Talk:Battle for Caen/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Neutrality again

The Neutrality problems have not been corrected. WP:NPOV clearly states that "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." The tag thus stay until the problem has been correctly resolved, by simply including all the viewpoints of the reliable sources. Please don't edit-war yet again. Wdford (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It states:

"When to remove This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1]There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. 2]It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 3]In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

Wdford was given an opportunity to engage in discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard but failed to pursue it. Consequently I removed the tag.

The discussion is very far from dormant. I summarised the issues very concisely at DRN, as requested. I then waited for days for the process to continue, until Robert McClenon suddenly asked – on a weekend – for us to summarise it again. I was busy on the weekend and didn’t get to Wikipedia until this morning, by which time he had already closed the discussion. A 48 hour period over a weekend hardly constitutes dormancy.

Per WP:NPOV, neutrality is an absolute requirement, and it is not subject to "editorial consensus".

To remind you of what is needed to correct the neutrality problems, we need to do at least the following:

• 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. This was correctly described by EnigmaMcmxc as a "non-issue", so I foresee no problems with adding it.
• The Goodwood section should mention that, whatever orders Montgomery gave to his subordinates, he lead Ike and SHAEF and the air commanders to expect a breakout, and that this "misunderstanding" almost got Montgomery fired.
• Since certain editors have now unilaterally decide to split the History of the History section by author, it would be easy enough to add sections for D'Este and Blumenson and Carafano etc, which would take care of the controversy material.
• We need to correct the current manner in which Montgomery's rewriting of history is made to seem like an opinion of only D'Este, based on sources with grudges. Many authors have commented on Monty's rewriting skills. Also, D'Este relied on many sources, including official documents, so to make it look like this is merely reporting a grudge is not neutral at all, and is also contravening WP:SYNTH.

The above changes are not major, and can be managed in a few days. That will make the article neutral and accurate – for the first time. I'll get right on it. Wdford (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are and you are courting another revert frenzy from a position of weakness. This is an article about the battle for Caen not about what a bounder Monty was. You'd spend your time better finding sources to add detail to the German side of the battle (remember them?).Keith-264 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

All my edits are backed by reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV all viewpoints from reliable sources should be mentioned. Please don't threaten another edit war. Wdford (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You can feel threatened if you want but you can't turn this article into a hobby-horse. Your intransigence has created an opposition of about five editors. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, the only thing stopping you twisting the article is that you've got yourself outnumbered. You face up to ten potential reverts because the consensus is that you aren't interested in a quality article but only one that is a vehicle for your antipathy to Monty. Look for German sources instead. Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So I see you have decided to persist in your blatant POV-pushing and your utter disregard for Wikipolicy. And your routine ad hominem attacks. I added a well-referenced detail to the planning section, which Enigma had agreed is a non-issue and often included in Overlord articles, and yet you rushed to revert it. I corrected the wording of the input from Buckley – your own preferred source – and again you rushed to revert it. This results in an article which is less accurate and non-neutral. And yet you accuse me of undermining the quality of the article. Please stop your edit-warring, and comply with policy. Wdford (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you stopped misbehaving and throwing allegations around, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would stop your knee-jerk reverts, and allow the article to develop properly in line with WP:NPOV. My edits are not controversial, the material is from reliable sources, and your persistent reverts are making the article worse not better. Wdford (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You are on 3RR and are spamming the talk page, I suggest you leave it babe, it ain't worth it. Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Damwiki1: This edit is not about phase lines, it is about properly describing the actual original plan for the British Army. Even Ellis has acknowledged that the original plan was for the British Army to capture Caen, then advance far inland to Argentan etc. EnigmaMcmcx confirmed that this fact is a non-issue. However you immediately reverted this plain fact – with some fatuous excuse about phase lines. Why? Is it perhaps because this fact clearly contradicts Montgomery's later claim that "There was never at any time any intention of making the break-out from the bridgehead on the eastern flank. Misunderstandings about this simple and basic conception were responsible for much trouble between British and American personalities."??? (page 229 in my edition) Similarly, you also reverted my edit which portrayed more accurately and neutrally the Analysis material extracted from Buckley. Again, why are you protecting a version which is less accurate and less neutral?? An objective editor who seeks to improve the encyclopaedia would hasten to add those improvements, and only a POV-pusher would go to such desperate lengths to keep those improvements out, in blatant contravention of WP:NPOV. Which type of editor are you? Wdford (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All you've achieved since you started editing the article is the alienation of about five other editors; when are you going to change your approach? Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My "approach" is based on wikipolicy, which clearly says at WP:NPOV that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It also then says that "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." For me to adopt any other "approach" would be clearly inappropriate. Which then begs the question - why do you blatantly ignore core Wikipedia policy? Wdford (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, all of your edits have been NNPOV, SYNTH, COAT, DEADHORSE etc blah. None of the other editors or administrators that you've appealed to have upheld your complaints; the only common denominator is you. It's a pity you don't put your energy and persistence to a constructive use. Keith-264 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are we going to enumerate all Allied and German D+20 objectives? Selectively doing so to try and show an incompetent Monty is non NPOV. Allied planning envisaged the Germans withdrawing to the Seine (we've discussed this), as the German Generals implored Hitler to do, but he insisted on his suicidal "stand fast" policy which led to the near annilhilation of the German Army in France. Consequently the battle that was to take place between Caen and the Seine never happened, but the regardless the US Army was thus still given the opportunity to swing around the German flanks as Monty and Bradley had planned. Of course Monty wanted to "breakthrough" and had to plan for a German collapse but he always considered it an unlikely possibility. I actually consider the article as it stands to actually be non-NPOV because it doesn't sufficiently emphasis the extent of the German build up to defend Caen at the expense of the defence opposite the US Army as per Monty's planning. Damwiki1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have the impression that "breakthrough" has more than one meaning; I wonder if they are related to tactics, operations and strategy and that the connotation with each level of war isn't always apparent? Some authorities describe an Allied advance south of Caen as a breakthrough and others treat the First Army success after Cobra as one; clearly they are different in magnitude (as is Bluecoat). A planning assumption that the British and Canadians would fight mostly a defensive battle between Caen and Falaise needs to be balanced by the evidence that other assumptions were also catered for and are represented in Smock, Wild Oats etc. Why give precedence to the optimistic plan and ignore the pessimistic ones? Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All Allied and German planning certainly should be included in the Planning section, if it was their original plan before the invasion started. When the plans changed, as all the plans did, those changed plans should be reflected in the Battle sections at the points in time when those fresh decisions were made. I fully agree that we should properly reflect that Allied planning originally envisaged the Germans withdrawing from Normandy to the Seine early on, with a British breakthrough etc - 100% agree. We should also include the German planning, to the extent that we have not already done so.

The German build up to defend Caen is also fine. However your phrase "as per Monty's planning" is potentially problematic, as for NPOV you would need to also mention that various reliable sources – including SHAEF – understood that the original plan was for the British Army to punch quickly through to Falaise, and that the attrition-mission mission in front of Caen was an evolution of the original plan.

