of the American commanders (and many of the British commanders) regarded his handling in a poor light.
Wdford (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Remember what I predicted about you digging a hole? Our 3rd Party made a thoroughly sensible suggestion and I hope that you reflect on it. I intend to add Copp's survey of earlier sources as per

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article.

"historiographic commentary" as above and unblank the Colossal Cracks section as per his view that it is deprecated. As for the battle section, I think that Martlet can be merged with Epsom since it was a prelude and the German side needs representing since they were involved in the Battle for Caen too. I'm open to opinion on whether this means the doings of Panzergruppe West or only the units on the eastern flank. I wonder if Spring etc should go in a subsequent operations section under the Analysis? Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with the 3rd Party’s suggestion, and my edits are all in tune with those sentiments – as you well know.
My edits are all based on published secondary works by reputable historians – as you well know.
Re blanking the Colossal Cracks section, the 3rd Party did not mention any "deprecation", merely that we should achieve consensus on contentious edits. It was blanked with your agreement on Talk – as you well know.
I am happy to merge Martlet into Epsom, as they are essentially a single operation.
Operation Spring is already mentioned in the Aftermath section. It wasn’t really part of the Battle for Caen, so do we really need to go into heavy detail here?
  • A subsequent operations section needs one or two paragraphsKeith-264 (talk)
We can’t cherry-pick the “German side” – if we do it we need to do it properly. We had previously agreed to slim this down and leave the details in the daughter articles, so I don’t know if adding heavy detail here is appropriate. Maybe a separate article on Panzergruppe West at Normandy might work? I imagine that you are anxious to include fragments from the German side because some of what they said might make the British performance at Caen look a bit more useful?
It’s interesting that you have decided to drop the issue of the British battle plans, and look for a fresh avenue of discussion.

Mmmmm. Wdford (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on Operation Spring to the Aftermath section. Operation Cobra only has half a paragraph at present, although it was a much more significant event, so either we should pump up Cobra, or trim down Spring.
I’m glad you have finally conceded that capturing Caen was a D-Day objective, and that Monty failed to achieve it. Are you now going to remove all the apologetics?
  • You are wrong; I draw your attention to the primary and the secondary sources above proving that the plan was for the capture or masking of Caen, that it was in writing before the invasion and that this is indisputable.Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The article should already have included the details for the attack and the defense, as they are two sides of the same coin. I wait with interest to see what you are planning to do with this.
Wdford (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Pls note that the article is in Briteng.Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
As has been clearly demonstrated, the primary and secondary sources clearly show that the original plan was for the capture of Caen, that it was in writing before the invasion and that this is indisputable. The plan went on to stipulate that if they failed to capture Caen, then they should not try to capture Caen but should "mask" it instead, while waiting for the city to be bombed from the air. This fact is as obvious as your POV. Wdford (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You are wrong; I draw your attention to the primary and the secondary sources above proving that the plan was for the capture or masking of Caen, that it was in writing before the invasion and that this is indisputable. Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
To further help you escape from your delusion, here is some more light reading - try these [2] and [3]. Wdford (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Wdford how can you persist in this when presented with the documentation? OTOH, the info in the NYT article regarding the performance of some US Army units shows how variable the performance of units was during the campaign. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I have read the documentation. As discussed in detail above, it says very clearly that the objective was to capture Caen on D-Day. The secondary sources agree. Deep into the order is the proviso that, if they fail to capture Caen on D-Day, Plan B is to mask Caen instead. Its blatantly obvious, and you can only pretend that masking was the original plan if you make a huge effort to willfully misread the source. Wdford (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's as obvious as a, b and c,

a) The task of 3 British Division is to capture CAEN and secure a bridgehead over the R ORNE at that place.

b ) The enemy may develop his counter-attack--

i) Through CAEN ii) Across R ORNE at RANVILLE - BENOUVILLE having established himself in the area East of R ORNE from which he can dominate the beaches West of OUISTREHAM and the Northern approaches to CAEN. iii) West of Caen, between R MUE and the CAEN Canal iv) Any combination of the above

In cases (ii) and (iii) using CAEN as a pivot, if he suceeds in forestalling us there.

c) To counter these enemy measure 3 British Division should, before dark on D-Day, have captured or effectively masked CAEN and be disposed in depth with brigade localities firmly established. Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Historians such as the US Army's Pogue worked with primary documentation, written at the time these events occurred which is why he should be studied closely.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
From De Guingand (Monty's COS, PP.392-393):

