Article promoted by Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article may be too short for FAC, but I am sending it to A-class anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Images appear to be appropriately licensed. I don't think the article is too short for FAC—assuming that it covers the subject thoroughly. For improved readability, I would divide "Eisenhower's response" section into subsections, at 13 paragraphs it's way too long. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see this article here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

Good to have the expert on World War II taking an interest in it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "considered both Montgomery's proposed advance on the Ruhr and Berlin and Bradley's prosed advance on Metz and the Saar, and assessed both to be feasible" - repetition of 'both'

  Y Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "This caused a complete turnaround in the operation situation." - this seems an over-statement. The modern literature on the Normandy Campaign tends to note that the German forces were well on the way to collapse before Operation Cobra, and the decision to fight for Normandy rather than pull back into France had advantages of the Allies given that the Germans were heavily exposed to Allied sea and airpower in Normandy.

  Y The German forces had been worn down, and unlike the Allies had not received a stream of reinforcements to replace their losses. I p have seen the argument that pulling back would have been a better strategy, but I doubt it personally. Deleted sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the Germans were, happily, doomed to be thrashed regardless of what they did. They were outclassed by the Allied armies, and utterly outclassed by Allied air power. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " but following the breakout from Normandy, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, ordered a regrouping of his forces" - wasn't the 12th Army Group established per a pre-invasion plan? (I can't remember if this was triggered by a date or a set of criteria)

  Y By a date. The 1st Army Group was established in the UK. Its headquarters was used to form that of the 12th Army Group. Its deployment on 1 August (and that of the Third Army, which became active the same day) was agreed between Bradley and Eisenhower at a conference on Cobra on 20 July. (Bradley, p. 351) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first two sections need to note the considerable divergence from the Overlord Plan - what was originally envisioned as a steady advance through France (with a period of consolidation once Normandy and Brittany were secured) ended up being a very different campaign which started with painfully slow advances and ended with some of the fastest progress of the war as the German Army seemingly collapsed. The article doesn't really capture the combination of the vacuum in planning and 'victory disease' which was at the centre of this debate.

  Looking at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eisenhower's decision to forego the capture and development of the ports of Brittany in favour of an advance to the German border left the Americans wholly dependent upon the Normandy beaches" - the Germans also demolished the ports so thoroughly that little use could be made of them. Capturing the channel ports had a lot of advantages as well.

  That's Montgomery thinking. It is true that the ports would have been damaged, but the Allies were good at repairing ports. Here's where the flawed American organisation comes in. The Channel ports were allocated to the British. Bradley's decision in early August made it inevitable that the Brittany ports would not be captured quickly, but there is no indication that the logistical implications of his decision were considered. SHAEF recommended abandoning development of the Brittany ports on 3 September (which Eisenhower confirms on 7 September), but the logistical data is in the hands of COMZ. Only then does COMZ examine the situation and reports that the American Army is going to need the Seine and Channel ports (which had not yet been captured). At this point a stretch of bad weather alerts Eisenhower to the impending crisis. He noted that Bradley first raised the issue of Antwerp on 21 September. COMZ only decides to use Antwerp for US forces on 27 September. Only towards the end of September does Eisenhower focus on Antwerp, and he orders Montgomery to pull out all the stops on 9 October. At this point 12th Army Group does not believe that Antwerp will be open before 1 December. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to defer to your superior knowledge here, but capturing ports in Brittany wasn't going to deliver benefits given that the Germans were very good at demolishing them in ways which made them very slow to return to service. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention the destruction caused by the Allied air forces and artillery. The damage to the railway system was also significant. There was some debate about the Brittany decision, which has been called the "Critical error of World War II". What really went wrong is that decisions were taken without proper consideration of the consequences. It takes weeks for the Americans to realise that if not Brittany, then they need alternative ports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't Montgomery continue to advocate for a narrow front advance after September 1944?

  No, but he continued to lobby for the ground command for another four months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Controversy' section feels incomplete given that it's focused on old works when this issue continues to be debated (though the general view today seems to be that Eisenhower made the right decision and Montgomery was somewhere between obsessional and insane, which I suspect is a bit unfair).

  That not what the sources here have to say. The consensus is that Eisenhower's broad front was doomed to failure from the start. Let me know if you have sources worth a look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, I'm thinking of the works which debate whether Market-Garden was a totally bad idea or not, as well as some works which are keeping the Bradley vs Montgomery dispute going 75 years later. These might more relate to Monty's campaign to be ground forces commander though (but I think that the goal of that was for the unified forces under his command to make a single thrust into Germany?). The underlying issue is that unfortunately the Germans weren't beaten enough and their leadership was too irresponsible for the Allies to win the war in 1944 so both the narrow front and broad front options weren't going to deliver victory until 1945. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll see what I can dig up. What makes least sense to me is the anti-British feeling in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hawkeye7: have you had any luck here? Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't found much, I'm afraid. Will add a bit more. Do you think the maps in Ellis far under the Open Government Licence? ie [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries. I'm pleased to support this nomination then. My understanding is that British Crown Copyright is 50 years like Australia (but don't quote me on this! - the relevant tag at Commons should have the right details), so Ellis should now be PD. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nick-D: As if on cue, someone has written a new book on the subject. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helpful, though the thesis being advanced in the book looks dubious to me. It's also odd how some authors want to blame the Allied leadership for not finishing off the Germans in 1944, rather than the German leadership for prolonging the war despite it being obvious they were beyond the point of recovery. I really don't see how the Germans were beaten-enough to be destroyed in 1944, especially given that such arguments are based around the western Allied leadership not running a perfect campaign (surely what they did was pretty good!). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I've said that in the article. There was no chance of victory in 1944. Yet even in 1945 there as a feeling that, given the resources committed, that there were a lot of things that could have done better. But I don't think they could have done that much better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, agreed. Re-opening Antwerp a lot faster and not being taken by surprise in the Battle of the Bulge were probably the most realistic things they could have achieved. The fact that I've recently created articles on two 1944 battles which cost the Germans around 40,000 troops against minor Allied losses and another editor recently created an article on the mass-surrender of 20,000 cut off Germans in France says a bit about how well the Allies actually did not being recognised. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Brigade Piron[edit]

