Talk:Operation Goodwood/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Addition?

I have an older military study that states the following: "Since the end of the Second World War the breakout and the battles that it involved have become more, rather than less, the subject of controversy. Whether the 'Goodwood concept' of defence against armour by infantry strongpoints is a valid tactic for BAOR is still a subject of dispute within the British Army." I have the reference if desired. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

note for self

BF109s strafed around ridge during 19/20? - see Trew 89

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 July 2010‎ (UTC)

pov citation needed

Probably the biggest post-Goodwood claim of success was that the attack reinforced the German view that the British and Canadian forces on the Allied eastern flank were the most dangerous enemy. This resulted in the Axis committing their reserves to the eastern half of the battle, so the United States forces only faced one and a half Panzer divisions compared with the six and a half now facing the British and Canadian armies. Once Operation Cobra breached the thin German defensive 'crust' in the west, few German mechanized units were available to counterattack.[179] The American official campaign historian wrote post war that had Goodwood succeeded in creating a breakthrough, "...COBRA would probably have been unnecessary."[180]

It seems to me that the quoted text is POV and needs multiple citations. I would be especially interested in seeing the proof of of 1 1/2 Panza divisions.Jacob805 17:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your feedback. Two questions for you:

1. Why is the text POV?
2. Which parts do you think need more citations?

Your request for "proof" seems to be a misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. What we do is reproduce what's written in reliable sources, not seek to prove anything one way or another. EyeSerene^talk 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the articles you are nitpicking, you will find the Operation Cobra article deals with the situation of more German tanks and divisions facing the British rather than the Americans. To further note, the Goodwood article is far from finished and yes does need tidying up and more cititions.

"Only two Panzer divisions with 190 tanks now faced Bradley's First Army.[5][6] Seven Panzer divisions with 750 tanks were positioned in the Caen area,[6] far away from where Operation Cobra would be launched,[5] as were all the heavy Tiger tank battalions and all three Nebelwerfer brigades in Normandy.[70]"

5 -Hastings, p. 236, 6 - Jackson, p. 113, 70 -Wilmot, p.389

From Jackson, p. 113:

15 July, 2 1/2 Panzer divisions face the Americans with 240 tanks whereas 5 1/2 face the British with 580 tanks.

20 July, 2 panzer Divisions face the Americans with 190 tanks where as 7 face the British with 720.

25 July, 2 German panzer divisions face the Americans with 190 tanks whereas 7 face the British with 750.

Considering one of those panzer divisions was the Panzer Lehr, seems quite approbirate to call it half a division, however does anyone own Williams, Andrew (2004). D-Day to Berlin, so that it can be contrasted with the information provided by Jackson and Hastings?

Here you go:

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. In other words, these divisions were the best that Germany had.

IWM images for GOODWOOD here: [1]

... and for the earlier EPSOM here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Newish analysis.

http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1753/1/C.J.Forrester_PhD_History_Montgomery_and_his_Legions.pdf

“Montgomery and his Legions:” A Study of Operational Development, Innovation and Command in 21st Army Group, North-West Europe, 1944-45, C.J. Forrester.Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Quote from Omar Bradley

Here is a good quote from Omar Bradley (via GOodwood talk page)

It sums up the operations rather well

"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

It could be used in the introduction (Fdsdh1 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

CE

Gave the page a spring clean and moved citations to the end of sentences to improve the flow, combined some notes which were contiguous, rearranged a few duplicated categories, altered a few assertive terms to descriptive ones and blammed a few typos. The narrative after 18 July ends rather abruptly and deserves expansion; the conservative mega-citation policy during the writing seems unnecessary given the stability of the page.