It is a "non-issue" that the original plan was to capture Caen on day one, then advance rapidly to capture the Caen-Falaise Plain for the airfields, and then to hold that area as the pivot while the US forces captured the Breton coast, before a joint swivel toward the Seine. Both Eisenhower and Ellis state clearly that the original plan was for the British Army to advance deep inland in June – your determination to exclude this fact from the article is perplexing. Wdford (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet again you set yourself up as arbiter, then knock yourself down. Aren't you tired of spamming? Keith-264 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting that every time I try to discuss the facts and the sources, you resort to ad hominem attacks and falsehoods. You would add a lot more value if you focused on facts and sources, as per wikipolicy. Wdford (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Reflection? All tactics and no strategy is leaving you in a minority of one. As I pointed out before, the editors who disagree with you are are united only in rejecting your point of view. Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet again Keith-264 chooses to evade a factual discussion. I don't use tactics and strategies, I edit according to the sources and in terms of wikipolicy – and he really should be doing the same. My "point of view" is that we should adhere to WP:NPOV, which states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." WP:NPOV specifically also says that "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." This means that editors cannot edit-war to censor out reliable sources who disagree with their POV, and they need to instead include both sides of the story and let the readers see the full picture. At least, that's how it works on every article except this one.

Keith-264 is claiming that every other editor disagrees with my point of view, which would mean (if true) that every other editor thinks that WP:NPOV is merely optional. Since WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, that is a very serious accusation. Before we assume that this is the case, maybe we should first clarify if all the other editors on this article really do believe that they are entitled to ignore the requirements of WP:NPOV? So I ask the question, in all seriousness – Do any of the editors on this article, besides Keith-264, believe that they are entitled to ignore WP:NPOV when it suits them? If yes, please would they speak up so that we can get a proper sense of the so-called consensus? Wdford (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your claims are sophistry, you are the one ignoring NNPOV as five other editors have pointed out. WP:Stick Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again you refuse to engage in a factual discussion, and choose to make mendacious accusations instead. WP:NPOV is a core policy, and it overrules WP:Stick - yet another of your weak attempts at a diversion. Could any of the "five other editors" please point out an example where I have proposed to add material that was not published by a reliable source? And would all those who believe we should ignore NPOV please stand up and be counted? Wdford (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

As the discussion is still stalled, I have refiled a request for an outside editor to get involved. You all should have a notification on your talkpage. Please keep tabs on the DRN page, and attempt to respond within 48 hours of a volunteer getting involved (I understand, with the weekend coming up, that this may not be best for all; but there are 4-5 of us involved, so we should be able to.

Per the DRN, lets attempt to limit further discussion. If any other editors wish to get involved, you can go here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle for Caen. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Wdford (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Could any of the "five other editors" please point out an example where I have proposed to add material that was not published by a reliable source? - You seem to be missing the point. So many historians have published on Normandy that there are superfluous "reliable sources" (although they are not all error free). The issue is that you seem to want to select sources to prove Montgomery "lied" and promote a "controversy" mountain out of a molehill - see D'Este quotes from his Eisenhower biography.Aber~enwiki (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost everyone accepts the truth of D'Este's quote in Eisenhower's biography, that "battles and campaigns rarely evolve as they are projected on paper". At the core of this particular controversy is that Montgomery did not accept this obvious truth, and continued to claim that everything had in fact gone according to his "master plan", despite abundant evidence to the contrary. In the very next sentence on that same page, D'Este added: "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 .."" But then, you already know that, don't you? Wdford (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In the recent DRN process, some interesting facts arose. First, it was conclusively confirmed that the WP:NPOV policy does still apply to this article. This means that all the significant viewpoints of reliable sources need to be mentioned, irrespective of the so-called editorial consensus. Second, the claimed 5:1 consensus was shown to be nonsense – the discussion showed that the support for including the extra material was 2:2, not even close to 5:1. Third, nobody took the opportunity to present evidence to support the accusation that I have proposed to add material that was not published by a reliable source. Instead, the only "defense" offered for excluding any mention of the controversy was that the issue is too complicated to be summarised in a few paragraphs – a laughable evasion at best. That being the case, are all editors finally ready to comply with WP:NPOV, or are certain editors intending to continue edit-warring in order to protect their POV? Wdford (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You lost (again) and now you troll again, so it goes. Keith-264 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

And as before, you avoid discussing the facts, and instead you hide behind ad hominem attacks. As you did on DRN. Well it has now been confirmed that WP:NPOV still applies here, same as on every other article, so I ask the question again - are you prepared to comply with WP:NPOV? Wdford (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't start a sentence with a conjunction babe. You've tried an appeal to authority and failed so what next? Why don't you use your energy to find more sources on what PGW was up to? Keith-264 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please would you cease your evasiveness and answer a direct question - are you prepared to comply with WP:NPOV going forward? Wdford (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been cautioned about asking loaded questions and you're still at it.Keith-264 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping Wdford from writing another article about the "controversy".Damwiki1 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As was confirmed at DRN, we certainly need to comply with WP:NPOV. That means that all significant views of all reliable sources need to be included, regardless of "editorial consensus". We can certainly create a separate article to discuss the controversy in detail, but as the controversy was part of the Battle for Caen, it still needs to be mentioned here too. Keith-264, are you prepared to comply with WP:NPOV? Please would you confirm your stance, without any further evasion? Wdford (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been cautioned about asking loaded questions and you're still at it. Now you're stalking. Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"All significant views of reliable sources" will include such things as SHAEF not understanding Montgomery's master plan. If this keeps going we can include the talk page as an example of the Caen controversy. In the meantime I've just acquired a copy of McKee's book.Aber~enwiki (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Montgomery's CLAIM that SHAEF did not understand his master plan is indeed part of the controversy. Of course, the original Overlord plan clearly shows that the British Second Army was supposed to break out in the east, which contradicts Monty's claim, and thus has sparked a controversy. Ike was clear in saying that Monty "evolved" the plan in mid-June, when the Germans didn't run away as Monty had expected, and the new plan placed the breakout onus on the US army. [Carafano pg 22] Wdford (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the neutrality issue - a neutral POV would be "Ike CLAIMED that Monty "evolved" the plan".Aber~enwiki (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point. However if we include the UNDISPUTED FACT that the original invasion plan called for the Anglo-Canadian armies to break out in the east as well as the US forces to break out in the west, and we compare this to Montgomery's later order to the effect that the British Army was to attract the German armour away from the Americans toward Caen, then it is clear why Eisenhower (and various reliable sources) speak of the original plan being evolved.Wdford (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

NOT undisputed - you need to be much clearer in your use of "break out".Aber~enwiki (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Typical that you use Parsec's comments to excuse another run on your hobby-horse. The material you advert to is already there.Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no the material in question is NOT already there. I am referring to the following sources:

• Churchill: Closing the Ring, By Winston Churchill, pg 524: "It was hoped to reach the line Falaise-Avranches three weeks after the landing, and, with the strong reinforcements by that time ashore, to break out eastwards toward Paris, north-eastwards towards the Seine, and westwards to capture the Brittany ports." [1]
• Eisenhower: from Crusade in Europe, 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." [2]
• Ellis: pg 81: - "The Overlord plan called for the Second Army (Lieutenant-General Miles Dempsey) to secure the city and then form a front line from Caumont-l'Éventé to the south-east of Caen, acquiring airfields and protecting the left flank of the US First Army while it moved on Cherbourg. Possession of Caen and its surroundings would give the Second Army a suitable staging area for a push south to capture Falaise, which could be used as the pivot for a swing left of the Allied front to advance on Argentan and then towards the Touques River." (can be viewed in Friedrich at [3])
• Axelrod Bradley: A Biography. Alan Axelrod states at pg 126: "Tasked with taking Caen, Monty had airily promised that he would do so very rapidly; then would hold the town as the centre of a great eastward wheeling movement by the rest of the invasion force. Pivoting on Caen, the First Canadian Army was to turn sharply east-northeast to the Seine, near Rouen. At the same time, the Second British Army would sweep south-southwest of this, through the German strongpoints of Falaise and Argentan, also driving towards the Seine. First US Army was to provide the major momentum for the breakout, wheeling south past Avranches, …." at [4].

