Talk:Operation Perch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] PERCH and Normandy strategy
The POV and unbalanced tags I added on 1-25-8 were added due to the unbalanced presentation of Normandy campaign strategy. This campaign is controversial even today, sixty years later, with historians and reviewers alike attacking each others' work. I suggest it is unbalanced to present one side of this without the other, or, similarly, presenting the strategy as a settled issue rather than a matter of some dispute.
This is germane to PERCH and other Normandy campaign articles because the way we present the context, objectives and outcome of these operations all depend on the strategy being pursued. I offer several quotes to show what I mean:
-
- "Montgomery's use of the British Second Army in the attack on Caen is one aspect of the campaign which has been argued by participants and historians alike. Montgomery claimed his intention was, and continued to be, to attack in such a manner that the mass of the German armor would be attracted to Caen and fixed there, thus enabling Bradley's First Army to move forward more rapidly. Tedder and others on Eisenhower's staff felt that Montgomery planned a British breakout, and that when he was not successful he fell back on his assertion that his attacks had been merely diversions. This disagreement was particularly evident in relation to Operation GOODWOOD..." West Point Military History Series, The Second World War, Europe and the Mediterranian, p 318. ISBN 0-7570-0160-2
-
- "Nearly forty years later [writing in the 1980s-DM] the debate over Normandy continues unabated...the Montgomery master plan is as much of an enigma now as it was in 1944." p. 476 "As Dempsey's papers consistenty reveal, the object of the Second Army was to keep the initiative so as to prevent the British front from congealing around Caen; but congeal it did, forcing Montgomery into a head-on and costly confrontation in order for the Second Army to gain more favorable terrain and the space for 21st Army Group to maneuver. ." p. 478 "The Normandy controversies were brought into sharp focus during the post-war years when many of the principals published their versions and when the first of the official histories appeared. The great disparity between these accounts, no matter how well intentioned, served only to thoroughly blur and exacerbate these unresolved questions....The most controversial account to appear about Normandy was not written by Montgomery, but by the British government...Ellis [author of the British offical history-DM] had done his fellow historians...a disservice by sweeping controversy and unpleasantness under the rug..." "Decision In Normandy, Carlo D'Este, ISBN 0-7607-5512-4
When we write these Normandy articles while ignoring this debate, we are not only doing a poor job of encyclopedia-writing, we are perpetuating the disservice of "sweeping controversy...under a rug". I intend to add the unbalanced tag back in and will attempt to bring these articles into some balance on this point. Specifically with PERCH, the idea that it was anything other than a failure is POV-pushing.
Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
When you use such bias accounts no wonder there is disagreement!
Did Perch fail in conjuction with an attack from I Corps to encircle and take Caen, yes but no one here is stating it didnt however it wasnt a complete and utter failure as the troops on the ground did an excellent job and by the end of the Operation had pushed the Panzer Lehr out out of Tilly and had pushed the frontline deeper into France then it perviously was, they had also brought about casulties to the German forces which could not so easily replaced. Its not POV pushing to state the Operation made limited gains ... but it wasnt a clear defeat as you would state it was.
You stating that this operation was a clear stright defeat is POV pushing and not factoring in the rest of the fighting and the progress made.
As for the whole issue of what the Normandy strategy was ... well i like the way you completly ignored the post i made within the Villers-Bocage article showing you people who think to the controry. Since you love to bring up only people who disagree that the British held firm to let the Americans brake out why dont you bring up some of the people who do agree with this position for a change if you truley want to balance the issue.
We have not only Montgomery the guy in charge of the land forces during the campaign stating what his intention was, we have Bradley in his own memoirs stating exactly what the intention of the campaign was and that was an American brakeout, even Sandhurst states this is what the intention was.
After the harsh attack on the British Official History, have you ever read them? It not only quotes Bradley who agrees that the strategy was for the Americans to brake out it has quoted Ike stating Montys tactical handing on the situation was masterful, and goes on to talk about the increased pressure from the Anglo-Canadians never let the enemy withdraw and mass his armoured resources.
Historians such as Wilmot and more modern accounts such as Collosal Cracks clearly state from the evidence available that the strategy was to hold around the Caen area to let the Americans brake out.
Should we note that D'Este also states: "it was nevertheless a strategic failure at Caen and the consequences of this were far too grave for it to be dismissed as merely a 'local setback.' To achieve the protective shield Montgomery considered so vital, the capture of Caen and the surrounding key terrain was not merely desirable, as has been suggested by Montgomery himself, it was vital."
Then we have to ask the question of why the majority of German divisions were facing the Anglo-Canadian forces for most of the battle?
Should we also ask the question of if this was not the intention of the Operations why he rushed everything and launched Operation Bluecoat to attempt to halt German troop movement in the direction of Cobra ... if he wanted a Anglo-Canadian brakeout, letting the German reserve move over to the Americans would make perfect sence.
