Talk:Battle for Caen/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Battle for Caen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Compromise draft

In attempt to move the ad nauseam conversation along, a very rough draft proposal:

Campaign controversies

• Brief discussion of Epsom
• Brief discussion of Goodwood

Since the battle, controversy has ebbed and waned over the role Caen played in overall Normandy battle plan (Powers). Two schools of thought have been established. The "Pro-Montgomery" school (founded by Montgomery, and supported by Bradley, David Belchem - a part of Montgomery's Operations and Planning Staff - and historians such as Keegan, Lamb, etc ) argues that regardless of the delay around Caen, the fighting played into the grand plan of drawing German attention to the east end of the beachhead and allowing the Americans to break out (relevant sources). The "Anti-Montgomery" (is this the correct term?) school (supported by Eisenhower, and historians such as D'Este, and Weigley etc) argue that an American breakout was not part of the plan, and that Caen hindered the following of the original battleplan that involved Anglo-Canadian forces advancing beyond Caen etc etc (relevant sources). Historian T. Powers notes that Montgomery obfuscated his true intentions resulting in a lingering controversy that is generally, but not exclusively, divided down national (pro-American or pro-British) lines (Powers).

---

Thoughts? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's move it into a separate article where it can explored in detail.Damwiki1 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Badsey's article in Buckley (2006). The Normandy Campaign 1944: Sixty Years On looks to me to be a good basis for the Analysis section so I might offer a few paragraphs later on (I've got a job interview this morning). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We need to stop looking for bases for yet more iterations of an analysis, and just implement the wikipolicy per WP:NPOV, by including the views of all reliable sources.

To make the position clearer and more accurate, I offer the following expanded draft:

Re the Controversy

Controversy still lingers over Montgomery’s original intentions during the Battle for Caen, compared to what he subsequently claimed his intentions to have been,^{[1][2][3][2][4][5]} and this has been the source of an immense historiographical dispute with sometimes-bitter national overtones.^[6] In his memoirs, as well as in other post-war talks and publications, Montgomery claimed that the battle of Normandy had gone exactly according to his pre-invasion "master plan",^[7][8] which he claimed was purely for the Anglo-Canadian operations around Caen to be a "holding operation" intended to attract the bulk of the German forces towards the Caen sector, so as to facilitate an American "break out operation" at the western end of the lodgement.^[9] This assertion is accepted by the so-called "British school", which includes historians such as Keegan, Lamb and Hamilton. The assertion was also supported by figures such as General Bradley, and Brigadier David Belchem, who was part of Montgomery's Operations and Planning Staff.{add citations}

The so-called "American school" argues that Montgomery's initial "master plan" was actually for the Second British Army to take Caen on D-Day, then advance rapidly inland to capture the Caen-Falaise Plain for the construction of airfields, and then to stage a break-out further inland (as far south as Alencon). They state that it was only after failing in this objective that Montgomery "evolved" a new "master plan" of having the Second British Army hold the bulk of the German forces in the east, thus allowing the Americans to achieve the break out in the west.^[10][11] This view is supported by historians such as Powers, Axelrod, D'Este, Carafano, Weigley and Blumenson. The assertion was also supported by figures such as General Eisenhower, the British Air Chief Marshall Tedder (Deputy Supreme Commander), General Walter Bedell Smith (Eisenhower's Chief of Staff), Sir James Grigg (British Secretary of State for War) and Brigadier Bill Williams, Montgomery’s own chief of intelligence.^{[12][13][14][15]}

References

1. Baxter 1999, pp. 68–69. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBaxter1999 (help)
2. Carafano 2008, pp. 22–23. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCarafano2008 (help)
3. Hixon 2003, p. 151. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHixon2003 (help)
4. Baxter 1999, pp. 71 onward. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBaxter1999 (help)
5. Copp & Vogel 1983, p. 86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCoppVogel1983 (help)
6. Powers 1992, p. 471. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPowers1992 (help)
7. Hixon 2003, pp. 151.. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHixon2003 (help)
8. D’Este 2015, pp. 579. sfn error: no target: CITEREFD’Este2015 (help)
9. Powers 1992, pp. 455–471. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPowers1992 (help)
10. Copp 2004, p. 84. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCopp2004 (help)
11. Powers 1992, pp. 458, 471. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPowers1992 (help)
12. Carafano 2008, p. 22. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCarafano2008 (help)
13. Powers 1992, p. 461. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPowers1992 (help)
14. Baxter 1999, pp. 72. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBaxter1999 (help)
15. Baxter 1999, pp. 80. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBaxter1999 (help)

I agree that we need a paragraph on Epsom and a paragraph on Goodwood. However should that not rather be included in the respective battle sections, so that a person reading those sections gets a complete picture? Wdford (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the above would unbalance the article. Write a separate article and just link to it.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources have noted the existence of the controversy, yet you persist in calling it a "conspiracy theory". This issue is directly related to the Battle for Caen. Per WP:NPOV it should be included in the article. Your on-going resistance to including relevant and referenced material is making it hard to AGF. Wdford (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Your draft appears to be completely misrepresenting the "pro-Monty" position and thus sets itself up for an extended list of people who oppose it (the pro-American/anti-Monty school), when you have referenced and quoted some of them as merely stating more territory was intended to be captured - which is not the controversy surrounding the Master Plan.