IWM collections search for 'Operation Goodwood' images here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Luck

The story of Luck and his leetle friend is an anecdote and really doesn't deserve the space it takes up. Can we just cut the note to something like "[name] [name] and [name] are sceptical of the story and [name] and [name] find it plausible"?Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that works, with the meat and potatoes being transferred to his article. In regards to the "von", I have seen various (non-wiki) style guides that state "von" is a key part of the surname and numerous sources that include it when referring to someone by their surname. A random sample of articles see the use of von and the lack of von when referring to Germans by their surnames. Do we have a style guide on the issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I saw it in a book footnote about Falkenhayn and copied it for brevity.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tidied a few typos etc. Keith-264 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comment: In the more recent historiography, I see about 90% preference for no "von"s, such as: Manstein, Bock, Mellenthin. In the more dated books (1960s for example), von is almost universal. My personal preference is to drop von in favor of just the capitalized part of the name. It's simpler, and avoids the awkward "Von Manstein at the start of the sentence". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The impression I got was that not von is the German usage unless the first name was used as well.Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, with the first name "von" is used: "Hans von Luck"; or with ranks: "Oberst von Luck". But once that's out of the way, I just use "Luck". K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Add, randomly came across this edit from Diannaa, stating that the convention on WP is not to use "von". Since she's a member of the guild of copyeditors, this seems like a good reason to follow the no-"von" convention. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point.Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hello Enigma.

I'm sure there is a resolution to the issue you bring up. But I'm not interesting in discussing it in the face of two reverts after requests to follow Wikipedia's policy to discuss first.

I, on the other hand, am not interested in engaging in an edit war. So please restore the version of the article that existed before you first boldly reverted. Then, bring up your issue here. The details of this Wikipedia policy are here. I look forward to then discussing your removal of properly sourced material. But first things first. If you decide not to restore it, I'll ask an administrator to intervene. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No. You are inserting incorrect information into the article. I will not support the article being wrong while discussing why it is wrong on the talk page. You are wanting to make a controversial change to the article, without concensus, so you should discuss it on the talkpage rather than keep making said change.

You have clearly shown you have no intrest in discussing the situation from the get go, per my reverts: "Canadian forces did not take part in this operation. Operation Spring followed Goodwood, and was a seperate", and "Revert: Operation Spring followed Goodwood, Goodwood and Spring are two different ops. Three British armoured divisions, an infantry division and an airborne division took part in Goodwood. The Canadians launched Atantic ... read the article". You did not heed this advise, you did not decide to discuss the situation, you carried on reverting, and then used a source that highlights the Canadian operation was not Goodwood, but rather Atlantic.

As stated in each revert, as stated in Stacey's work, the Canadians launched Operation Atlantic. They did not take part in Operation Goodwood per se. The source you used support that the Canadian operation was seperate, while being launced on the same day and on the same flank. Your initial source, all about Operation Spring did not support Canadian participation in the Goodwood offensive and its only mention of previous attacks was referring to Operation Atlantic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At just a quick glance of sources: Stacey, the official Canadian historian of the campaign, John Buckley, Terry Copp, and the historian of 8 Corps all note that both the Anglo-Canadian forces took part in 2nd Army offensive on 18 July but that Goodwood was the armoured thrust while the Canadian supporting operation to clear the rest of Caen and strike south, was codenamed Atlantic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I see what happened. First, I did not add the material about Canadian participation. It was an IP user. I only saw your revert for it. I should have looked back in the edit log further. I had thought that it was you making the initial change. My apologies.

Given that, perhaps we can have a more reasonable discussion here.

I have two issues with your revert of my attempt to improve the article though.

• First, what is your issue with the 1947 source that I added? You didn't address that—although the source was fairly clear about this matter—but you must have taken issue with something about it. What was it?
• Second, I have quite a few references for Operation Goodwood, ranging from 1947 to current day. After perusing them for a bit yesterday, I saw that many indicate the Canadians participated in the Operation, although they describe the participation in different ways. For example, the history you mention above states that "The Canadian portion of the operation was known by the code name 'Atlantic'." That shows the Canadians participated in Goodwood. The fact that they called their participation by another codename is not unheard of. The United States's Global War on Terror comprises a large number of named operations from the strategic to the operational to the tactical level. A tactical operation, "Operation XXX", in Iraq in 2005, for example, could still easily be considered part of a larger operation. So, the fact that the Canadians named their portion of Goodwood by a different codename does not negate the fact that they participated in Goodwood as per these sources. Anyway, I attempted to clarify this when I changed the sentence in the lede to the following to better reflect the 1960 source: "The Canadian II Corps's portion of the operation was codenamed Operation Atlantic." I thought that was a more accurate statement and reflected the source well. What issue do you have with this?

