Talk:Arthur Percival

Facts? Evidence?

Consider this statement in the article on Ernest Percival: "Following the murder of a Royal Irish Constabulary sergeant in church in July 1920, he captured Tom Hales, commander of the IRA's West Cork Brigade, and Patrick Harte, ..."

I am inquiring about the first part, "Following the murder of a Royal Irish Constabulary sergeant in church in July 1920" I have a couple questions: (1) "murder" is a strong word. Was Percival actually charged and convicted of murdering this individual? (2) What relevance does it have to the remainder of the sentence?

Next, consider this statement (in the same paragraph): "Percival was a successful counter-guerrilla". In earlier versions of this article it was asserted that Percival was *not* succcessful against the IRA. Whether he was, or was not successful seems debatable. Perhaps this statement should be deleted, and just state facts? Roger costello 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Roger Costello

I think you're mis-reading the first one, I imagine that the policeman was muredered by the IRA, rather than by Percival... On the second, without access to the sources quoted in that para it's hard to tell whether it's jsutified or not - if you doubt the statement, tag it with {{fact}}, and elave it for a while to see if anyone can come up with a source. David Underdown 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a little more detail and additional sources to the article but it seems to have been edited out although the resulting text is quite good so I'm happy to leave it as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Defences

Regarding Percival's comment that "Defences are bad for morale - for both troops and civilians". Was he refering to the "construction of the defences", with all the digging and the menial work, etc.? Any insight on why he thought this would be bad for morale? Thanks in advance. --Vsion (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Dixon book suggests that Percival did not want to build defences because they would be a tacit position of how bad a position he and his army were in. More straightforwardly there is the implication that if you build defensive lines, in this case perhaps 100s of miles behind the front line then you are expecting your forces to retreat. Percival had also fought in France during the German blitzkrieg and perhaps fought that defensive works were outdated. I know Brigadier Stimson wrote a book which addresses this question in detail (As the person to whom it was addressed) but I havnt read it Nickhk

AIUI, Percival's issue with fixed defences was that their existence might encourage troops to retreat behind them. The Japanese would then bypass them.

It seems to me that he had a point there. Unless the flanks could be secured, fixed defences wouldn't necessarily have added much value. Tirailleur

I tend to agree w/ what Nickhk wrote above saying "...Percival did not want to build defences because they would be a tacit position of how bad a position he and his army were in." and "Percival had also fought in France during the German blitzkrieg and perhaps thought that defensive works were outdated."... Regarding the first remark: if his Army was in that bad of a position, the only alternative to building defenses is to lose - or surrender, which he did. Once in that mindset, nothing can help you. Regarding the second remark, if he thought defenses were militarily outdated, his only other option would be an aggressive attack... Percival had no tanks - but as stated, he did have considerable Engineer assets with which to build defenses as a "force multiplier" in today's terms. He failed to use them, and it cost him dearly in reputation.
I can't help wondering if Percival, who in reading the Wiki article seemed an effective younger Officer, lost control or was otherwise unable to deal with his new situation (ie, an Asian environment and enemy he'd met for the first time).
As an aside, we also have to realize the Japanese would have won this battle in the long run anyway (hindsight). Britain had no practical chance of reinforcing that force well enough to win at that stage of the war - Europe had to be their primary focus. Engr105th 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't only with 'hindsight' that it becomes apparent that the Japanese forces had a dominant position. That should have been evident, by the early months of 1941, when the Japanese were consolidating their invasion of French Indo China. An inevitable consequence of that occupation was that all the approaches to Singapore were then within relatively easy range of Japanese aircraft and submarines. For British planners, by 1941, the potential threat of aircraft and submarines must have been well understood. The only real options for countering that threat to Singapore would have been obvious. Neither the appointment of a newly promoted General Officer, nor even the hurried construction of some first world war defensive barriers, would have changed the fate of Singapore, by themselves alone. It seems that the defence planning for Singapore will remain an inexplicable episode in the history of modern warfare, at least until such time as further details are made public. Norloch (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Crossbarry and his defeat at the hands of Tom Barry and the IRA

Most peculiarly, some Wikipedia editor claimed Percival was "successful" against the IRA. Well, I live on planet earth so I corrected that silliness. Who now wants to propose that Napoléon was successful at Waterloo? El Gringo 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a poor analogy on several levels - Napoleon could still be successful general even if he lost the final battle; moreover Napoleon was the French Emperor whereas Percival was no more than a bit player in a larger tragedy Nickhk

West Cork Flying Column Photograph

The photo is not of the West Cork Flying Column but of Seán Hogan's Flying column operating on the Kilkenny/Tipperary border. The photo is from a book The Flying Column - West Kilkenny 1916-1921. The book contains the names of the members of the Flying Column. The unit was disbanded at the end of the War of Independence and had nothing to do with the Civil War.

As being an Anti-Treaty and a Pro-Treaty IRA man still creates rancour in Ireland it would be best to remove this photo.