"American writers have accused Montgomery of having failed to carry out his original plan in Normandy, of slow-ness, and even of bad generalship. There have also been suggestions that both Eisenhower and Tedder were displeased with his conduct of thè campaign. I will now describe my views and experiences of these matters, and I hope they may result in showing that things were not so bad after ali. First, let us go back and see what tasks Montgomery gave out to his Armies at thè Presentation of Plans in early April, 1944. In bnef these were :— First U.S. Army. (a) To assault. (b) To capture Cherbourg. (e) To develop operations towards St. Lo. (d) After capture of thè area Cherbourg-Caumont- Avranches, to advance southwards, capture Rennes and reach out to thè Loire. Second British Army. (a) To assault. (b) To protect First U.S. Army whilst it captured Cherbourg. (e) To secure thè airfield sites south-east of Caen. (d) In subsequent operations to pivot on its left and offer a strong front against enemy movement towards thè lodgement area from thè cast. I have already described the " Phase Line " map that was prepared for thè occasion. This showed Caen and thè airfield sites in our possession early on in thè campaign, but after this, Second Army was virtually to pivot on their left flank for approximately five weeks. I also explained that these phase lines were not guaranteed promises, but presented a generai indication as to how things might go. They had to cater for the best so that we would not lose an opportunity. It will be seen, therefore, that the general pattern of the plan was fulfilled, although thè initial phase was slower than we had hoped it might be, and Caen and thè airfield sites were well behind the phase line forecast. But it will also be seen that by thè time we reached thè Seine we were in advance of our forecast. Now I am quite certain no promises were made about Caen and these airfield sites. Many times during meetings I was pressed to say we would get them by a certain day, but I would never make such promises. I think if the minutes of those meetings* still exist, it will be found that I warned thè R.A.F. against relying upon acquiring airfields in that parti-cular area, not only because we realised thè enemy would be fully wise to thè importance of Caen and the surrounding country, but because even if we achieved thè phase line forecast, airfields stuck out on thè extreme flank could not be considered very secure. Looking through some notes for a press talk I gave on " D " day, I find that I warned the correspondents in answer to their questions that it would be very dangerous to assume that thè capture of Caen would be easy. This shows our state of mind on this issue, even on a day when everything appeared rosy. The R.A.F.'s anxiety concerning these airfields was under-standable, and during those early weeks they were not very pleased at our inability to capture them. A Commander must, however, be allowed to conduct his campaign in his own way, and not be held rigidly to any particular ingredient of thè original pian. Remember this—thè original conception was followed and worked. And thè R.A.F. despite thè non-availability of thè airfield sites south-east of Caen did manage to provide thè support thè Army required. The enemy concentrated thè bulk of his armour against thè Caen hinge, and we held him there whilst Cherbourg was captured, and the lodgement area was seized. Montgomery had some very good reasons for not con-tinually pressing thè attack on Caen and beyond in thè early stages. To start with, thè enemy was there in considerable strength. Then a failure here might jeopardize thè whole pian, for it should be remembered that an enemy success against our hinge would have meant thè over-running of our beaches and of our supplies. The country was suitable for defence in thè area which we held—Bocage country, and the

  • I now understand that the minutes do in fact show that on several occasions I held that Montgomery could not make promises regarding the airfield area." (My emphasis)

Damwiki1 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-edits

Re-edited the Background and Prelude, Ultra still to do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done bit rushed though. Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"Colossal Cracks" subject heading.

Could the "Colossal Cracks" subject heading be changed to something a bit more encyclopedic please? It's currently more like a newspaper headline. (Hohum @) 13:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that section has served its purpose (to get a dissenting view in the article without yet another revert frenzy) and a re-write of the Analysis section is overdue. I'd hoped to have got round to it by now but the weather and feeling a bit below par has slowed me down. I'll see what I can do later. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixing the Analysis section is easily done. I suggest the following:
  • Accept that the secondary sources are correct when they report that things DID NOT go exactly according to plan, that Montgomery was being “specious” when he made this claim, and that Montgomery “misled” Ike and the other commanders during the course of the battle.
  • Stop censoring the planning sections, and allow the reader to properly appreciate that Caen was indeed a D-Day objective.
  • Remove the Colossal Cracks apologetic. Condense that material into a few sentences that summarise the entire thesis, and put it elsewhere in the Analysis.
  • Straw man: Since you arrogate to yourself the role of judge, I will respond in kind; I think that you are wilfully blind to the difference between an article on the battle for Caen and a Quixotic vendetta against Monty, which puts you against the consensus of other editors.Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move the Bombing section and the Atrocities section up above the Aftermath section.
Wdford (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm using Buckley 2014 for the basics User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 with cameos by Buckley 2006 and Copp 2004; I have four paragraphs so far. Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
So rather than considering all the reliable secondary sources that disagree with your POV, you are now hiding behind the childish parroting of "straw man". Instead, why don't you simply add to the planning section the FACT that Caen was a D-Day objective - what possible objection would a reasonable editor have to that? And since nobody apparently disputes that things DID NOT go exactly according to plan, that Montgomery was being “specious” when he made this claim, and that Montgomery “misled” Ike and the other commanders during the course of the battle, why don't you simply add this into the article? If you are prepared to do that, then the controversy section could indeed be reduced. Instead, you are now apparently creating a whole new Analysis section. If your new Analysis section carefully excludes all the reliable secondary sources who report the controversy, then it will hardly be NPOV, now would it? Wdford (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you read it? Keith-264 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Analysis re-write