Finally, why the concern with including Canada as a participant in the operation? I have no emotional attachment to the idea either way, but I have (as noted) a large number of sources that describe the Canadian participation in ways varying from listing them in the Goodwood order of battle, to noting their unit actions in a Goodwood narrative with British units without caveat or reference to "Atlantic", to including them in the operation through a sub-operation, etc. Since this is a Wikipedia article, why wouldn't we just capture all of this in the article for others to see and consider without passing judgment as editors ourselves? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is quite true that a number of sources lump everything under the one term. The orders of the offensive launched by Second Army, as reproduced in the British Official History and the history of 8 Corps (and possibly other sources), do not provide a name to the entire offensive. The orders, as reproduced, detail the operations to be launched by British 1, 8, 12, and 30 Corps as well as 2 Canadian Corps without giving any of them names.

This article covers all of the operations launched by Second Army, albeit in brief-including the Canadian attack-although the focus is on the attack launched by 8 Corps. This attack, the armoured thrust, is the one solely referred to as Operation Goodwood by a tremendous amount of sources. The sources, while noting the Canadians attack in support/on the flank/at the same time/their part of the operation etc, all describe Operation Atlantic. Operation Atlantic, like Greenwood and Pomegrante, has its own article.

I do not have an emotional attachment to the article, but when there is enough sources out there that show the difference between Operation Goodwood and Operation Atlantic - that they were launched side by side, that they complemented each other, and were both part of an effort launched over a period of several days by the entire Second Army - there appears to be little justification in adding confusion to the article by stating there was Canadian participation in the armoured thrust of 8 Corps.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion in your last paragraph above is noted. However, you've noted that there are sources that lump the Canadian participation into Goodwood, besides the ones that do not. The "little justification in adding confusion..." is your personal preference. I.e., it is a point of view. But it is not our job as editors to choose a side and omit sources that state differently. Differing opinions can exist in the same article at Wikipedia because it is simply a collection of sources, not an essay. As editors, we would simply discuss and apply WP:Weight. If you have an objection to a careful wording of the Canadian participation in Goodwood—reflecting reliable and verifiable sources—that falls within Wikipedia's policies, please bring that up now.

And you have not responded to my first question above. What issue did you have with the 1947 source that I added and you removed?

Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering i have not read it, i cannot verify what it states. However if it does indeed state that the Canadians conducted Operation Goodwood, or played a role in it, then my issue with it –like other sources- is that it generalises the activities of what happened on 18-20 July.

I am quite aware of different sources can be used in articles, and that the different points of view can be represented however that is not what this discussion is about. It is not a matter of opinion on who launched Goodwood, and what the Canadian role was. It is documented fact that the Canadians launched Operation Atlantic to secure the remains of Caen and push south while 8 Corps launched an attack east of Caen. The former being called Atlantic and the latter being called Goodwood.

Canadian participation is recorded throughout the article. The planning of their operations is alluded to. Their attacks are detailed. The planned thrust line of their operations is included on the map. You can call it my personal preference, not wanting to include erroneous information in the article, but on the other hand I could call it your own personal preference to reshape the article by providing undue weight to something that takes the focus off Goodwood-the 8 Corps attack- to a broader discussion of the operations launched by Second Army on 18 July. I would suggest that such a move is amounting to a fringe theory and playing semantics.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The below is everything off my shelf that discusses the operation, it includes a mixture of secondary sources, but it is mostly a list of highly respected historians. The conclusion: Goodwood was an operation launched by the all-armoured corps of British 8 Corps. That the Canadians launched an operation in support of/along side/at the same time etc. of Goodwood. That the objectives of Goodwood and Atlantic were different. None specifically state that Canadian units took part in Goodwood: the armoured thrust. Considering the vast majority of sources agree that Goodwood was the armoured thrust, the article already details Operation Atlantic, it seem further emphasising the operation would be affording it undue weight, as would further detailing the Second Battle of the Odon, or the actions of I Corps.