I contend that the article should engage the controversy, and not just let it be talked about in another article. However, I feel the way to that is with a brief, to the point, overview that is also able to summarize and close out the article. The proposed expanded draft does not do that. I also agree that a separate article on the issue is needed, where all thoughts can be fleshed out; this is something that has been suggested several times over the years but never developed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I based my draft on the sources. I submit the following few, but other supporting material is obviously available too:

• After D-Day: Operation Cobra and the Normandy Breakout, By James Jay Carafano, pg 22, see  : "The controversy centers on Montgomery's intentions for the city of Caen …" … "Montgomery's advocates argue that the general meant for the British and Canadian forces to tie down the preponderance of the German armoured forces around Caen. This would mean less pressure on the Americans. While the British Second Army ground down the Germans in the east, General Montgomery planned for the Americans to push through the less formidable defences in the west, clear the way to the vital Brittany ports, and peel back the German front like a giant door swinging open around Caen". … "General Montgomery's critics insist that the general's pre-invasion master plan is a fiction. In fact, General Montgomery envisioned quickly seizing the city of Caen with British and Canadian forces and then rapidly expanding the lodgement area. When that manoeuvre failed the Allied offensive bogged down. The rest of the campaign, critics argue, was a makeshift attempt to make up for Montgomery's failure to take Caen".

• Powers, cited in The American Experience in World War II: The United States in the European Theater, edited by Walter L. Hixson, pg 147, see here  : "The salient point, so far as the post-war controversies are concerned, is the General Montgomery's carefully formulated master plan for the ensuing battle began to unravel on D-Day itself, when the 3rd British Infantry Division failed to take Caen, key to the exploitation of the more open country to the south. Nor was this failure rectified in the following weeks … . "

• Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life, By Carlo D'Este, pg 579, see here  : "A great deal of the criticism levelled at Montgomery was provoked by his ill-conceived, single-minded assertion, both at the time and after the war, that "I never once had cause or reason to alter my master plan .." "

Different sources obviously use different wording. Too much brevity risks a misrepresentation, so I am happy to add more detail to the article to clarify it more explicitly. A difficult balance, I agree, but I think clarity and accuracy should take precedence over brevity. We are only talking about a few sentences either way.

I also agree that a separate article on the issue is needed, where the material can be discussed in full detail, and I will contribute to that article when it happens. However I do not agree that the summary of the controversy should "summarize and close out the article". I would rather that the summary of the controversy should concentrate on describing the controversy – especially with the emphasis on brevity. We can always add an extra paragraph thereafter to wrap up the article, if that is appropriate.

Wdford (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It is easy to see that we are opening a real can of worms here. Here's a quote from Mason:

"...Yet was Eisenhower right to worry? Despite all the intelligence estimates and interrogations of enemy prisoners, he had, of course no way of knowing the exact enemy dispositions, but it nevertheless became apparent later that Montgomery, even though he had failed to achieve all the tactical objectives for the battle, had succeeded within the terms of his overall strategy by holding the Germans in the east to facilitate progress in the west. As a direct result of the Goodwood operation, two German divisions were deployed against the British which would otherwise have had a marked effect on Operation Cobra: 2nd Panzer Division was pulled to the south of Caen from the Caumont area, instead of going into reserve, and 116th Panzer Division was diverted there instead of being sent to the area south of St L6, where it would have been almost precisely in the path of the planned American breakout. In addition part of 9th SS Panzer Division was moved to the Caen area before it had completed a refit. On the eve of its breakout, therefore, the American First Army faced only nine divisions, including two Panzer divisions and one Panzer Grenadier division, which itself was only lightly armoured with a battalion of assault-guns. Contrasted with the fourteen divisions, including seven Panzer divisions and four heavy tank battalions which defended the Caen/Falaise plain on the Second Army front, it seems that the strategy Montgomery had assiduously pursued was being vindicated..." [p.38 - my bolding].