Please don't revert the re-write for 12–24 hours (if at all) so that all the interested parties can take a look. I don't consider it the finished article by far but do think it is a fair basis for development according to the wishes of all concerned. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The analysis section needs a sentence or two before it for context before it launches into the breakdown of analysis of the battle over the years. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Curses! I had one then moved it lower because of foreshadowing. I'll see what I can do. Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Apropos, what 's our authority for calling someone a historian, writer, scholar, analyst etc? Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
As expected, you have added a huge amount of interesting stuff, but have somehow managed to completely exclude any mention of the specific issue of the actual controversy. I am therefore pleased to hear that it is not the finished product. To help you to develop the article in a neutral and balanced direction, I have added just three paragraphs on the controversy - all backed by lots of secondary reliable sources. Wdford (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you are so predictable. It's your first revert, please remember how many you've got left. Keith-264 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you are threatening an edit war - again. Perhaps this time you can give a proper explanation why this referenced and well-sourced issue absolutely has to be censored out of this article, when huge amounts of verbiage are added? PS: Your team reverted first. Wdford (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sophistry, you have rv twice, I suggest that you refresh your memory of 3RR.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I added fresh material to the rewritten article, which you promptly reverted. Your stated reasons of "undue, nnpov, synth" are false. Please explain these reasons clearly and with actual proof before you revert for a third time. Wdford (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I appeal to your sense of fair play, only one other interested editor has responded. Please let it lie for 12 hours.Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
So much for fair play. For objective editors to properly understand what you are trying to censor out, they need to be able to see the actual material. Leave it in for 12 hours so that they can see it and understand it, as well as see all the many references that support the material. PS: Since you persist in edit-warring, I am adding a neutrality tag as well, to hopefully attract higher-level assistance. Wdford (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Your allegations are baseless and your conduct is reprehensible. WP:Game. You are not the judge of an editor's motives and there are several other editors who have reservations about your persistent attempts to skew the article into an anti-Monty diatribe. Please let it lie for another 12 hours and steer clear of 3RR, not everyone is in the same time zone. Haven't you read the passages about Monty's personality? There is no censorship, merely a return to due weight on the subject. Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Collected WD's citations and installed them in note f with a gloss.Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
A bland and ambiguous sentence, hidden in a footnote, is hardly sufficient to describe the issue. Wdford (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It's already given due weight in the text but I offer a list of sources based on your soapboxing and again you discredit your point of view. Please pack it in. Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the various treatments of the analysis of the battle over the years should be given chronologically. And possibly summarized a bit more. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, Buckley meanders a bit and I've swapped a few bits round. Has anyone noticed the worst flaw? I commend WD for not br[e]aking 3RR a fifth time.Keith-264 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Graeme, do we really need the why as well as the what for a descriptive passage; if we do can it go in a note? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Taking out the headers creates the wall of text that I broke up by I putting them in. Buckley wrote is the only form of words that I know that avoids inferring Buckley's intentions or motives, which is not descriptive. Keith-264 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: terminological inexactitude. We can't write what he thinks unless he discloses it as a thought so we are describing, we can't write that he concludes unless he calls something a conclusion (or it's in a chapter with that title), we can't call it analysis unless he does (or we cite another RS who describes it thus). "Buckley wrote...." is indisputably descriptive (as well as repetitive, boring and banal) but unless we can think of synonyms which are just as descriptive we are indulging in OR. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem is an over-reliance on Buckley's analysis of each treatment. Has no one else ever dissected the various books? Does Buckley reach the status of a meta-analysis, or is he in his own way flawed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Up to a point Lord Copper; I looked in French last night but Buckley seems to be the fullest treatment (being a 2014 publication) Copp is good but an outlier and Hart (S. A.) is a mite repetitive, hence me dumping the Colossal Cracks section. Aber made a good point that it isn't really the analysis, hence me altering the header. It might be easier to work in other authors in the separate Analysis section that's there now. Some should show up in the Battle section too but that's only just been started; I'm trying to decide which are the most succinct and consistent sources since some start with armchair general judgements and fit the story accordingly; Jarymowycz had my eyes popping out yesterday. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
We've still got nine paragraphs without a break, can you think of a way to split them without using a chronological criterion? Keith-264 (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Added para on D Day to the Analysis section proper. Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Looked at the battle section again, merged secondary operations, realised how inadequate the parachuting in of leads and analysis sections is and that improvements are going to be difficult to limit in length.Keith-264 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Although more dated, would John Keegan's Battle for History be useful here? I agree on the length issue; either it's a para or 2 saying there are different views "see the bibliography", or it turns into an article in its own right. In the latter case should it be Caen or Normandy as a whole?Aber~enwiki (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, I've been thinking of it thematically and that possibly restricting the narrative to the operational level might help. Something like Second Army versus Panzergruppe West with the moves and counter-moves more than meandering descriptions of battles, which are well-served elsewhere. I'm thinking that the Battle section could be done by date so that the various plans and impediments, like the Channel storm, rainy weather etc get noted. In McKee earlier there's a mention that the storm left the First Army with three days' worth of ammunition. Things like that had an operational impact on the Second Army so perhaps eventually there could be a counterpart article, First Army vs 7th Army. Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
why not create a separate timeline of the Battle of Caen which would run day to day. Fit in the peripheral activities like storm, arrival of reinforcements at beaches activities on US front. It would give a different overview for the casual reader and might help formulate your own edits to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
That might help, I think there is one somewhere on Wiki already. Keith-264 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Apols but I fear that I buggered up my IT exam and have to do the retake on Monday so I won't be around much this week.Keith-264 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on WD, Beevor and Hastings are tertiary hack writers.Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@WD, You are interpolating NNPOV passages as if they are facts, this is untenable; the Wittman myth was exploded years ago. Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Background

