Talk:Edmund Ironside, 1st Baron Ironside

Taal

The notes section has reference asking what Taal is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taal Taal is Afrikaans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Gazette entries

Other than the entries I added, there was also "No. 27285". The London Gazette. 15 February 1901. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) which continually errored when i tried to access it so I couldn't verify its contents. David Underdown (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to work now. Shimgray | talk | 00:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Historian not just journalist.

Note that Piotr Zychowicz is a qualified historian degreed in Historic Institute of Warsaw University not just journalist. Please change this disinformation.

Several online articles (like this one) agree with the description "historian" so I have added it to the text. Please sign your posts in future. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Honours - apparent omission

As Ironside's campaign medals are listed alongside his other decorations and honours, I ask would he not have also been entitled to the War Medal 1939-45 for his short home-based service as effective head of the British Commonwealth armies in WWII? Also not shown although earlier in the page he is stated to have been awarded it in 1921, is the Order of the Sun and the Lion of Persia.Cloptonson (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes certainly was eligible for the War Medal 31.124.78.31 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible Involvement in Fascist Coup Plot?=

Ironside's unconfirmed involvement in a 1940 fascist coup plot which was stopped by MI5 is cited to Treason, Treachery And Pro-Nazi Activities By The British Ruling Classes During World War Two By Tim Tate (available at: https://escholarship.org/content/qt99w0p17j/qt99w0p17j.pdf. @Caeciliusinhorto: removed the paragraph saying that the source doesn't support it, but, as far as I can see, it does, on page 21 and 39. Perhaps the wording could be altered though, if they can explain their objection? --Shimbo (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Ironside's association with the plot, according to our article, is that 1) Ironside had been named as a future military dictator for a potential fascist coup against Britain and 2) J.F.C. Fuller, a confirmed conspirator, told another conspirator that "Ironside is with us.". The first of these is true, although given there's no reason to believe that Ironside had any knowledge of this, I question whether it's important to mention in the article at all and it certainly should not be in the lead; the second of these claims is straight-up contradicted by the cited source which not only does not say that Fuller was confirmed to be part of Leigh-Henry's plot, it says that the names of Henry and Darwin-Fox’s co-conspirators have never been released.

I also take serious issue with the text while neither his involvement nor even his knowledge of the plot were ever conclusively proven. The cited source does not so far as I can see suggest that Ironside had any knowledge of the plot, or that he was ever suspected or accused of having knowledge of the plot. Framing this as "never conclusively proven" completely misrepresents what the source says. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Tate is the only author who has ever discussed Ironside's association with the Leigh-Henry plot. Possibly a sentence in the body of the article would be due, so long as we stick to what Tate actually supports, but certainly this is not worthy of the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Presumably you agree that the source says:

- "General Ironside would become dictator" at the top of page 21?

- "General John Fuller, who was confident enough of his mentor’s support to advise the Link’s Admiral Barry Domvile that “Ironside is with us”" on page 21?

- "The most disturbing element, however, was the apparent involvement of two of Britain’s most senior military leaders in Beckett’s plan for a Quisling Government. General John “Boney” Fuller was to be appointed Minister of Defence. Beckett was also expecting Fuller’s long-time friend and sponsor, General Edmund Ironside, to join the coup. According to report from MI5’s Agent M/M : “M/M had a long talk with Beckett shortly before he was detained under 18b order. Beckett discussed General Ironside and said that he knew the General favoured Fascism. Asked how he knew this, Beckett said he had been told so by Gordon-Canning and by a General “who is one of us”. According to Beckett, General Ironside would not come out into the open until the moment comes, but may soon be approached.” on page 39?

So, how would you suggest wording a paragraph including that information?

Whether the information should be in the lead we can discuss once we agree the body. Shimbo (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

All that adds up to is that Beckett wanted to involve Fuller in his government in the event of his coup, Darwin-Fox wanted to make Ironside dictator in the event of his (entirely unrelated!) coup, and that Fuller (who the source does not actually say was aware of the Vaughan-Henry/Darwin-Fox plot, and at best implies it about the Beckett plot) thought that Ironside was sympathetic to his fascist politics. Even assuming for the moment that The most disturbing element, however, was the apparent involvement of two of Britain’s most senior military leaders ... supports the claim that Fuller was definitely involved (and "apparent involvement" suggests to me that there is at best doubt on this point), and that Fuller describing Ironside as "one of us" meant "a co-conspirator in the Beckett plot" (which the source does not actually say) the current text at best conflates two unrelated plots. The plot in which Fuller is potentially implicated is Beckett's; the plot which wanted to install Ironside as dictator is Leigh-Henry's.

