Talk:Bernard Montgomery/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Monty's plan to retake Ireland

Anyone have any details on this? Its mentioned in Fisk, Robert. I'm asking because I mentioned it in Plan W.

Fisk says around 1939-1940 Montgomery was involved in creating a plan to retake Cobh [Cork harbor]. He was to do this using the British 3rd division so that the harbour could be used as a naval base for the British anti-submarine war in the Atlantic. Is it possible any Monty experts know about this? Fisk P.241 Robert Fisk, "In Time of War" (Gill and Macmillan) 1983 ISBN 0717124118 Thanks Fluffy999 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fluffy999, fancy meeting you here. I have read nothing about this, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that Montgomery and the 3rd Division were otherwise occupied in France until Dunkirk (beginning of June 1940).MAG1 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I followed you over here :) OK I will look into it a bit more. Thanks Fluffy999 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not impossible, though it wasn't about recapturing Ireland. In his war histories Churchill says that agreements apparrently existed to allow the British Navy to use ports in the Republic of Ireland in the event of emergency, but the ROI refused. This would have made a huge difference to the effectiveness of the British Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic. Churchill writes that in his opinion the British would have been justified, both legally and morally, in enforcing these agreements with military force. Probably fortunately he was persuaded otherwise. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is actually quite a large topic; however, though Britain and the US did pressurise Ireland over access to the ports and Churchill was not averse to obtaining the ports by force, he never had support from the cabinet, other allies, or public opinion. There were no definite moves to occupy bits of Ireland, so if there were any plans they would have been coningency plans. While on plans though, there was a view that the UK would help defend Ireland against German invasion, and I should think there would also have been some planning towards this, though again nothing definite. Unless someone has found something concrete, I don't think any of this affects this article. One for pedant's corner: southern Ireland was a dominion, not a republic, at the time. MAG1 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest expansion

What do people feel about the latest expansion by Enriquecardova? I think it is good stuff, a genuine contribution, and well written, but I do have some criticisms:

1. it is not well integrated with the rest of the article and does read like an essay stuck on the end of a biography;
2. as a result, it repeats alot of material already in the article;
3. it badly needs some inline references as it is difficult to distinguish what are the opinions of the author (which perhaps should not be there if any have been inserted) and what comes from verifiable sources;
4. the article is too long already;
5. on a more general point, it is perhaps best to avoid opinions on who was a 'good' general, king, president or whatever and keep to the facts otherwise we end up with unwieldy articles full of NPOV, edot wars &tc &tc, and not much that is useful for the general reader.

I would propose integrating any extra material with the rest of the article (which I don't mind having a go at), but what do others think? MAG1 21:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair criticisms.

1. I added on that last "Assessment as a Military Commander" section to disentangle some of the military aspects of Monty's work from the personality issues, which are covered in the "Character and Controversy" section and elsewhere. I felt personality aspects such as Monty's sometimes boastful pronouncements might overshadow the military perspective. Was Monty too slow or was he simply faced with the realities of war? Partisans on either side will never agree. There is so much controversy on this fellow I felt a separate area would be useful to clearly analyze the pros and cons using a balanced approach. Burying them in the text gets into the POV controversy again. Admittedly the summing up is not a perfect job;
2. Of course the section could be integrated, but then again so could the "Character and Controversy" section which contains details on his clashes with Eisenhower, his British colleagues and the Americans, etc. Some of theseitems could (and probably should) be integrated into the text but with a character like Monty having a separate "Character and Controversy" section (minus some parts) seems reasonable. Just as there is a "Character" section, I felt a stepping back, a big picture view is necessary to keep the military angle in mind, more so, because Monty himself had very definite ideas about warfighting. These need to be examined on their own merits.;
3. You are correct about more inline references being needed which I will add, such as links to other wiki articles on Normandy, El Alamenin, etc;
4. As to claims about the best generals, that is a fair criticism, although that is what his biographer Hamilton and a number of other authors in the field speculate on. For example the article has a quote by AlanBrooke that Monty in his opinion was the best tactical general since Wellington. In other words, there is no end of clashing opinions and comparisons about Monty in the literature. Still point taken. I will modify that statement to say "in the opinion of some military leaders and historians" which should help any POV confusion andhave removed an entire paragraphy which formerly said

