Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay/archive1

This is hopefully the beginning of a featured topic on the Secretaries General of NATO. I hope that you will find the article is suitably referenced and well-written. It's already been through a GA review (many thanks to AustralianRupert). Anyway, thanks in advance for your feedback! Cool3 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few things that stick out:

• I have placed a few tags in the article for sections that require a reference.

  I have resolved all of these save one. "Nonetheless, his intelligence career was short-lived". Ismay makes a statement to that effect in his memoirs, but his words would be poor for quotation. I think that this is in fact self-evident as he spent only four years as an intelligence officer, but if it is a matter of controversy, I will remove the line entirely.

• Endashes (–) are required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used it citations.

  I believe I have found and corrected all instances

• "but he recovered quickly and, along with the rest of his regiment, received a medal for valor in combat" - could this medal be clarified, please? What exactly was it, why were they awarded it, etc?

  It was something called the Frontier Medal, in his memoirs he says it was for "valour" and all other sources just refer to its being awarded not why.

• There should not be a space between punctuation and a cite. There are a few occurrences of this in the article. I have fix a few, but could you go through and make sure there are no more?
• For the caption on File:Churchill and Generals.jpg, it would better if Ismay was pointed out rather than state he is among them.

  He has been pointed out

• In the article, First World War and World War One is used. For consistency, please choose one and stick to it through out the article, preferably the former as this is a British/Commonwealth article. Same for World War Two and Second World War (later preferred here).

  Changed to consistent usage. I believe I found them all, but if you see any still remaining, let me know.

• Both US (April 14, 2009) and British (14 April 2009) date formats have been used in the article. As above, please choose one and implement through out, preferably the British variant as this is a British/Commonwealth article.

  Changed to the international format

• Could you please re-align a few images to the left for visual appeal and per MoS?

  A few images have been moved to the left. If desired, I can move another.

• I would recommend that an infobox section for his military service be added. If you are unsure on what I am talking about or do not know how to do this, then give me a shout and I can fix it up.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I was going to ask for a military infobox. I see you already added one. There are more fields that could be filled in though...

  Any particular fields you'd like to see filled in? I basically just tried to "hit the high points" and leave out things already there. So, for example, since all of his awards are already shown at the top of the box, I didn't include them. If you'd like to see them there in the box, though, that can be arranged. Units with which he served could also be added, but the fact of the matter is that most of important work took place outside of a military unit per se (on the CID, as Churchill's assistant). Should assignments such as that be included as "units"?

• Is that the best photograph of him that you can find?

  Sadly, it's the best free photograph of him I can find. There are a number of rather excellent photos of him under NATO copyright, but that is not a free license and given that free images of him exist, I'm afraid we have no case for fair use.

• The medal he received "for valor" (shouldn't that be "valour"?) should have been the Indian General service Medal with the clasp "North West Frontier 1908". It was awarded to the entire 21st Cavalry (along with a score of other units). It was a campaign ribbon; you didn't have to show valour, just show up.

  For valor removed. I suppose that it was awarded for the valor of the whole regiment? Nonetheless, awarded a medal works just as well. As it seems apparent that it was indeed the India General Service Medal, I've included that in the text.

• That he was "so indispensable" in Somalia (or indeed, that anybody was) is pretty incredible.
• I looked up his DSO gazettal, which is at "No. 32142". The London Gazette (Supplement). 26 November 1920. p. 1.

  Thanks for tracking that down!

• Which staff college did he attend - Quetta or Camberley? The text is unclear.

  Quetta. The text reads: "...at the Indian Army's Staff College in Quetta". I'm not quite sure how that's unclear, or are you referring to somewhere else that it is referenced?

  • No, it says that his place at Quetta was given away. In the next paragraph it says he passed the exam, which would have qualified him for Camberley or Quetta. Then in the one after, it says that he "remained in London until February 1922, when he entered the Staff College", which implies Camberley. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, I see what you mean. It was quite clear in my mind, but rather poorly put. It was Quetta, but I see where that was confusing.

• "Ismay and Churchill remained friends for the remainder of their lives, and Ismay even helped Churchill write his memoirs.File:Churchill and Generals.jpg" Typo here.

  Someone seems to have fixed that.

