Jump to content

Talk:Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBroad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 14, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 10, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when arguing for a narrow front, Monty called Ike's messages, "nothing but balls"?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick. I only nominated it a short time ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I check the warfare list at WP:GAN a couple times a week, thought this one looks interesting, and decided to take the review. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me, putting on hold. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find the article interesting? Does it make sense to you? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find it interesting. It made sense to me, although I do have some familiarity with this general topic from reviewing the logistics in the northern France campaign article. Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was recently promoted to GA. Overall article sourcing, neutrality, and plagiarism is assumed to have been covered during the GAN. The picture is acceptable, but most people know what Eisenhower looks like, so I'm not sure it adds much. My main concerns are about phrasing and interestingness.

Regarding phrasing, "polemics" is uncommon, anachronistic language that also mirrors the source a little uncomfortably closely, so I'd suggest a different word choice. The meaning of "broad front versus narrow front" also might be a bit unclear to or require a bit of inference from non-expert readers, so if you can think of a way to concisely explain it, that might be good (if not, it's alright enough).

Regarding interestingness, it's not bad (and my standards are stricter than most DYK reviewers), but I'd be curious to hear if you have any ALTs. You seemed to begin an ALT1 but didn't fill it out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally I intended to use the quote, but it was too long.
  • I don't normally offer up ALTs because they deter reviewers.
  • I'm not sure Ike is that well known any more; you'd have to be a boomer or someone who reads 20th century history to remember him.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original hook doesn't read right because a decision is not a controversy. Ike's decision was to stick to a broad front. The controversy was the debate before and after. Ruppenthal's quote expresses this more accurately: "Of all decisions made at the level of the Supreme Allied Commander in western Europe during World War II, perhaps none has excited more polemics than that which raised the 'one-thrust-broad front' controversy." Squeezing all this into a hook seems challenging, so let's try some controversial ALTs:

  • ALT1 ... that during an argument about his broad front, Ike (pictured) put his hand on Monty's knee? Source: "Pulling Eisenhower’s recent signals from his pocket, he exclaimed, 'They’re balls, sheer balls, rubbish!' Perhaps only Eisenhower would have the forbearance to sit in stony silence while a subordinate verbally assaulted him. When Montgomery at last paused for breath, Eisenhower put his hand on Montgomery’s knee and gently said, 'Steady, Monty! You can’t speak to me like that. I’m your boss.'".[2]
Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery
Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • These sound fine. (I'm inclined towards the second.) I've provided an online source for checking. Changed "orders" to "messages". Montgomery never disobeyed orders, but Eisenhower was reluctant to issue them. As the article points out, Montgomery was the senior officer even though Eisenhower was the boss. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. As a further tweak, I suggest "signals" rather than "messages". It is slightly shorter, follows the source and works a bit better as a hook, IMO – more likely to get the reader wondering what was going on.
@Sdkb: As the primary reviewer, you should please check these ALTs. I can't approve them myself as I'm too involved.
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, sorry, I'm not a fan of using first names like that; it doesn't seem encyclopedic. Your alts are also missing the very core context that we're talking about WW2. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ike" is perfectly acceptable in this context IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maury. Note also that both Ike and Monty are abbreviations of their last names, not their first names. Abbreviations seem appropriate for hooks, which are supposed to be "short, punchy, catchy". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since this nomination seems stalled, as my two cents, I think that ALT2 looks fine to me, especially if used as the first or last hook in the list, which is normally where "funny" hooks can be slipped in. While normally first name usage would be unusual, Eisenhower is very famously known as "Ike", so much so that works such as books / TV series / etc. use it. DYK is allowed to be a bit more "magazine"-y at times in the name of being eye-catching, so ALT2 seems fine to me. I would hesitantly recommend something like an ALT2b though that replaced "Signals" with "messages" as average readers will not know or care that these were telegrams, just that they were messages. I'd say ship it, but will let original reviewer weigh in if there are any deeper problems with the article other than just not liking that hook. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2b ... that when arguing for a narrow front, Monty (pictured) called Ike's messages, "nothing but balls"?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re "let original reviewer weigh in", I cannot endorse it as I still do not think it is appropriate, but I'm aware that my philosophy of DYK does not necessarily have wide consensus behind it, so if another reviewer wishes to check this off, I won't stand in the way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a new reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since nobody else took this... sure, approving ALT2b. I checked the hook against the "Eisenhower Versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate" source via Google Books snippet, looks good. Only minor issue (not a complaint, just an FYI) - the QPQ was apparently an article that was approved by nominator, but later commentators noticed CN tags on the stated hook and original research tags? Checking the history, those tags weren't on the article in February 18 when the review happened and were added a week later by Buidhe, but insert usual reminder that DYK reviewing should check the overall article quality, too, ideally, and push back on questionable promotions. (Article quality seems solid for this particular case of the broad vs. narrow front article, so good job.) SnowFire (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The tags weren't there when I reviewed the article. Had they been, I would have removed them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I will add as a note to the closer that I'd consider skipping the not-that-relevant image and using this as the last hook in the set, which is usually the "stick slightly silly hooks here" slot.) SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final sentence in lead?