I would suggest not wording that paragraph at all because I don't think any of it should be in the article. The fact that a random conspiracy which never went anywhere wanted to set him up as a dictator is I think not a significant part of Ironside's biography. It's not included in any sources about him – or indeed so far as I can see anything which is not written by Tim Tate. And the stuff outside of that is drawing conclusions beyond what the source supports, improper synthesis, or just wrong. If you think some of this should be included you should propose some text. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like original research to me. You are analysing the source and drawing your own conclusions about how accurate what it says is. Your or my opinion of whether what the source says is true isn't relevant, as you know as an experienced editor.

I propose leaving the main text paragraph as it is, as I think it's a reasonable paraphrase of what the source says. We could perhaps add something like "according to historian Tim Tate..."

I'd be fine with moving the statement from the lead though, as Ironside's peripheral involvement in an abortive coup is I agree only a minor detail of his biography. Shimbo (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not doing original research, I am reading the source and observing that it does not support the claims made. Can you quote the part of the source which supports J.F.C. Fuller, a confirmed conspirator, told another conspirator that "Ironside is with us."? Where in the source does it say that either Fuller or Domvile were confirmed to be involved in the conspiracy to make Ironside dictator? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Mate, what you're doing is textbook original research - looking through a source and arguing that it doesn't adequately support its conclusions so it should be discounted. You say "I am not doing original research, I am reading the source and observing that it does not support the claims made.", but dissecting the source's argument and deciding it's not a good argument is exactly what original research is.

I mean at this point no one will ever know whether there were clandestine discussions between Ironside and the coup plotters, but Tate is clearly of the opinion that he was. I can't understand how anyone can read that source and think he's saying anything else. He may or may not be right, but that's irrelevant.

If you can't read through that source and see that it is claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Ironside was being lined up as the figurehead of a coup then I don't know what to say. Shimbo (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Mate, what you're doing is textbook original research - looking through a source and arguing that it doesn't adequately support its conclusions so it should be discounted. You are doubly wrong here. I'm not arguing that the source doesn't adequately support its conclusions, and even if I were, that would not be original research. WP:OR is about the text on article pages: it does not cover discussing which sources we should use or how we should present their conclusions on the talkpage.

I mean at this point no one will ever know whether there were clandestine discussions between Ironside and the coup plotters, but Tate is clearly of the opinion that he was. Quote the part of the article where Tate says that Ironside was involved in clandestine discussions with coup plotters. Quote the part of the article which supports that JFC Fuller was a confirmed conspirator. Quote the part of the article which says that when Fuller said "Ironsides is with us" he was referring to the Vaughan-Henry plot. You are the one arguing for inclusion: per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS it is up to you to demonstrate that the source supports the text you want to include. The text you are arguing for the inclusion of is not saying that Ironside was being lined up as a figurehead, so whether or not I agree that the Tate source supports that claim is frankly irrelevant. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would agree we should be cautious about this. I think what we have now is overstating matters - saying "not conclusively proven" implies it's been proven to some degree, but Tate does not attempt to prove that Ironside was involved in the plot, nor that he was aware of his name being used.

The source indicates that Fuller firmly believed Ironside was on their side, but crucially we don't have an indication that Fuller had actually asked him that. Indeed, I think there is a hint that the plotters hadn't - the quote on p39 ends with "...but may soon be approached", which to me suggests that Beckett didn't think he had yet been spoken to?

(Incidentally KV2/1511 is available from TNA, if you want to read the original sources; "Beckett discussed General Ironside" is on p11 of part 3, "General Ironside would become dictator" on p10, and the list of proposed ministers it mentions is on p34. Quite the predictable right-wing rollcall - C. G. Grey for Air, etc - though also some surprising names such as James Maxton.)

In terms of a way forward, the article already notes Fuller's friendship with Ironside in a couple of places. I think it would be reasonable to have a little more discussing that connection - eg the ODNB notes he tried to have Fuller as his deputy CIGS in 1939 but was vetoed by Chamberlain. I think it would then make sense to add a mention in that context about Fuller's involvement in the plots, his apparent belief that Ironside was a fellow-traveller, and his mention of Ironside's name. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with rewording to make it clearer that there's no proof that Ironside was knowingly part of the plot. I disagree that the entire passage should just be deleted, which is what @Caeciliusinhorto: seems to think should happen.