I have rewritten the background to concentrate on the aspects most important to the capture of Caen and would be grateful if I could finish a rewrite of the Prelude before another revert frenzy....please....Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed and merged Martlet and Perch, not sure if we need a section on the Cossac plan, its relevance to Caen could go in a footnote. Need to fill in Prelude as per blanked headers or some such.Keith-264 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Put Cossac in a note, dropped the map and altered the background and Prelude. Hope to get the German side done tomorrow and complete Sword Beach.Keith-264 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to the editors who have studied the recent edits and improved them, I couldn't resist dabbling too but will leave off for now, while I sort out the Germans. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I've got going with the Germans and erred on the side of caution with the amount of detail, to make sure that the important points are covered. As with yesterdays additions I am open to suggestions about trimming for length and/or relegating material to the notes. Next section will be detail on the Normandy defences, with emphasis on Caen and the rest of the eastern sector. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
When it comes round to the Allied force, will you be able to integrate the issues around availability of manpower/reserves for the Anglo-Canadian divisions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes but I'm not sure where yet, in the Battle section or Aftermath, I doubt it should be in the Background or Prelude, because that would be foreshadowing and give undue weight. Obviously much of the material in the Analysis is repetitive and as the 3rd O pointed out, we need to write something descriptive about the "controversy" not get bogged down in adjudicating it. Manpower is part of the explanation. I'm inclined to use French (2000) for that bit but as with the recent additions, it's an offer to the interested editors not a dogmatic assertion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Casualty conservation is probably best described in the Analysis section, as it would have affected more than one operation. However it seems to have particularly affected the planning for Operation Goodward, so perhaps a specific mention there would also be appropriate.
The 3rd Opinion did not say anything about "descriptive" or "adjudicating", s/he merely said "then I suggest a section on the controversy". You are twisting again.
In order for the controversy to be properly described, we need to clarify what the controversy actually was about, and how it came to be. It was about Monty's claims re Caen vs his actual performance. It came to be because he subsequently claimed that everything went according to plan, when historians were well aware that there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. Critics of Monty point out that he lied, whereas his defenders claim he was "misunderstood".
The controversy is adequately described already. You might choose to add a list of Monty's defenders who all pushed the "misunderstanding" defense, but deleting the material on which the critics based their criticism would be non-neutral.
Wdford (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
When I've finished the prelude and the re-edit of the battle section, I will revisit the Analysis with a view to following the 3rd R's suggestion, which will mean a drastic cut of the verbiage, repetition, undue weight non-NPOV etc blah. I will do it separately, paste it in and await developments. I have been grateful for your forbearance over the Background and Prelude and hope you are willing to wait and see; you might like it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thinning out the Colossal Cracks section will certainly decrease the verbiage, repetition and undue weight. Removing the secondary sources that cite Allied commanders to contradict Montgomery's claims would be POV-pushing. Rather paste your proposed new version in the Talk page first. I will AGF in the meanwhile. Wdford (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Those Allied commanders etc could be summarized down to something like "Eisenhower, his chief of staff General Walter Bedell Smith, Churchill, and Sir James Grigg (British Secretary of State for War) all had expectations of the quick taking of Caen and a breakout to the South".
That said, I'll also comment on description of Grigg as "political head of the military" - the political head at the top of the military was Churchill, who had made himself Minister of Defence - the three services were represented under that by Secretary of State for War (Army), the First Lord of the Admiralty (Royal Navy), and the Secretary of State for Air (RAF). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Eisenhower, his chief of staff General Walter Bedell Smith, Churchill, and Sir James Grigg (British Secretary of State for War) all had expectations of the quick taking of Caen and a breakout to the South". - I don't think that is a fair representation; Churchill was expecting a long slow slogging match in France from his toast at the dinner before the invasion.