• Montgomery "decided ... to loose a Corps of three armoured divisions ... this big attack ... called Goodwood" Gerhard Weinberg, A World at Arms, p. 689
• After describing the area 8 Corps would attack over, Wilmot states "This was the chose battleground for Operation Goodwood" (Wilmot, the Struggle for Europe, p. 355)
• Simon Trew describes Operation Atlantic as a "subsidiary" operation to Goodwood (p. 48). The first orders for Goodwood were issued on 13 July. "On the western flank II Canadian Corps chose its own code-name, Operation Atlantic, issuing orders on 16 July." (p. 64) He latter calls it the "combined Operation Goodwood/Operation Atlantic offensive" (p. 70). Battle Zone Normandy, Battle for Caen.
• "This set the stage for [II Can Corps] first offensive operation, Atlantic, and the parallel operation, Goodwood, carried out by 8th British Corps ..." (Brian Reid, No Holding Back, p. 46)
• Over The Battlefield Operation Goodwood by Ian Daglish. Daglish spends the entire first chapter noting how the Goodwood op was given to 8 Corps, the problems 8 Corps faced, their plans etc etc. He devotes two pages of his book to Atlantic, stating the operation was "completely o-ordinated with Goodwood the Canadians' part int he operation was given its own title. Since all the objetives of Operation Atlantic lay on the right (eastern) of the orne ..." (p. 212). Daglish indicates very obvious that the objectives of II Candian Corps and Atlantic, were very different to the objectives of 8 Corps attack.
• "The plan for Operation Goodwood was for three British armoured divisions, under General O'Connor VIII Corps, to carry out the main attack towards the enormouslt important and almost featureless Bourguesvus ridge ... At the same time .... Canadian II Corps ... was to capture the southern part of Caen ... and be prepared to exploit south... where it would hopefully link up with the British ... this part of hte plan was code-named Atlantic..." (Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pp. 169-170)
• Mungo Melvin in The Normandy Campaign 1944: "...Germans managed to block VIII (Br) Corps' armoured phalanx attack during Operation Goodwood" (p. 24)
• "Operation Goodwood ... the employment of massed armour to the east of Caen on 18 July ... The recently established II Canadian Corps, commanded by Lt-Gen Guy Simonds, wouldprovide support by clearing the rest of Caen in Operation Atlantic ..." (John Buckley, British Armour in the Normandy Campaign, pp. 33-34)
• Stephen Ashley Hart specifically notes that Goodwood was the all armoured attack launched by 8 Corps on page 65, Colossal Cracks.
• "Operation Atlantic was the sumultaneous Canadian offensive aimeda in part at taking Vaucelles, the southern park of Caen and its outskirts." (Beevor, D-Day, p. 311)
• "...Dempsey therefore persuaded Montgomery to allow him to mount an all-armoured attack, Operation Goodwood..." (French, Raising Churchill's Army, p. 245)
• Terry Copp states the Canadian part in Goodwood was called Atlantic. Copp, Fields of fire, p. 137
• David Fraser in And We Shall Shock Them, likewise states Goodwood was the 8 Corps armoured attack, (pp. 332-333)
• D'Este, Decission in Normandy, spends several pages going on about how Goodwood was the attack launched the three British armoured divisions that had been assigned to 8 Corps (pp. 353-357) He lumbers the actions of II Can Corps in with thoe of British I and XXX, as a supporting operation with II Can Corps objective as striking south from Caen and protecting the rear of 8 Corps (p. 357).
• Stacey, the Canadian official historian, describes Atlantic as thus: "The 2nd Canadian Corps' operation instruction for Operation "Atlantic", issued on 16 July,72 prescribed that the Corps would capture Faubourg de Vaucelles, bridge the Orne in the Caen area and "be prepared to exploit to capture, in succession" high ground north of St. Andresur-Orne and the commanding village of Verrieres" (p. 170) He further states "the main attack (Operation "Goodwood") would be let loose on the morning of 18 July. The 8th Corps, with the 7th, 11th and Guards Armoured Divisions under command, would cross the Orne through the "airborne bridgehead" and push forward towards the high ground to the south. On the left, the 1st British Corps was to establish a division in the Troarn area, and on the right the 2nd Canadian Corps would have the task of capturing the portions of Caen beyond the Orne and establishing a firm bridgehead in the country beyond. The Canadian portion of the operation was known by the code name "Atlantic"."(.p.169)

Please don't remove properly sourced material from the article if you haven't reviewed it. I restored the Canadian marker in the article's ORBAT. If you'd prefer (and it seems warranted to me anyway), it would be fine to add a note explaining some of the caveats associated with the addition of Canada to the order of battle.