BTW, I'd love to examine the National Archive report, but unfortunately the watermarks make it unreadable for me.

I've a feeling I've got Tate's Hitler's British Traitors in the attic. I'll dig it out and see if there's any more details about Ironside's fascist sympathies/possible coup involvement in that.

In the meantime, if anyone wants to suggest better wording for the passage then great. Shimbo (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that while I'm with you on mentioning it, I'm probably closer to @Caeciliusinhorto as to how much mention there should be! A section heading and a mention in the lead are overdoing it and implying greater significance. I have ordered up a copy of Ironsides' 1937-40 diaries from the library and will see if it shows up anything interesting in light of the Tate article. I doubt it but you never know...

If we were to put it in the context of Fuller, perhaps something along these lines -

Ironside had been a friend and mentor of J.F.C. Fuller from his time at the Staff College in the 1920s, and was a strong supporter of his arguments for modernisation of the Army into a mobile force. Following his retirement from the Army in 1933, Fuller became associated with the British Union of Fascists, and was a strong opponent of war with Germany; when Ironside was appointed CIGS in 1939, Fuller was suggested to be re-appointed as his deputy, but this was vetoed by the Prime Minister on political grounds. (Fuller & Ironside ODNBs) Fuller appears to have seen Ironside as sympathetic, and in October 1939, he told fellow fascist Barry Domvile that "Ironside is with us". (Quote from diary cited in Tate) Ironside's name was later mentioned as a potential collaborator by fascist groups plotting armed coups in the summer of 1940, named by Fuller and by Robert Gordon-Canning, though there is no indication Ironside himself was aware of this. (Tate)

We could possibly add something here about Ironside's own political views, which from the ODNB seem to have been right-wing, predictably somewhat racist and anti-semitic, but mostly not engaging with political movements - probably representative of most senior officers of the period.

Fuller's WP article suggests the reason Fuller was never interned was Ironsides' patronage (cited to McKinstry); the ODNB suggests it was either Churchill or Brooke who intervened. @Alansplodge - looking at the history I think you added the "Ironside's credibility was not improved by his association with "Boney" Fuller, a senior member of the British Union of Fascists" sentence into this article, cited to the same source (McKinstry's Operation Sealion) - I don't suppose you still have a copy of that book? Would be interesting to know exactly what it says - if it points to a source indicating someone explicitly thought "we have to get him out of Home Defence because he's politically unreliable", that would definitely be worth discussing in detail. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to Andrew Gray's proposed text in the body, though I would remove or amend named by Fuller and by Robert Gordon-Canning: I don't think the implication that Fuller was part of the "fascist groups plotting armed coups" is strictly supported by Tate here. He says that Beckett was planning a coup in which Gordon-Canning was involved, and Beckett had been told by "a general who is one of us" and Gordon-Canning that Ironside had fascist sympathies, and that Beckett wanted Fuller to be a minister in his post-coup regime, but he does not directly say that Fuller was involved in the planned coup and he does not explicitly say that Fuller was the unnamed general.

Perhaps Ironside was later mentioned as a potential collaborator by John Beckett, who in 1940 was involved in planning a fascist coup, though there is no indication Ironside himself was aware of this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto Good catch - you're correct that Fuller was also not named as a conspirator by Tate. However, going back to the original source it does seem that the MI5 informant clearly thought Fuller was the "one of us" - I'm not sure why Tate omitted the parenthetical here.

BECKETT discussed General Ironside and said that he knew the General favoured fascism. Asked how he knew this, BECKETT said he had been told so by Gordon CUMMING and by a General "who is one of us" (FULLER). According to BECKETT General Ironside would not come out into the open till the moment comes, but may soon be approached.

Interestingly, Ironside is not capped here (as is the case of other persons of interest) and does not have a handwritten PF number (for the MI5 personal files); there is a handwritten "219.011" file reference which isn't a pattern I can see elsewhere in the papers. Either way, he's not being treated in the same way as the other people.

Pity they have not yet released Fuller's KV2 files - those would make interesting reading to go alongside all this! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)