This is from Pulizer Prize winner Rick Atkinson's 3rd volume of his 2014 trilogy history of the US Army in the ETO during WW2, The Guns at last light: "...So ended the great struggle for Normandy. For Germany the defeat was monumental, comparable to Stalingrad, Tunis, and the recent debacle in White Russia. Fritz Bayerlein, commander of the Panzer Lehr Division and Rommel's erstwhile chief of staff, later concluded that among history's memorable battlefield drubbings, including Cannae and Tannenberg, none "can approach the battle of annihilation in France in 1944 in the magnitude of planning, the logic of execution, the collaboration of sea, air, and ground forces, the bulk of the booty, or the hordes of prisoners." The greatest strategic effect," Bayerlein added, was to lay "the foundation for the subsequent final and complete annihilation of the greatest military state on earth..."[p.182] and "...And Montgomery's strategy had won through, even if he had resisted acknowledging necessary deviations from the plan. He had fought perhaps his most skilled battle in the estimation of historians Allan R. Millet and Williamson Murray..."[p.183]. Consequently, I don't think we can easily summarize such opposing views, where on the one hand Monty is a bumbler and on the other the author of an overwhelming Allied victory, and only a separate article can hope to bring forth the truth of the matter. I have no doubt that the intent of a few "even handed" paragraphs is to essentially capitulate into painting such an overwhelming victory as an Allied defeat under the command of an incompetent general.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Damwiki: That's fine – you can thus add Mason etc to the list of writers who believe the Monty version. No problem.

I do however have a serious problem with your repeated mendacious allegations that I am trying to portray the Battle for Normandy as an Allied defeat. I have never alluded to such a ridiculous position, and the few draft paragraphs I have proposed in no way suggest that Normandy was an Allied defeat. It is very hard to fathom how you leapt to such a ridiculous conclusion about my edits, or about my intentions.

Once again, the controversy is not about Monty's competence, it is about his honesty – and the series of "misinterpretations" that occurred as a result throughout the Battle for Caen and thereafter.

And finally, once again, I fully support your suggestion to create a separate article to "bring forth the truth of the matter". But this issue, supported by reliable sources, cannot be censored out of this article in the meanwhile.

Wdford (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to duplicate the passages in the Montgomery article, where the "controversy" belongs (as far as there is one). This isn't the place for an obsolete 1970s non-issue. Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion about the planning for the Battle for Caen belongs in the article for the Battle for Caen - its not rocket science. Powers published his paper in 1992 and was cited in Hixon (2003) and many other recent works, Carafano published in 2008, and D'Este in 2015. To which "obsolete 1970s non-issue" do you refer? Wdford (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Being outnumbered is the only thing preventing you from turning the article into an anti-Monty polemic. You might make a good generically trained manager but your qualities of persistence in a bad cause make you a dubious editor. I suggest you change your approach and do something helpful, like finding better sources on German intentions and actions apropos PGW and HGB. Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the summary of the controversy should come from D'Este's Eisenhower p579 The furor over Montgomery's alleged failure to carry out his intended strategy in Normandy has obscured a basic truth that warfare is not an exact science, and battles and campaigns rarely evolve as they are projected on paper.Aber~enwiki (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

But that quote doesn't summarize the controversy - it sidesteps the controversy. How is that helpful? Wdford (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a 3rd Opinion since we do not seem to be making progress.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note for uninvolved editor: The ongoing discussion is not confined to this one section, and spreads over practically all of the above and some of the archive material. You may wish to read through that in addition. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As WDs comment above demonstrates, capitulation to his point of view is the only thing that will satisfy him. Rather than ponce about, I'm working on an expanded Analysis section that I hope to have ready tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request has been removed (i.e. declined) because Third Opinion is only for disputes with exactly two editors involved. Consider making a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Formal mediation and request for comment are also available, but trying DRN first before going to one of those would be the better path. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

My position remains that we need to follow WP:NPOV, and include all the viewpoints of the reliable sources, without any editorial bias. Certain editors are flatly refusing to allow that to happen. Apart from various ad hominem attacks, their primary "defense" would seem to be that a controversy about the Battle for Caen belongs in any article other than the article about the Battle for Caen. Wdford (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it is more complex that that. Your argument seems to be that the operation did not go 'to plan' and afterwards Montgomery said 'it went to plan', and this is the controversy. A major issue in discussing this in the article is that there is no clear agreement of what 'plan' means in the context of this battle/campaign which continued for 6 weeks. Also, as d'Este (a reliable source) says 'battles rarely evolve as they are projected on paper'. This 'controversy' is also minor in the context of the 1944-45 campaigns in Europe - it doesn't make the top 5 - avoiding Berlin, National Redoubt, capture of Rome, preparedness for the Battle of the Bulge, Broad Front/Narrow Front, Falaise Gap etc etc. If you want a clear example of Montgomery changing his plan, and saying afterwards that he didn't, try the Mareth line as the issue is much clearer.Aber~enwiki (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary WD, your position is NNPOV, SYNTH, CHERRY, COAT, UNDUE, disingenuous, ad hom.... etc blah. Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no clear agreement of what 'plan' means in the context of this battle/campaign. That is because Montgomery proposed one plan before the invasion began, and then when hardly any of that plan worked out, he declared that the true plan had in fact been something else entirely. That is a big part of the controversy. A further issue is that several of the attacks against Caen failed along the way, and Monty again claimed his plans for those attacks had been "misunderstood" by his superiors.

