Talk:Normandy breakout campaign

Denial?

Is this the Wikipedia that anyone can edit? Why has my article been jumped on by two people who seem to be bent on eradicating it?

The basis of this article is a book by a Canadian officer who was a long time lecturer at the Canadian Defence Academy. The premise is that the Allied breakout effort floundered and failed substantially, and that Cobra, what is usually known as the breakout was not intended as such, and in fact was completely reshaped by the repeated failures of the 21st Army Group to make headway against determined and skilful German defence.

As it is now the various articles dealing largely with the Attempt by the 21st Army Group, and the relationship to, and role of Cobra in this effort, when the US troops were still subordinated to Montgomery, are not linked. That they are not linked makes them look like separate and unrelated events they were not.

Moreover not very much is currently to be found in the articles about the highlighted dismal failure of the Allied, and particularly British, doctrine and equipment in these efforts.

So is this writing encyclopaedic articles, or censoring history? --Head West (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your first point probably because you are acting like a revisionist; creating your history and ignoring all the other source material available that point to the contary of what you have stated thus far in the article. Recent studies have also highlighted how British (and CW) doctrine was pretty bob on for the war they had to fight - see Colossal Cracks and British Armour in Normandy.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS a simple look at the orders issued for Goodwood and Totalize show how they were not breakout offensives; Totalize objective was to capture the heights north of Falaise - full stop.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this is not an endorsement of the article in its current state, it does raise very important points that deserve full treatment. Yes, it's a bit POV-ish, but the other Normandy articles are as well - they simply have a different POV. An article on the strategic controversies of this campaign deserves to be written. The existence and controversy over this article is simply evidence of that. Personal attacks need not enter into this discussion. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)