• "Shortly after Ismay's retirement, Lord Mountbatten was appointed as the last British Viceroy of India and Ismay offered to serve as his Chief of Staff." No need to capitalise "Chief of Staff" here. (And were there ever any non-British Viceroys?)

  Well, no. All the Viceroys were British. I've just inserted the adjective there to emphasize that India was still under British control at that time. Chief of Staff has been decapitalized.

• "on May 2, 1947" I thought you said that all the dates were in international format?

  Thanks for pointing that out. I must have missed that one.

• "Eden asked Ismay to accept the position, but his response "was an immediate and emphatic negative." Any idea why?

  Well the basic answer is shortly above that in his remark to Gruenther. According to his memoirs, he found NATO overly bureaucratic and inefficient and didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. He'd also been trying to retire to the countryside since 1945, but another job was always coming up. Should I expand on that in the article?

  • Yes. The remark to Gruenther says no more than he disliked it. There could have been many reasons. The most obvious would have been that he was one of those Brits who disliked continental entanglements. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I've expanded on that to outline his basic complaint, which was essentially the organizational one.

• "Ismay also began writing his memoirs, The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay, which he published in 1960." Your bibliography says it was published by Viking Press.

  It was. By "he published", I suppose I meant "he had published". I've changed the wording a bit to avoid making it sound like self-publication.

• "Although Ismay was ill throughout most of the review and did relatively little of the work," Any idea what with?

  Sadly no. I think it was just old age and a variety of ailments. It was after his memoirs were published, so there's no information from them, and Ronald Wingate, his one true biographer, doesn't mention the nature of the illness. The references I do have simply suggest he was old and sick.

• "Ismay died on 17 December 1965 at his home" Any idea what from?

  It doesn't seem to have been anything in particular. The newspaper obituaries just say "after a short illnes". It seems to have been some sort of pulmonary trouble, though. Ronald Wingate has the following to say: "Breathing became more and more difficult, especially at night, and he had repeated recourse to oxygen. In November 1965, less than a year after the death of his old chief [Churchill], he died. He had been cheerful and entertaining to the end, and it was only in the last week that he began to take a turn for the worse, and the doctors reported that he could not live many days: he actually died that night." (Wingate 220). If anyone sees anything of value in that, feel free to add.

Nice article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - (this version)
  • WOW, incredibly long "References" section. This is not a bad thing. :)
  • Ref #6 has "ODNB, p. 438". What is this referring to?

    It refers to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I've changed to the author. Thanks for pointing that one out.

  • Beachley, Ray (1990). The Warrior Mullah. Bellew Publishing. ISBN 0-947792-43-0. OCLC 60081063.
    • Location?

      London, corrected.

  • Page numbers should probably be added to the newspaper articles, although I won't require this for my support as (A) you're going to FAC, where they will be needed and (B) it's a large undertaking to get pages #'s for all of those.

    Oh my, do you really think they're needed for FAC? It can be done, but it will sadly require a long trip back into my notes/the archives.

    • Well, now that I think about it, I've always had page numbers in mine to start because I used online New York Times articles. They may not be...and then again, they may be. Try pinging Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) prior to going to FAC; she's the reference-checking goddess at FAC. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • In addition, were all of those newspaper articles by anonymous staff writers? I think that some authors may be missing...

    Yes they really are. At the time, The Times didn't print the names of its reporters.

  • Dabs/external links look good. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Object I think there is far too much reliance on the subject's autobiography as a source, which is obviously not 3rd party. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  Could you expand on that, I'm not really quite sure what you're trying to say? 21 books other than his memoirs are cited as are more news article than I care to count at the moment. Is your objection that the use of his memoirs has introduced POV or something to that effect? Cool3 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In some parts, about 5-6 cites in a row are to him, which means that sometimes two consecutive paragraphs are from him. Obvuosly, he is not a netural oberver, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, taking a look at those parts, I notice that most of them are either simple points of fact. (Ismay was at Place X on Day Y) or statements on his own opinions(an area where he is certainly authoritative). Judgments have been left to those qualified to provide them (outside sources). Thus, you won't find anything in the article like: "Hastings Ismay is amazing.<ref> Ismay, p. 1 </ref>" I see no problem with referring to the memoirs for his own opinions, or for names and dates. Cool3 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Good article, but I have some comments here at random, prior to doing a full run-through
• 'Not long after Churchill became Prime Minister, he used his influence to have Ismay decorated as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in June 1940' - Can this be integrated into the previous paragraph as it's a fragment at the moment.

