WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom	(Rated B-Class)	Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WP UK PoliticsPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Politics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. More information:   This article was automatically rated by a bot because at least one other project used this rating. Please ensure that the assessment is correct before removing the |auto=inherit parameter. Todo list: edit · history · watch · purge Here are some tasks you can do: Cleanup: Cleanup articles recorded in our Cleanup listing Stubs: Expand any of our stub articles. Infobox: Identify pages that need infoboxes by adding |needs-infobox=yes to the project banner. Add infoboxes to any articles appearing in this category. Other: Check this category for any articles requiring urgent attention. Add {{WP UK Politics}} to all talk pages within the project scope. Assess the quality of all our unassessed articles Identify pages that need images by adding |needs-picture=yes to the project banner. Find images for any articles listed in this category. Note: only free images are allowed for living people unless an argument can be made that their appearance has changed significantly since the time in which they were notable (see WP:NFC#Unacceptable use).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) 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. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force WikiProject Biography / Military / Peerage and Baronetage (Rated B-Class) BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-Class, Low-importance) IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Ireland portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Threads older than 90 days are archived by MiszaBot I.

Contents 1 Succession Box 2 Tidying up: Archive 3 Character and controversy 4 Criticism 5 Assessment and Character

[edit] Succession Box

I would like to edit the Military offices succession box as Montgomery was preceded as GOC-in-C, 21st Army Group by Bernard Paget and at the end of the war the 21st Army Group was disbanded.

I have been able to edit succession boxes before - right on the edit page of an article - such as on the Michael Somare article. Possibly because of the semiprotected status of this article I won't be able to do it this edit. --User:Brenont (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They seem to appear as normal under the "External links" section. David Underdown (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying up: Archive

This page is getting a bit long and historic with a lot of stale threads which are no longer relevant. Normal practice in such cases is to archive the older threads. Does anyone have any objection if I set up a bot to archive automatically discussion threads which have seen no activity for, say, 6 months? The threads will still be available and accessible by a link near the top of this discussion page (see my Talk page for an example of this). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. In addition, I think the "Bias?" section should be archived, because it has become a forum for discussion of the subject. Rees11 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've set archiving up; MiszaBot I should be round to archive all the old discussion in a few hours. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Talk:Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein/Archive 3 doesn't exist, but 4 does? Leithp 09:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged the admin who runs the archive bot about that. Looks like a bot hiccup. Once it's fixed, I'll see if we can run the archives again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily undone the archiving in part as this messed up. Once the archives have been deleted, I'll re-enable archiving to see if we can get it working this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done. But why has the bot left two random threads from 2005 and 2007? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of those were originally undated and I added the dates to one and another editor to the other. I think though that the bot doesn't look at the date in the text but the date it was last edited i.e. a day ago, not years ago. Dabbler (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've manually archived those threads in the correct chronological order. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Second thought, is 31 days not a bit too frequent for archiving? Most archiving bots, I have seen, seem to run every 90 days or so which allows time for a bit more thought and discussion. Dabbler (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed to 90 days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Character and controversy

The two sections "Character and controversy" and "Assessment of Montgomery as a military commander" both have far too much unsourced opinion in them. "It is helpful to analyse Montgomery's generalship by looking at some central aspects of his successes and failures" is completely inappropriate. It is not our job to analyse, our job is to summarise from reliable secondary sources. These sections should be fixed or removed. Rees11 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet it is the major part of the continuing interest in the man and his life. His very character flaws documented in a number of biographies are what still arouse such passionate points of view compared to most of his contemporaries. Ignoring this aspect of his life and career would diminish the value of the whole article immeasurably. Dabbler (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed the point. I think what Rees11 was trying to say in a polite way that there's just too much armchair POV here. The discussion on his character should not be ignored but a balanced summary given with citations to appropriate books - which is the Wikipedia way. Elaborating a conclusion in the article when there are clearly two unreconciled sides to the argument, however, is POV and not the Wikipedia way. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I would welcome a spirited critique of the man, but it should come from sources, not from WP editors. I even added a criticism of my own, the part about the Montgomery cocktail (15:1), but you'll notice it's properly sourced. Rees11 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I think on the whole the article is fairly well-balanced as regards criticisms of Montgomery. One of the most noticeable aspects of Montgomery's life is that he appears to be someone that others 'love to hate' This seems to be based almost entirely on his personality, the criticisms of his military performance almost always seem to be based on either a misunderstanding of the circumstances at the time or just plain misleading statements made by people who had personal axes to grind.