Nowhere in the article have you allowed this critical info to be included. If it was included, then part of the neutrality issue would be resolved. Wdford (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I see your friend is now edit-warring to remove the neutrality tag. This is going to end at ArbCom. Wdford (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed for causes 2 and 3, you're on 3RR not me and you aren't following WP:CIVIL. Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The conditions have not been met for either clauses 2 or 3, and the reason you gave for the third revert was the removal of vandalism. That puts you in contravention of other policies as well as WP:NPOV. It seems clear that you have no interest in complying with WP:NPOV. Wdford (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you twice, once for incompetence and once for malice.Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

On a positive note, how are you getting in with German sources for PGW and its operations against the Anglo-Canadians? Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we open up a request for comment per Robert McClenon's comments on the DRN?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes please. As far as I can tell we have followed all the preliminary steps, and then some. Wdford (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No. it's already been tried.Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall a formal RfC. An RfC will bring experienced and objective editors to this article - people who probably take WP:NPOV quite seriously. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Wdford (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you trolling? Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What kind of an editor would view a call for an RfC as trolling? Wdford (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The next step is to word "the request". The refusal to implement WP:NPOV has impacted on several aspects of the article. Should we outline them all specifically in the initial RfC, or should we use more generic wording to start off with? Wdford (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I was asked to comment here. The thing that seems most striking to me is the fact that the "Histories of..." section begins in 2003, and then 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.

It would be better if the historiography was handled like the Schlieffen Plan article does it, with each school of thought in the historiography laid out in order, so readers could see how views on the battle changed over time, particularly as new evidence became available. Doing so would make a lot of Buckley's section redundant (and much of it already is - for example, do we need 2 paragraphs on criticism of the British Army for over-reliance on artillery and air support, or can we just state that postwar observers like Liddell-Hart and Wilmot argued as much? Similarly, how many times do we need to hear that historian X argued that British soldiers lacked offensive spirit, poor morale, etc.?), which would significantly improve the aforementioned problems.

The article is probably unbalanced toward analysis to begin with - there's more material on analysis than on the battle itself! This is partly due to the bloat already identified, but also to the redundancy between the "Analysis" and the "Histories of" subsections, where several of the arguments are rehashed. It would probably be better to cut much of the material out entirely, and frame it simply as "Assessments of the British performance at the Battle of Caen have evolved in the decades since the battle", and then lay out the basic structure, as concisely as possible. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a fair minded assessment, the Analysis and historiography sections are the most disputed and the sources are the most recent, which do go into the various analyses since 1944 and the red herrings in them about the British being rubbish etc and the Germans either being invisible or ubersoldiers. The battle section is a compendium of leads from the detailed articles and is the most in need of revision but work on that has been blown off course, because of the Monty-bashing exercise someone wants to substitute. I was hoping that the analysis section was looking more like one in the Schlieffen Plan article than it did last year but it looks like it has a way to go. I'd be grateful if you kept an eye on developments as I'm still busy on 1917. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Buckley's stuff is a synopsis so the material here is a description of what he wrote, you might judge him NNPOV but not the description, which contains much of what you suggest. Liddell Hart and Wilmot aren't on their own, because the history of Normany is riddled with lousy scholarship, polemic and narrative rehashing; something which is there but you criticise. Perhaps you might go through it again in more detail as a dialogue? It's what the article has been crying out for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. We now seem to have an acceptance that there are in fact problems with neutrality. A section on "Assessments of the Anglo-Canadian performance" would be logical, and has the potential to be neutral – provided all significant viewpoints of reliable sources are allowed to be represented, as required by WP:NPOV. While nobody should be made a whipping boy, nobody should be white-washed either.

British performance can only be assessed by comparing actual outcome against intended objectives, and in this case the intended objectives have been much muddied by the commander in question. If we are to apply WP:NPOV as it is required to be applied, these significant viewpoints of reliable sources need to also be included in the assessment. Presently certain editors are edit-warring to exclude information from reliable sources which clearly indicates that the original objectives were different to those subsequently declared by Montgomery.

The two opposing views of the battle have persisted more or less in parallel. One view was that Montgomery was successful in achieving his initial objectives. The other view was that he failed to achieve his initial objectives, then evolved the plan to put more reliance on the US forces, and thereafter claimed that the second plan had been the only plan all along. Both contentions are supported by a number of reliable sources, including very recent works.

The criticisms of Montgomery started while the battle was still in progress, and Hastings (a British author) continues to do so in his 2015 edition, with phrases such as "Where Montgomery distorted his intentions after the event, and made possible the bitter controversy that has persisted for so many years, was by pretending that the British and Canadians fulfilled their purpose by holding a line north of Caen." [pg27]. Powers criticized Montgomery in his paper in 1992, which was cited in Hixon (2003), Carafano described the controversy in his work of 2008, and D'Este in 2015, among others. The criticism is thus very far from being outdated.

The battle section is fine as a sequence of summaries of the various main articles. Some of the summaries need to be expanded slightly, such as Operation Goodwood, but no major rewrite is needed here.

The removing of non-neutral text and bloat should begin immediately. I propose a simple and logical structure for the "Assessments of the Anglo-Canadian performance" section, as follows:

• a) a complete and accurate explanation of what the original objectives were for the Anglo-Canadian forces (a few lines);
• b) a summary of the extent to which these objectives were achieved (a few more lines);
• c) a concise summary of the main reasons why the original objectives were not achieved, and of the change in plan forced upon them by the enemy (one paragraph).

The waffle about subsequent Cold War planning is superfluous, and the significant viewpoints of all reliable sources need to be included, not just a few hand-picked sources who are broadly supportive of a particular POV. The various significant viewpoints should be mentioned in date order. Wdford (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote: British performance can only be assessed by comparing actual outcome against intended objectives, and in this case the intended objectives have been much muddied by the commander in question. If we are to apply WP:NPOV as it is required to be applied, these significant viewpoints of reliable sources need to also be included in the assessment. Presently certain editors are edit-warring to exclude information from reliable sources which clearly indicates that the original objectives were different to those subsequently declared by Montgomery.

The original German objective was to destroy the Allies on the beaches, but that didn't happen and Monty's plan was successful. The second German objective was to throw the Allies back into the sea, but that didn't happen and the Monty's plan was successful. The third German objective was to wall off the Allied beachhead and to this end Hitler issued a decree of no retreat, but that plan failed as well and the German Army suffered one of histories worst defeats, and was virtually annihilated west of the Seine river. So the intended objective of the German Army was to destroy the Allies on the beaches, then drive them into the sea, then wall them off and prevent a breakout, yet that ended with the destruction of the German Army so the actual outcome was far different from the German Army's intended objective. Monty won one of the greatest victories in military history yet Wdford wants to paint Monty as a loser and the Commonwealth forces as having been defeated rather than being victorious.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you are conflating the objectives of the Battle for Caen with the objectives for the Invasion of Normandy. Overall, Operation Overlord succeeded in achieving its objectives, and the Germans failed dismally in all their objectives. In the process the Anglo-Canadians failed in almost all their original objectives, and succeeded only in the much more limited objectives of Plan B, namely the holding action. The US forces ultimately achieved their original objectives, as well as the additional modified objectives, leading to the final victory at Falaise in August 1944.