Some of Monty's defenders have claimed that the "main" objective was to land at Normandy and liberate France, and that since the Allies had indeed accomplished this "main" objective, All's Well That Ends Well and Mission Accomplished. However several reliable sources have noted that the issue was much more controversial, due to all the "misunderstandings" about plans and objectives. All I am asking for is for those opinions to also be included in the article, as per WP:NPOV. The amount of resistance this is generating, is bewildering.

I also agree with the quote from D'Este, stating that battles rarely evolve as per the original plan – that is not controversial at all. The controversy is that, when this battle failed to evolve according to Monty's original plan, Monty nonetheless claimed that it had, and claimed that everyone more senior than him had simply misunderstood the original plan. All this despite the fact that the original plan, and much related correspondence, is a matter of public record.

I agree that there were bigger controversies in WW2 than Caen. However this is the article about Caen, so this is the only controversy relevant to the topic. Perhaps we need a new article on Controversies of World War 2?

Wdford (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That is because Montgomery proposed one plan before the invasion began, and then when hardly any of that plan worked out, he declared that the true plan had in fact been something else entirely. - you'll need to provide balanced (ie not cherry-picked) direct quotes from Montgomery himself to make this argument, not just the interpretation of his words by others. I'm comfortable from my reading that you'll struggle to make a strong case.Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually, not really. We are supposed to use reliable secondary sources, not cling only to Montgomery's personal self-serving perspective. A number of reliable secondary sources support Montgomery's claim, and a number of other reliable secondary sources contradict him, pointing to documentation and to statements from other commanders of the time. That's why it's called a controversy. Wdford (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is just the same old tune as last time. It doesn't matter how many forms of words you devise or how many acres of print you put here, you are still trying to turn the article into Bad Boy Monty.Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Analysis

How do you like them apples? Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It still conspicuously avoids mentioning the controversy at all. The Aftermath is getting larger and larger, but it is still not neutral. Wdford (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Analysis is wide-ranging and uses good sources but I think it needs more signposting/subheadings to make it clearer to the casual reader what is being discussed. Some suggestions: Phases of the battle - initial landings/ D-day objectives / right hooks / power drive /head-on attack/ left hook; should also include relative build-ups, German plans and counterattacks ie why things happened Histories - how narratives have changed over time, including relative performance of the armies and generals on either side ie how what happened has been interpreted

One nit-pick - I'm not sure about the "Allied schwerpunkt was in the west" - IIRC the Utah landings were not reported upwards through the chain of command until the afternoon of D-Day. See Wilmott p262 from 7th Army telephone logs.Aber~enwiki (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I subdivided it a bit but those headings seem to me to force an interpretation; certainly it dpes as far as that source goes. We're getting enough trouble from WD on that score too. As usual, it is not there as a definitive Analysis but a description of Badsey 2006, hence WDs complaint. The essay is about the first week but ranges wider at some points so I don't expect it to remain unaltered. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and the history of the histories is in the section below. Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree it's very difficult to explain the events without imposing some structure & Badsey seems the most useful, although I've not read his book.Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Did some re-editing of recent additions, adding name headers for the history of... section; still thinking about subdivisions for the Analysis section but it might have to wait for more sources to be added and excess detail to be cut. Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Standstill

I'm still busy with 3rd Ypres so haven't done much here, apart from think about how to do the battle section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Monty's "master plan".

quote: "...Instead, Montgomery insisted that this Directive was a consistent part of a master plan that he had devised long before the invasion..." [see previous section].