The final and probably most important one, since Monty conduct of the Anglo-American-Canadian Armies resulted in such a resounding victory which was not expected (as we should note that the initial intentions was to encircle the German forces much further eastward then it happened), all before Ike took over as land forces CIC, why would he have to lie about his conduct of the campaign? If the initial plan also called on encircling the German forces to the east, and the Anglo-Canadians on the left flank the Americans would have the furthest route to make progress which would also imply they would have to brake out first so not to let the German forces slip away via a massive opening if the former to brake out first.
Although i have yet to see you ask these questions or bring them up ... just blindly for the most part following what D'Este thinks without questioning anything the man has wrote for instance the illlogical through that the 49th division which was in the process of landing could have reinforced the 7th Armoured Division in Villers-Bocage - a move of nearly 20 miles as the crow flys.
I think a final remark should be made, D'Este states that Michael Wittmann was killed from a swarm of Sherman tanks does he not ... a little off the beaten track there too no? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Really now, i think i have a slightly better idea then yourself. For the example of the only article i have seen which you have edited - the Villers-Bocage one. It was littered with myths, inaccuraies and had no footnotes what so ever to support anything which was stated.
When these faults were being corrected you set reverting stating important context had been removed, cited material had been removed when it clearly wasnt the case.
If i have no idea how the wiki works, i wouldnt have created this article with correctly referanced material to prove what i had wrote and to show the Operation was more then just a march on Villers-Bocage, i wouldnt have completly rewrote the Brevity article so it was closer to the truth and footnoted it, i wouldnt be doing my best to improve articles within the fields of my intrest etc
Everything i have done i have attempted to be impartial, however your attempts to be impartial is to use one source and state he is the font of all knowledge and delete anything which contridcts him and at the same time lunge your what appears to be wonderfully anti-British bias around. Am questions the authors credability! In the El Alamien article, one referanced states over 1000 axis guns destroyed, do you know why i didnt use that as concrete proof thats how many guns were lost ... because another source stated there wasnt even that many there.
If you want a discussion within an article to show the different points of view on the Normandy strategy, the authors, books, facts and questions above are key! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some suggestions
This article has an extensive bibliography section but readers do not what source says what. I recommend startiing with the most controversial items, some of which someone has already tagged for citation needed, and source those. There is also multiple empty sections and it's not clear why they are there. Benjiboi 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The empty sections need to be filled in, they are all key parts of the Operation. Up to now i just havnt had the time to make a start on them, although they will only be covered rather basicilly in some places while for instances the Lingevres section i can throw in quite a bit of info. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It would be good then to at least put a summary sentence in each of those sections or delete them until content is also added. Benjiboi 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Ok i have done so, i will add in more information and footnotes when i have more time. But as a start this should do. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great! Keep plugging away, I've updated the expert needed tag to the military histroy project as well. Benjiboi 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Layout questions
Ive always felt that the list of books and external links should be above the foonotes as one tends to scroll down see the footnotes and make the assumption that is the end of the article.
Prehaps a change to the font size of the source and external link list so it appears smaller would justify it being above the footnotes? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the end of articles the various sections often get messed up and WP:MOS, although extensive, is usually to goto spot on this. "See also", "Notes" and "References" should be in that order with "External links" following. In brief, the thinking is that all articles are on the path to being Feature Article status so we should treat them that way within reason. See also section is for wikilinks in the "waiting" room to get a spot in the text. As soon as a wikilink is in the article it can be removed from the See also's. Ideally you would either have a Notes or References section rather than both. Generally articles will want to cite what source says what so moving toward that end is in your best interest rather than a list of sources. Incidentally I was using "Bibliography" which I just saw should be reserved for an actual authors works, I've reverted myself on those titles. The "external links", again, with feature article in mind, are not really in wikipedia's domain so we cannot vouch for content and should only use them to supplement the article because they hold content the article cannot. I generally try to convert links into references or otherwise remove them. If in doubt you can move them to talk page if they seem controversial. Benjiboi 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citation errors
There are presently two citation errors, it looks liek it was just a formatting or source slip-up putting the page number where something else should go but it would good to correct these. Banjiboi 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Meant to correct them before but forgot, cheers for the headsup :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] removed information from info box
2nd army I Corps 51st Highlanders XXX Corps 7 div 49 div 50 div 4 bde 8 bde
firesupport
HMS Nelson (28)|HMS Nelson]][1]
HMS Orion (85)|HMS Orion HNMLS Flores 2nd Tactical Air Force RAF Bomber Command|Bomber Command
V Corps
- Artillery support
7th army I SS corps Panzer Lehr 101st III Flak XLVII Panzer corps 2nd panzer LXXXIV Korps 352nd 716th
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