However this article is not about Operation Overlord, or the Invasion of Normandy, or the US actions within Overlord, but rather this article is about the Anglo-Canadian actions within Overlord, specifically re Caen. With regard to the objectives of the Anglo-Canadian armies, they were originally supposed to capture Caen at the beginning of Overlord, break through to the Caen-Falaise Plain to establish tactical airfields, hold the Germans until Cherbourg was taken, then break through deep inland to Argentan-Alencon to anchor their right flank, then push eastward toward the Seine, while the US forces captured the Breton ports and wheeled around through Brittany to the south. This is clear in the reliable sources.

In reality the Anglo-Canadian armies bogged down short of Caen, and only finally reached Falaise after the US forces had broken through far to the west and arrived at Falaise themselves. This is also clear. Montgomery then claimed that Plan B had been the original plan all along - he said this in very clear and unambiguous language, despite the original objectives being a matter of public record. Unsurprisingly he got caught out in this lie, and this lead to a "controversy", as attested by numerous reliable sources.

The actual sources are clear. Overlord was a success overall, but the original planned objectives of the Anglo-Canadian component thereof (essentially the Battle for Caen) were not achieved. However these facts are undermining the POV of certain editors. Keith-264 is now sinking to edit-warring out the neutrality tag, in contravention of WP:NPOV, while tossing about his usual ad hominem attacks and constantly evading any discussion of the actual sources. Damwiki1 is trying to hide the British performance at Caen inside the overall Allied performance of Overlord, declaring All's Well That Ends Well Overall. And the fact that Monty repeatedly mislead his commanders during the Battle for Caen and almost got sacked as a result, is being blocked out of the article entirely.

How do we phrase the RfC question? Simplistically we should ask "Should the article include all the significant viewpoints of all the reliable sources, as per WP:NPOV?" However that will probably be shot down as a "loaded question", seemingly without anybody asking how come the significant viewpoints of the reliable sources are not being included automatically. Any objective suggestions please? Wdford (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We've gone to some lengths to provide lengthy quotes to show that Monty did not commit to a fixed timetable for the capture of Caen. We have direct quotes from Bradley affirming that the 14 Commonwealth divisions were to hold the German army and it's armour around Caen while the more numerous divisions of the US Army broke out. We have numerous sources and quotes that state the German Army did commit it's armour to the defence of Caen thus allowing the US Army to achieve numerical and qualitative superiority over the weaker German forces facing them. It was the German army that "bogged down" at Caen when it's Panzer divisions were forced into a static defence around Caen when it's initial offensive was defeated and the Germans were forced to the defensive to contain the numerous Commonwealth attacks, and then those same German divisions were progressively destroyed in a battle of attrition. Yet despite the mountain of evidence provided Wdford is firm in his objective [stated clearly above] of painting the Commonwealth forces as having been defeated while being led by an incompetent commander. Needless to say Wdford's grotesque neo-naziesque distortion of history has quite rightly has been rejected.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never suggested that the Commonwealth forces were "defeated" – they failed to achieve their primary objectives and thus changed to a new and less ambitious plan, where they succeeded. I have never attempted to paint Montgomery as an incompetent leader - the controversy is clearly about his integrity rather than his competence. Once again, certain editors are protecting their POV with Monty-esque disregard for the truth.

The excuse that Monty did not commit to a fixed timetable is untenable – no general ever has unlimited time, their air-cover advantage was dependent on clear weather, and the sources show there was serious concern about a possible stalemate. I accept Bradley's quotes, although they do seem to refer to Plan B, but I have also presented a number of quotes which clearly show that Plan A did indeed include a British breakout in the east. The actions of the Germans certainly did lead to the success of Monty's Plan B, but this is a straw man argument - the controversy is clearly about the fact that Monty subsequently claimed that Plan B was actually Plan A, and I have presented many sources to support this.

Consider Copp and Vogel; Maple Leaf Route: Caen – 1983; pg 86: "Montgomery drew what was the indisputably correct conclusion from these events. If the British and Canadians could continue to hold the bulk of the German armoured divisions on their front through a series of limited attacks, they could wear down the Germans and create the conditions for an American breakout on the right. This is what Montgomery proposed in his Directive of June 30th and, if he and his admirers had let the record speak for itself, there would be little debate about his conduct of the first stages of the Normandy campaign. Instead, Montgomery insisted that this Directive was a consistent part of a master plan that he had devised long before the invasion." Wdford (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WD is blaming me for his faults, which is a bit rich. It is clear from the pre-D-Day plans that the Anglo-Canadian objectives were couched in the most general terms, that the 2nd Army objectives were more detailed, that I Corps plans were specific and contained several contingencies, showing that success and failure at Caen had been anticipated, that divisional plans were the most specific of all but also contained provisos. S. A. Hart explained all this and the confusion between which level of planning Monty, Dempsey, Bradley et al. were referring to evident in some accounts. I think it would be better to make further enquiries of Parsec to improve the Analysis section. Keith-264 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

SA Hart wrote the classic apologetic "Colossal Cracks", which has been thoroughly discussed here on talk before. However even Hart (2007) states, on pg 77, that: "However, this is far removed from Montgomery's totally specious claim that the Normandy campaign went "exactly as planned"." You can see the definition of "specious" over here [5].

Parsecboy gave very clear recommendations for improving the analysis section - clear out the bloat, clear out the repetition, clear out the non-neutral text, and instead report what the reliable sources had to say about the performance of the Anglo-Canadian armies. There is really no (valid) need for this on-going evasion and procrastination. Wdford (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Parsec has also been asked to elaborate on them because the bit he criticised is a synopsis of historian and writer judgements since 1944, just what he asked for and we're waiting for a reply. Does he want the original texts to be described instead of the synopsis from one author or what? Compare Copp 1983 with Copp 2003 and 2007. Notice your cherry picking of Hart SA. You have failed to copy the Monty article here because it isn't the place. you have hawked your point of view all over Wiki and you're back where you started. Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: To quote Parsecboy: "It would probably be better to cut much of the material out entirely". There is nothing unclear about that, is there? It is also clear from WP:NPOV (which we know you don't regard as binding) that all reliable sources must be included, not just a carefully chosen synopsis from a handful of authors. I hope that your plan is not to delay the inevitable by refusing to amend all your bloated, redundant and non-neutral material unless and until Parsecboy engages you in a long drawn out debate?

I read the section again and can see no reason for his judgement, hence asking for him to explain.~~

What exactly do you mean by compare Copp vs Copp vs Copp? That is a meaningless statement, which adds no value and serves only to divert and evade. However on the subject of Copp, I note that you have given him a number of paragraphs to say that the Canadians performed well. This is in contrast with the significant views of Stacey, the Canadian official historian, who feels the Canadians did not perform all that well but who gets a single passing mention only. This is in complete contravention of WP:NPOV, but we know already that you don’t consider neutrality to be important.

Look at the dates, you disingenuous booby.Keith-264 (talk)

Re Hart – you were the one who cherry-picked the point he made about "confusion between levels of planning", without adding the extra sentence which clarifies that even Hart agrees that the Normandy campaign did NOT go "exactly as planned", and that Montgomery's claim was in fact "totally specious". You cherry-picked from Hart, and I added the extra sentence from Hart to provide the full and neutral picture – in line with WP:NPOV.