"Possessing neither the dash or charm of Patton, the diplomacy of Eisenhower, the modesty of his counterpart William Slim in Burma/India or the Olympian flair of a MacArthur, and possessing a brusque and conceited manner, Montgomery does not cut a sympathetic figure in many respects. But while he often exasperated his superiors, his enormous popularity among ordinary Britons, as well as his own troops, and the clear results he produced in furnace of combat, testify to the power of his vision, and the efficacy of his methods.";

1. You are also correct that the article is long, but readibility could be aided greatly by better use of more sub-headings to break up long blocks of text. Any controversial character is sure to generate a long article.;
2. I propose keeping both the "Character and Controversy" and "Assessment as Military Commander" sections intact for they both serve to flesh out the controversial career of Montgomery. They could always be made more concise and readable of course.

Enriquecardova 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the comments the right way. Good case for the adding off the section. I am trying to integrate it more with the preceding text (a narrative followed by two discussion sections sort of structure), so moving stuff down, and not repeating narrative. Have to stop now, but will try and finish it off soon, then see what you think. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I think comments from proper soldiers about generalship are well worth inclucding (though with care here: there is no consensus); what I think would be bad is for you, me, and other people who have not been in charge of battles to start trying to leave to posterity our opinions. MAG1 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Finished now. Changed quite alot, I am afraid, trying to be thematic rather than describing what happened at each event. I have taken out the stuff about Montgomery not really being in charge at Arnhem, as I don't think it can be sustained, some parts which were repeating material, and also the conclusion as I couldn't think how to do it in a NPOV way. Any thoughts anyone?MAG1 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Normandy

Some words from Carlo D'Este's Decision In Normandy:

"....the formost trainer of troops produced by Britain during the war...."

"....there was much to admire in Montgomery, not least his determination to stick to his principles."

"To isolate the truth from the mythology of Normandy has been the major task of this account, for unless the veneer of myth and conjecture can be stripped away, it becomes impossible to assess Montgomery's achievements with any degree of balance. ....

"The notion that Montgomery's campaign in Normandy was the product of a grand design executed exactly as planned is, of course, a misconception which has failed the test of careful scrutiny......his shift to a strategy of containment had many adverse side effects...."

And Air Vice Marshal Sir Phillip Wigglesworth: "The Caen fight was a failure. Monty thought up excuses later....so we will have a legend."

D'Este: "The key to achieving the goals of the master plan were retention of the initiative and flexibility, and it was at Caen that Montgomery lost both."

"As Dempsey's papers consistently reveal, the object of the Second Army was to keep the initiative so as to prevent the British front from congealing around Caen, but congeal it did...".

DMorpheus 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

More quotes (Robin Neillands):

"The Normandy campaign was not without its glitches and difficulties and accusation of incompetence, plus a goodly layer of self-serving myth. The various controversies about that campaign and those battles flourish to this day, but the strategy - the broad picture, the background to events, the basic plan - was always clear, at least to those at SHAEF not totally devoted to destroying the career and reputation of General Montgomery."

"One problem ... is the tendency of some US commanders and many US historians to play the 'British' or 'Montgomery' card in order to conceal some glaring American blunder".

"... the strategy that had delivered the Normandy victory had been Montgomery's from the start. Montgomery had planned the Western breakout in May, Joe Collins had done the work in July - and Bradley has got all the credit ever since ..."

My birthday soon, so maybe I'll get Neillands' book on Normandy and check out his evidence. He's often critical of Monty, so I expect he had facts to hand. Folks at 137 08:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above when opposing the inclusion of this section, I think that this evaluation of generalship is not a terribly good idea as it is inherently POV and so can't be resolved. What we really need is someone he really has read widely to build a section on military reputation. It strikes me that it is impossible to strip away the veener of myth and conjecture when it comes to reputation: he was generally loathed by colleagues and superiors, so their remarks are usually inherently unreliable, and loved by people under him and at home, so ditto. Even Montgomery's public pronouncements about his record and notoriously unreliable. Many of the books seem to tell us alot more about the authors' points of view than Montgomery's qualities.