Jm butler 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Death of Pat Harte

When did Pat Harte die in the hospital ? Was it just after the torture session or was it later ? I could not find the info on the web. Thanks, 62.203.225.47 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but there's a thing right after early life that says "he raped little boys." I don't know how to remove it but someone ought to.

Harte died in 1925 I believe. It was in Tom Barry's book. He suffered severe brain damage from the beating and torture he was forced to undergo. There is a picture of him and Hales bloody and dazed after their "interrogation." Harte is being forced to hold up a union jack. It is on the cover of Peter Hart's book "The IRA at war 1916-1923". Why did someone take out my edit about Harte dying in a mental institute? There are plenty of other sentences without citations, many of which are more of opinions than fact. Probably some Anglophile editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.204.47 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not add the citation then? Leithp 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

He could, but I doubt it exists. Last I read Patrick Harte was executed by the Irish Republic in 1940 - see Ulick O'Connor's biography of Brendan Behan entitled "Brendan", p.61 for one citation of it. If there was more than one active diehard Patrick Harte in the IRA I apologise, but I find it rather unlikely. Regards, Harlsbottom (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Harte is not an unusual name in Ireland. And clearly many (and not just Catholic ones) will have been christened Patrick and referred to (confusingly for us) variously as Patrick, Pat, Patsy, Paddy etc There may well have been several of them active in the republican movement. There is a report here of a Patrick Harte (of Clonakilty indeed) having died in circa early 2003. Whether it is of the same one needs investigation. "Our" Harte clearly was committed to an asylum at some point - this is alluded frequently on the web in various places (in book reviews etc. not just IRA history sites). I can't find any trace (yet) of a Harte having been executed by the Free State in 1940. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews are all very well, however, what is needed is a published source stating that Harte was committed. However, from the source I mentioned above, and from O'Halpin's "Defending Ireland: The Irish State and it's Enemies Since 1922" one can conclude quite easily from them that a Patrick Harte, veteran of the Irish Republican Army assisted another veteran, Patrick McGrath in murdering two detectives in August, 1940 and the pair were consequently tried and executed. I can believe that he was committed, however it also looks like he swung in 1940 as well. As I'm sure anyone else will tell you, by all means add the piece on him going into hospital, as long as it's verifiable in print. It's not being "Anglophile" as someone charmingly wrote above, it's just being right. Harlsbottom (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: After some more digging, I withdraw my assertion that Harte was executed in 1940. While O'Connor says it was Patrick Harte who was shot by firing squad, one source says it was a "T. Harte" who was arrested on 16 August, and another suggests (it was written 80 years later) that it was a "Tommy Harte". Bit too dodgy that one. However, the pair who were executed in 1940 were definitely the first IRA Men to be executed by Military Tribunal, so it shouldn't be too difficult to see who the Harte actually was. Harlsbottom (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bowyer Bell in the The Secret Army at P 187 says it was a Tom Harte who was executed in 1940 for the shoot out. This it appears is a comprehensive list of executed volunteers (also [http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/ireland.html here} which gives the method as firing squad. Another blog refers to Harte's remains being released from Mountjoy in 2003 and taken to his home town in Armagh for interment Albatross2147 (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-I will provide at least 2 differnt citations for this fact. "One can conclude quite easily" that you are mistaken. It is a fact. When I get home tomorrow I will get the info from Meda Ryan's "Tom Barry: IRA Freedom Fighter", Tom Barry's own book "Guerilla Days in Ireland", and Peter Harte's first book. If you want a citation, that is reasonable, but I don't understand why you don't require them for every other fact in this page. Additionally, there is also a witness quoted in Meda Ryan's book saying Percival personally executed 3 IRA men caught unarmed on Dec 3, 1920, but I will just leave that out as that is not verified by as many reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.9.209 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why you can't include Ryan's assertions properly referenced. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

-Okay here is the excerpt from Ryan's book. "In July Barry's friend Tom Hales with Pat Harte, brigade quartermaster, were arrested. Having failed to get information from them the police handed them over to Percival and the Essex torture squad from whom they received one of the worst toture treatments of the War of Independence. They were stripped, dragged for miles after a lorry, their hair was pulled out and their nails were pulled off with pincers. Finally Pat Harte was transferred to a mental hospital and reained insane until his death a few years later" Ryan, Meda. "Tom Barry: IRA Freedom Fighter" Pg 33 Her source was Ewan Butler's "Barry's Flying Column". Tomorrow I might add a few more things, but if anyone wants to incorporate this into the article for the time being please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.9.209 (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's nonsense. It was Percival who personally captured Hales and Harte with a squad from the Essex Regiment, no police officer handed them over to him. Read William Sheehan's British Voices from the WoI, Percival delivers a lecture on the subject and is decorated for their capture. They weren't tortured, they had no need to with all the documents that were captured with (bless Michael Collins' obsession with paperwork! what would the security forces have done without him?). Hales suffered brain damage after being struck with a rifle-butt upon arrest. According to Sir Ormonde Winter in his autobiography Harte invented the story to cover the fact that he'd given up information whilst in custody. As for Ryan can you really take anyone who writes a book called 'Tom Barryl IRA Freedom Fighter' (and oxymoron if there ever was one?) seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

