Talk:Bernard Montgomery/Archive 4

State funeral
Our article on state funeral isn't particularly well referenced, but it doesn't make any mention of a KG's funeral being a state funeral, and a fuenral at St george's doesn't really fit the mould of wha twould normally be thought of as a state funeral. David Underdown (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Public perceptions notwithstanding, Montgomery received a state funeral as was his right. This evening I will dig the citation out of Volume III of Nigel Hamilton's biography of Montgomery.  St. George's Chapel is the chapel of the Order.  What can vary are the level of the honours accorded the dead, hence Churchill's in London.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Knights of the Garter are definitely NOT automatically entitled to a state funeral. Only the sovereign (and I think possibly the consort, although I'm not sure even about that) are automatically awarded a state funeral ceremony (unless they refuse it). It is a very specific ceremony. I have never heard that Montgomery was given a state funeral, and as far as I'm aware, in the 20th Century, only 4 people (excepting the Royal family) had one - Roberts, Carson, Haig, Churchill. It doesn't have to take place in London (Carson's was in Belfast I think) but it would be unusual to hold it in Windsor. If this is true, it is a very esoteric piece of knowledge, as almost every source specifies that Churchill's (in 1965) was the last state funeral in Britain to date. It is surprising that the state funeral of Montgomery, who died in 1976, has been forgotten or overlooked, if this is the case. This definitely needs to be cited from a very reliable source, because everything that I can find suggests that it is just plain not correct. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, there's been plenty of recent press coverage of this issue due to the rumours that maggie will be accorded a state funeral when she dies, I certianly don't recall Monty being mentioned as one of them. A ceremonial funeral perhaps, but that's not a state funeral.  David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A very good case in point - Thatcher already IS a member of the Order of the Garter. If she was automatically awarded a state funeral (as would e.g. John Major, a fellow KG, and, eventually, almost all former PMs), why would the papers be full of the controversy? Eleven members of the order have died this century (admittedly one or two of whom were foreigners). I do not recall there being a state funeral nearly every year for the past decade... Harlsbottom has made an honest mistake I think, although I'd be interested to see exactly what his source says, but I am fairly certain he's wrong on this point. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of different funerals paid and organized by the state as opposed to the individual's family. State Funerals are the very top level with all the trimmings, military processions, lying in state and Westminster Abbey or St Pauls (usually) and IIRC require a motion to be passed in Parliament (which may be done in prior to death (see Margaret Thatcher)). The Queen Mother and Princess of Wales had "Royal ceremonial" funerals which were similar but are decreed by the Crown rather than Parliament. Both these are only rarely granted especially to non-Royals. Knights of the Garter are entitled to have a funeral in their Order's home chapel of St George's in Windsor castle, but these are not a full blown State Funeral. Dabbler (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you have clarified the source of the confusion better than I did. A state funeral is something very specific. Montgomery didn't receive one. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how "reliable" you consider The Guardian but this article is unambiguous. Only 9 non-Royal state funerals have occurred in the last 500 years: they are Sir Philip Sidney (1586); Horatio Nelson (1806); Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1852); Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (1865); Charles Darwin (1882); William Gladstone (1898); Field Marshal Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (1914); Baron Edward Carson (1935); and Sir Winston Churchill (1965). Garter funerals at St. George's Chapel are full of ceremonial but are not State funerals. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And also http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/14/margaretthatcher.past - lists the last state funeral as that of Churchill in 1965. Most recent KG to die was probably Edmund Hillary - who does seem to have had the New Zealnd version of state funeral, but also got a memorial service at St George's by virtue of his KG.  David Underdown (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The last two British members to die according to List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter were Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan in 2005, neither of whom had a state funeral (although both services were seemingly in Westminster Abbey). Since things seems to be fairly conclusive, I've reverted to the "non-state" version in the article proper. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Page 946 of Monty: The Field Marshal 1944-1976. "As a Knight of the Garter Monty was entitled to a State Funeral at St. George's Chapel, Windsor.  The Ministry of Defence, in cooperation with Monty's son David, had been making all the necessary arrangements for months past." I would argue that you are all defining State Funeral far too narrowly as something only Royals and Churchill got. And quite frankly, I would not consider any newspaper article since Churchill's funeral as especially accurate.

Anyhow, from my own experience how would one characterise John Jellicoe's funeral? Lying in state (St. Henry;s Chapel, Westminster Abbey, chapel of the order of the Bath), procession to the Admiralty, followed by a massive military procession to St. Paul's Cathedral and his grand interring there.