Wdford (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hart wrote a thesis and you did the cherry-picking against NNPOV.Keith-264 (talk)

Wdford persists in pushing the idea that the Commonwealth forces had a plan to breakout and he misquotes Churchill: Quote:"...I am referring to the following sources:Churchill: Closing the Ring, By Winston Churchill, pg 524..." as Churchill was referring to the overall plan for the US Army to wheel around and outflank the Germans. Churchill was not referring to a planned breakout by the Commonwealth forces alone. We cannot consider the Battle for Caen in isolation from Monty's master plan because it was a key premise of that plan that Caen would attract Germany's mobile reserves and prevent German armour from stopping the planned breakout in the US sector. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Damwiki1: Churchill was clearly referring to the overall invasion, but when Churchill spoke of "to break out eastwards toward Paris, north-eastwards towards the Seine", he was referring to the Anglo-Canadian forces, and he was referring to the US forces only when he spoke of the breakout "westwards to capture the Brittany ports". This is self-evident when you consider all the other reliable sources on this point, which is why WP:NPOV requires that ALL reliable sources be included. The alternative interpretation – which is nonsense in itself as well as in the context of the other reliable sources – would be that Churchill was expecting the US forces to invade Brittany and well as to simultaneously trek right across the bridgehead to break out on the eastern end as well, while the British sat at Caen and cheered them on.

It isn't wiki to infer Churchill's meaning.Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously we do not consider the Battle for Caen in isolation from the greater invasion. The Lead section and the Background sections clarify the broader context of the Battle for Caen. However in an article about the Battle for Caen itself, we need to report the plans and outcomes of the Battle for Caen itself – rather than to obscure these facts in among the mass of detail pertaining to the wider Normandy Invasion. The article already has a lot of the broader context, but thus far it is very thin on explaining the full original plan for the British Second Army and Caen.

The original plan is quoted verbatim and the differences between levels of plan explained, in preference to your fatuous obfuscations.

It was never a key premise of the original plan that the British would attract Germany's mobile reserves to Caen – that only arose in Plan B which Monty came up with when he abandoned the original plan in mid-June. The original plan described one of the objectives as being to "protect the east flank" of the US First Army while they dealt with Cherbourg. Your Cross Channel Attack source clearly uses the wording "protecting the flank", and this is also the wording used by Ellis, so it seems reliable. This was in the context of blocking German reinforcements approaching along the Caen highway from the east. There was no idea in the original plan of attracting the German tanks away from the west toward the east, until the plan was evolved.

Wdford (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The plan was always to fight a defensive battle in the east, which was the only German avenue of approach to the west end of the invasion area. The only difference was in fighting the battle north of rather than south of Caen. See this interesting piece http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1796&context=cmh 4 James Babbage, “Montgomery’s presentation of his plans for D-Day: a case of consent and evade?” Defence Studies 11, 4 (2011): 657-671. 6 French, David (2003) ‘Invading Europe: The British army and its preparations for the Normandy campaign, 1942-44’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 14: 2, 271-294.

The book leaves a few unanswered questions: if Caen was never really a viable objective for D-Day why were orders to capture Caen and establish a bridgehead to the south of the River Orne produced (p.145)? Why did General Dempsey, who later claimed that he ‘never expected 3 [Br Inf ] Div to get Caen on the first day’ and who claimed that ‘if we didn’t get it the first day it would take a month to get it afterwards’ (p.151), produce orders that required his Second Army was to secure the airfield sites to the south-east of Caen by D+7-8?3 Stewart alludes to the possibility of subterfuge surrounding the way orders were constructed to secure the cooperation of the air and naval forces (p. x) by citing the work of one of his staff college students, who claimed that Montgomery and his subordinates always thought Caen an entirely unrealistic objective.4

Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote:"@Damwiki1: Churchill was clearly referring to the overall invasion, but when Churchill spoke of "to break out eastwards toward Paris, north-eastwards towards the Seine", he was referring to the Anglo-Canadian forces, and he was referring to the US forces only when he spoke of the breakout "westwards to capture the Brittany ports". This is self-evident when you consider all the other reliable sources on this point, which is why WP:NPOV requires that ALL reliable sources be included. The alternative interpretation – which is nonsense in itself as well as in the context of the other reliable sources – would be that Churchill was expecting the US forces to invade Brittany and well as to simultaneously trek right across the bridgehead to break out on the eastern end as well, while the British sat at Caen and cheered them on."

@Wdford. To edit articles on military history Wiki editors have to have at least a cursory knowledge of military history, strategy and tactics. The Allies expected to meet ~60 German divisions in France. They expected the best German divisions to guard the route to Paris and the coastal route to the Seine. To suggest that the 14 Commonwealth divisions could simultaneously breakthrough the German army's elite panzer divisions guarding the route to Paris, advance over 100 miles to Paris whilst simultaneously pushing up the coast to the Seine and then cover the ~100 mile front from the Seine to Paris borders on sheer lunacy. To suggest this implies that you simply have no conception of what you are talking about and are unable to separate fantasy from what was actually achievable. The US Army in Normandy was facing a much weaker German force than was arrayed opposite the Commonwealth forces, and by D+60 had many more divisions in France than the Commonwealth. Once the weak German forces in front of them were pushed aside the US Army was free to breakout with little opposition and they could safely disperse their forces for the drive into Brittany and the enveloping movement to outflank the Germans in the east, and to drive on Paris. It was simply a physical impossibility for the 14 divisions of Commonwealth Army to do as you suggest and if Monty actually proposed that he would have been sacked immediately and packed off to an an insane asylum. Monty's master plan always stated that the Commomwealth divisions would hold the German army and armour in the east to facilitate a US Army breakout into Brittany and eastward towards the Seine and Paris. The maximum possible frontage of 14 divisions that have the coast on one flank and strong German forces in front of them simply would not allow the Commonwealth forces to do as you imagine. OTOH, the US Army could and did historically carry out their part in Monty's masterplan because they were more numerous and were advancing into open country with no need to guard the direct route to the beachhead.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

While I agree, what we think isn't the point, it's what the RS say that matters; it's our job to describe their views, not judge them. WDs sources have been appropriately recorded here and given due weight. RD doesn't agree and five editors do; it's as simple as that.Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264:

• Re Parsecboy: I read the section again and can see no reason for his judgement, hence asking for him to explain. You started off by saying "I think that's a fair minded assessment". Now you have completely changed your mind, and have decided to bluff your way out of this as well – as you do with any 3rd Opinion that doesn’t support your POV. His explanation was perfectly clear already - clean out the bloat, the redundant material and the non-neutral material (i.e. most of the material).
• Re Copp: Look at the dates, you disingenuous booby. History doesn't change over time actually. Stacey still deserves to have his significant views actually mentioned – it's specifically stated in WP:NPOV (which we all know you disregard at will). However if it’s the dates that you are using as your excuse, please note also the following from Anthony King, The Combat Soldier: Infantry Tactics and Cohesion in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries; 2013 ; pg 173, at [6] "Although it is understandable why Copp would want to salvage the reputation of the Canadian army in Normandy, the evidence suggests that there were significant shortfalls in its performance. Certainly, this is the position of most other military historians." I trust that you will now improve the neutrality of your bloated, redundant and non-neutral analysis section just a little bit?
• Re Hart: Hart wrote a thesis and you did the cherry-picking against NNPOV. That is yet another specious accusation. You cherry-picked Hart with his "levels of planning" excuse, and I provided the other half of the story for balance and neutrality. However I am no longer surprised that you struggle to recognise neutrality. Since you like Hart so much, here is another extract from Colossal Cracks, for added clarity and balance: (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". [7] Gives an interesting extra layer of context, does it not?
• Re Churchill: It isn't wiki to infer Churchill's meaning. We don't need to "infer" Churchill's meaning – it's perfectly self-evident from what he wrote. Churchill was clearly expecting a British breakout from the eastern end of the lodgement, starting at around D+21.
• The original plan is quoted verbatim and the differences between levels of plan explained, in preference to your fatuous obfuscations. Yet another specious accusation. The original plan has not been quoted in the article, only a portion thereof has been included. You have been edit-warring to block the inclusion of the full plan, in order to protect your POV. See also our discussion in the next thread.
• The plan was always to fight a defensive battle in the east, which was the only German avenue of approach to the west end of the invasion area. The only difference was in fighting the battle north of rather than south of Caen. The original plan clearly states (as per Ellis, Eisenhower, Churchill, Axelrod and Cross Channel Attack) that the plan was to break out from the east end as well. Per WP:NPOV these reliable sources should also be included in the article, even though they don’t support your own POV.