The focus on Montgomery's 'lies' and 'failures' is problematic. Unless this is done for ALL battles and commanders, by selecting him you are not being completely neutral. Also great care needs to be taken with dates of quotes etc, as the camapign was dynamic and what may be a true and fair comment in context at one date, will not be so at other dates.Aber~enwiki (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest; there is a dispute over the amount of detail the article needs over apprehensions about failure in the middle period of the battle and the representations of it then and after the war. I find that in similar articles, more description usually put these matters into perspective and the explanations offered in the Analysis section (analyses by RS that is, not us) of the Aftermath become uncontroversial, because they can be listed by chronology or theme. (I find that chronology is the quickest and most reliable method, since individual contributors don't have the same sources.) WD begs to differ but I think that we have edged closer to agreeing to disagree. There's quite a bit to be done in the Battle section, which is mostly adaptations of the leads of particular articles, that I parachuted in ages ago. When that's done, the Aftermath is going to be easier to establish. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
In Churchill’s own book "Closing the Ring", at pg 524, Churchill says: "The first objectives of the attack included Caen, Bayeux, Isigny, and Carentan. When these were gained the Americans would advance across the Cotentin peninsula, and would also drive northward to capture Cherbourg." The long hard slog referred to the liberation of France as a whole, but he was expecting the capture of Caen right at the beginning. As were Eisenhower et al.
All commanders fail to achieve objectives from time to time, and no battle ever goes exactly according to plan. What makes this case special is that most commanders freely admit when things did not go entirely according to plan, whereas Montgomery chose instead to lie about his failures at Caen. These failures, and his subsequent dissembling, lead to serious problems between Monty and the American commanders, as well as between Monty and the British air commanders. The article does NOT "focus" on this issue, this section is a small percentage of the article and it will be an even smaller percentage once the article is fully fleshed out.
Wdford (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that Monty did lie, the main issue is how that effected the actual battle for Caen. AFAIKT, Montgomery's relationships with other generals and other commands had no actual bearing on how the battles were fought; Requests by Monty for support by associated commands and/or orders to subordinates were not effected by his character. Behind the scenes acrimony therefore, is mainly of interest in a biographical sense or as a study of the high command, but it had no direct bearing on how the battle for Caen was actually fought.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It’s not an ASSUMPTION “that Monty did lie” - numerous secondary sources attest to Monty’s deceit.
Monty had undertaken to capture advanced airfields around Caen right at the beginning of the invasion, but then he unilaterally scrapped that part of the plan when the going got tough. This lead to serious friction with the air commanders in particular, which directly affected the course of the invasion thereafter.
As a result of this fraught relationship, the air commanders were reluctant to accede to his subsequent demands for air support. Monty therefore had to lie to Eisenhower about the breadth of his objectives for Operation Goodwood in order to get air support from heavy bombers which would not otherwise have been made available to him. Had he not lied to Ike at that time, Goodwood would not have happened. Goodwood was a significant part of the Battle for Caen – at least one author described it as the largest tank battle the British ever fought.
The British Army lost thousands of men and hundreds of tanks on that attack, which became known in the British Army as the “death ride”. Monty thereafter claimed Goodwood was only ever intended as a diversion. It was thus blatantly obvious that he had lied to his boss, one way or the other. That lie nearly got him sacked at the time, and it ultimately cost him his role as ground forces commander.
Monty’s general personality issues are a notable feature of his career, but his willingness to retroactively reinvent reality really came to the fore at Caen.
Wdford (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I would take this more seriously if you gave the same attention to, for example, Eisenhower's "calculated risk" comment re the Ardennes. I have great issues with the use of "lie"; of course Montgomery "spun" his comments, but so did every other general. I think that you are also misrepresenting the arguments about air support - it was not the breadth of the objective that pulled the heavy bombers in, but the weight of bombardment needed. Heavy bombers had been requested before but were not used as the air commanders believed the required results could be achieved with medium bombers. And there was dissension between the army and the RAF for a long time, even pre Alamein. Sources please for comment that Montgomery claimed Goodwood was only a diversion - his memoirs say that it was to establish an armoured force on the Borgebous Ridge. Also take care with how sources use 'breakthrough' and 'break-out' - they do not mean the same thing.Aber~enwiki (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that this article is about the Battle for Caen, not the Ardennes or Alamein. Please try to stick to the topic of the article.
"Spin" is one thing, deliberately deceiving your commander in advance of an operation is much more serious.
