Talk:Battle of El Agheila

Name

Much if not most of this article concerns the Axis retreat to El Agheila, not the battle itself. I suggest that it's renamed to reflect this, particularly since the battle itself was "minor" and there are points of interest about the retreat/pursuit. Any comments? Folks at 137 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see this article expanded. Google Book search suggests there is a number of sources referring to "Battle of El Agheila", so it seems like a notable topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Note

I've reviewed this for WP:POLAND and I don't believe it is important enough to be included under that project. Milhist Polish task force is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Took the Purnell's reference out as it had been challenged, then ran out of time to finish replacing them with cites from the OH, will complete later.Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

CE

Quick ce and added two page numbers. Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Recognise the multinational nature of the 8th Army.

It is nonsense to pretend that the Dominion nations were also British. The 1926 Imperial Conference led to the Balfour Declaration of 1926, recognizing Great Britain and the Dominions as "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". Their full legislative independence was subsequently confirmed in the 1931 Statute of Westminster. By World War 2, the Dominions were thus separate countries, who were not required to follow the British parliament, and which each declared war in their own right - except for Ireland. Even today some of those countries swear allegiance to the English King, although they do so freely and without compulsion. They would not consider themselves to be British today, and nor did they in 1940. Even today Ecuador, Zimbabwe, El Salvador and other countries use the US Dollar as their official currency, but they do not consider themselves to be Americans, and certainly the USA does not recognize them as USA citizens. By WW2 the senior Dominions were separate sovereign countries, and when they sent divisions to fight against the Nazis, those divisional commanders were accountable to their own governments and NOT to London. Poland was never a British colony to begin with. It is wrong to characterize every Allied unit in the desert war as British. Wdford (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It may depend on what is intended when "British" is used, do they mean from the UK, of the British Commonwealth, of the British Empire or under British command? Is it a short form of "British and Commonwealth"?

The British Eighth Army is a mix of nationalities though most of it follows a British 'sensibility', you have commanders who consider themselves British though born outside UK (Horrocks, Tuker), while some commanders spent long time in British Army before taking command of Dominion forces (Freyburg)

It would be neologistic to borrow the We Have Ways (Of Making You Talk) podcast acronym DUKE (Dominions, UK and Empire) but it would be handy in some times. Sometimes in writing, though not ideal, we do need a shorthand way of referring to the-Allies-but-not-the-Americans without ending up with curiously stilted phrasing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with saying "Allies". That term is used often in other WW2 articles without concern about specifying that the USSR was not present. Alternately, in this case perhaps we could say "8th Army"? That would be simple, honest and factually accurate? Wdford (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Within the context of this article but perhaps not in others. And Eighth Army (UK) and Eighth Army US but German 8th Army and 8th Army (Italy) - for reasons.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What do the RS say?Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The term "Eight Army" has been defined at the beginning of the article, and nobody is going to assume that the reference is to any other 8th Army. That suggestion is daft. The term "Allies" would still be best, as there were French and Poles and Greeks and others as well as the Commomwealth troops. Wdford (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the orthographic convention for the Allied armies - corps are Roman numerals, armies spelt out and army groups are Arabic numerals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What do the RS say, not you Wd. Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As you know, the best WP:RS for the actual wording of the Balfour Declaration of 1926, is simply to read the Balfour Declaration of 1926 itself. The best WP:RS for the actual wording of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is simply to read the Statute of Westminster 1931 itself.

As you know, the multinational nature of the Eighth Army is widely acknowledged and reported. Surely you are not questioning this? However if your POV has taken you this far down the rabbit hole, Playfair always identifies the Dominion divisions with reference to their country of origin, such as 9th Australian Division, 2nd New Zealand Division and 1st South African Division etc. He also identifies the French soldiers as French, and the Polish soldiers as Poles, and he never pretends that non-British soldiers were British.

There are hundreds of works describing the North African campaign. However the most specific description I have ready to hand comes from the work Pendulum of War, by Niall Barr, 2005. I quote from pages 45-46:

"The army which Auchinleck attempted to command from his unconventional headquarters was a polyglot force formed from the wreckage of Gazala, Tobruk and Mersa Matruh along with the welcome addition of a few fresh formations recently arrived from other sectors of the Middle East. When it stood at El Alamein, Eighth Army was not a unified army with a strong sense of collective identity but a collection of units with sometimes competing identities. It was, above all else, a multinational force. Soldiers from across the British Empire and allied governments served in its ranks.

Up to July 1942, Eighth Army incorporated greater or lesser numbers of British, Indian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Free French, Polish and Greek soldiers. However, the status of these troops and their relationship to Eighth Army Headquarters could differ. While Indian Army troops were still largely led by British officers and each Indian brigade continued to have one British or "Imperial" battalion within its ranks, the forces of the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were formed exclusively from those countries. Eighth Army had no jurisdiction over discipline, training or administrative matters for the Australian, South African or New Zealand troops within its ranks.