The reference to Babbage was your own version of "divert and evade" – something you do all the time. While Monty made many mistakes, I don't think we can accuse him of practicing "consent and evade" at Caen. The top commanders all agreed with Monty's own original plan to break out in the east as well as in the west. When Monty realised that he couldn't pull it off, he "evolved" the plan, and EISENHOWER APPROVED. Ike wasn't a moron, he could see that Monty had bitten off more than he could chew. When Bradley came up with Cobra as a replacement, Ike approved, and so did Monty. When Monty proposed the breakout at Goodwood, Ike approved of Monty's plan and gave it huge support – Monty merely failed to achieve the objective, which happens in war. The controversy is not about "consent and evade", it's about "try, fail and lie".

Re David French – he seems to be focused mainly on his thesis that the British Army had poor training, low morale, manpower shortages and consequently some rather poor performances (including the Canadian units). However on pg 282 I notice the statement: Montgomery expected that, after only a brief period of fighting in the bocage his tanks would break out into the plains of northern France. [8] Seems like French also thought the plan was for an early breakout of armoured units, exactly as per the original plan???

@Damwiki1. This paragraph is largely your original research. I have already happily accepted the comment from Cross Channel Attack that they were not planning an immediate drive direct to Paris, so this diatribe is another straw man. Nonetheless that is what Churchill wrote. Please note more carefully that Churchill used the words "TOWARDS Paris, and TOWARDS the Seine", he did not say he was expecting Monty to blitzkrieg all the way to the Louvre in the first week. Furthermore, the many sources now cited on this topic made it abundantly clear that the master plan was originally to break through in the east and in the west, more or less simultaneously, and that ONE of the objectives of the British Army was to "protect the flank" of the US Army during their drive on Cherbourg. The idea of attracting the German tanks away from the west toward the east was not part of the original plan, as multiple sources have made clear. Montgomery certainly claimed that his plan was to simply attract the German armour toward Caen, but that was Plan B, as has been explained to you many times already. WP:NPOV requires that we mention all the significant views of the reliable sources, not just the views that you and your friend happen to prefer.

@Keith-264: My sources have not been recorded here as per WP:NPOV – that is yet another specious accusation. Again you repeat the specious claim about five editors being in agreement against me – the DRN resulted in 2:2 and no editor at all has yet openly stated that they support you in ignoring the WP:NPOV requirement to include all significant viewpoints of the reliable sources.

Please will you now implement the very clear recommendations for improving the analysis section - clear out the bloat, clear out the repetition, clear out the non-neutral text, and instead report what the reliable sources had to say about the performance of the Anglo-Canadian armies, in compliance with WP:NPOV.

Wdford (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You interpret Churchill as suggesting that the Commonwealth forces were going to breakout towards Paris, at the same time as the US Army is driving in the opposite direction towards Brittany: ..."to break out eastwards toward Paris, north-eastwards towards the Seine", he was referring to the Anglo-Canadian forces, and he was referring to the US forces only when he spoke of the breakout "westwards to capture the Brittany ports"... and "...Churchill was clearly expecting a British breakout from the eastern end of the lodgement, starting at around D+21...". So who was covering the south-eastern flank of the Commonwealth forces? Was that flank completely open? You must see how fantastic your interpretation sounds. Any drive eastward could only be made by the Commonwealth and US Army divisions acting in concert just as the phase lines show and as stated in the section entitled "Monty's Masterplan". It was impossible for the Commonwealth forces to drive east with an open flank to their south-east. You cherry pick isolated snippets of text and then "interpret" these as supporting ideas which run completely counter to actual military capability. Unfortunately many authors fall into this same trap as they try to prove their thesis, which is why "reliable sources" that state impossible things have either been misinterpreted or they are not "reliable". The Commonwealth Army simply didn't have enough divisions to to drive eastward unless the US Army was covering their eastern and southern flanks and this in turn means that the US Army has to be driving eastward as well, and only the US Army could actually threaten Paris, otherwise the Commonwealth forces would be driving across the US Army's axis of advance. This is simply a cold hard fact and any source that states otherwise is wrong and is not a reliable source. Consequently, the Commonwealth forces had no choice but to protect the US Army's eastern flank until the US divisions could fight a way around to cover the south-eastern flank of the Commonwealth forces and then they could begin their drive eastward towards the Seine and Paris. At the time of GOODWOOD, the German Army had 5 divisions in reserve, behind the divisions directly facing the Commonwealth forces (read Blumenson's Breakout and Pursuit) which could immediately move forward and plug any holes created by the initial attacks, whereas there was almost no reserve behind the German forces facing the US Army during COBRA. The whole idea that the Commonwealth forces could drive eastward before the US Army was in position to protect their south-eastern flanks is ridiculous, which in turn means that the Commonwealth Forces had to wait upon the US Army to gain position. Neither Allied force was capable of moving forward without the other which was the essence of Monty's Master plan and was why it succeeded so brilliantly.

Quote:"Re David French – he seems to be focused mainly on his thesis that the British Army had poor training, low morale, manpower shortages and consequently some rather poor performances (including the Canadian units). However on pg 282 I notice the statement: Montgomery expected that, after only a brief period of fighting in the bocage his tanks would break out into the plains of northern France. [8] Seems like French also thought the plan was for an early breakout of armoured units, exactly as per the original plan???"