I would like us to keep to the facts as they affect Montgomery and his life, not have a hypothetical discussion of the Battle of Normandy. I think Caen is a canard: in the end, Normandy was won; it was won by planned operations; Montgomery was the man in charge; so, I am having difficulty in seeing what is the problem. Anyway, it is not clear to me where Montgomery stops and Dempsey begins (presumably at the same point as Bradley and Patton). As always, rather than having this discussion, we should just add any verifiable facts that are necessary. MAG1 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"As I said above when opposing the inclusion of this section, I think that this evaluation of generalship is not a terribly good idea as it is inherently POV and so can't be resolved." My sentiments exactly. I say remove it or make it much smaller for that reason. --Awiseman 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything written about Montgomery is likely to be "inherently POV" - the man was controversial. Some people are like that (cf. Stalin's or Zhukov's pages, for example). It is impossible to dodge this by sticking to "the facts" because the choice of which facts to include also carries a POV. Why not include published sources' statements about him? DMorpheus 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not obvious to me what the "controversy" is actually about. With Zhukov (Stalin is not a happy comparison), it is clearly mostly about the degree of brutality towards his troops; with Montgomery, it seems to be that people just don't like him. I understand why some of his contemporaries felt that way; I don't understand why people feel so antipathetic now. In fact, the fact there is so much controversy is more interesting than the controversy itself, whatever it is. Facts are at least facts, even if selective. The problem with opinions is that on their own they don't tell the reader much that is interesting. The opinions of contempories can be illuminanting, the opinion of A.N.Other, military historian with a book to sell generally are not. Pn this I think Awiseman is living up to his name. MAG1 23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Self references?

In an attempt to back up and flesh out a statement that I thought was common knowledge (that other Allied generals, mostly Americans, thought Montgomery should have acted quicker) I put a link to the Battle of the Bulge article that explains just that in two sections, Allies Prevail and Controversy in the High Command just after that. It was reverted as "no self references." Isn't that the idea of Wikipedia, to tie all the articles together? I can only enter a new fact if I get an academic study or field report? --Awiseman 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence is correct.Michael Dorosh 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to cover this article in citation needed tags. The Battle of the Bulge article is well-sourced and has been pored over by numerous editors, and to me, the statement I added is common knowledge anyway. --Awiseman 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not common knowledge, and needs to be sourced from a reputable source - the same standard applies to all of wikipedia; the necessity of doing so in this article should not be unexpected. If you have a source for the statement, by all means, provide it. WP policy on self-references is quite clear, however. You seem to be advocating the article be written as Awiseman's Gut Says, which I hope you will agree would be a counterproductive approach.Michael Dorosh 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, the gut thing is not amusing. The first sentence in "Criticisms" in this article says... "Montgomery was often accused of being slow and overcautious. Examples cited include before El Alamein, afterwards in the pursuit of Rommel, the Battle of Normandy, and in the counter-offensive in the Ardennes." And in linking to the Ardennes, an example, it was removed. To me, that's helping the interconnectedness of these pages, not self referencing. --Awiseman 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One does not preclude the other. I agree these should be referenced, but that will be easy. They can also be linked to the relevant wikipedia articles. DMorpheus 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentary

I watched a documentary about Montgomery years ago on either the discovery channel or the history channel, during the course of the documentary it said how once he took charge in the middle east he asked for a young soldier/officer into his office and asked them to strip. it never explained why this happened in the documentary and its always stuck in my mind was it hinting at his surpposed homosexuality or was it about soldiers fitness.Corustar 01:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I may well have seen the same documentary a number of years ago, the thing that got my attention was a collection of letters he sent to a german boy which can only be described as love letters, it was never expanded upon but left me with burning questions about his sexuality. That documentary has never been shown since...? 82.34.55.108 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have "burning questions" then go and buy Nigel Hamilton's three volume biography of Montgomery. Monty's relationship with the young Lucien Treub is discussed quite candidly in the final volume, published 20 years ago, and Hamilton went over some of the same ground in his "Full Monty" updated work back in 2002. I'm sure paperbacks are available for dirt cheap on ebay, and they really are very readable books. --Harlsbottom (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Connections- School Named after Viscount Montgomery

Viscount Montgomery School is located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The school was opened in 1952, and the official opening of the school was presided over by Bernard Montgomery. The school has some archived information, artifacts and photographs that may be of some interest to readers of this article. I'm open to suggestions as to would be appropriate.Gtbrown 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandenburg Gate photo

Good photo. Zhukov & Monty obvious, but could someone please clearly identify the other 2 Russion officers. Thanks. GrahamBould 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Does nobody know which officer is which? GrahamBould 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Character and Controversy Section

What is up with this section? It's all POV where someone is rambling on about what they think of his character. This doesn't even belong in this article, or if anything is included it should be facts without interpretation. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) .