  • See for example: Hart pg 72: "In order to receive greater air support from SHAEF for Operation Goodwood, VIII Corps’ armoured thrust that sought to outflank Caen from the east, Montgomery deliberately exaggerated to Eisenhower his expectation that the operation would achieve a decisive breakthrough. ….. This deception has caused historians to debate the real aims of Goodwood ever since."
  • Hixon pg 161: "He only hinted at the breakout possibility to convince SHAEF’s airmen to lend the support of their heavy bombers."
I see you are cherry-picking your quotations from Monty’s memoirs. The actual sentence on pgs 228-229 states as follows: "It was indeed a fundamental object of my strategy on the eastern flank to establish a force strong in armour to the south-east of Caen in the area about Bourguebus; this was the key to ensuring that we kept the bulk of the German armour on the eastern flank, and thus helped the American expansion on the west. We did not get on to this high ground until Second Army launched Operation GOODWOOD on the 18th July, with armoured forces."
Wdford (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Several authors include a survey of the writing about the east end of the Allied lodgement and I'm feeling spoilt for choice. Copp 2004, Buckley 2006 and Buckley 2014 are the usual suspects. All refer to Monty's personality and behaviour and all try to put it in context. None pretend that he was a nice man and all point out that he wasn't the only cad in Normandy. I think that between them they give a good description of the history of the history of Normandy. All point out that the planning for Goodwood included Monty clipping Dempsey's wings, that the revised objectives didn't get to Shaef and caused much ill-feeling. Hart points out that planning had tactical, operational and strategic aspects which need elucidating when writing about territorial objectives and Operation Smock and Operation Perch were planned before D Day so the fate of Caen was not one throw of the dice on 6 June. Some writers have it that the appearance of the 21st Panzer Division ended the attempt to rush Caen and others that Crocker ordered the reinforcement of the eastern flank on 6 June, that deprived the attackers of the means of reaching the city. I think that your point of view is WP:undue and it looks like other editors take the same line. I'm making slower progress than I hoped because of the election but hope to get going soon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, well, if you expanded your list of "usual suspects" to include a few extra authors such as Beevor and Hastings and Carafano and Hixon etc, you will get a slightly more balanced picture. However, to consider your usual suspects a bit more closely:
  • Hart, author of “Colossal Cracks” wherein he goes to great lengths to separate tactical, operational and strategic plans, nonetheless concedes that Monty’s assertion that the campaign had unfolded precisely as planned was "spurious".
  • Buckley (2004) is scathing about Goodwood, and he states at pg 34 that Goodwood was "a flawed plan, poorly executed and with little chance of success".
  • Copp at pg 154 states that the Goodwood plan called for a breakout not a holding operation.
Your emphasis on the "revised objectives" of Goodwood would be a bit more neutral if you also included the fact that Monty himself in his memoirs claimed that there was never any intention to break out in Goodwood to begin with. Per Monty at pg 229: "But let me make the point again at the risk of being wearisome. There was never at any time any intention of making the break-out from the bridgehead on the eastern flank." This is very different to planning for a break out and then changing the objectives when the Germans declined to run away. How do you explain this contradiction?
Mead at pg 175 states that: "However, Eisenhower was clearly unhappy with the outcome of Goodwood and angry at the deceptions which had been employed, which had caused him to use his personal influence to add weight to Monty’s demand for bomber support."
Per Baxter at pg 81, "D’Este argues convincingly that between Monty’s actual plans and later boasting, a ‘great gulf lay’". In D’Este’s view, Monty intended to capture Caen and when he failed, he then changed the plan to one of attracting German forces to the east.
This is all sourced from reliable secondary sources, including sources which you are happy to cite when they support your POV. Why is that, exactly?
Wdford (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"But let me make the point again at the risk of being wearisome. There was never at any time any intention of making the break-out from the bridgehead on the eastern flank." Do you understand why Montgomery wrote this? It is not solely about Goodwood, but about the strategy for the whole campaign, and how Montgomery's approach differed from the previous COSSAC plans. Note the use of "break-out"; not "breakthrough" (Copp seems to have conflated them).Aber~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in your War of Monty's Ego and if you read the three authors they mention lots of your preferred authors and put their claims into context, a precedent you might consider following. Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that several secondary sources quote the Goodwood operational orders in detail or in full. If we are going to argue in length about what x or y historian has to say on the issue, should we not also provide the reader with what the actual orders say (obviously, sourced to a reliable secondary source that quotes them) in order to remain balanced and allow them to make up their own minds? Although, this does seem like a huge debate over just one aspect of the entire battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I hope that it won't be necessary, clearly the Monty article is the place for the handbag swinging but you might be right. I'm a bit busy so am just bitting and bobbing for the nonce. Nice to see you around; how's life? Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Good, thank you. I still have a copy of Jackson's VIII Corps; so if need be, I can quote most (IIRC) of the orders.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BRD