I think we're talking past each other. It's quite fine for the Canadian operation, Atlantic, to be part of Goodwood. I'm not sure what the issue is with that. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. For example, in another Normandy battlefield study I have, the following is listed under "Operation Atlantic": "The II Canadian Corps, commanded by General G.G. Simonds, became operational … They participated in Goodwood on both flanks of Caen" (my emphasis). Some of the references you listed above say basically the same thing. So yes, the name Operation Atlantic existed. But reliable sources also list the Canadians as participants in Goodwood. This is not a "fringe" theory. It simply requires explanation in the article.

You also note in a few places above that this article is about "xxx". But this article is about Operation Goodwood, and what reliable sources state about it. We don't get to decide how to define the limits of the article, except by consensus if reliable sources are mute on the matter. If there are differing, notable ideas about how to frame the operation, they all get included according to the appropriate weights of the sources. Claiming otherwise would be a bit like me starting an article about a glyph that I call a "full stop" and objecting when other people add properly sourced material about "periods". --Airborne84 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, i am not allowed to decide how this article should talk about Goodwood ... yet you apparently are?

The vast majority of sources state Goodwood was VIII Corps armoured attack, the vast majority of sources place Goodwood within context of the other operations launched by Second Army (hence why the article briefly alludes to the other operations ... because the sources do), yet you are edit warring, editing without consensus, editing against the vast majority of sources because the rules that apply to me somehow do not apply to you?

You are ignoring that the majority of sources that state Operation Goodwood was the armoured assault launched by VIII Corps, because you have a tour guide? That adds up to fringe theory. Considering enough sources show the Canadians striking south from Caen, and operating to a limited degree on the eastern side of the city, the western side being covered by British forces it somewhat contradicts your other source that imagines them operations on both flanks.

The sources state:

1. Second Army was given instructions to launch a five corps offensive over several days
2. XII and XXX Corps launched their attack ahead of the offensive (later named Greenline and Pomegrante)
3. I Corps was to launch an attack in support of Goodwood
4. That VIII Corps were to launch an armoured assault, and this assault the vast majority of sources agree was Goodwood
5. The Canadians would launch an attack to clear the rest of Caen, advance south - with different objectives, and a different codename - in support of the operation. Some sources stating that it was part of Goodwood, their part of the Second Army plan/offensive, but in the same breath specify that it was just a support operation, the Canadian’s own operation at the same time as Goodwood, or even just an auxiliary operation.

Am sorry but you have one source that generalises two operations, does not trump everything else that specifies what was Goodwood and what was Atlantic.

I suggest you back up your threat and request administrators as you have displayed an unwillingness to discuss the situation, are editing without reaching consensus, are inserting “ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view”, i.e. a fringe theory that ignores the vast majority of sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You've weighed in with your opinion. At this point there doesn't seem to be much point in furthering the discussion between us. I'll simply see what other editors have to say on the matter. I'll list this matter at WP:Third Opinion when I get some more time, since no one else has weighed in on our discussions. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not weighed in with my opinion on the issue, i have presented the facts that are supported by a wide array of sources and provided quotes or a summary of their views. I have presented my opinion that the sources you are suggesting do not conform to the mainstream view: VIII Corps launched Goodwood. You have presented a single source, and applied additional weight to it regardless of what the other sources say. During this entire discussion, you have failed to even discuss the other sources. Rather than wait, i shall post a short message requesting a third opinion now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. I'm sure you won't mind if I frame my own position if someone provides a third opinion. For example, your comments about me only bringing a "single source" to bear are strange (I noted that many of the sources you listed support my position as well) and your assertion that you haven't weighed in with your opinion is interesting.

But there's no need for you to continue to try to marginalize my position. Why don't we just wait for another editor to provide additional input? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Please feel free to carry on with the personal attacks by all means, and link away to various policy all you like.

Source 1) introduced by an anon editor all about Operation Spring, which you reinserted into the article without looking at the website. Source 2) A 1947 tour guide, which you have provided no quotes from but assure us that it confirms that Goodwood was a joint Anglo-Canadian attack. Source 3) Your word that another source also confirms this position. Since you disassociated yourself with the first, and have not named the second, that only leaves one: the 1947 guide. So not strange at all.