Hear hear! --Awiseman 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Only two cheers. Montgomery's character is important because of the effects it had on what he did and on how others reacted to him, and many aspects of it were unusual (as a man he was really quite odd). The section that exists contains references and direct quotes: I think what his contempories thought of him is legitimate in an encyclopaedia. The other thing is that people now seem to get quite agitated about him (see this talk page); so, if something like this is not included then people will add disjointed stuff all over the place. Can't see the POV and it seems pretty factual to me: if you are going to criticise, specifics and new material are always helpful. What it does need is more referencing. Of course, if you think it needs to be improved then you could always get on with it. MAG1 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the first paragraph to use the word "alert" instead of "sensitive" to describe Montgomery's mind, as the following paragraph goes on describe him as insensitive, and much of the following discussion relates examples of his insensitivity. I also sectioned off the discussion below of Monty's title.

Title

Hi: Someone who knows more about the British honours system should be consulted, but I recall clearly hearing from an older serviceman than the viscount title awarded to Montgomery was a slightly 'less good' title. This may be a reflection of his relations with his better ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.157.191.173 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 December 2006

In that Alexander was made an Earl, as were Wavell and Admiral Mountbatten, yes that is so. There is a letter quoted in the Nigel Hamilton biography in which Monty complains that his title had not been upgraded to an Earldom. Senior commanders in previous eras had been made Earls (Roberts, Kitchener, Haig). On the other hand, by the 1940s there may have been a conscious effort to create fewer senior peers in that the Earldoms were awarded to men who were more than just ground commanders: they were each theatre Supreme Commanders (Alex in the Med and Wavell (briefly) and Mountbatten in South-East Asia) and each also went on to hold a major political job (Alexander was Governor-General of Canada and the other two were Viceroy of India). It is hard to imagine Monty being given any such job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:171.192.0.10 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 8 February 2007

citation

It seems a niggle, but I think that "at the Battle of El Alamein, a major turning point in World War II, and troops under his command were largely responsible for the expulsion of Axis forces from North Africa" in the intro needs to be cited, I know that any half informed person with an interest in World War II knows it, but this is wikipedia and that is a broad, sweeping statement that I think ought to be cited to at least one historian who thinks so.

Feel free to disagree :) SGGH 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by what needs to be cited, I mean the idea that it's a turning point, and the largely responsible bit SGGH 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the citation is necesseary, really. The article already makes a point of this when it reads about his campaign in Africa. The major contribution towards defeating Rommel came from Montgomery and the military contingent under his command. So, in essence, if that is cited, then that sentence is well founded and shouldn't require over-redundant citations.

I'm going to remove it. Sybaronde 10:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Italy & Normandy

There was also controversy about Monty's actions in Italy. While British & American troops were fighting for their lives at Salerno, the 8th Army took its sweet time advancing, against minimal opposition, to their aid. To this day it is unclear exactly what Alexander's orders to Monty were, but there is the famous remark attributed to Monty-- "Alexander made his bed, let him lie in it".

Also, the article reiterates that the Normandy campaign went "exactly" as Monty had planned-- the British holding the east, while the Americans broke out on the west. If that was the original plan, it was news to Eisenhower & Bradley. Sounds like post-battle spin.

Personally, I think that if Auchinleck (or any number of British generals) had been given the advantage in men & resources that Monty had at 2d El Alamein he could have won. achilles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.249.131 (talk • contribs)

Monty thought the advance up the toe of Italy a waste of time, correctly predicting that he would be held up by natural obstacles, blown bridges etc (only two roads iirc) and that the Germans would be able to withdraw their forces and attack the Salerno beachhead. Maybe others would have raced a token force to Salerno for publicity, but not provided serious help any quicker. On the other hand, many writers have little good to say about Mark Clark's handling of Salerno or his willingness to point the finger at Monty. After what had happened in Sicily, Monty was not allowed to rewrite the invasion plans again - perhaps if he had, Clark would have claimed he was trying to steal American glory.

In Normandy, I think Russell Weigley argued from the documents that Monty had originally intended a British breakout in the East. I don't know what the current historiographic line is.