More importantly, Lieutenant-General Sir Leslie Morshead and Lieutenant-General Bernard Freyberg, the Australian and New Zealand divisional commanders respectively, each had the right to refer any orders he disagreed with to his own government, thus circumventing the normal chain of command. Major-General Dan Pienaar, the commander of the 1st South African Division, did not possess the same right of referral to his government but remained independent in terms of discipline, training and administration. This gave the commanders of the 9th Australian, 2nd New Zealand and 1st South African Divisions a very different constitutional and military relationship from the other forces within Eighth Army. These complex constitutional and administrative arrangements made sustained collective training very difficult. Dominion forces could be encouraged but not ordered to train with their British comrades."

I think that clarifies your confusion adequately. New Zealand soldiers were not British, they did not consider themselves to be British, and their government did not consider them to be British. QED, I think? Wdford (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks like OR, are you avoiding the question about the RS? Keith-264 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely getting away from the initial question about - when referring to actions by eg the Eighth Army - is using a shorthand of "British" acceptable and if not, what works best in its place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

You asked for WP:RS, I gave a string of WP:RS and you pretend not to notice. Classic POV-pushing tactic by Keith264.

Is it acceptable to use the word "British" to describe non-British troops? No it is not acceptable; we can use "Allies", which is totally correct and which is used in other articles, or we can use "Eighth Army", which is also totally correct and also quite simple and readable. Why try so hard to uphold the false impression that this was purely a British effort? Wdford (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you indulged in OR if you look back in the Desert articles you will find lists of sources which contradict your NNPOV. That is it for me I grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As it was my edit that kicked this off, I thought I should say something (and also apologize; sorry about that!). In fact the main reason I changed it was to simply avoid some awkward phrasing ('British Polish mine detectors') and was only using the term Allies in the all-those-who-were-there sense rather than the everyone-including-the-Chinese sense.

I have to say I’ve learned more about the Statute of Westminster through this; Up to now I had assumed Dominion status just meant complete-independence-but-sharing-a-monarch, but it’s obviously a lot more nuanced than that.
But as a Brit I’m mindful of not wanting to suggest ‘we’ are claiming all the credit for actions where others are involved (and in this instance it seems it was the New Zealanders that did a lot of the heavy lifting): Also, having re-read Barrie Pitt’s history of the desert campaign I’m conscious of the fairly toxic relations between Dominion troops and the Pommie bastards particularly prior to Alamein; so whatever their actual legal position, I'm inclined to think if they wouldn’t have welcomed being referred to as British, then another term is probably better. My two pennies worth... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Good points. I am happy to use either "Allies" or "Eighth Army", perhaps even some of each? Where the characters being referred to are clearly British then we call them British, or we can call them Poles or New Zealanders etc where it is clear that this is most appropriate, but otherwise collectively either "Allies" or "Eighth Army"? Wdford (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Eighth Army yes, Allies never. Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Result

@Wdford: did you read this? result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath not battle section (obviously) Keith-264 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The result is described in the Battle section. Wdford (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the content of the article. The article is clear throughout that the Axis forces were in the process of withdrawing from El Alamein to Tunis, when Monty attempted and failed to cut them off at El Agheila. After Monty's plan failed, the Axis continued to withdraw, and the Eighth Army continued to follow - all the way to Tunisia. This is clear from many sources, including Playfair. There is no ambiguity here, so stop edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is mediocre and you would do better to direct your energies into improving it. Wiki is not a source so the basis for your failure to AGF is nonexistent. Keith-264 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is a lot better now, being more factual and more neutral than it was. The lede is required to summarize the content of the article, so this is obviously NOT a case of "using Wiki as a source". Your feeble attempts at misdirection are transparent and pathetic. All my edits are sourced to WP:RS, such as Playfair. If this is all you have to support your POV, then we need to carry on improving the article even further, by making it even more factual and neutral.

The Axis forces had been busy withdrawing from El Alamein to Tunis for weeks, and they paused at El Agheila to regroup and receive supplies. All available men and equipment were being diverted to Tunis, following the Allied landings of Operation Torch, and Rommel's Italian infantry resumed the withdrawal westward as early as 3 December. When Monty attempted to trap the Axis force at El Agheila on 15 December, Rommel evaded their trap and the remainder of his troops resumed their westward withdrawal as well. So say the WP:RS. Surely you are aware of this? Wdford (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a barebones article; I know because I cited most of it and added small passages here and there. It needs to be completed before altering the lead. It sorely needs a source from the Italo-German point of view, like DRZW, to bring out the differences between Rommel, Comando Supremo and OKW. Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It is now a more accurate and neutral barebones article. However you should remember that this was a brief and insubstantial engagement, so not as much meat available as with the Gazala Gallop. Meanwhile, the lede must summarize the content that is in the article, not the content which somebody might perhaps wish to add in future. Also remember that the differences between Rommel, Berlin and Rome were ironed out quickly, and that Berlin and Rome had agreed with Rommel's on-the-spot assessment and decision before Monty caught up, so any initial differences were not massively influential in the battle itself. There is some material on this in Playfair, if that helps. Wdford (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at the OH and will be able to remedy some of the more glaring omissions next week. Keith-264 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)