You have failed to discuss or acknowledge that the overwhelming number of sources state that VIII Corps armoured attack was Operation Goodwood, you have not provided anything that contradicts this. Your single source, the 1947 tour guide, at this point is a fringe theory. The fact that you have failed to discuss these sources, or even referto them-other than to note how they confirm your own position of a joint Anglo-Canadian operation- highlights your own confirmed bias.

The vast majority of the sources I have presented highlight what Operation Goodwood was. They frame Operation Atlantic as an attack launched by Canadian forces, they provide a context that ranges from an attack on the same day, a supporting attack, flank support, securing VIII Corps rear, to their part in the offensive launched by Second Army i.e. “their part”. The British Official History and the history 0f 8 Corps, both secondary sources, reproduce the orders issued to Second Army, i.e. the Primary Source, that adds further context to what this means. They show the orders, that required the whole of Second Army-five corps-to launch attacks on 18 July or in support prior to it. This order does not call the attacks by these five corps, Operation Goodwood. The attacks by XII and XXX Corps have their own codenames and are considered seperate supporting operations. Furthermore, the secondary sources also highlight how II Canadian Corps and VIII Corps planned their own indivdual and seperate attacks, issued these days apart, had widely separate objectives, and were not launching a single joint operation together.

What source states there was Canadian forces in VIII Corps?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with most of the information you present above, including the references (although I find your various jabs such as "tour guide" and "editing without consensus" to be entertaining). But your inflexible position of not allowing any compromise, however slight, has made our discussion difficult. You seem to have set up this false dichotomy where there is only one right or wrong answer to this issue. But there are a number of possibilities here. You could have recommended adding a note to Canada in the ORBAT that their participation took the form of Operation Atlantic. Or, Canada could be added in brackets/parentheses with a similar note to identify its participation as different than the UK. Or, you could have recommended omitting Canada from the ORBAT and simply adding a note about this. Since I do not have an emotional attachment to this article or topic, I think you would have found me receptive to suggestions such as these. Other similar wording and compromises are possible in the article as well. But you don't seem to like my suggested compromises, and immediately revert my sourced additions (one of which you didn't even read), so I get the suspicion that even if I sourced the Canadian "participation" in Goodwood with a dozen reliable sources (which I probably could) you would simply revert it. At this point, I feel that the opinions of other editors would be worthwhile to consider. Thanks.--Airborne84 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise your little jabs are wonderfully enternaining. I do not claim ownership of the article, so lets drop the jabs about emotional attachment. Considering you keep claiming you dont have any, why are you fighting so hard to make a change based on such few sources when the majority state Operation Goodwood was the VIII Corps armoured attack? Show me a source that shows Canadian forces were part of VIII Corps during this period. I have no problem with people wanting to edit articles, i have a bunch on my watchlist and they are edited all the time. I have no problem with suggestions being made. You seem to convenienty ignore that this article mentions Operation Atlantic (in the lede, the planning section, in 18 July section etc.), and attempts to place the Canadian attacks in context with whatelse was going on.

You're creating and pursuing a straw man. I don't claim, nor it it necessary, that the Canadian forces were part of VIII. What exactly is wrong with this edit of mine which I thought was a reasonable representation of multiple sources that you yourself presented? It does not require that we discard Operation Atlantic, nor does it require that Canadian forces are part of VIII Corps. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

" ... disputing whether Canada participated in a British military operation" - actually Canadian participants in all WW II battles were still officially British subjects, and remained so until 1946. This was true also for Australians (until 1948) and New Zealanders until 1949.

This means that they were, as far as Britain, and the Germans, and every other country was concerned, equally as "British" as anyone else.

BTW, this situation also applied to every other part of the British Empire, the other constituents of-which only gained separate citizenship after their subsequent independence post-war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

Adjwilley (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

I've looked at the edit history of the article trying to find a diff that crystallizes the dispute, but it looks a little messy, and the closest I could find was this latest revert (which seems to be disputing whether Canada participated in a British military operation). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by EnigmaMcmxc

British Second Army launched a number of operations over the course of a week. The armoured attack launched by VIII Corps, as supported by numerous sources, was codenamed Operation Goodwood. The Canadians launched an operation at the same time as VIII Corps, this attack was codenamed Operation Atlantic.