At any rate, the wikipedia article on State Funerals isn't specific and is largely unreferenced, and I've seen nothing on this thread which approaches evidence that they are limited to Royalty (although Dabbler raises good points). As to why there's a hoo-ha about Thatcher having a state funeral, there are many people out there who hate her so much that they would begrudge her a good send-off, or there are those who fear that such an event would become a flashpoint for violence. As to Heath and Callaghan, the key word there is "entitled".

And so far I'm the only person to have quoted anything from a published source other than a newspaper, which all to frequently get their history wrong. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the BBC? (Bolding is my emphasis)
 * The Queen Mother would have been the first to insist her funeral should in all ways adhere to Royal protocol. There would have been no question in her mind that her passing should be marked by a ceremonial funeral rather than a state one.


 * The distinction is a subtle one. State funerals are reserved for monarchs and although the Queen Mother was queen, it was her husband George VI who held the throne.
 * There have been exceptions over the years. In 1965, Winston Churchill was afforded a state funeral to honour his life as a great war leader. His body travelled on a gun carriage from Waterloo Station to St Paul's Cathedral where it was borne up the steps by officers from the Grenadier Guards. A precedent had been set in 1852, with the lavish state funeral of the Duke of Wellington.


 * Pomp and ceremony
 * These apart, the term "state funeral" has been reserved for reigning kings and queens. Most of us watching, though, will notice little difference between the state and ceremonial event.


 * Buckingham Palace says the only visible departure is that Her Majesty's coffin will be carried by sailors rather than drawn by horses on the day of the actual funeral.BBC News site
 * Now I agree that the BBC doesn't mention Montgomery as not having a State Funeral but it wouldn't if he didn't have one and if he had I suggest that they would have included it. I think that Hamilton is using the term too loosely in applying it to Montgomery's funeral as the BBC is well known for its care in dealing with Royal protocol issues. I don't know what Jellicoe's funeral arrangements were called, but all the references don't mention them as being a "State Funeral" as such but perhaps it was something else of a similar nature. Dabbler (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[Unident] Given that reference, I can certainly understand the confusion. Simply put, it's wrong. I will try to dig out some corroboratory literature today, if you refuse to accept newspapers published after 1965 (a position which is possibly a little extreme). Another idea would be to involve the various relevant Wikiprojects on nobility etc etc. I am a little surprised however - the Thatcher furore, which has been all over the papers recently is, one would have thought, fairly conclusive on this issue. Whether they would want to or not (in the case of Thatcher, it seems to be New Labour itself that suggested the idea of a state funeral, I can't remember there being any particular groundswell of opinion in favour previously), the government is not able to "unentitle" someone from having a state funeral. ALL of the Thatcher articles have made clear that a state funeral is something very, very unusual. There are (in excess of) 25 members of the Order at any one time, of whom about 9 (British) members have died since the year 2000. Using your argument, ALL of these were entitled to a state funeral, but NONE chose to accept it. That, to me, is a little strange. Members of the Order of the Garter are not by right entitled to a state funeral. The author has either made a mistake, or been a little loose with his wording. But if that is what your reference says, then we certainly need to find counters to it to confirm that it is erroneous. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will admit, I find the lack of anything concrete on the subject worrying, but I have a lot of respect for Hamilton's scholarship. I've been in contact with him before on another issue, but he now lives and works in the United States and all his "Monty" materiel is here in the United Kingdom, so he might be able to explain his choice of words.