So did Monty have a "...master plan..."? In fact, he did:

"In the area were five regions with distinguishable topographical characteristics-the north Cotentin (rolling uplands north of Valognes), the south Cotentin (generally flat and well watered), the Bessin (the coastal strip lying between Isigny and Bayeux), the Bocage (hilly wooded country extending south of the Bessin and Cotentin nearly to the base of the Brittany Peninsula), and the relatively open Caen country from Bayeux east and southeast.84 The three British beaches all lay in the east portion of the Bessin and in the Caen country. There was no clear demarcation between the Caen country and the Bessin. But whereas the Bessin merged to the south with the Bocage, the Caen country spread southeastward into open arable land suitable for tank maneuver and, more important, for the development of airfields. In both the original COSSAC plan and the "Montgomery" plan, the securing of the Caen country for airfield development was a critical early objective for the assaulting forces. British troops were to take Bayeux and Caen on D Day, and push the bridgehead gradually south and southeast. They would then secure airfield sites and protect the east flank of U.S. forces whose primary mission, in both plans, was the capture of Cherbourg. COSSAC allotted only two British divisions to the initial tasks of taking Bayeux and Caen. For the same tasks the Montgomery plan would land three divisions by sea and in addition put an airborne division (less one brigade) east of the beachheads to secure crossings of the Orne River. In all the planning the vital importance of the "capture and retention" of Caen and neighboring open country was underlined.85 On the other land no pre-D-Day plans called for exploiting the favorable tank terrain at any phase of the operation for a direct thrust southeast toward Paris. Instead, the British army would push gradually south and east of Caen until its left rested approximately on the Touques River and its right, pivoting on Falaise, swung toward Argentan-Alençon.86

In both the COSSAC and Montgomery plans the task of securing the Bessin fell to one U.S. corps, with one division in the assault. Critical topographical feature of the Bessin was the Aure River, which flows out of the Bocage to Bayeux and then turns west to parallel the coast line to Isigny where it joins the Vire near its mouth and empties into the Channel. The Aure in its lower reaches between Trevieres and Isigny runs through a broad, flat, marshy valley which can be flooded by damming the river. When flooded, the Aure in effect makes a peninsula of the coastal sector between Port-en-Bessin and Isigny. The "peninsula," varying in width from about a mile and a half at the eastern end to about five miles at the western, is a very gently rolling tableland. Most of it is cut up in the typical Norman pattern of orchards, hedgerow-enclosed meadows, and patches of trees. Only along the coast between Vierville-sur-Mer and St. Laurent is the country relatively open. Through the "peninsula" runs the main lateral road in the invasion area: a section of the principal highway from Paris to Cherbourg. This was the rope which alone could tie the five beachheads into one. Early control of it was essential for the security of the initial lodgment area.

In the COSSAC plan the Bessin-Caen bridgehead would have been expanded south and southwest deep into the Bocage during the first week of the operation. A force would then have broken out northwest to sweep up the Cotentin and capture Cherbourg. Although this was deemed a feasible operation, the low marshy bottom lands of the Douve River...

Development of the Lodgment

...While VII Corps took Cherbourg, V Corps, assisted after D plus 6 by XIX Corps, would push deep into the Bocage country to establish a line roughly including the Lessay-Périers-St. Lô road, the principal lateral communication south of the Carentan-Caen highway. VII Corps would then regroup to attack south and First U.S. Army would advance with three corps abreast to the line Avranches-Domfront, at the base of the Brittany peninsula. (Map III) The date set for the completion of this advance was D plus 20. At that point it was expected that the Third U.S. Army would become operational and First U.S. Army Group would take command over it and First Army. The new army group would then clear the Brittany peninsula, using First Army and such forces from Third Army as necessary. Thereafter both armies would face east, Third Army on the right. The Allied forces together would push to the Seine, securing the final lodgment area by about D plus 90 and completing the initial phase of Operation OVERLORD.

The final stages of the operation were conceived and stated in these broad terms. The outlined scheme of maneuver and the timetables were not designed as tactical plans; they were frames of reference for future planning, set forth primarily so that the men of the beginning should have some idea of the shape of the end, so that their thinking might be large and their preparation adequate." Cross Channel Attack Chap.5Damwiki1 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course Monty had a master plan – that is not in contention. The controversy is about the fact that he changed the plan in mid-June, and then claimed that Plan B had been the original plan all along. The Cross Channel Attack source used very good wording. I would be very happy to add to the Planning sections the following sentences from this source, in addition to the material already included there:

In all the planning the vital importance of the "capture and retention" of Caen and neighboring open country was underlined. On the other hand no pre-D-Day plans called for exploiting the favorable tank terrain at any phase of the operation for a direct thrust southeast toward Paris. Instead, the British army would push gradually south and east of Caen until its left rested approximately on the Touques River and its right, pivoting on Falaise, swung toward Argentan-Alençon. This is in agreement with Churchill, Eisenhower, Axelrod and Ellis. Will you support this inclusion, seeing as how this is your source?