Although I have no particular expertise in this, the article looks excellent and must be close to A-Class. I do think, however, that it really needs a map to show the status quo on the Western Front in c.August 1944. At a push, this would look adequate and I am sure there are better ones out there. Also, the title seems a bit unwieldy - why not remove "in World War II"? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That map is in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, I'll have a look at this. Do you want a straight ACR review, or should I comment as if it were at FAC, pre-empting a likely nomination. ACR is less work for me, but on a skim I can see a couple of things which are fine for ACR but which would be issues at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article could garner enough reviews at FAC to warrant nomination, but if there would be issues at FAC I would like to know what they are, as this would definitely preclude nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

The following review is against the FAC criteria then.

• Optional: I would put the first 11 words in bold.

  Requires re-wording but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "They achieved tactical and operational surprise". Consider linking both "tactical" and "operational".

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure that "but not its pride" is either encyclopedic or adds anything to the article.

  Removed. It does tie in with the article, but the reader can probably infer it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the 12th and 21 Army Groups kept together to advance". '21st'?

  Ooops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". "Montgomery's proposal" section relies heavily on quotes. Not a problem at ACR, but would be at FAC. I can see the advantage of using Monty's own words, but IMO the block quote overdoes it and most or all of this would be better in Wickipedia's voice.

  I've removed a couple of the quotations. I think it is important for the reader to hear Montgomery and Eisenhower in their own voice. (I once wrote a whole article in Sir Humphrey Appleby's voice.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It was the extent of the quote(s), not the principle, which caused me to think you were pushing the MoS boundary. (I like that! Which one?)

• "Montgomery contended that the 21st Army Group needed the assistance of at least twelve American divisions, and to provide the logistical support for them, he recommended that Patton's Third Army be halted.[23] In August and September 1944, the US First Army consisted of nine divisions, so giving twelve to Montgomery would have meant handing over the entire army to Montgomery." "Montgomery" appears three times in the sentence. Perhaps the last mention to 'him'?

  Tightened the wording to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dempsey's British Second Army advanced 400 kilometres (250 mi) across France and Belgium to capture the port of Antwerp largely intact" Any chance of dating this?

  On 4 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "A complication was the Ultra secret". What this was should be briefly explained in line.

  Added "whereby German encrypted messages were being read by the Allies" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the article is a little quote heavy. Personally I think that you use them judiciously and appropriately and stay just about on the correct side of MOS:QUOTE. If this were FAC others may disagree.

  As noted above, I have cut back on the quotations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article and a good summary of the debate. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Eisenhower's reputation has been slipping in the 21st century; possibly because the generation that knew him are dying off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised it was, but I probably have less than half a dozen works on NW Europe from this century. Supporting, great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Looking good. A few comments from me:

• "Montgomery's primary mission was to defeat Germany as quickly as possible" wasn't this also the US mission? This seems to imply otherwise by noting he was British.

  Of course. I have rewritten this: "

Like his American counterparts, Montgomery's primary mission was to defeat Germany as quickly as possible, but as the senior British commander in north west Europe, he also operated under political pressure to achieve two other objectives. The first was that, given Britain's precarious economy and manpower situation, a victory in 1944 was preferable to one in 1945. He was therefore inclined to grasp at the most tenuous prospect of this, whereas Eisenhower was more ready to accept that it was unachievable." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest unpiping the link to Walter Bedell Smith, as he is far better known as that than with the initial.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At the point it mentions "The decision to continue the pursuit beyond the Seine" there has been a good summary of the British advance during Monty's offensive, but there is a dearth of information about the American advance, where it was up to, what had been captured etc.

  Added bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "stretched the logistical system" the American one, or the Allied one? The implication is it is talking about the American one.

  Yes. Added "American". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• explain why "Bradley did not comply".

  I've added a new paragraph:

  While Bradley acknowledged the value of the Ruhr, he contended that instead of First Army encircling it from the south with a crossing of the Rhine near Cologne like Montgomery recommended, it would be preferable to undertake a wider envelopment of the Ruhr with Third Army crossing in the vicinity of Frankfurt. Even more so than Eisenhower, Bradley was a proponent of the broad front doctrine taught at Fort Leavenworth. Since he considered that the German Army in the West had been completely defeated, he saw no reason to halt Patton's drive on the Saar, which he saw as providing a tactical windfall. Eisenhower relented on 5 September, and agreed that Patton's advance could continue. Bradley continued to support Patton's to the extent of starving First Army units of fuel, and allocating Third Army two divisions released from front in Brittany. This resulted in Eisenhower issuing a more explicit statement of his intent on 13 September.

  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you can correct the typo in "with you conception" your

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• he could support the 21st Army Groups? Group?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The subsequent defeat at Arnhem make it clear" made?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest "many of these were incomplete because of the fact that Ultra – whereby German encrypted messages were being read by the Allies – was kept secret until 1974."

  Altered along the lines suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• usually von is dropped after initial use in the full name (ie Blumentritt wrote that von Rundstedt)

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The consequences if the narrow front advance had failed, should also be considered." what consequences does Andidora refer to?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• a final query. Could more be said about the role of the failure to clear the Scheldt estuary and therefore put Antwerp into operation to support Montgomery's idea?

  Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, supporting. I have also done a source review, and all the sources are reliable. No spotchecks conducted as the nom has a long history at ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]