 * I will ask though, how many of you have read the laws governing the Order of the Garter? I know I haven't, and I really do doubt that anyone else commenting here has.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I did look at the pages on the St George's Windsor website, and they certainly don't mention anything. The statutes will have been published in the London Gazette, so it should be possible to find them.  David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty, which so far has led to one assertion that members of this order do not automatically qualify for a state funeral. There are multiple sources - from the BBC and respected national newspapers - asserting that the last was Churchill in 1965. There is the recent Thatcher furore, which, to me at least, is conclusive in itself. There would be no debate as to whether or not to grant Thatcher the honour of a state funeral if she was already entitled to one anyway, and I do think the sources are clear on this. If all members were granted a state funeral, and there are dozens of members, then we would see more than 4 or 5 state funerals a century I think, even if some waived their right to one. In a work of scholarship of 947 pages or more, mistakes are going to creep in regardless of how well researched it is. I suspect the author may have meant it in the sense of "a funeral where the deceased lies in repose", i.e. for viewing (perhaps by the public) beforehand, and used his wording a bit loosely. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would perhaps accept this as a mistake if only one man had made it - however I have come across two other books which directly refer to Montgomery's funeral as a state funeral. Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1887-1976: A Selected Bibliography (1999) p. 129 and Montgomery's own brother, Brian (who walked behind Montgomery's gun carriage at Windsor) in  A Field-marshal in the Family (1987) - can't find the page reference for that right now but it's on Google Books. Noone thought to correct hamilton on it in his O.D.N.B. entry for Montgomery. In The Times of Thursday 1st April, 1976, it is recorded that "Marshal Rudenko, the Soviet Minister of Aviation, is to attend the state funeral at Windsor". In The Times of 4th May the event was also labelled as "a state occasion". Commonly used to describe the funeral at the time as well was "military funeral". To find all this out took ten minutes tops. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the Times reports that say anything other than funeral say miltary funeral. Perhaps most tellingly the Court Circular for that day simply says funeral, not state funeral.  We have good references to state that the last state funeral was that of Churchill - and form the similarity of the answers in the BBC and Guardian, I'd rather suspect that their information derives ultimately form the same official source.  Just because other people have made errors doesn't mean to say that we have to perpetuate them here. David Underdown (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now also checked Hansard. There are plenty of references to a state funeral in connection with Churchill.  None in connection with Montgomery.  David Underdown (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a state funeral. The sources are clear. However, you've done your homework - if you persist with this line of argument (as you have every right to do, even if incorrect, you have sources which seem to back you up) then it's up to us to find counterweights asserting the fact that Churchill's was the last state funeral in Britain (which it was). For my part, this will have to wait until at least the weekend. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Video clip of the funeral here. Not withstanding the inaccurate caption, the hearse is being drawn by horses. MAG1 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum
Going to add a line or two about the IWM as they have extensive holdings relating to Montgomery's service which I think are relevant to this article. IxK85 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

North Africa and Italy
I would like to propose that the following sentence is changed from this:

In conjunction with the Anglo-American landings at Salerno (near Naples) by Mark Clark's Fifth Army and seaborne landings by British paratroops in the heel of Italy (including the key port of Taranto, where they disembarked without resistance directly into the port), Montgomery led Eighth Army up the toe of Italy.

to this:

In conjunction with the American landings at Salerno and British landings in Taranto Montgomery led the Eighth Army up the toe of Italy. Landings at Salerno were made by Mark Clark's Fifth Army. Seaborne landings by British paratroops in the heel of Italy included the key port of Taranto. The British disembarked without resistance directly into the port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.148.225 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the concluding sentence, paragraph six of this section be expunged:

“Montgomery, however, is sometimes criticized for failing to capitalize on his victory at El Alamein.”

To simply mention that Montgomery is ‘sometimes criticized’ by persons unnamed could be considered a historical ‘fact’. However, to make such a statement without adding any supporting evidence or justification in what purports to be a historical article implies that the writer agrees with its validity and does not consider proof to be necessary.

The assertion may well be very popular with Americans but is not supported by any facts. It represents a sly attempt to distort or falsify history. Opinions based on pure ignorance should not be included in any kind of historical work.

I propose that the following paragraph be inserted in its stead:

“Virtually all Axis armor and artillery was abandoned or destroyed. Over 30,000 prisoners were taken with an estimated 10,000-20,000 dead. The Eighth Army then entered the post battle pursuit phase, which lasted 17 days, and advanced 670 miles, at an average rate of 39 miles per day, to take the demolished port of Benghazi on 20 November 1942.”

I know of no other example of a military land advance that went as far and as fast. Nothing in history even comes close.

Finally, the ‘Slowness and Overcaution’ section should be corrected to exclude El Alamein as an example of the alleged ‘slowness’ of Montgomery and the Eighth Army. Such a claim is untenable.Targossan (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

field Marshal Bernard Montgomery cap badges
what are the two badges on his cap(92.24.124.125 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