This article should retain the status quo: focusing on VIII Corps attack, while acknowledging the efforts of British I, XII, XXX Corps and II Canadian Corps. Additional weight should not be applied to the Canadian operation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Airborne84

I propose that Canada be listed as a participant in Operation Goodwood through Operation Atlantic. This could comprise two aspects: (1) careful clarification within the text of the article such as this edit that was reverted, and (2) some kind of note to the order of battle box in the lede noting that Canada's participation in Operation Goodwood was through Operation Atlantic (whether Canada is listed in the box itself or not). This idea is supported in various sources, such as the Canadian historian, Stacy's, work which states that, "The Canadian portion of the operation [Goodwood] was known by the code name 'Atlantic'," as well as other sources such as Terry Crop and Simon Trew above who note that the Canadian operation was part of Goodwood.

Enigma objects to any reference to the Canadian forces "participating" in Operation Goodwood, even if caveated with the statement that the participation was done through its named operation, Atlantic. Because multiple sources state that the Canadians participated in Goodwood through Operation Atlantic, I propose that be stated to some degree as noted above.

And thanks for taking the time to provide a third opinion. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Am sorry but that is entirely inaccurate. The statement that I “object to any reference” is completely erroneous. Considering up until this point I have been the one who has provided most of this article, I can highlight in the lede, the Planning and preparation, and the main attack sections (granted I never got around to completing the rest of the article) where the Canadian role is discussed, and put into context as discussed by the sources. My position is that, per the sources, both articles should stick to their respective Corps attacks, while both highlighting how they were interrelated (and related to the earlier attacks).

In regards to sources please note that Buckley, Daglish (in both his work on Goodwood, and Bluecoat), Fortin, Fraser, Gill, Hart, Holmes, the historian of the 7th Armoured Division, Jackson, Melvin, H.Meyer, Reid, Reynolds (in both his work on I and II SS Panzer Corps), Weinberg, and Wilmot all describe Operation Goodwood was the armoured assault launched by VIII Corps. D’Este lables Atlantic a supporting attack, and while Trew states it was a subsidiary operation (likewise Reynolds calls Operation Greenline a subsidiary operation, yet no one is arguing that the dates of Goodwood should be stretched back a few days) he labels the whole ordeal the "combined Operation Goodwood/Operation Atlantic offensive".

While I do not, personally, rate John Gilbert’s work highly, he provides the context to what Stacey and others are talking about: “On July 18, after a brief pause in hostilities, SHAEF commanders considered the time ripe to order the first breakout from Caen. The main attack of the operation, called Goodwood, was tasked to the British forces to the west … while the Canadians prepared to breakout across the Orne, in the operation code-named Atlantic.”(p. 147)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: would it be inaccurate to say that the attacks were coordinated, as in this edit? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that is pretty much an accurate description of what happened.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if Airborne84 agrees, something like that could be used as a compromise. I think coordinated implies that the Canadians were participants better than the "...Canadian II Corps on the western flank, who were launching their own attack..." wordage from this diff. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. It's a reasonable way to couch it. I restored the test edit since Enigma appears to be ok with it. Pipe in if there's an issue with the text as it stands. If not, I'm ok to close this out.

Adjwilley, thanks for taking the time to chip in with your input.

Enigma, since I haven't said it yet, thanks for your hard work on this article to date.

Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Spring clean

Tidied up a few flaws, operations aren't italicked and unit titles without a national label should be wikilinked with the nationality outside the link. Pared a few long-winded clauses, put commanders in brackets after the introduction of the formation and blammed a few dupe wilikinks. Got ambitious and revamped the Background and Prelude sections but happy to discuss if anyone had a better idea. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

recent edits

Why swap nowrap for & n b s p ; when they do the same thing? Keith-264 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorted out the misguided attempt to impose harvnb citations by changing all citations to sfn and tracking down missing references. Don't know the Zuehlke source though, if anyone does pls add it or let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Goodwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217205831/http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy to http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/gerob.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)