Auchinleck might well have won Second Alamein - he had shown himself to be a good battlefield commander at Crusader and First Alamein. One can think of plenty of others who would have made a complete ballsup (commanding an army is a higher level of responsibility than most generals manage), and certain others who would have boasted even louder but not won any quicker. Second Alamein was a hard fight, with the Germans dug in behind dense minefields, and easily could have gone very wrong had the CW forces not been pushed on by a determined and ruthless commander. Monty had the advantage, but it was nowhere near as overwhelming as some of his slaggers-off like to imply. Most serious writers (eg. Bungay) about Alamein speak highly about his flexibility in rewriting his plans as he had to, and coping with the less than satisfactory performance of certain British units (eg. X Corps). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk • contribs)

• “Auchinleck might well have won Second Alamein - he had shown himself to be a good battlefield commander at Crusader and First Alamein.”

It was not Auchinleck’s role to be a battlefield commander. He was appointed as Commander in Chief Middle East Command and was replaced by General Alexander. General Montgomery was appointed as field commander of the Eighth Army (after the fortuitous death of Churchill’s first ill considered choice, General Gott) and given the task of dealing with Rommel’s forces.

Auchinleck was not considered to be a good battlefield commander, particularly by the Commanders of the three Dominion Divisions under his direct (if temporary) field command. The Australian, South African and New Zealand Commanders had all lost confidence in his leadership.

The official New Zealand Army history of the campaign covers this aspect quite well. About a third of the way down the chapter headed: “Alam Halfa and Alamein - The Opposing Armies”.

“In the space of seventeen days up to 27 July, when Operation MANHOOD broke down, General Auchinleck had ordered an almost continuous series of attacks, using Australian, British, Indian and New Zealand formations. They brought Eighth Army about 12,500 casualties, about a third of whom came from the New Zealand Division, for a nearly equivalent casualty total in the German-Italian army. If, as Auchinleck implied in his despatch, the July operations were designed to withhold the initiative from the enemy, they were successful. But, with this simple aim, they could have been just as great a success with much less loss.”

And a little further on:

“The July battles roused considerable criticism within the army, criticism not confined to the three Dominion divisions involved. For the New Zealanders' part this culminated in the statement by Major-General Inglis then commanding the Division, to Lieutenant-General Gott, commander of 13 Corps, that he would have to refuse the use of his division in another operation if the plans followed those of Ruweisat and El Mreir. The sum of such criticism was probably as much a factor as the state of the army in persuading Auchinleck to go over to the defensive at the end of July.”Targossan (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re removed category

I removed a category on the basis of the WP:Categorization policy.

"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: B-class review for WP:MILHIST

I was looking over this article with respect to elevating WP:MILHIST’s rating to B-class since at first glance it seemed to have most of the bases covered. However, it contains a considerable amount of judgmental statements and “assessments” – pro and con – that are unsourced and therefore make them appear to be creations of Wikipedia editors. Where these judgments are generally accepted among biographers and historians, they should cited to sources that say so; where there is disagreement, both sides’ positions should be presented as given by their respective leading proponents and cited accordingly. Since Montgomery was such a controversial character, care should be taken to draw on neutral sources as opposed to those with an axe to grind or those raising a controversial and not widely accepted assertion. I would also recommend a bit less reliance on Dixon for the controversial aspects of Monty’s personality and career, since there are many other reliable sources for these. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos

This is written under the WWI tab: "A photograph of October 1918 shows the then unknown Lt-Col Montgomery standing in front of Winston Churchill (Minister of Munitions) at the victory parade at Lille.".....Anyone know of a public copy of this photo? Might be good to post...Engr105th (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the first photo in Alastair Horne's mid-90s book "Monty the Lonely Leader". (Apropos the discussion below, Horne also remarks that Monty's love of the company of young men and boys was "pitiful loneliness" rather than anything else). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also in Vol I of the Nigel Hamilton biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned significantly elsewhere in Historical pederastic relationships

are you aware of this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.28.16 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't speak for the other people involved in this, but I'm well aware of that other article.

"historical pederastic relationships" is based on the definition of pederasty in the article "pederasty". As discussed in the talk page of that article, there are (at least) two different definitions in use. Depending on the definition "chosen", the results are quite different.

Labelling the relationship which Montgomery was reportedly in as pederastic is dubious as long as this uncertainty remains.

IMO, the polemical approach taken in that discussion makes it unlikely that anything will be decided in the near future.

