Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Chastity/archive1

Operation Chastity

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed B-class review and I'd like some input on how to improve it to pass the B-class review.

Thanks, Shimbo (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The article has now passed B-class review, however further comment are welcome in order to reach 'Good Article' status.--Shimbo (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D

It's good to see the work that has gone into this article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "By the end of August 1944, US forces had captured all of Brittany except for the critical areas" - the French Resistance liberated much of Normandy shortly before the Americans arrived (the Germans in the interior withdrew into the fortified ports as a result largely of the resistance attacks) - the article should cover this aspect of the campaign a bit more.
• The third para of the lead seems to lean towards one side of the argument. The notion that the Allies could have won the war in 1944 is not supported by many historians. The two people quoted in the article as supporting this view are not strongly qualified to hold such an opinion.
• " From this base, the Allies would advance to Paris and then Germany, once sufficient forces and supplies were available" - note that it was envisioned that this would be a slow but steady advance. Charging across France instead in August-September 1944 had a lot of advantages.
• The background section should note the German planning - they expected that the Allies would try to capture deep water ports, and put a lot of effort into fortifying them as a result.
• The 'plan' section should note how long it was expected for the port facilities at Quiberon Bay to be built and enter service
• "Planners felt" - 'felt' doesn't seem like the right word
• "Although Cherbourg was captured on 27 June 1944, the port had received only a trickle of supplies by the end of July" - note why (e.g. that the Germans had demolished the port facilities and blocked the harbour)
• "and all were now occupied by dug-in enemy forces" - this implies that this occurred towards the end of the campaign, when it actually occurred at its start.
• More broadly, the 'events' section seems to down play the opportunities facing the Allies in August-September 1944. Most sources I've seen regard the use of the two armoured divisions in Brittany as being a blunder given they were badly needed to exploit the collapse of the German position in France, but the current text implies that they should have been used more there.
• The 'Cancellation and aftermath' section doesn't note the port facilities in southern France which became available at around this time.
• The fighting at Brest and Saint Malo seems to be downplayed - it took pretty large efforts to clear the Germans out of both cities, with their port facilities being destroyed in the process. Capturing rather than isolating Brest is generally considered to be a mistake in the sources.
• @Hawkeye7: who will have better-informed comments than I do. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, Thanks for your comments. Some thoughts below.

• The point about the French Resistance might be more appropriate in a 'Liberation of Brittany' article, which doesn't seem to exist on English Wikipedia, thought there is a German Wikipedia article on the topic. The Brittany campaign is not well covered altogether IMO. I could change it to "allied forces", perhaps, as there were also several SAS operations as well as SOE and Jedburghs?
• I don't really agree that the people quoted aren't well qualified. I'm not sure how Wikipedia determines whether someone is 'well qualified' TBH, but a COMZ person directly involved in the plan would seem well qualified to comment to me. I was thinking of changing it to 'other' rather than 'some' historians which strengthens the contrary opinion slightly.
• The German plans to defend Brittany would be useful, but again I'm in favour of a 'Liberation of Brittany article' as the main place for that. The Germans has no real plans to defend Quiberon Bay, except as part of their Lorrient defence. Also, I don't have any sources for German plans ATM.
• I'll check for how long the port was expected to take to build, but I don't recall anything in the sources, unfortunately.
• Agreed that 'felt' isn't the right word. 'Thought' maybe?
• About Cherbourg being demolished/mined, I'll reword to make clearer.
• The 'events' is focussed on a factual account of what happened as 4th Division made its way to Quiberon Bay and Lorient and how its orders were queried (to put it mildly), enforced and eventually rescinded. I don't think it's the right place to have discussion of whether liberating Brittany versus heading for Paris was a optimum use of VIII Corps. Wouldn't that be better in the 'Debate' section? Also, I'm not sure which sources regard attempting to implement Operation Chastity as a blunder. Everyone agrees that assaulting Brest was pointless, but that's different.
• About the German forces being dug in. Maybe 'dug in' isn't the right phrase, but the sources suggest that the defences of Lorient were not fully occupied/organised until around the 10th Aug. I can only find one reference to Belle Isle (Cirillo), and all it said was it wasn't taken by the end of the month.
• I can add something about the Southern France ports opening after Operation Dragoon.
• A more detailed account of the fighting in Brest and St. Malo is in the linked articles specifically about the battles. Are you sure it belongs here? Perhaps the bigger picture of the linked battles is something to be in the putative 'Liberation of Brittany' article?

As a general point on balance: the problem is sourcing. The sources that explicitly talk about Operation Chastity are largely of the 'missed opportunity' persuasion, whereas the general histories largely ignore it, or seem to think the point of the Brittany operation was to mask a flank and capture Brest, which the logistics-focussed sources state was a prerequisite for Chastity, not an end in itself. The only source that I've seen that's wholeheartedly in favour of what happened is Fox. Blumenthal is critical. Van Crevald talks more about how Patton et al largely ignored logistics, not specifically mentioning Chastity. Ruppenthal doesn't talk about alternatives. The PhDs/MScs are critical. Mack is very critical. There may be other sources I've not seen, of course. To me, so far, on the sources I've seen, summarising the sources as "many but not all historians regard it as a missed opportunity" seems fair.--Shimbo (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shimbo: are you still working on the above comments? If the above are complete, can you ping Nick-D? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D:@Z1720: I've made the changes I noted above where I have could find references, but some more discussion may be required?--Shimbo (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, given that this is a peer review I don't think that there's a need for further discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing note: Since this article is currently at WP:GAN, I am closing this PR. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)