Wdford (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

On 15 May, Montgomery gave a final presentation of the Overlord plan to the Allied commanders and from his notes, gave the intention of the operation, to assault simultaneously,

       (a) Immediately north of the Carentan estuary.
       (b) Between the Carentan estuary and the R. Orne with the object of securing, as a base for further operations, a lodgement area which will include airfield sites and the port of Cherbourg....
       — Montgomery, 15 May 1944[13]

Montgomery predicted that the Germans would try to defeat the invasion on the beaches and hold Caen, Bayeux and Carentan, with Bayeux at the centre of a German counter-offensive, intended to divide the Allied lodgement. As the German counter-offensive faltered a "roping-off" policy would be substituted to hold the ground dominating the road axes around the Dives river, the high ground from the Orne at Falaise to the Vire river at Saint-Lô and along the high ground west of the Vire.[14] Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is only half the story. We understand that certain editors are blocking the inclusion of the other half, because it undermines their POV. However WP:NPOV requires that the other half of the plan be reported as well. Damwiki1, are you prepared to support this inclusion, as documented in your source Cross Channel Attack and several other reliable sources? Wdford (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More on the "master plan": "....The OVERLORD plan had designated Brittany the stage for the Third Army's initial operations, which were expected to begin some time between two weeks and two months after the invasion. In Normandy since the early days of July, commanders and staffs of the Third Army and its components had despaired of performing within the original OVERLORD time limits. Suddenly, less than a week before the planned limit expired, they were ordered into Brittany..." (Blumenson, p.346) Note the wide timing latitude.

@Wdford. You stated:"...This is in agreement with Churchill, Eisenhower, Axelrod and Ellis..." Do you agree that you've either misinterpreted these sources or they were not reliable about pre-D-Day planning for for a Commonwealth breakout?Damwiki1 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Third Army timelines were much more vague than for the initial invasion forces, because their deployment was dependent on how things went with the earlier phases. They were ultimately delayed by the problems experienced with the breakout. As Blumenson says, they only started arriving in Normandy in July, well past the hoped-for two weeks. That doesn't mean the earlier phases had infinite time to play around with – the weather in France closes down air operations when winter arrives, and they were hoping to end the war by Christmas.

Churchill, Eisenhower, Axelrod and Ellis (and now Harrison in Cross Channel Attacks) are perfectly reliable sources, and I have NOT misinterpreted them. They are perfectly clear, they make perfect sense and they are all aligned with each other and with all the other sources that clearly state that Montgomery changed the original plan when he saw it couldn't work after all.

Damwiki1, are you prepared to support the inclusion of material from your source Cross Channel Attack and several other reliable sources? Or is your source Cross Channel Attack (Harrison) suddenly no longer "reliable" either? Wdford (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

NUKeith-264 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Caen-Can't (copied from Parsec talk for information)

Perma-link here

Greetings Parsec, are you still following the debate? You wrote

in Buckley's section (which seems scattered and hard to follow), earlier works are referenced only to dismantle their arguments, which is obviously not NPOV. On the other hand, we do need to be careful that the section doesn't turn into making Monty (or anybody else) a whipping boy. If the criticisms of Monty are dated (and I don't know if they are or are not - this is not my area of expertise), then that should be made clear, and that should have an effect on the weight placed on them.

which is quite a charge and I wrote it. I'm not sure what you mean with "obviously not NPOV". Did you mean that you thought I was using Buckley with an ulterior motive or that Buckley is questionable? The section ascribed to him is a synopsis of historical views, just like the Schlieffen Plan section, except not directly lifted from the writers' works. Did you mean that their works should be described from the sources, not through Buckley? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "ulterior motive" is a bit strong, and that's not how I'd characterize it. My sense is just that you side with Buckley's interpretation (and again, this is not my area of expertise, his is probably fair - I don't put a lot of stock in the Monty bashing, myself - these things are rarely so simple). The thing I don't know is if there actually is anything that opposes his views that's been written less than 30 years ago. If his is the most recent, accepted scholarship on the subject, then it's fair to present him as such, but if there's still debate, the way it's written now is too lopsided in his direction.

One of the problems is the way the Analysis section is divided - there's a sub-section on Copp's book, one on Badsey's article, and then Buckley's. The framing is a big part of my perception that the earlier arguments are being presented only to be disproved. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