If we are going to discuss the performance of the Commonwealth forces then we also have to discuss the performance of the US and German forces and then we end up writing a book instead of an encyclopedia article. You cannot take criticism of one force and apply it in isolation especially as attacking was so much more difficult than defending. German divisions that attacked performed similarly or worse than Allied forces, which again is self evident because we know who won. I have shown, in the next section, that no armoured breakout by the Commonwealth forces was ever planned so we can take French and toss him away from being a reliable source.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There simply was no 'breakout in the east' in Montgomery's plan. There however was a suggestion of it in the original COSSAC plan. Breakout in the context of Normandy does not simply moving the front-line beyond Caen, but a rupture of the German lines leading to mobile warfare. There was little expectation of an early breakout just because of the density of the German defences and reserves behind the front-line. Breakout can only occur when the German defences have been thinned out by attrition. Aber~enwiki (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Amidst the verbiage and name-calling, WD puts his cards on the table by claiming that the performance of the Anglo-Canadians should be judged against their plans. This leaves a rather large dog not barking - the Germans. It's such a one-eyed view and is at such variance to WP:EVERYTHING that little remains to be discussed, until he climbs down and spends some of his energy studying the Germans, like I've asked. Perhaps he might find some material on the plans of PGW and the LXXXVI Corps and how their performance measured up to them. As for the rest of his comments, particularly those aimed at me, I'm going to adopt the Bruce Lee model. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Damwiki1: Firstly, as editors we are supposed to report the significant views of the reliable sources, not to analyse their views and send them to asylums. Ellis, Churchill, Eisenhower, Axelrod and French etc are credible people with far more knowledge of the topic than you, so it's not for you to throw them out as reliable sources just because they ALL contradict your personal POV. However, to assist you on the tactics involved here, please note the following:

Your own source Cross Channel Attack (Gordon Harrison) sums it up nicely. It clarifies that the British army (not the Americans) would push east to the Touques River, and base their left flank there. The biggest town on the Touques River is probably Lisieux, which is about 50km due east of Caen. Harrison (Cross Channel Attack) also clarifies that the British army (not the Americans) would also push south to Argentan-Alençon, and anchor its right flank out there. Alençon is about 100km south of Caen. The British front line would thus be something of a diagonal, from around Lisieux to around Alençon. There is no "exposed south-easterly flank" – the entire front line would be arrayed toward the south-east. This was the original Overlord Plan, as explained by Montgomery to the Allied commanders in April 1944. The extracts from the May plan do not contradict this at all, despite Keith-264's specious efforts. Thus there is no need for you to scrap legions of reliable sources – they do actually make sense, because they do actually know what they are talking about.

How would the British Army manage this feat with their meagre resources? Here the answer can again be found simply by considering the reliable sources. We can refer to Bradley, another source much favored by you, who stated (pg 289) that "A key assumption in the Overlord plan was that after we had achieved overwhelming strength in Normandy the German armies facing us would make a gradual withdrawal to the Seine River, a natural defensive barrier." Monty was expecting the Germans to retire all the way to the Seine, rather than to stage the solid resistance which they actually offered in reality. When the Germans refused to run away, the plan was indeed shown to be unfeasible, so Montgomery evolved it to the new plan of holding at Caen while the Americans broke out in the west. The reliable sources all make perfect sense, if you are prepared to actually read them with an open mind.

There is no need to "discuss" the performance of anybody, merely to report what the reliable sources had to say. I agree that German performance should also be reported. However there were no US forces at the Battle for Caen. Wdford (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aber~enwiki: There was clearly a 'breakout in the east' envisaged in Montgomery's original plan, as is evidenced by multiple reliable sources. Read them, and see for yourself. Montgomery subsequently blamed the "apparent misunderstanding" on confusion with the original COSSAC plan, but at the April planning conference he himself presented the original plan – which involved a British breakout east to the Touques River and south to Argentan-Alençon. Your interpretation of the word "breakout" is original research, unless you can present a reliable source. Montgomery clearly underestimated the density of the German defense – in part because he was expecting the Germans to retreat to the Seine early in the invasion. Therefore the plan needed to be "evolved". Wdford (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The sole task of the British Army was defined as 'to prevent any interference with the American Army from the East" as early as 7 Jan 1944. Re "breakout" - the authors you cited earlier are consistently using "breakout" to mean breaching the German defensive line to permit more mobile warfare - Eisenhower in reference to Cobra; Churchill to the expectation that once the Allies 'turned the corner' at Avranches, the frontline would be so long that the Germans could not prevent the Allies gaining ground more quickly. Aber~enwiki (talk) 07:18, 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." However the Germans failed to run away as planned, so the master plan broke down, and Monty (with Eisenhower's consent) evolved the plan to something more practical. This is all obvious in multiple reliable sources – why do you persist in pretending they don't exist? Wdford (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Of course performance should be judged against targets – what other benchmark is there? Of course the Germans did their best to stymie the Allies – that is what war is all about. Therefore generals are expected to make plans to overcome enemy resistance, they do not just assume the enemy will simply melt away. However I see that you are now going to use this as your latest excuse for refusing to consider the reliable sources that say things you don't like to hear. Hopefully when you adopt the Bruce Lee model you will become constructive, comply with wikipolicy and stop with the specious accusations and insults. "Be like water" does NOT mean "lie and evade". Wdford (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Keith-264 continues to revert the neutrality tag, which is intended to attract objective editors to review the article. He has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of abiding by WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV states that: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. … This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Template:NPOV states: "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." I have thoroughly complied with these requirements. Furthermore an objective admin has reviewed the article and has concluded that there are problems with neutrality. However Keith-264 has long been blocking the adding of material from reliable sources to correct the neutrality problems, and is now also repeatedly reverting this POV tag, with edit summaries such as "None of the conditions for applying one exist". Wdford (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Patently untrue, you keep spamming the article with a defunct banner; pack it in.Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Every word I wrote is true. The banner is in line with WP:NPOV, and is far from defunct - an objective admin has concurred that there are neutrality problems in your text. Wdford (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wdford, The problem is that you're not approaching the article from a NPOV. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Damwiki1: This is an astonishing accusation, coming from an editor who bases their arguments on original research and who wishes to abandon Ellis, Churchill, Eisenhower, French, Hastings etc as "unreliable sources" simply because they don't agree with your POV. I have discussed each point painstakingly with you over a period of months, and I have shown you how the reliable sources all fit together. I have presented multiple reliable sources to prove that the original Overlord Plan was not the final plan which Montgomery eventually implemented. I have presented multiple reliable sources who have reported that a controversy exists on this issue – including Montgomery himself. I have presented multiple reliable sources who indicate that Montgomery was deceptive in his claims –from Hart and Hastings to D'Este. I have presented multiple reliable sources showing that Eisenhower was furious over Montgomery's "miscommunication" over his plans for Goodwood, and how Montgomery was almost sacked. Through all of this you have resolutely clung to your POV, ignoring all reliable sources who contradict you. And yet you accuse ME of lacking neutrality? Please will you now stop evading and dissembling, and openly state your agreement (or otherwise) to comply with WP:NPOV as it is worded (i.e. not you own original interpretation thereof)? Wdford (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The argument is not about which authors are reliable sources, it is about whether what you want to include in the article is a fair representation of what is in all the source material. It would be possible to pull quotes from reliable sources that Eisenhower didn't understand the strategy in Normandy or the plans for Goodwood (eg asking for it to go ahead even without air support!), and misrepresented events post-war, but this wouldn't improve the article.Aber~enwiki (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell.Keith-264 (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary – Montgomery made this accusation as part of his controversial effort to protect his own reputation, and per WP:NPOV this should be reported as a significant view of reliable sources. However we should then balance the article by also presenting the other reliable sources which state that Montgomery was being specious again. The upshot was that Montgomery made statements and sent correspondence which created specific expectations, and thereafter he claimed that these expectations were a series of misunderstandings. The original objectives and promises etc are a matter of record, and this info has been reported by multiple reliable sources. This can be summarised in a few lines of text. Wdford (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It was not just Montgomery who raised concerns about Eisenhower's generalship, so you cannot blame it all on him. There's a much wider point about the differences in understanding of strategy and operations, and doctrine between the British and US Armies, and between the ground forces and air forces - it's not all about Montgomery. Whether all this fits in this article is debatable, as these issues are not possible to summarise in 'a few lines of text'.Aber~enwiki (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

perhaps something along the lines of "...the battle was fought with background tensions between senior staff at SHAEF and 21 Army Group over the time taken for the breakout from the lodgement"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What would that add? Lots of groups of managers have tensions and internecine rivalries, the German commanders were the same. If we write anything like this, WD will use it as a Trojan Horse to turn the article back into Get Monty. Do any of your sources on the Air Barons mention whether they were frank about how fallible close air support was and how costly to the air forces it would be, compared to armed reconnaissance? Clearly Tedder and Con were involved in more than prejudice against Monty, when they began finger pointing and sabotaging Leigh-Mallory. Keith-264 (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Buckley