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7 - can you clarify the final paragraph in the lead? After the war, Chester Wilmot's The Struggle For Europe (1952) argued that Eisenhower prevented Montgomery from winning the war in 1944. Few historians on either side of the Atlantic accept that this was possible. The final sentence is somewhat ambiguous as to what is actually being implied as impossible: Eisenhower preventing Montgomery from winning the war? Montgomery winning the war in 1944? Or the war being won in 1944? The AJP Taylor quote in the controversy section makes it clear, perhaps that could be used in the lead. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

[edit]

The article is unclear about what the controversy actually is - was it a war-time disagreement on strategy between rival Allied governments, or a war-time disagreement on priorities between rival Allied commanders, or a post-war dust-up between rival historians? I would submit that it was all of the above, but they are different in character, and should be explained separately. Also the reasons behind the various "stances" are not fully explained yet. This article is not really structured logically - it would be more clear to the novice reader if the info was grouped a bit differently, and the overlaps removed or explained differently. In addition the Background section contains a lot of irrelevant info, but does not properly explain the most import underlying facts, on which the decisions were ultimately made.

A substantial copy-edit is needed to properly explain the topic. I am happy to make a start. Any comments or suggestions please? Wdford (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was little disagreement between governments; their objectives were closely aligned but not identical. So there was:
  1. The wartime disagreement about strategy. The difficult part about describing this is the change over time between end August - start of September - mid September, when the operational situation changed.
  2. There was a disagreement about logistics, whether any of the proposed operations was feasible. The Overlord plan was based on assumptions that no longer held true, hence the debate
  3. There was the post-war debate, which arose from frustration with the post-war world order. It seems to me that the end of the cold war took the wind out of it.
The article grew organically, and I am not invested in the structure, but if you could detail here what you propose, and we can agree on it, then that may save a lot of to-and-fro editing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cool. I propose that the Background section should go up to about mid-September perhaps?
We don't need to rehash so much of Overlord – just a few sentences, with the appropriate links.
The Background section should include a background on British political objectives, such as:
  • Churchill was fixated on Italy and the Balkans, and was opposed to Overlord. Churchill wanted a British general to capture Berlin ahead of the Soviets, even though he would need a huge American army to achieve this;
  • A mention of the imperial requirement and grand strategy imperative to uphold British "prestige" for future geopolitical reasons;
  • Britain was running out of men, and they needed a British victory with a British general commanding American troops.
The Background section should include a background on US political objectives, such as:
  • USA wanted to finish the war and move on to Japan and the peace, with minimum cost in lives;
  • USA needed Stalin's help in Japan, and were quite happy to give Stalin the glory of capturing Berlin in exchange;
  • USA had agreed to the Occupation Zones, and they were reluctant to pay the huge price to gain Berlin then give it straight back to the Soviets anyway;
  • American public opinion was not happy to have huge American armies commanded by British generals, or to have the American armies operating in support roles so that the British army could get all the US supplies.
On logistics, we should mention:
  • After Overlord, the unexpectedly rapid German retreat to the WestWall, and the Allies having to choose between capturing ports and maintaining the momentum;
  • The Allies chose to prioritize momentum, and they out-ran their supply-chain;
  • Monty had enough supplies to support his British Army, and he "avoided" opening Antwerp;
  • We should also mention Operation Dragoon as part of the logistics background.
Then the Monty proposal section, which can now be quite short;
Then the Bradley/Patton proposal section, which can now be quite short;
Market Garden was an attempt by Monty to "prove" to Ike his narrow-front "dagger thrust" policy, so it should get a short section, with appropriate links;
Then Ike's decision, and his reasons – which will be based on the Background as well;
  • In August, northern Germany was undefended, but without Antwerp, they could not support a viable thrust into German territory. By the time Monty finally got Antwerp harbor working, the Germans had regrouped, and a northern thrust would have been cut off, starved out and shattered.
  • The controversy on the battle-field finally ended with Monty's attitude after the German narrow-thrust effort in the Ardennes, so it should get a mention in this section too, with appropriate links;
Then the post-war media/historian flustering section, much as it already is. I agree about the frustration with the post-war world order and the Cold War. However I don't really understand why the US general election was considered to be an issue - if FDR lost, Dewey was as solid on anti-Hitler and anti-Japan and anti-Communism, and was unlikely to change anything in the SHAEF. In June this was still a major issue, but after Dewey beat Taft to the nomination, it was no longer an issue. Is this really relevant?
Thereafter we can edit the Lead a bit further, to summarize the article.
How about that as a rough skeleton? Wdford (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take these points one-by-one:

  • I tried to keep the one-paragraph description of Overlord down to what is required to follow the subsequent article.
  • Churchill was fixated on Italy and the Balkans, and was for a time opposed to Overlord, but that's not relevant here. The idea that Vienna could have been reached first from Italy was one of Wilmott's ideas, not relevant here.
  • Getting to Berlin before the Soviets wasn't a concern; Churchill had already agreed to it being in the British zone. That's another one of Wilmott's ideas, not relevant here.
  • Both sides wanted to finish the war, but the British needed it done at low cost in lives; Americans care less about lives; they live in a country with a huge population, and were willing to expend them.
  • "American public opinion was not happy to have huge American armies commanded by British generals, or to have the American armies operating in support roles so that the British army could get all the US supplies." That's absolutely correct, although I don't understand why. If you have a source explaining this, I would be grateful
  • This is where the American election year is relevant, according to the sources. Roosevelt wanted American success on the battlefield. Perhaps more could be said; but you are right that a Dewey victory would not have changed much.
  • The Allies did not have to choose between pursuit and ports. The American commanders neglected the ports in their eagerness to seize operational opportunities. Partly that was because they were poor at logistics, and partly because logistics was not their concern; it was Lee's job.
  • Montgomery had sufficient supplies for his army group. He didn't "avoid" opening Antwerp; he was not ordered to do so.
  • Market Garden's implementation was intended to demonstrate the narrow front concept, but its purpose was to remove the V-weapon threat to the UK. By the time it was launched, neither the broad nor narrow front was viable.
  • Antwerp was not captured until September, and not be used for some time. It was no use in early September. Concentration on Antwerp would have meant abandoning the broad and narrow fronts, and accepting that the war would continue into 1945 (which is what happened).
  • I don't want to get sidetracked on the Ardennes and Montgomery's final push to be named ground forces commander. It isn't relevant to the broad front vs. narrow front, which refers only to the events of August and September 1944.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