@WD, your edit interpolates material not part of that paragraph, which is about Operation Thunderclap. Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I put it in separately in the planning section. It is interesting to see that, in your quote from Brooke, the sentence ends with "and the port of Cherbourg ...". What follows the "..." I wonder? Wdford (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh bugger I just reverted it again by mistake, apols....Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
No I didn't, apols withdrawn Keith-264 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is in the section that deals with the original plan. This is where it belongs. Why are you trying so desperately hard to conceal the fact that Caen was part of the original D-Day objectives - when even Monty admits it?
BTW: What did Brooke include after the line "and the port of Cherbourg ..."? Wdford (talk)
You're POV pushing again, pack it in.Keith-264 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm merely attempting to help make the article properly complete and accurate. In that planning section you twice used the wording "simultaneous attacks north of the Carentan Estuary and between the estuary and the Orne, to capture a bridgehead that included airfield sites and the port of Cherbourg". However you keep leaving out the FACT that Monty also intended originally to take Caen at the beginning of the invasion. In Monty's own memoirs he acknowledges this FACT in the very next line. Many secondary sources have confirmed this FACT. Why do you persist in trying to hide this FACT? Wdford (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Operation Thunderclap took place in 1944, Monty's memoirs were published after the war, they were not part of Thunderclap which is the matter being described. If you persist in this asinine POV pushing I will attempt to have you barred from editing the page. Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This section is about the Second Army planning, which was NOT limited to Thunderclap. If you want a separate sub-sub-section about Thunderclap then by all means do so, but please stop trying to make it seem like Caen was not a D-Day objective, when lots of secondary sources state unambiguously that it was. Montgomery's memoirs were describing his planning process - which also included all the conferences etc in the lead-up to D-Day. It is clear that the wording "simultaneous attacks north of the Carentan Estuary and between the estuary and the Orne, to capture a bridgehead that included airfield sites and the port of Cherbourg" are near-identical in all three sources - so Monty was clearly referring to the actual documentation when he wrote up his memoirs. Why then try to expunge the mention of Caen, when even Monty was prepared to admit that it was part of the plan after all? Carentan etc are quite far from Caen, so in an article about Caen, why exclude from the planning section the only mention of Caen? The only POV being pushed here is your own. Wdford (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
How many reverts have you clocked up? I think you're sailing close to the wind. Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to add much today, I stayed up to watch the election by mistake.Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Observation: IIRC Scarfe (3rd Inf Div historian) and Michael Howard both make arguments that the high ground north of Caen was the actual objective on the day. Now, I would place a disclaimer on this to note that I am aware that most sources state it was actually the city (even if over optimistic) and I am not arguing with that. I have seen I Corps orders (not reproduced in any secondary source that I am aware therefore unable to be quoted) which states something to the effect that Caen was the objective, however if resistance was met then the high ground north of the city was. I do not recall seeing any discussion about this, in secondary sources, on the invasion other than the Scarfe/Howard reference so one feels that Caen was still the objective.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking through the archives, one sees that I Corps orders have been posted (and likewise generated a much debated discussion as I would imagine it was).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Numerous reliable secondary sources have reported as fact that Montgomery was not being entirely honest when he stated repeatedly that everything had gone according to plan at the Battle of Caen, although other authors have supported Montgomery’s claims. This has all been discussed at length on the talk page. However a small team of editors are absolutely determined to ensure that the article excludes any mention of this controversy, and they are prepared to edit war to preserve their point of view. Three paragraphs to describe the controversy, supported by many reliable sources, have been repeatedly deleted. Wdford (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What Montgomery actually said post-war about his master plan:
Briefly, it was so to stage and conduct operations that we drew the main enemy strength on to the front of the Second British Army on our eastern flank, in order that we might more easily gain territory in the west and make the ultimate break-out on that flank - using the First American Army for that purpose. If events on the western flank were to proceed rapidly it meant that we must quick territorial gains there. On the eastern flank, in the Caen sector, the acquisition of ground was not so pressing; the need there was by hard fighting to make the enemy commit his reserves, so that the American forces would meet less opposition in their advances to gain the territory which was vital on the west. If you want to write on the "controversy" I suggest that you start from that and show either that was not the plan made beforehand, or it was not followed. Minor details like phase lines or dates are not really important, as the Germans had a vote on those.Aber~enwiki (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WD is going way over the top again, his persistent attempts to turn the article into a denunciation of Monty is massively undue and the re-write of the Analysis section gives due weight to the matter and its effect on the Battle for Caen and the recriminations during and after the war. Thankfully he's avoiding a blatant 3RR finding but has a conspiracy theory about several editors (two of whom can't stand each other). An unbiased look at the talk page will show that WD has dug a hole and won't stop digging. The new Analysis section is far from satisfactory but is far better than the mess it replaced. Notice that I revised just as much of my writing as anyone else's. Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
As usual, Keith-264 is relying on mendacious ad hominem attacks rather than actual facts. Any objective person reading the material which Keith-264 keeps deleting would see that it is not at all "an anti-Monty diatribe" or a "denunciation of Monty". It is in fact a report of a known controversy specific to this battle, and it is thoroughly referenced to a range of reliable sources. Three paragraphs is hardly "massively undue". The new Analysis section is indeed "far from satisfactory". Wdford (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's step aside and let other editors have their say.Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedic article about the battle for Caen, not an article about Montgomery or friction within the Allied high command. Undue emphasis on individuals is not warranted here. Discussions about Montgomery and the Allied High Command is best handled by linking to other articles written specifically on that topic. I note that Wdford has repeatedly abused other editors with derogatory comments such as "medacious" (definition: lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured ) but I've let that go in the interests of getting on with editing, but it clearly shows that he has not approached this article with a NPOV, However, my patience is wearing thin. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Keith-264 pretended to address the concern by adding a single bland and ambiguous sentence, together with all my citations, but hid it away in a footnote in the middle of his long rambling explanation of something else. I edited the wording to make it obvious what the issue was actually about, and raised the single sentence into the article itself so that readers could at least see it. This single sentence was immediately reverted by Keith-264 with an accusation of soapboxing. [4] Since it is impossible that a single sentence, supported by 11 reliable sources, could be considered to be inaccurate or to have undue weight in a 94k article, this yet again proves that the actions of Keith-264 are blatant POV pushing. Wdford (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I added some of your material in a note better to accommodate your views while observing WP:undue etc, which is the objection of every other editor to your contributions. I thought I was doing you a favour and you broke 3RR so I rv. I'll look for links to illustrate the matter. Keith-264 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I like the Analysis section at the moment. It needs a lead to explain why this battle was important ie basis of liberation of Europe vs impact of German victory; a summary of its scale ie no of divisions on each side, and the importance of the number of German panzer/SS divisions; balance of operations ie Allied attacks vs planned and actual German attacks; density of front; casualties. And an explanation of why Germans focussed on holding ground at all costs, rather than the gradual retreat to the Seine the Allies assumed before D-Day. When its importance is clear, then it should be easier to integrate why there has been so much subsequent analysis, and that later analysis was often influenced by issues at the time of writing eg NATO vs Warsaw Pact. Dates for Montgomery's and de Guigand's memoirs look the wrong way round.Aber~enwiki (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, I put it there as a basis for discussion not as the finished article. Much of what you want is also part of the battle section so can be dealt with as the sections within it are re-written for the article (I parachuted them in from the main articles). The description of the ebb and flow of opinion in writers, historians and academics might be better under a specific header once that material is added. If you want an order of battle I suggest a link to an OOB page; casualties already have their own section. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Monty said the same before the invasion, D Day objectives were vague according to the master plan and the operational and sub-operational plans contained the details. It was clear that on D Day, Caen would be captured or it wouldn't and that Smock etc were ready just in case. Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


