Talk:British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this. Comments to follow Mark83 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No idea what a large-scale division of military and civilian mobilisation means. Kirke presented his plan on 15 November 1939, known as "Plan Julius Caesar" or "Plan J-C" because of the code word "Julius" which would be used for a likely invasion and "Caesar" for an imminent invasion. feels like some of this should be in a footnote - too confusing. With the Germans now on the coast of France, it became evident that an urgent reassessment needed to be given to the possibility of having to resist an attempted invasion of Britain by German forces - this feels a bit tortured. Suggest "With the Germans now occupying France, it became evident that an urgent reassessment of the need to resist a potential invasion of Britain by German forces was required."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Does not comply with WP:LEAD - far too short.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All need to be reviewed. e.g. 27 page title incorrect.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Concerned about this one, see 2b section below. Updated to fail on this criteria - Needs to be a focus for a new GAN. Mark83 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	with ports and airfields given priority. -- priority in what way?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage.
	7. Overall assessment.	Only starting this review and already concerned about how far this article is away from promotion. Inviting @MasterMatt12: to add his thoughts here. It's not a bad article at all, but the GA nomination feels rushed as there is a lot of work to do. I suggest I fail this current nomination, and user(s) undertake a thorough review of the good article criteria ahead of a renomination. Mark83 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Sorry, on further review I am increasingly of the opinion that there is too much to do to make promotion possible in the usual timescale, even with the issues I have identified in the earlier parts of the article (more would follow). See my comments so far as examples of what needs to be improved. With all due respect, it doesn't feel like this article was interrogated against the GA criteria prior to nomination. But to be constructive - that's the way forward. Mark83 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

2b

Some large bodies of text with just one reference. Are these adequately covered by that one reference? e.g.:

• On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland; two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany, launching the Second World War. Within three weeks, the Red Army of the Soviet Union invaded the eastern regions of Poland in fulfilment of the secret Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Germany. A British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was sent to the Franco-Belgian border, but Britain and France did not take any direct action in support of the Poles. By 1 October, Poland had been completely overrun.
  • Is "in fulfilment of the secret Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" correct? I believe the pact saw Germany acquiesce to the Soviet Union invading Poland, it didn't require it? Happy to defer to greater knowledge on this. Mark83 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• However, the British War Cabinet became concerned about exaggerated intelligence reports, aided by German disinformation, of large airborne forces which could be launched against Britain. At the insistence of Winston Churchill, then the First Lord of the Admiralty, a request was made that the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, General Sir Walter Kirke, should prepare a plan to repel a large-scale invasion. Kirke presented his plan on 15 November 1939, known as "Plan Julius Caesar" or "Plan J-C" because of the code word "Julius" which would be used for a likely invasion and "Caesar" for an imminent invasion. Kirke, whose main responsibility was to reinforce the BEF in France, had very limited resources available, with six poorly trained and equipped Territorial Army divisions in England, two in Scotland and three more in reserve. With France still a powerful ally, Kirke believed that the eastern coasts of England and Scotland were the most vulnerable, with ports and airfields given priority.
• In contrast, records show that the British possessed over 290 million rounds of .303 ammunition of various types on 7 June, rising to over 400 million in August. VII Corps was formed to control the Home Forces' general reserve, and included the 1st Armoured Division. In a reorganisation in July, the divisions with some degree of mobility were placed behind the "coastal crust" of defended beach areas from The Wash to Newhaven in Sussex. The General Headquarters Reserve was expanded to two corps of the most capable units. VII Corps was based at Headley Court in Surrey to the south of London and comprised 1st Armoured and 1st Canadian Divisions with the 1st Army Tank Brigade. IV Corps was based at Latimer House to the north of London and comprised 2nd Armoured, 42nd and 43rd Infantry divisions.
• Although much larger in size and with many more ships, the Royal Navy, unlike the Kriegsmarine, had many commitments, including against Japan and guarding Scotland and Northern England. The Royal Navy could overwhelm any force that the German Navy could muster but would require time to get its forces in position since they were dispersed, partly because of these commitments and partly to reduce the risk of air attack. On 1 July 1940, one cruiser and 23 destroyers were committed to escort duties in the Western Approaches, plus 12 destroyers and one cruiser on the Tyne and the aircraft carrier Argus (I49). More immediately available were ten destroyers at the south coast ports of Dover and Portsmouth, a cruiser and three destroyers at Sheerness on the River Thames, three cruisers and seven destroyers at the Humber, nine destroyers at Harwich, and two cruisers at Rosyth. The rest of the Home Fleet – five battleships, three cruisers and nine destroyers – was based far to the north at Scapa Flow.
• The primary purpose of the stop lines and the anti-tank islands that followed was to hold up the enemy, slowing progress and restricting the route of an attack. The need to prevent tanks from breaking through was of key importance. Consequently, the defences generally ran along pre-existing barriers to tanks, such as rivers and canals; railway embankments and cuttings; thick woods; and other natural obstacles. Where possible, usually well-drained land was allowed to flood, making the ground too soft to support even tracked vehicles.
• The first instruction given quite emphatically is that, unless ordered to evacuate, "the order ...[was]... to 'stay put'". The roads were not to be blocked by refugees. Further warnings were given not to believe rumours and not to spread them, to be distrustful of orders that might be faked and even to check that an officer giving orders really was British. Further: Britons were advised to keep calm and report anything suspicious quickly and accurately; deny useful things to the enemy such as food, fuel, maps or transport; be ready to block roads – when ordered to do so – "by felling trees, wiring them together or blocking the roads with cars"; to organise resistance at shops and factories; and, finally: "Think before you act. But think always of your country before you think of yourself".
• The question of whether the defences would have been effective in invasion is vexed. In mid-1940, the preparations relied heavily upon field fortifications. The First World War made it clear that assaulting prepared defences with infantry was deadly and difficult, but similar preparations in Belgium had been overrun by well-equipped German Panzer divisions in the early weeks of 1940 and with so many armaments left at Dunkirk, British forces were woefully ill-equipped to take on German armour. On the other hand, while British preparations for defence were ad hoc, so were the German invasion plans: a fleet of 2,000 converted barges and other vessels had been hurriedly made available and their fitness was debatable; in any case, the Germans could not land troops with all their heavy equipment. Until the Germans captured a port, both armies would have been short of tanks and heavy guns.
• In the event of invasion, the Royal Navy would have sailed to the landing places, possibly taking several days. The German Kriegsmarine had, however, been severely depleted by the Norwegian campaign. It lost a heavy cruiser, a light cruiser, and almost a quarter of its destroyers; two heavy units, a Panzerschiff and a battlecruiser, were out of action due to torpedo damage. In late 1940, the Kriegsmarine was thus virtually bereft of heavy units to either provide gunfire support to a landing or to counter any intervention by the Royal Navy. It is now known that the Germans planned to land on the southern coast of England; one reason for this site was that the narrow seas of the English Channel could be blocked with mines, submarines and torpedo boats. While German naval forces and the Luftwaffe could have extracted a high price from the Royal Navy, they could not have hoped to prevent interference with attempts to land a second wave of troops and supplies that would have been essential to German success – even if, by then, the Germans had captured a port essential for bringing in significant heavy equipment. In this scenario, British land forces would have faced the Germans on more equal terms than otherwise and it was only necessary to delay the German advance, preventing a collapse until the German land forces were, at least temporarily, isolated by the Royal Navy and then mounting a counterattack. Mark83 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are "unreliable source?" tags - these should have been dealt with before a GAN. Mark83 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

References concerns:

• 28 not working: [1]
• 31 not working: [2]
• 35: Reference working, but what page of 272 pages?
• 37: As above
• 39: [3] Authoritative source? Mark83 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In lead - "...transferred much of the United Kingdom" - sorry to be pedantic but large swathes of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will have been untouched. And even in England the majority of land will not have been impacted. Therefore "much" is incorrect. Similiarly "little remains" and "can still be commonly found" is contradictory.

"The evacuation of British and French forces (Operation Dynamo) began on 26 May with air cover provided by the Royal Air Force at heavy cost." - What constitutes a heavy cost. Mark83 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)