At first it was all part of the analysis but then I separated it because of the morass of controversy, scholarship and bogus scholarship on the Monty issue. I left a few paragraphs in the Analysis that seemed most pertinent to how it really happened and segregated the rest in the history of the history section. I could redo it using the sources rather than Buckley's version of them but I think that it would give undue weight to what looks to me (through sources post 1990) to be obsolete. I have about six other sources (French, Doherty, Place etc) I could list directly but I don't have Beevor, who I suspect is the most recent nay-saying author. The sub-division is provisional and I've been busy getting the 3rd Ypres articles ready for the centenaries so haven't done anything lately. At the moment I'm so bored with the constant bickering that I'm ready to wash my hands of the article and I'm busy at work for the first time in ages, which also takes up a lot of time. On the other hand I don't like leaving things unfinished but think that it would be better to finish the Battle section. Anyway, I'm always interested in your opinion so thanks for answering, your talk page comments make sense now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to help things along toward resolution, there are many sources post 1990's who maintain that Montgomery lied about the original Allied intentions for Caen. As I have recently stated on the talk page, these include Hixon (2003), Carafano (2008), D'Este (2015) and Hastings (2015). To this list we can add Hart (2007), who called Montgomery a liar at least twice in "Colossal Cracks" in 2007. The criticism is thus very far from being "obsolete". There is no need for "constant bickering" – we just need all editors to edit in compliance with WP:NPOV, and to allow reliable sources on BOTH sides of the controversy to be included in the article. If everyone else is busy with other things, I am happy to make a start on cleaning up the article? Wdford (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did any of them write that he lied during the presentation of the Overlord plan to manipulate the Air barons or do you mean he lied after the fact? I've quoted the plan twice and you've ignored it twice. I suggest you keep your hobby-horse to the Caen talk page. I predict that if you start tampering with the article again, you'll get reverted because you've forfeited any claim to good faith. Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any opposition to anyone working on the article - I certainly don't have the time to do anything myself (between trying to fix this mess, finish HMS Canopus (1897), and being gone again this weekend [camping this time], I'm just about tapped out).

I would ask, though, what exactly you want to see included in the article, Wdford - is it just the idea that Monty couldn't execute the plan he had intended and then tried to cover up his failure after the fact? Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keith-264 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated many times already, what is needed to correct the neutrality problems is at least the following:

1. The planning section needs to include an extra sentence to mention that the British Army was originally intended to advance from Falaise to the Argentan-Alencon line on D+20, about 100km inland from Caen, as well as advance east until its left rested approximately on the Touques River – about 50km from Caen. This is described in Ellis, Eisenhower, Churchill, Axelrod and the Cross Channel Attack document, at a munimum. When Keith-264 states that "I've quoted the plan twice and you've ignored it twice", he is speciously ignoring the above sentence, which has been pointed out to him many times. As Eisenhower wrote, at pg 266: "In his more detailed presentation of April 7, Montgomery stated that the second great phase of the operation, estimated to begin shortly after D plus 20, would require the British Army to pivot on its left at Falaise, to "swing with its right towards Argentan-Alencon". This meant that Falaise would be in our possession before the great wheel began. The line that we actually held when the breakout began on D plus 50 was approximately that planned for D plus 5."

NoKeith-264 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

1. The Goodwood section should mention that, whatever orders Montgomery gave to his subordinates at the time, he lead Eisenhower and SHAEF and the air commanders to expect a breakout, and that this "misunderstanding" almost got Montgomery fired.

Not controversialKeith-264 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagree - Tedder's major complaint was IIRC that he believed that Montgomery had deliberately stopped the armoured advance when it had broken through (I'll need to check With Prejudice); Montgomery was not 'almost fired' as there is no evidence that Brooke was consulted (Hodges during the Battle of the Bulge is a an example of what 'almost fired' looks like).Aber~enwiki (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Aber~enwiki: Churchill flew to Normandy to meet with Montgomery, and Brooke was worried enough to fly to Normandy himself to warn Montgomery that Churchill was coming. See Terry Brighton - Masters of Battle: Monty, Patton and Rommel at War; pg cxivi It was common knowledge at TAC HQ that Churchill had come to sack Monty. He came in his blue coat and in his pocket he had the order. There was quite an atmosphere. at Also see Powers, cited in Hixon at pg 162: As a result, he came very near being relieved in the wake of Operation Goodwood. at

There are rumours but Churchill could not do it without consulting Brooke, the head of the British Army and his diary shows there was no discussion of relieving Montgomery. The reason for Brooke flying to Normandy is well documented - Churchill was annoyed about Montgomery restricting visitors and had taken it personally. Montgomery then issued a personal invitation to Churchill and the matter went away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aber~enwiki (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You would need to present a reliable source to support your contention that Churchill was powerless to sack Montgomery. Churchill could sack Brooke if he wanted to. Reliable sources state that Churchill was in France to sack Monty, and we are required to report the reliable sources. Sources also state that the matter "went away" for various reasons, not least of all that German staff officers had attempted to assassinate Hitler that week. Eisenhower's discussions with Tedder afterwards indicate that the matter was about more than a visitors' policy. See also Hixon, citing Lamb: pg 161: [Montgomery] only hinted at the breakout possibility to convince SHAEF's airmen to lend the support of their heavy bombers. Goodwood's failure and the subsequent postponement of Operation Cobra nearly brought about Monty's downfall. Only Eisenhower's caution and political savvy saved Montgomery; Ike realised that the furor caused by his dismissal would be difficult to justify at this critical juncture. Wdford (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

1. The analysis section needs to be cleaned up for redundancy and non-neutrality. Keith-264 needs to stop edit-warring, and allow the significant views of all reliable sources to be included. This needs to include the fact that when Monty couldn't execute the ORIGINAL plan, he changed the plan, and then claimed that Plan B was actually the original plan. This controversy is attested by multiple reliable sources as well.