On 20 June you undertook to "look for links to illustrate the matter", and I assumed good faith and waited patiently for nine days, but while you meandered on to other topics you have not made any attempt to solve the neutrality issue here. Unfortunate, but not entire unexpected.

I don't work for you and you are the editor who will not stop NNPOV pushing against consensus and being bad mannered as well.Keith-264 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, you have not only continued to bury my point, with all its many reliable sources, in a footnote, but you have left that footnote attached to a sentence about differences in tactics rather than to the sentence about Montgomery's dishonesty, to which it actually pertains. Continuing to excuse this POV pushing on the grounds of my single sentence adding "undue weight" in a 97k article, is beyond pathetic.

Yet again you are trying to turn a description about the Battle for Caen into a Monty-bashing exercise. You parachuted in cherry-picked commentary about Goodwood from two tertiary writers (neither deserve to be called historians) and are being disingenuous.Keith-264 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, your POV pushing doesn't end there. Among other things you included a sentence from Buckley stating that the British armour performed well, while ignoring the other comments from Buckley where he criticized the Goodwood armour assault as flawed and poorly executed, among other things. I corrected that for you.

Did you bother to look at the dates of the citations? This part of the article is a history of the history, not the analysis, which has yet to be written. Don't you understand that? Keith-264 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

In your sentence about the British failure at Villers Bocage, you wrote that the 7th Armoured Division was "supposedly" defeated by one Tiger tank. This action is thoroughly documented, and reported in detail by Beevor and Hastings, among others. There is no need to insert weasel words like "supposedly" – unless the objective is to push a certain POV. I corrected that for you as well, by removing the word "supposedly" and adding two reliable sources, and of course you chose to immediately edit war over that as well. Sad.Wdford (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are but I forgive you; I wrote a description of what Buckley wrote as he described the "useless" myth of the Second Army and the myth of Wittman the ubersoldier. Yet again you are setting yourself up with these idées fixes. I'm on a wikibreak but will keep watch to see what our colleagues make of this. Keith-264 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So you persist in your assertion that a single sentence, supported by numerous RS's, constitutes "a Monty-bashing exercise". Amazing.
The commentary about the performance of the British armour during Goodwood actually came from Buckley, your own favourite "source of the week".
The comments about Villiers-Bocage came from Hastings and Beevor, two of the most decorated of British military writers. To the list of authors who support this point, we can also add D'Este, and Baxter, and Reynolds etc.
We can guess what your fellow POV-pushers will make of this, but that doesn't change the reality. Numerous reliable sources report the exploits of Wittmann at Villiers-Bocage, you cannot claim that Buckley thought the British armour performed well when he also said they performed poorly, and numerous reliable sources have reported that Monty was dishonest in claiming that everything went according to plan.
Wdford (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Re-Wdford's last edit regarding Wittmann. This edit was simply inserted, seemingly at random into the article, and of course, it makes the claim that Wittmann was alone, when he was accompanied by a substantial force from the 101st SS Heavy Tank Battalion. The fact that the German Army and SS possessed some very formidable tanks and anti-tank equipment is beyond dispute, and was one of the reasons for the uneven performance of Commonwealth armour. OTOH, there also no disputing that the Germans had to concentrate most of their armoured and mechanized formations opposite the Commonwealth forces (see references in prior sections of the talk page) to delay the capture of Caen, when they desperately desired to withdraw them and send them into action to stop the US Army's drive on Cherbourg and later breakout. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No, my edit regarding Wittmann was NOT "simply inserted, seemingly at random". It was placed in this particular paragraph because another editor had mentioned this event in this particular paragraph, but had used the weasel word "supposedly". I then added extra material, with citations, to clear that up. Your baseless claim that this edit was "simply inserted, seemingly at random" once again has the appearance of mendacity.
The supposedly is in a description of Buckley's writing, in which he mocks the defeatist school.Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Wittmann was certainly accompanied by other tanks in his unit, which were also involved in action against the British in the area on that day. However numerous reliable sources have stated that Wittmann wrecked the lead British squadrons single-handed. This might not agree with your POV, but if it is supported by numerous reliable sources then it trumps your POV.
Another obsolete claim, debunked several times since the canard flew in the 1970s.
WP:NPOV states that the encyclopaedia must represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", without any editorial bias. I am constantly trying to represent significant views which you deny, and you are constantly trying to insert blatant editorial bias. When do you propose to finally start complying with wikipolicy?
Why don't you write in the analysis what you think should exist instead of appending dubious claims from marginal sources in a separate section? The section you have been vandalising (yes, I mean that) is an elucidation the various claims made about Normandy since 1944; it is not the analysis section.
Wdford (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Copied from section below.
Oh come on WD, Beevor and Hastings are tertiary hack writers.Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@WD, You are interpolating NNPOV passages as if they are facts, this is untenable; the Wittman myth was exploded years ago. Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yet again you set yourself up; there are three other editors who are interested in the article, all of whom have reservations about your ability, motives and conduct. At the moment it seems that you can't tell the difference between the Analysis section and a descriptive section which gives an author's views about how the history of the battle has been written since the 1940s. In a section above I pointed out that the section has a flaw but no-one has suggested a reason why. Given your reciprocal scepticism, I expected you to notice. I have another exam on Monday and a poorly cat to nurse but will drop in with bits here and there.
Buckley never used the word "supposedly". I have corrected that for you, by quoting Buckley's exact words.
Page 6 paragraph 2. Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The claim re Wittmann cannot be obsolete if it is still being cited by authors of the standing of Beevor and Hastings as recently as 2014. WP:NPOV specifically requires that all viewpoints from reliable sources be mentioned, yet you are freely practicing the censorship of reliable sources with whom you disagree. Beevor and Hastings are decorated authors, recipients of many awards as well as knighthoods, and yet you denigrate these living persons as "hacks" and "marginal sources"?
Wiki wants 2ndary sources not hackwork, they are marginal sources compared to the mainstream of the last 20-30 years.Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
By what tortured logic do some of Buckley's comments constitute the "history of the history", while other comments from the same author are disqualified? Why is it that the comments supportive of your own POV qualify to be included, but those contradicting your own POV do not?
In his 2014 publication Buckley writes of the peculiar way that the reputation of the British in Normandy had been reversed and how later work filled in some of the gaps and made the bunglers view look like a cliche.Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
On this very page you lectured me about making assumptions re other editors' motives, yet you freely impugn my own motives. What does that make you?
Wdford (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Honest; you have been calling me names for weeks and your work clearly justifies certain conclusions. What do you have to say about your claim that "Buckley never used the word "supposedly"? I repeat, Page 6 paragraph 2. Admit you're wrong.Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264 - I present my evidence – please see Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe, by John Buckley, Yale University Press, 2013, ISBN 9780300160352, pg 6 – at [5] Please post your evidence? Wdford (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
See p. 6 paragraph 2, it's as clear as day. Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
See [6], it's as clear as day. Wdford (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


If we are going to rant about V-B, can we at least cite Henri Marie and Daniel Taylor, the authoritative historians on the subject? I concur that Beevor and Hastings are massively celebrated, but that does not mean they should be given undue weight or used as the basis to carry on myths that have already been set straight.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: Obviously no author should be given undue weight – not even Buckley. However I object to both Beevor and Hastings being described as "hacks" in contravention of WP:BLP, just because some of what they write contradicts Keith-264's POV.
I am also unhappy with basing an entire section on a single hand-picked author, where no contradictory statements from other authors are allowed to intrude. Buckley is a reliable source, but his primary thesis is to attempt to demonstrate that the performance of the British Army was not quite as poor as many sources have stated, so Buckley is not neutral enough to stand alone. Per WP:NPOV other reliable sources are also allowed to be represented - even if they contradict a certain person's POV.
Another example of the problem here is the strenuous effort to obscure the controversy over Montgomery's dishonesty, even going so far as to edit-war on the basis that adding a single well-referenced sentence would somehow convert the article into an anti-Monty diatribe. Wdford (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I somewhat side with Keith and his "hack" assessment. Do not get me wrong, Beevor provided some great insight into parts of the Normandy campaign that had been overlooked i.e. atrocities etc, but he clearly did shoddy research in many other areas and repeated myths. One that stands out for me was his over the top assessment of Epsom, which was in stark contrast to pretty much everything else wrote about the campaign. He advocated - IIRC - for an armoured cavalry charge over Hill 112 (without informing the reader of the build up of German forces, their defensive positions, etc.)! Alas, I still quote him in articles I write since my opinion is nothing compared to wiki policy :)
As for your other points, I believe I have engaged them at the bottom of the talk page.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_for_Caen/Archive_3&oldid=1136552119"