I. Buckley, BAitNC (2006 ed) On Hargest, "Moreover, his criticism of 7th Armoured's lack of infantry–armour co-operation ignored the fact that they employed a mixed group as early as 11 June, having quickly identified the need for close-country infantry–armour co-operation in the Norman countryside. p. 71 [I bet you complain about what I haven't written....]Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As usual, you completely avoid the point, and attempt to create a diversion instead. The point is about planning and tactics for Goodwood, as you well know. Still waiting.Wdford (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times. You did see the I. didn't you? Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not getting an AGF/collegiate editing vibe here either. Are you able to provide the evidence, or not? Wdford (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RTFQ - The point being that much of the criticism of British tank-infantry co-operation comes from Brig Hargest, but his interpretations are now being challenged. It leads to the strange situation of the British being criticised for poor co-operation, while authors ignore the even worse Eastern Front tactics being used by the Germans. IIRC Hastings is a prime example of this.Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This point was originally about how Buckley pointed out that the planners had erred on Goodwood, before the inevitable side-tracking began. Buckley again at pg 98: "Nonetheless, heavy criticism has been levelled at the poor nature of infantry-armour co-operation demonstrated by the British and Canadians in Normandy. It is not in doubt that errors were made, and some were particularly serious, such as the decision to charge armoured regiments with little infantry support at the Bourguebus Ridge on 18 July." There were lots of other criticisms about Goodwood in Buckley as well. Buckley does say that the views of Hargest were based on the early portion of the battle only, because Hargest was killed in July and so he missed the "later improvement", but Buckley does not say that the views of Hargest were inaccurate.

BTW authors do not ignore the flawed German tactics either. Buckley pg 212: "Senior German commanders, however, proved less willing to accept that a modification in tactics was required than their British counterparts and frontline German units began to disintegrate as a consequence." See? There is no conspiracy after all.

Wdford (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote "As recently as 2013, Buckley was writing that 7th AD was using "inappropriate tactics"."? Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wrote this,

• I. Buckley, BAitNC (2006 ed) On Hargest, "Moreover, his criticism of 7th Armoured's lack of infantry–armour co-operation ignored the fact that they employed a mixed group as early as 11 June, having quickly identified the need for close-country infantry–armour co-operation in the Norman countryside. p. 71 [I bet you complain about what I haven't written....] in response to

once again you blatantly contradict the reliable sources. Buckley clearly used the phrase "demonstrated an inadequate appreciation of the role and capabilities of armoured divisions". That is not really supporting what you are claiming, now is it? As recently as 2013, Buckley was writing that 7th AD was using "inappropriate tactics". Strictly speaking we should add this to the Analysis section, seeing as how you have seen fit to give Buckley his very own dedicated section, in place of that huge ream of apologetic that Parsecboy identified as being non-neutral. Once again, when a reliable source disagrees with you, you ignore them.

which provoked the usual. Here is

II. Buckley MM (2014 ed) "As Second Army enjoyed a superiority in Armour over the Germans of four to one, and with concern over infantry losses mounting, an armour-heavy operation appeared the most likely and strategically-appropriate use of resources." (p. 93)

as anyone can see, Buckley wrote a lot and changed his mind quite a bit. Curious that you overlooked this, I'm not getting an AGF/collegiate editing vibe here either. Are you able to accept the evidence, or not? Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

At pg 93 Buckley is describing how the situation appeared to Montgomery and Dempsey at the time, he is not stating that this was objectively a good idea. At pg 143 of the same book he is writing in his own voice that the 7th AD used inappropriate tactics. It is quite clear. I doubt Buckley changed his mind in the space of 50 pages, and forgot to revise his original perceptions (of which he wrote at length). Wdford (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cherry-picking, NUKeith-264 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No Keith-264, I am simply stating the facts as per the source. You tried to twist Buckley's comments to suit your POV yet again, but the wording in the text is clear. The only cherry-picking here, as usual, is from you. That approach is very NU, not to mention a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Wdford (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No WD you are picking facts and quasi-facts from the air and scattering them all over the talk page. You have learned nothing and contributed nothing to the development of the article since you began editing it. NU, nnpov, coat, cherry, synth, or etc blah. Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And as usual, when confronted by policies and reliable sources and obvious hard facts, Keith-264 ducks behind a smokescreen of distortion and evasion and insults. I did not pick facts from the air, I picked them from Buckley - whom Keith-264 treats as a reliable source when he cherry-picks some of Buckley's statements and twists them to suit his POV. It is abundantly clear from Buckley's books that Buckley believes that the planners of Operation Goodwood messed up. Wdford (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

NUKeith-264 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Germans

General overview of Germans opposing the British/Canadians

6 June

711 Infantry, 716 Infantry, 352 Infantry (part), 21 Pz

30 June - map in Normandy to the Baltic

711 Infantry, 346 Infantry (crossed Seine on D-Day) (716 Infantry implied destroyed), 2 Pz (in combat D+6), 21 Pz, Pz Lehr (in combat D+2), 1 SS Pz (in combat D+22), 2 SS Pz (in combat D+22), 9 SS PZ (in combat D+23), 10 SS Pz (in combat D+23), 12 SS Pz (in combat D+1)

Dates from The Struggle for Europe, Normandy to the Baltic

[Only "armour" in the US sector 17 SS PzG]

25 July - map in The Struggle for Europe

7 Infantry divisions - additional arrivals include 16 GAF (D+27), 272(?), 276 (D+28), 277 (by D+40) ; 2 Pz, 21 Pz, 116 Pz (on July 20 moving from Amiens), 1 SS Pz, 9 SS Pz, 10 SS Pz, 12 SS Pz, 4 Tiger battalions

[Armour in US sector 17PzG, Pz Lehr, 2 SS Pz]

Later: 89 Infantry (D+61), 326 (by D+50), 344 (D+66)

I'll add more information to the list as I track it downAber~enwiki (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

German counterattack plans - all from The Struggle for Europe

D-Day - 21 Pz

D+1 - 21 Pz & 12 SS Pz (pg 296)

D+2 - 21 Pz, 12 SS Pz, Pz Lehr (pg 299)

D+3 - hold on defensive until Panzer Group West organises attack (pg 300)

D+4 - Panzer Group West HQ destroyed (pg 303)

D+6 - Adopt defensive posture and reform reserves for attack on US sector (pg 311)

D+14 - Major counteroffensive to be planned with 1 & 2 SS Pz Corps (pg 334); map (pg 321) shows 5 Pz divisions attacking NE from between Caumont and St Lo, on axis Balleroy - Bayeux

D+23 - Multi-division counterattack against Operation Epsom (pg 345)

D+24 - Counterattack suspended (pg 345)

Apart from D-day, all the counterattacks were pre-empted by British attacks, forcing the Germans to react rather than carry out their own plans.Aber~enwiki (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

[9] Library of congress situation maps. Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)