Talk:Frederick E. Morgan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shimgray | talk | 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've fixed a handful of oddities, and I'll keep an eye out for others, but it's of a generally good standard as is. Shimgray | talk | 00:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All the sourcing looks good except for the final cite, #37 - a book chapter? It feels reliable but it could do with an author, publishing details, etc. Shimgray | talk | 23:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The postwar section seems a bit light; is there anything more worth writing here, and - perhaps more intriguingly - how did he present the UNRRA thing in his book? There's a veiled reference to it in the ODNB entry, but it might be worth expanding on. Shimgray | talk | 23:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

A small handful (there were more, but I fixed the simpler ones in the text)

We say (twice) that he "volunteered" for service in India - is this quite right? My understanding was that it was a posting like any other, not really optional.
Let's ask Freddie:

Gin was the stuff that men drank before lunch, not just a little gin but gin. And it was at the "before lunch" period that organizers of a variety of activities would come around among us calling for volunteers for this and that. Normally it was to take part in games but on a day there came a call for volunteers for service in India. "Put me down for India" said the gin, speaking through my lips. (Peace and War, p. 28)

Then, out of a dark and dismal winter sky, came the brilliant solution to all my troubles. The call went out for volunteers for service in India. Never mind the whys and wherefores, the proposition was simply stated that anyone who would volunteer for the normal tour of six years' service in India would immediately become eligible for two months' leave in England. (Peace and War, p. 59)

Interesting! The various memoirs of the period I've seen suggested that India was the job you got if you were unlucky and/or disfavoured - I suppose this must have been because most people didn't want to volunteer for it :-) Shimgray | talk | 22:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1942-43, it's not clear where he actually was. I Corps was mobile, and tasked with defending Gibraltar(?) and then with Sardinia, but did he (and the command) remain in the UK throughout?
- Yes. Added words to this effect.
"He also was called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery..." - was there anything in particular about the relation between Morgan and Montgomery, or was it just that as an Englishman he was more likely to be able to talk to him without an fight? The ODNB entry suggests a certain degree of mutual antipathy here.
- There was. I have expanded this.
As mentioned above, I think it could do with some expansion on his time in UNRRA. Regarding his firing, two questions:

a) my understanding is that Allied officers handling DPs (especially Jewish DPs) really badly was something of a general problem, rather than specific to Morgan; is it worth bringing this aspect out?

I don't think the treatment was that bad

b) did he actually link the Soviets and the "emigration" movements? The ODNB implies they were separate incidents.

Yes. I have added some more to explain what might be non-obvious nowadays.

And finally: what did the Controller of Atomic Energy and Controller of Atomic Weapons actually do? We state CAE became a figurehead, but it's not clear what the role entailed before it was shrunk down.
- My books on Nuclear weapons are back home, so this part will require a few days to do.
  - Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it's pretty good - with a bit of development postwar, I think we're there. I'll mark it as on hold to give some time to expand it, and I'll check the bookshelves to see if I've anything on UNRRA which might help. Shimgray | talk | 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. I had a quick flick through Hamilton's (shorter) biography of Montgomery today and annoyingly didn't find anything beyond a couple of references to them working together in 1938 (when, intriguingly, they co-operated on an exercise involving an amphibious combined-arms landing...). The material I've got on UNRRA (Liberation: the bitter road to freedom, William I. Hitchcock, 2008; definitely recommended for an interesting perspective on Western Europe, 44-45.) suggests vaguely that Morgan wasn't alone in having odd opinions about some Jewish DPs, but I think what we've got now looks good. So just the CAE/CAW left, by the looks of it. Shimgray | talk | 22:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Shimgray | talk | 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery states in his memoirs that he suspected some of Morgan's antipathy to him had been due to Montgomery's changing of Morgan's/COSSAC's plan for the invasion, and that Morgan may have resented this.

Whatever it was, Montgomery was going to have to command and lead the men in the actual invasion, and he, Morgan, was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]