featured article

I'm surprised this made it to be a featured article, it's not a biography of Percival but an apologetic history of the Malay campaign. Brettr 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How exactly? Your unawareness of the distinction between Malay, Malayan, and Straits Settlements seems to give away your lack of expertise. John Riemann Soong 16:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try Soong but you didn't address my point. This is a biography of a man but a history of a campaign. Brettr 07:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They are interlinked what. How is it apologetic, exactly? John Riemann Soong 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly a biography. Point out which parts suggest it's an article about a campaign and not about Percival? I've read every section of this article and it's all about him. Chensiyuan 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Childhood / WWI

There seems to be a discrepancy in these first two sections. At the end of Early Childhood it states that Percival was to remain a civilian. Yet in the WWI section it clearly states that he served abroad during this time. Why the disconnect. Am I reading this incorrectly? 19:20, 2 January 2007 Emeril 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi?

General Percival is listed as a Nazi in the introductory paragraph, but no mention of his joining the Nazi party and being an Allied General during WWII is mentioned in his biography.Eddie28 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Churchill and the surrender

The quote "This was in spite of instructions from Prime Minister Winston Churchill for prolonged resistance.[2]" is misleading in its placement. While Churchill demanded prolonged resistance nearly until the end of the campaign, by the time of the surrender negotiations with Yamashita (which this quote refers to) Churchill had accepted the realities of the situation and given Wavell discretion to end hostilities in a telegram received by Wavell the morning of the surrender (see, for example, Thompson p484). I propose to change this to correct the misleading impression that Wavell and Percival surrended without Churchill's agreement. Thoughts? Simon9 11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubiuos assertion in intro

I'm having trouble with this sentence in the intro:

"However, current knowledge about the years of under-funding of Malaya's defences and the inexperienced, under-equipped nature of the Commonwealth army has enabled certain commentators to hold a more sympathetic view of his command."

While I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the challenges Percival faced in his command of Malaya, this is a rather sweeping statement to make on the basis of a single citation to a book written by a colleague, Smyth, who was sacked for his own failure to hold East Burma and who wrote his book forty years ago. That's a single commentator, not commentators; a commentator who is hardly disinterested; and a commentator whose views hardly reflect current knowledge.

It's possible Wilmott says something similar, with better knowledge and less appearance of bias. But I doubt it: Wilmott generally takes the view that the British in the Far East had a tough challenge but did far worse even than they had to. --Yaush (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

his time in Ireland

This section has been changed substantially in recent years.

So much of the section relies heavily on one or two sources: a sole newspaper article published in 1998 and a book on General Montgomery. There are literally dozens of book on the conflict in Cork from 1919-21 that provide information about the Essex Regiment and its adversaries. Why were they all taken out? Why would a book about someone else who mentions Percival in passing be used to provide info and details of Percival's time in Ireland instead of books by historians who have studied the period and conflict their whole lives?

The torture the Essex Regiment used on Tom Hales and Pat Harte was severe beatings, dragging them behind lorries, and using pincers to pluck out their fingernails and in Hales case his teeth. This is all documented by multiple historians, from one spectrum (Meda Ryan, local historian generally pro IRA)to the other (Peter Hart, very critical of Tom Barry). I'm not sure how much more substantiated it could get. Hales spent the rest of the War in prison and had only stubs for teeth, which is documented in multiple places.

This whole section seems to have been written to put Percival in the best light and falls short of the quality and accuracy this article used to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.226.76 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I've corrected that section, these allegations were made but there is no evidence to substantiate any of them and they're probably just IRA propaganda, Percival a hated figure for them due to his successes (I mean quoting Tim Pat Coogan as a source, COME ON!), both men were rifle-butted upon arrest and that's how they sustained their injuries. One of the previous posters is right in that he/she asserts Sir Ormonde Winter hints that Hales turned informer and made up this story as cover.

 We should really take that entire section out as Percival actually has no contact with either man after their arrest so it doesn't seem relevant to include it at all but I'll leave it in for the sake of balance  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 

Featured article review

This article is one of the oldest FA promotions yet to have a featured article review. Several paragraphs and sentences are unattributed [I've marked two but there are others], some of which contain potentially controversial statements, including "difficulties with his subordinates", "Bennett was full of confidence, but faced a mixed reaction", "Percival threw away potential advantages", "restrained rather than self-serving", and "Unusual for a British lieutenant-general". DrKay (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Percival. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie/r
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109061015/http://ussmissouri.org:80/surrender.aspx to http://www.ussmissouri.org/surrender.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Percival. 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/20161020040854/http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/essex-regiment to http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/essex-regiment

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) 01:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)