In response to your initial points:
  • I would trim a lot of the Overlord material out of the Background section, where it adds little or nothing to understanding this topic, and move some paragraphs from other sections into the background section instead, so that the reader sees all of them at the beginning rather than finding them mixed up in the subsequent material.
    There's only one paragraph on Overlord, and it is needed to set the scene. It's important that the reader understands the situation at the start of September. Leave it as it is for now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that Churchill was fixated on keeping the USSR as far eastward as possible, and he felt that this strategy required an Allied invasion through the Balkans. When he didn’t get this wish, he wanted a western army – preferably Monty – to do a narrow thrust to Berlin and "win the race" against the USSR. Churchill makes this point many times in his own memoirs, as does Monty. By his own admission, Churchill was still pestering Ike about this as late as March 1945. It was a main driver of the British "narrow thrust" thinking, and it didn't end in September 1944.
  • Churchill in his own memoirs stated that even in September 1944 he "much desired" that Alexander should reach Vienna through the Adriatic ahead of the Russians. Wilmot may have picked up on it too.
  • The Australian newspaper you cited from the 1950's also quotes Rundstedt saying he expected the Allies to strike across northern Germany, as demanded repeatedly by Churchill and Montgomery, based on the assumption that the Allies would "do everything in their power to reach Berlin before the Russians … and to prevent the Russians from advancing too far to the west over the Oder." A very interesting assumption. Once again, a German general who as a prisoner after the war collaborated with Basil Liddell Hart, comes up with an amazing statement that directly supports Montgomery's actions. What an amazing coincidence.
  • Of course, the Allies did in fact hit the Siegfried Line at Aachen, at almost exactly the time Rundstedt claimed to have been reaching this profound conclusion. After being held up in street-fighting for three weeks against a scratch battle-group, and discovering that tanks don’t work well in narrow medieval streets, they had to pause to deal with the threat of the Germans cutting their supply lines by flooding the rivers behind them. All of these experiences spoke loudly against attempting a narrow-front attack deep into Germany, but Monty was blind to the lessons.
  • Of course both sides wanted to finish the war. However it is ridiculous to suggest that the USA was careless with the lives of their men. They were willing to take risks when the outcome required it, but they avoided losses where possible. Ike cited this as a major reason why he declined to race the Russians to Berlin, despite constant pressure from Churchill.
    • I would not go so far as to call it "careless", but the US made little effort to avoid losses compared to the British, and this shows up in the casualty figures. The Americans did not see the bottom of their manpower barrel until 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churchill mentions the need to uphold or restore "British prestige" on many occasions in his memoirs – specifically including the capture of Berlin via a Monty "narrow-front thrust".
    • Yes, the need for prestige (preserving Britain's major power status) was the major objective, not specifically tied to the narrow front, but difficult for Montgomery to implement in view of the diminishing resources of the UK in manpower and money. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly true that the British were running out of men. Even with Canadian help they were short on resources. This required Ike to lend them the entire US 9th Army, to make up their numbers. Monty's proposed narrow-front charge to Berlin envisaged a lot of US units participating, under his British command.
    • The Canadian Army was also running out of men. Ike loaned the Ninth Army, but that was for the 1945 campaign. In September 1944 it would have meant the First Army. Using American resources under British control was part of the British plan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't have a source specifically explaining WHY American public opinion was not happy to have huge American armies commanded by British generals, or to have the American armies operating in support roles so that the British army could get all the US supplies. Perhaps it was simply national pride? After all, the British press were livid when Ike replaced Monty in France. Or maybe, after Monty's performance at Caen and his subsequent dissembling, the American people anticipated more bogging down and bloody attrition under his leadership? Who knows?
    • I don't have a source either. National pride was obviously one factor. I linked the The New York Times editorial by Hanson W. Baldwin, but it doesn't seem as strident as it is often depicted. Clearly in conflict with the British desire to be seen as prominent as possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously FDR wanted a military victory to bolster his own election chances, but that could have been any American victory – Patton or Hodges or Truscott in a narrow thrust, or all of the US armies on a broad front. It could have been Clarke in Italy on the Gothic Line, or Nimitz taking the Marianas Islands in the Pacific, or successes in any of the various phases of the long Philippines campaign. Apart from an understandable desire to avoid a massive defeat, the "election" issue did not affect the broad-front vs narrow front decision. Perhaps Ike and FDR feared (quite rightly) that a narrow thrust would result in a massive defeat – as did actually happen on the small-scale test-case at Arnhem?