  This has been integrated up above as part of the description of the Ismay-Churchill relationship.

• In terms of helping Churchill write his memoirs, it would be useful to consult David Reynold's 'In Command of History', which I believe has more details on this 'help'; I read it a few years ago, but I seem to recollect that Ismay did quite a bit in terms of gathering documents and editing.

  As with most of these that you mention, I was trying to avoid unnecessary detail as the article is already 57k. He was indeed quite involved. He reviewed each chapter and spent six weeks with Churchill in 1949 helping him research the book. As a matter of fact, he even wrote sections of The Grand Alliance (vol. 3). I've picked up In Command of History and it does have a few more details, I can expand on this if you'd like, but I think saying that he helped gets the basic point across.

• I'm looking at Jock Colville's diary of No. 10 during the war, and he mentions Ismay quite frequently, and I see you haven't used him as a source; not that that's a criticism, I only picked it up a few years back as a contemporary source book. But he does give some rather vital details. For example, you make no mention of Ismay's opinions and actions over the Allied plans for a landing in Scandanavia in support of Finland against the Russians in 1940; according to Colville Ismay believed these French-sponsored plans were risky and ill-informed, and also vague, and could see absolutely no point in attempting them and instead concentrating on the Western Front.

  Once again, this is largely a matter of avoiding unneeded detail. Most of the coverage of Ismay that deals with him in depth suggests that while he had opinions, he was generally a man of "great discretion" and tended to yield to either Churchill or the Chiefs. As Ronald Wingate writes: "Of course Ismay had his views, and often strong views, but the conclusions reached never appeared as his views" (WIngate 45 - 46). So, yes, he was opinionated and often privately outspoken to people like Colville, but his opinions weren't really what determined policies.

  More on this. I've picked up the Colville diary. In regard to the Scandinavia plan, I took a look at a few historian's accounts of the whole Finland debacle, and no one really mentions Ismay as having been important. As a matter of fact, no one (that I've looked at on the matter) other than Jock Colville gives Ismay's involvement more than a sentence.

• Similarly, Colville would seem to indicate that Ismay was rather outspoken in his views of the Norway debacle, and the French perfomance during the Battle of France - neither of which you really seem to highlight.

  Once again, Colville has some interesting things to say here, but no one else really does. Ronald Wingate doesn't even mention Ismay's opinions on the Battle of France (and even Ismay in his memoirs doesn't have much to say).

• You do seem to be a bit light on information about his time as military advisor, especially in areas where he was heavily involved in planning; an example is when he was planning Fortitude and Bodyguard. What did he propose or criticize? Did he simply supervize, or did he get into the nitty-gritty? I find it hard to believe a sentence for that would suffice - if nothing else, Ismay was opinionated. Skinny87 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'll look into Bodyguard a bit more as he did play more of a personal role in that. Frankly, though, what is stunning about Ismay's role in the war is how little he personally actually did. A phrase often used in reference to him is "the oil can". He is most notable for just keeping things running smoothly, not for his own judgments or opinions (unlike many of his notably outspoken colleagues). Cool3 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Upon further research, it seems that he really just supervised. I won't claim to have read the whole book, but Roger Hesketh 500 page account of the operation, Fortitude: The D-Day Deception Campaign doesn't even seem to mention Ismay (at least he's not in the index). Mary Barbier's D-Day Deception:Operation Fortitude and the Normandy Invasion mentions Ismay once, and only in passing. Ismay has a few things to say about Fortitude and Bodyguard in his memoirs, but they're of a purely anecdotal nature. In short, it's not the subject of much coverage. Cool3 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article and amazingly well-referenced. Just one comment: please refer to the Soviet Union as such outside of quotes. It isn't the same thing as Russia. – Joe N 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  A very good point, I had carelessly just aped the (incorrect) period usage of always calling the Soviets the Russians. I've fixed that now, thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I think there are a few too many quotes in the article, but otherwise no major issues. Great work on a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the subject. Cla68 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.