• In Eisenhower's Lieutenants, historian Russell F. Weigley offers this criticism of Montgomery as a strategist:

• Field Marshal Montgomery almost never paid so much as lip service to the dictum that the destruction of the enemy forces is the object of military strategy. ... Montgomery's aggressiveness was that of the energetic fencer, not that of the general who annihilates enemy armies, of Napoleon, of Grant, or of Moltke.[115]

That doesn't seem to apply to the operation around Caen. "By the end of June, Rommel had concentrated seven panzer divisions against Monty’s British Sector. One was all the enemy could spare for the US front. Omar Bradley." Most of these SS panzer Divisions wouldn't agree with Montgomery being 'not that of the general who annihilates enemy armies'. You could also try telling that to the British and Canadian personnel involved. It doesn't help when you're facing tanks that outclass your own so that you can rely on losing the first two or three tanks in a column (sometimes more) before getting close enough to fire back.

• A 1984 Encyclopedia Britannica article sums up Montgomery's generalship in ambiguous terms, reflecting both the perception of his 'over-cautious' approach, but also his reputation for leadership and popularity as a 'soldier's general':

• A cautious, thorough strategist, Montgomery largely eschewed military innovation. Instead he insisted on complete readiness of both men and material before attempting a strike, a policy that exasperated his superiors, but produced several successes in battle, and his ensured popularity with the men.[116]

'largely eschewed military innovation' - well it was Montgomery who was responsible for the large-scale use of deception at El Alamein. He was also an eager advocate of The Funnies, the 79th Armoured Division. If THAT doesn't count as "military innovation" then nothing does.

'instead he insisted on complete readiness of both men and material before attempting a strike' I would have thought that that was simple common sense. One wasn't fighting a second-rate army that could be caught off-guard that easily, the German opposition were one of the best armies in the world at the time, and they didn't 'fall to pieces' when the going got tough like certain other ones I can mention.

I'm no great fan of Montgomery (it's ancient history to me, and I couldn't care less) but it has always struck me that so much of the criticism of him is based purely on personal dislike, the military criticism almost always seems to be based on either ignorance of the facts or just plain falsehoods. A lot of the criticism seems to be coming from military people who never faced anything other than a small (albeit still potent) proportion of the German armies in the West. The fact is that almost ALL of the Wermacht and Waffen SS Divisions after Normandy were fighting the British and Canadians, the greater (and most powerful) part of the German armies in the West. The critics were for the most part facing considerably weaker forces, and it's almost laughable to hear how they would have 'pushed aside' the German forces facing the British and Canadians. The truth is, they would have been annihilated. If I have 7 of the best panzer divisions facing me and you have only 1 facing you, and you then accuse me of being 'slow' my first reaction would be to laugh. I'd then think you a bloody-fool.

I suspect that a lot of the bad feeling against Montgomery stems from the Battle of the Bulge, when Eisenhower placed him in charge of recovering the situation and then SHAEF forgot to tell the Press of the fact - there was very little time in-which to act, so its perhaps understandable they forgot. After a press conference in which Montgomery told them how HE was commanding the forces involved, many US critics thought that Montgomery was lying, whereas he was actually telling them the truth.

I think that the question of Montgomery's reputation illustrates well the problem of judging the veracity of critics, whether their criticisms are valid or not. One of the most noticeable things about his most ardent critics is that so many of them appear to be speaking from positions of ignorance, either due to relying on simple errors of fact or reporting, or through lack of experience leading to a misunderstanding of the (sometimes complex) situation at the time. A lot of them simply don't know what they are talking about.

As a final aside, I suspect that what many of Montgomery's critics found most galling was that he simply did not care what they thought of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.93 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. The discussion here should be about which sources, on both sides of the question, are most reliable, and what information to include in the article. I'm inclined to remove all the unsourced stuff from the criticism sections. Rees11 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you. What I was trying to point out was the many of the so-called 'expert' critics were talking out of their arses, either through ignorance, or in worst cases, through an attempt to deliberately mislead. At best, many display a wilful misunderstanding of the facts. A section on criticisms is fine as long as Wiki pages on other military commanders have equivalent (and equally critical) sections. I suspect I'll have a long wait before that happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.93 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with just removing the sections too. Rees11 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does not seem balanced to me. It doesn't even mention Market Garden until the end, and then only briefly. Competence with the advantage is not greatness. Montgomery cannot be called a brilliant strategist in any of his battles and he was a bit of plodder in them all. Did he do anything to shorten the war? Market Garden (as the article states) prolonged the war. It must be said that a broad front strategy is what Ike wanted, but this article is too kind to this general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating....I look forward to reading your forthcoming book on the subject. However, this POV stuff has no place in this document! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'd pulp it :). I'd like to see whether he actually associated his name to his (or her) book instead of the usual anonymity. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment and Character

As no one has really defended them, I have removed the Assessment and Character sections. There was some good stuff there and I would welcome having it added back in. When I say "good," I mean well sourced, balanced, and not drawing a conclusion. Rees11 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)