    • A military victory in Europe would be better than one in the Pacific or Burma - some place Americans had heard of, like Rome. The liberation of Paris was the big story. There was a debate between Eisenhower and Montgomery as to whether anyone would care who won the victory. Ironically, it was Montgomery who said it wouldn't matter and Eisenhower who disagreed. Your point about the possibility of a defeat is a good one which could be developed. (When Roosevelt met MacArthur in September 1944, Mac, seeking to make small talk, asked him how the re-election campaign was going. Roosevelt said, "Doug, you know I'm too busy running the war to worry about that." Whereupon both men roared laughing.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where it ties into the issue at hand is that at this critical juncture, Montgomery is superseded by Eisenhower, who is unable to control a fast-moving land battle, not inclined to force his subordinates to do what he wants them to, and is even injured, restricting his mobility still further. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, logistics was Lee's job. The original Allied plan was for Patton to liberate the Brittany ports, and for Monty to open the Channel ports – such as Le Havre. When they finally got out of the bocage, Patton achieved unexpectedly huge success, and the plan was changed to send him to destroy the German capability rather than to immediately pursue the fortified Brittany ports. Then Monty delayed closing the Falaise Gap, and things unfolded. Churchill himself wrote that "The Brittany ports, when captured, would be even more remote [than Normandy] but the Channel ports from Havre northwards, and especially Antwerp … were prizes of vital consequence". (Triumph and Tragedy, 2014, pg 192).
    Some historians, including Blumenson, have argued that Patton could have captured the ports intact, but was restrained by Bradley. Harold L. Mack, who served on Lee's staff, called this The Critical Error of World War II. The arguments here are complicated; it wouldn't have helped Bradley's proposed narrow thrust. The article has to emphasis that in the Overlord plan the Channel ports were earmarked for British not American use. Trying to keep the article focused. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After noting the extent of defense and destruction at Cherbourg harbor, US high command responded with Operation Dragoon to obtain the extra logistical capacity of the less-fortified Mediterranean ports - once again in the face of huge British resistance.
    • This was a last-ditch effort by Churchill to thwart Dragoon. He proposed using the resources for an amphibious attack on Brittany. It was not known that the Mediterranean ports would be less fortified or less damaged.
  • It is ridiculous to suggest that the Master of the Battlefield was justified in not opening Antwerp simply because he didn’t get a direct order to do so. Monty was complaining constantly about a lack of supplies, he knew the Antwerp shipping channel was unusable, he knew his Canadians were right on the spot already, but he chose to ignore Antwerp and focus on selling Ike his narrow-thrust plan. Monty's delays at Antwerp stalled the advance in 1944, but as usual he blamed a "lack of support" for his failure. Even his patron Brooke wrote in his diary: "I feel that Monty's strategy for once is at fault. Instead of carrying out the advance to Arnhem he ought to have made certain of Antwerp".
    • Yes, and Montgomery agreed with that assessment. However, the British forces could be supplied through the Channel ports, as they were in World War I, and did not themselves need Antwerp. Historians like John Buckley have agreed that capturing Antwerp was a better idea, but it would not have led to a quick opening of the port, nor to the capture of the Ruhr, and there would have been no prospect of an end to the war in 1944. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objective of Market Garden was to establish a bridgehead over the Rhine, and to set up a strike at the Ruhr. This is not in contention. The V-weapon threat was also important, but that was to be addressed by the Canadians sweeping up the coast in parallel - a V-2 rocket could not reach London from Arnhem. Monty claimed this V-weapon rationale as an additional selling point in his memoirs, to further support why Ike should have given Monty "total priority" at the expense of his US "rivals".
  • The narrow front idea was never viable – defending the flanks of that long corridor would take too many divisions, as Ike warned Monty before Market Garden, and as Market Garden proved. However when Market Garden was launched, everyone from Churchill on down at least hoped to acquire a bridgehead over the Rhine, as a future jumping-off point.
  • The Allies were never going to conquer Germany in 1944. The only chance of the war ending in 1944 was for the Germans to sue for peace when the Allies crossed the border, and that required either that Hitler died or the Allies dropped the unconditional surrender demand. The Allies were in Aachen in October already, but the Nazis fought to the death for seven more months, even with the Russians raping and burning city after city. Ike knew that this would happen, and he said as much to reporters as early as August 1944. Monty was just blowing smoke.
  • Aachen to Berlin is over 600kms, and in September 1944 the logistics were still severely hamstrung by the situation at Antwerp. Even the scratch German defenders were still resolute, as was proved at Aachen, and the massive Ardennes attack force with its veteran panzer armies was already being assembled in secret nearby to Aachen. Rundstedt obviously knew all about that – he commanded the Ardennes attack force. Monty's "thrust" would have been cut off and slaughtered. Ike realised that, and warned Monty, but Monty (and Churchill) had a narrow-front fixation. Ike didn't like to give direct orders to his Army Commanders, but with the Ardennes he put his foot down hard, on Bradley and Monty, and Monty sulked forever after.
What say I start by cleaning up the Background and moving some stuff around, then we can reassess and add more material as Phase 2? Wdford (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article covers all the points already, so there is little to be gained by moving stuff around. It needs to stay focused on September 1944. Consider writing a separate article on the "Soft underbelly" controversy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against altering the structure. See if I can summarise:

  • The Background current contains two introductory paragraphs. The first sets the scene, the second introduces the players. Then there is a paragraph each on British and American objectives. So it matches your structure, but is there more that should be said here? Subheadings?
  • Are you proposing that this be followed by a section on logistics?
  • The Montgomery proposal section is already very short.
  • Give Bradley/Patton proposal a short section of its own?
  • SHAEF perspective?
  • Eisenhower decision?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign is currently up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign. Consider contributing a review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I think we are substantially in agreement, on almost everything. However there are a few key points where we might still differ:
  • You seem to be saying that the "controversy" lasted only in September 1944, and the article should focus only on that month. However it is very clear that the controversy between Ike and Churchill continued to the end of the war, it really flared up publicly after the war, and it continues in some places even today. The full extent should be covered here.
    I only meant the controversy about the events of September. Debate continued, and is covered in the final section. Much of the wind has gone out of it since the end of the Cold War though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, there are two core aspects, which obviously overlap. One, could the war have been ended in 1944 if Monty was given control of all resources and allowed to do his narrow-front attack to Berlin; and Two – would the subsequent Cold War have been easier if the western Allies consequently beat the USSR to Berlin?
  • Sure.
  • All evidence suggests that a narrow-front attack to Berlin in September – or anytime subsequent – would have failed badly, and that casualties would have far exceeded what was actually suffered to end the war – as bad as those casualties were. All evidence suggests that capturing Berlin was not possible, but that if it had happened, the Yalta agreements would have been enforced anyway, and the Cold War would not have changed for the better. In fact if Britain had made a military pitch against Stalin, the Cold War would probably have been much worse – and may even have turned into a Hot War – with Britain getting crushed. This is not properly explained yet, and these issues are at the core of the topic.
  • We would need very strong sources to say that "the US made little effort to avoid losses". I have seen sources that are totally to the contrary.
    So we're not going to say that. Just the British aversion, for which French pp. 23-24, D'Este pp. 261-268. This allowed the Americans to be more aggressive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Background section needs to be cleaned up, and more added. The first paragraph can certainly be retained, but aspects like Operation Fortitude, or the Associated Press correspondent etc may be colorful but they are not relevant to the topic. On the other hand there is more Overlord material which must be added into the Background section, such as the unexpected speed with which the German defense retired after Falaise, and the impact thereof on the Allied supply chain, as well as a lot more about logistics. Logistics were a key decision-driver at this point. Some of this material is already scattered elsewhere in the article, and merely needs to be concentrated in the Background section.
  • The reason for moving some stuff around is to put the background facts in the Background section, as they applied to all the "proposals", and leaving things as is does not give readers a clear idea of what really underpinned the various decisions.
  • The separate sections for the Monty Proposal, Bradley Proposal and Ike Response should not contain background material, this should be moved to the "joint" background section.
  • It's a stretch to say that the Ruhr was "encircled by narrow thrusts". The US 9th Army ground around the northern reaches of the Ruhr, and the US 1st Army ground around the southern reaches. Simultaneously the British 2nd Army provided cover on the northern flank with their general advance, the US 3rd Army provided cover on the southern flank with their general advance, and the US 7th Army was advancing in parallel further south, engaging whatever resources the Germans might have had left down there. That is the very definition of a broad-front advance.
  • Ike knew in August already that the Germans were not going to simply collapse in 1944, and he said so publicly. See eg here [3]
  • A separate article on the "Soft underbelly" controversy is a good idea – definitely one for the near future. I'm not sure it was a "controversy" as such, rather than just a clash between British long-term objectives and US medium-term objectives. However let's clean up this article first – it is easily done.
  • I will look at the British Logistics article when time permits - thanks for pointing this out.
Wdford (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last question: the article is already a Good Article and an A class article. Is it your intention to take it to FAC? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Certainly the early capture of the Ruhr "might" have shortened the war. It would certainly have disrupted war production, although the bombing was already wreaking havoc on the factories and the civilians. Whenever Montgomery pushed for a narrow front advance on Berlin, Ike always told him that we should take the Ruhr first, and then we can talk about Berlin.
When the US armies attacked the Siegfried Line at Aachen, they had the Ruhr as their objective. However even after Aachen fell, capturing the Ruhr was still impossible – partly due to the fierce German resistance, and partly because Antwerp was not yet receiving cargo.
The Ruhr is a huge and heavily populated area. It is very spread out, and a narrow thrust would not have been effective. It was also heavily defended, by in excess of 400,000 troops, and the Ardennes assault force was gathering nearby. In September Monty did not have the logistics to push enough force forward to capture and hold the Ruhr, far less advance to Berlin.
Achieving FAC would be very nice indeed. However it is my current intention just to clarify and expand the material. Once that is done, I'm sure even more issues will present themselves. However, every journey begins with the first step. We begin today :) Wdford (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have done most of what I had intended, as a first phase. A lot of polishing remains to be done. Then we should fix the lead as well - it is not a good reflection of the article. Wdford (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still polishing. In addition I would like to add this issue as a final section before "Postwar". I see it being closely related to the overall narrow-thrust controversy, where Monty wanted to "thrust" to Berlin, and almost certainly it contributed to the subsequent fuss. See pages 94 and 95 here [4]. Wdford (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the lead section, and apart from Churchill's nagging in 1945 about beating the Soviets to Berlin (which he included in his memoirs as well), I think its basically finished. What do you think still needs to be done before attempting FAC? Wdford (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broad_front_versus_narrow_front_controversy_in_World_War_II&oldid=1206442194"