Patently absurd mirroringKeith-264 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources stating that Montgomery lied during the presentation of the Overlord plan to manipulate the Air barons, other than Belchem. However there are multiple sources stating that Montgomery lied during the presentation of the Goodwood plan to manipulate the Air barons, and there are multiple sources stating that Montgomery lied after the fact in his memoirs etc. From Hart pg 73: "Montgomery's recollections increasingly exaggerated his successful generalship and the subordination of events to his grand design. Montgomery strove in his postwar accounts to demonstrate the patently false suggestion that virtually everything that happened in the campaign went precisely according to plan. Montgomery's chief intelligence officer, Brigadier Bill Williams, commented that Montgomery's "idea of fairness and truth" would "sometimes chill me inside".

See the review notice above.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It would also be nice if Keith-264 stopped threatening reverts, and stuck to wikipolicies such as WP:NPOV.

Wdford (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I predicted that your lack of credibility and transparent hobby-horsing had alienated so many editors, that you would run out of reverts if you tried to turn the article into Get Monty. Naturally you dug a hole for yourself by inferring a threat where none exists. I can overrule you twice for perfectly reasonable procedural reasons but there are at least three editors who also lack trust in your protestations who can force you to choose between breaking 3RR or backing down. NNPOV, CIVIL, DEAD, COATRACK etc blah.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

To sum up: I have presented a number of reliable sources which all note a specific fact about the original plan. I have explained the point, and listed the sources. I have proposed on that basis to include it in the article, in line with the requirements of WP:NPOV, which states that all the significant views of the reliable sources must be included, regardless of editorial consensus. To this reasonable, verifiable and neutral suggestion, Keith-264 has merely answered "NO". Is that the behavior of a reasonable editor, trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia?

To all the other facts and reliable sources I have offered and suggestions I have made, Keith-264 has simply evaded rational discussion, hiding as usual behind a smoke-screen of specious accusations and insults, and threats to continue reverting material from reliable sources. Is that the behavior of a reasonable editor, trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia?

Keith-264 has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of abiding by WP:NPOV if it undermines his POV. At what point does one abandon good faith, and request policy enforcement from an admin? Wdford (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

NUKeith-264 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have presented a number of reliable sources which all note a specific fact about the original plan. I have lost track what this specific point is supposed to be. Aber~enwiki (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Aber~enwiki: : I have presented multiple sources which show that the original Overlord Plans allocated multiple objectives to the British Second Army. One of these objectives was indeed to prevent any interference with the American Army from the East. Other objectives included to capture Caen, to penetrate quickly beyond Caen to Falaise so as to capture the Caen-Falaise Plain for the building of airfields, thereafter to advance 50km east of Caen to the Touques River, and to advance 100km south of Caen to Alencon, there to await the arrival of the US Armies after they had liberated Brittany. This is clear from many reliable sources. Nowhere in this plan was there any mention of "attract the German armour away from the American front." The article currently reports some of these objectives, but not all of them. This is all obvious in multiple reliable sources, and WP:NPOV requires that this information therefore be included in the article together with the information that is already there. Wdford (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's already in, with the prominence it merits.Keith-264 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in this plan was there any mention of "attract the German armour away from the American front." What the hell do you think prevent any interference with the American Army from the East means? The interference was coming to come from the German mobile divisions in reserve, most of which were armoured. The prevent any interference with the American Army role was in the plan from 7 January when it was stated as the ONLY task of the British Army. The rest of your post is all about the phaselines, the estimate of where and when operations would take place - these are NOT objectives. Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The objectives of the British Second Army in the original plan are described in multiple reliable sources, and we are required to report the reliable sources. These sources make it clear that in the original plan there were multiple objectives, not just the one. For example Montgomery himself admitted after the war that the objectives included airfield sites and the road centre of Caen. The original plan was well documented, as multiple reliable sources have pointed out. Wdford (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Another specious statement by Keith-264. Nowhere in the article does it currently say "thereafter to advance 50km east of Caen to the Touques River, and to advance 100km south of Caen to Alencon". As this FACT is supported by multiple reliable sources, it should also be included in the article, in plain language as per WP:NPOV. Wdford (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

NUKeith-264 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)