CBHA (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The decision to prefer one definition over the other in Wikipedia has prevailed for a significant period of time, and the possibility that that decision will change is what is 'unlikely .. in the near future'. Just as unlikely, therefore, is the possibility that the relationship of Bernard Montgomery and Lucien Trueb will be removed from the purview of the historical pederastic relationships article, hence that article's relevance as a legitimate WP:ALSO reference.Laslike (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to many people (or many incarnations of the same person) I think everyone who observes this article is aware of it. I fail to see how about four lines of text counts as "significantly" and how a list counts as "elsewhere". The notes asscoiated with that little tract are revealing as well. The editor who inserted it cites Hamilton's The Full Monty but declines to mention which pages to refer to, which is only valid if the book were one big record of Montgomery's pederasty, which it obviously isn't. An article from a columnist in The Times is also cited. Written 5 years after Hamilton's new book, it's hardly a peer-reviewed historical article is it now? And the article from The Independent? The idiot who wrote that couldn't even understand that the "first incarnation" of Hamilton's biography of Montgomery was published over a seven-year period - he says/implies that it was published in 1981 when the volume relating to Mongomery's later life (and Lucien Trueb) was published in 1988 (I have the first edition). Just because it's mentioned does not mean it's right. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Entirely unpersuasive. You think four lines with multiple supporting references and the associated article being a list disqualifies. Then explain the hypocrisy that List of military commanders has been a longstanding 'see also' link here?!? The entire content linking it to here is five/eight (unreferenced) words ("Field Marshal Montgomery (WWII UK)"). And, oopsy, it's -also- a !list!. Now the rationale to add this person's relationship into the pederastic relationships article is entirely sound considering the facts and references supplied, the other content/relationships mentioned there, and the scope and definitions accepted there through prevailing consensus of that article's editorship (as well as the editorship of a wide variety of articles within [:Category:Pederasty]). You seem also to be encouraging that we do the -opposite- of adopting definitions accepted by the consensus of the editorship of specialised concept articles being referred to here. Am I missing something, or is that the somewhat rather unbrilliant anti-idea of attempting to destroy the consistency of definition of concepts (such as pederasty and pederastic relationships) between different articles referring to the same subject matter across Wikipedia. Dear me. I'm not of the view that we are free to define a term differently in every different article and screw how it has been agreed to define it at its principal defining occurrence and elsewhere generally in Wikipedia. I think I'm also right that the two academics (one a history professor) refer to Bernard Montgomery as a "virtually a non-contact paedophile" through their review and appraisal of Hamilton's work of biography. So lets have our pragmatism informed by that to start with. Your not liking how this person's name is found to appear in another article on Wikipedia simply does not draw support from any Wikipedia policy informing a conclusion that knowledge of that appearance should be suppressed out of this one. (If wrong, kindly cite me the policy that does). Have you any remaining arguments in support of such a suppression? Triplehernia (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked there was absolutely no disputing that Montgomery qualified as a military commander. And which two acdemics are you referring to above? --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, multiple-usernamed person, for providing the review. However, you can not possibly admit that as evidence. The review in question does not directly cover either of Hamilton's two books which cover his relationship with Lucien Trueb. A sole review in any case would be a shaky foundation for this argument, but one which has no academic bearing other than two reviewers being sloppy... Sorry, but I and I'm sure many others have yet to be convinced. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So you fail to cite any review or reviewers concluding otherwise or refuting any of the evidence and fundamental facts exposed by Hamilton. We know what regard to have for that.Laslike (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Check these out:

“ [Montgomery's biographer Hamilton] feels enabled to draw upon letters that have previously been unpublished and which indicate, Hamilton believes, that Montgomery had crushes on boys and, in the case of a Swiss boy, Lucien Trueb (12 in 1946 when the two met), that Montgomery was passionately in love. Though stressing that he had no evidence of any physical contact, Hamilton revealed that he himself, as a boy (he was son to Montgomery's press advisor), had had a Platonic though "homoerotic" relationship with Monty. And this sexuality was, Hamilton thinks, a key to Montgomery's soldiering. ”

“ In 1946, Montgomery took a shine to 12- year-old Lucien Trueb, and would take the "little Swiss boy" off on trips to his chalet in Gstaad. However, any funny business was limited to bathing the child and towelling him dry so that he "would not catch cold". ”

Pronkstyler (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Those who have been following this saga may be interested in teh discussion at user talk:Geogre#Original Research "R" Us. David Underdown (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the other article definitely refers to him, and for a substantiated purpose. Who's afraid of mentioning that .. & why?WhyHowWhere (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That other article no longer mentions Montgomery, he was removed for lack of sources/references. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)