His badge of rank and the Tank Regiment badge (of which he was not a member) DMorpheus (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image sizing
Regarding the recent edits and reverts regarding image sizes, I've read WP:MOSIMAGE to see what it says regarding thumbs. This doesn't seem to be one of the exceptions to using the thumb sizing. I wouldn't care either way, but the forced image sizing has resulted in the article becoming a jumbled mess on my relatively small laptop screen. Is it really necessary in this case? Leithp 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Images can be user set under My preferences, when the image size has been forced it ends up as Leithp says in a jumbled mess. the default when using thumb is 180px. If a editor is not happy with the default all they have to do is amend their own prefs setting. That way the article is presented to everyone according to their own settings. Users not logged in or without an account will get the default setting. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three thoughts: (1) The Manual of Style is a guideline, not a set of hard-and-fast rules. (2) The list in the MoS is not an exclusive one, it's just a list of possible examples where hardcoding may be appropriate; other examples may be just as appropriate. (That's why we've got brains and judgment, to use in determining stuff like that, as opposed to being a robot and just looking up stuff in a list of rules.) (3) Anything which improves an article is, inherently, allowed - that's the real meaning of WP:IAR. So, you guys decide: are you going to slavishly and dogmatically follow a list of suggestions as if it was God's word sent from on high, or are you going to actually look at the article and make a judgment about what's best for it?  It's up to you, because I'm out of here -- I've used up my allotment of giving a damn for this particular article, so while the discussion can (and should) go on here, include me out, please.  I won't be editing this article any further.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, the result of forcing image sizes to a larger size is that it can cause problems at lower resolutions. Unless there's a compelling reason for doing it, I can't see why we would want to hamper readability for those users. Leithp 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Montgomery cocktail
I added a sentence about the Montgomery cocktail, which I think is interesting and amusing, but I can see how some might find it a bit snarky. If the citation is in doubt I can dig up others, dating back to about 1948. The one I gave was just the first I came across. The drink is well known among martini fans, probably better known than Montgomery himself. Rees11 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britanica as Reference???
At the bottom of the entry, in "Weakness as Strategist", it has this quote from THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANICA: "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.[52]"

I don't necessarily have a problem with the quote, but isn't it a little ridiculous, not to mention juvenile, for Wikipedia to use another Encyclopedia as a source???? Only kids in Grammar School, Junior High, and maybe High School use Encyclopedia's as references!!! This should be deleted, as it completely calls into question the credibility of Wikipedia, which is, thanks to partisans, already seriously in question.64.105.104.92 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bradley Quote
For those 'experts' critical of Montgomery's 'slow' performance in Normandy, here's a quote from Omar Bradley.

''The containment mission that had been assigned Monty was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishment of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realize that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. 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.

From: Operation Epsom - Normandy, June 1944 by Tim Saunders - Battleground Europe series - Leo Cooper - 2003 ISBN 0-85052-954-9

BTW, these seven panzer divisions were mostly Waffen SS ones, including the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, the 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, etc. The non-SS panzer division was the Panzer Lehr, made up from instructors from the tank training schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.33 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Night fighting
A night fighter (also all-weather fighter) is a fighter aircraft adapted for use at night or in other times of bad visibility. Is this the definition that is meant by 'night fighting' in this article? If so, the wikilink can be amended.--User:Brenont (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Kirragetalk - 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 Kirragetalk - 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)

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 Kirragetalk - 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)

I agree with Rees11, but the fact that this article lacks a concise summary of Montgomery's tactical ability and leadership means that the average reader cannot fully appreciate Monty's tactical ability. The problem here is finding adequate sources. Almost all his fellow officers hated him, and their correspondences reflect these petty grievances, especially in the case of General Patton. On the other side we have Monty's own correspondence that sounds like he marched into Berlin and shot Hilter personally. And the subsequent commentary seems to fall into those categories. What is needed is an objective assessment of the man, but I've yet to find something. KwaggaDan (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem like someone would have written an objective assessment of the man, but I haven't found one either. In the absence of a single reliable source, I would settle for summaries from two sources, one on each side. But I want them from historians, not from primary sources like letters from Monty or his officers. Or worse, opinions of WP editors, which is what we had before I removed it. Rees11 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done some research, and Breaver in his book "D Day" has a fairly negative summary of Montgomery in the conclusion. Saldy I have found nothing to his benefit that wasn't authored by Monty or his staff. 41.247.160.162 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be nothing wrong with quoting the writings of members of his staff, after all they were the ones who saw Montgomery close up and were able to work with him. If they depict him in a positive light, perhaps they had reasons to do so which were not so apparent to people viewing him from a greater distance. A critical reading should show whether the material is puff and flattery or a reasoned assessment from someone who worked closely with the man. Dabbler (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the refs for the "positive" section were from Dixon, On the Psychology of Military Incompetence. The title doesn't sound promising but maybe there is some good material there. Anyone have a copy? Rees11 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)