Talk:Battle of Gazala

Untitled

People interested in the North African Campaign could help us work out some issues regarding itnernational unit names at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units). Thanks. — B.Bryant 03:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Combatants

In the summary box I was surprised to see that the only allied combatants were from the UK. If I was a Polish, Free French, or Commonwealth/Empire veteran of this battle I'd be even more surprised. The Italians are mentioned on the Axis side... GrahamBould 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you know the score, so here's a link rather than the full content: {{sofixit}}. Leithp 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Things of note

I'm putting random notes here until I get to working on this article.

• The name of the British counter-attack was Operation Aberdeen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Farawayman (talk) Some notes on Aberdeen. The attack was lead by infantry who crossed the start line at 03h00 on 5th June. After daybreak, because the 22nd Armoured Bde had not yet caught up with them, the infantry were subjected to powerful counter-attacks. When the 156 Stuarts of the 22 Arm Bde eventually arrived, they proceeded to advance three miles ahead of the infantry and were stopped by concentrated artillery fire. By the time the armour had retreated to behind the infantry line of advance, the German all-arms counter-attacks had completely stopped and turned the attack. In Barnet's view, Aberdeen was "a massacre." BARNETT, Correlli. The Desert Generals 1983, Castle Books, Edison, NJ. Pg151. It is also interesting to note that Enigma decrypts revealed on 31st May that the Germans were expecting counter-attacks and that their response would be aimed at stopping the British advance with strong anti-tank deployments - and once stopped, they would move to the offensive. This decrypt was received in the middle east on 31st May or latest 1st June. Yet the Allies proceeded with the counter-attacks of 1st June and again, on 5th June. The artillery bombardment preceding the 5th June attack (Aberdeen) which was supposed to eliminate the anti-tank defences, fell well short of the German deployments - possibly due to poor reconnaissance. Another reflection of the poor command decisions which lead to the Gazala debacle! Enigma decrypt information from HINSLEY, F.H. Codebreakers: the inside story of Bletchley Park.

Decisive?

Look, Kurt Leyman, I decided to change the result of this battle after you removed the "decisive" victory from Operation Compass. In fact the battle of Gazala was the exact counterpart for the axis of Operation compass: an impressive victory, that brought a lot of prestige to the winners, but which failed achieve any decisive result. Neither battle crippled the enemy permanently, nor did it clinch the outcome of the campaign. "Decisive" is not just another word for "important", this battle was not decisive. Raoulduke47 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh....not another argument over "Decisive"...frankly I'm with Raoulduke but can't the guys of the military history project put their heads together and come up with a suggested convention? Suggestion: don't use the word at all; it clearly means different things to different people which means it means nothing....if you know what I mean!!Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"The battle ended in decisive victory for the Axis" is not a conclusive statement. This could very well mean, simply, that the battle ended decisevely, in a victory: ie that it was a clear-cut victory. No one is disputing this. The word "decisive" can have several meanings, but the relevant meaning here is "having the power or quality of deciding -a decisive battle-"( [1] ). This would only apply if this battle had somehow deicded the outcome of the North African campaign. I would be curious to know what other views might exist on this matter, but unfortunately, the proponent of the "decisive victory" has not deemed it necessary to expose his opinions in full. --Raoulduke47 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not put "Convincing victory" or "Comprehensive victory" or even "Clear-cut victory". I agree that Decisive or Conclusive would heve the meaning implied above ie it settled the campaign - which in this case it didn't. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that. But it's not me you'll have to convince. Raoulduke47 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. Kurt's definition of "decisive victory" is that the Germans won. Any event resulting in an Allied victory cannot be "decisive". Strategic outcomes don't enter into it. This is a very clear-cut case of POV-pushing. Check his edit history if you doubt me. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus.... I see what you mean. Agree, decisive this battle was not. This debate will certainly not result in a "Decisive Leyman victory".Dapi89 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't want to play devils advocate here nor am i actually going to edit the article to state this, however Nial Barr in his book does make out that Gazala was a decisive victory. Its been some time since ive read his book and books am currently reading are before or well after this event (havent even read the official history on it yet) so am not really up to speed on it, however i recall him commenting that the battle did nearly settle the campaign, gave the Axis army enough momentum and supplies to strike deep into Egypt and nearly win the campaign. If i recall he mentions it was basically down to the stiff defence from the South Africans on the El Alamein line that halted them long enough for the opportunity to pass. Just another possible point of view, although as i say Barr's book is the only one i have read in some time which has covered Gazala.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a decisive victory lead to a strategic decision? Gazala was a tactical and operational success for the Axis which led to a strategic dead end.Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point you are missing there, is that Barr points out that without Gazala the Axis forces would have never had the chance to advance so deep into Egypt and only despite stiff resistance and the RAF savaging the merchant fleet were they halted. It was the supplies that were captured at Gazala - the point made to state it was a Pyrrhic victory - is what made more then some local success or a pyrrhic victory. They captured so much material and supplies they could carry the advance further then ever.

The manpower losses and the minimul tank losses - mobile forces being the actually most important part of the desert war as noted in so many other operations, the Axis tank force was kept intact - are really irrelevent and followed up by the world shocking capture of Tobruk shows it was more then a Pyrrhic victory - i believe people are missing the bigger picture and two books not actually dealing with the campaign and fighting as a whole should not consitute agreement on wheater the Axis buggered themselves up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No it's PYRRHIC axis victory? With a casualty ratio of 3 to 1 in manpower and almost 5 to 1 in tanks (in favor of the Axis). And all that despite singnificant numerical inferiority? This is why wikipedia fails.

San Marco Marines

I am deleting a short section on the San Marco Marines because the events occurred in September while the article is about the Battle of Gazala in June. I would also comment that:

• As far as I can see no-where else in this article have we dealt in such detail as to describe actions of single battalions, even in the most important actions. I suggest this piece should appear in a page dedicated to the history of the San Marco Marines
• A reference was given for this short section but the details of the action included (dates, numbers, prisoners etc) do not appear in the referenced article
• I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the reference because:
  • it is a website selling board games and the page includes a link to purchase their Island of Death game. This qualifies it as spam. OK apparently the author is a PhD but can't we find a "proper" publication of his to support this article?
  • It's rather "gung ho" (=POV)

Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Division

Did they not take part in this battle?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Result of the battle

I think people are missing the bigger picture when it comes to the Battle of Gazala, one only has time at the moment to pull these passages from Pendulum of War by Niall Barr - however one will strive to add in more quotes from other sources later or tomorrow.

p. xxxvii

Gazala is described as "one of the worst military defeats ever inflicted upon a British army"

p.1 quoting Churchill in regards to the fall of Tobruk

"This was one of the heaviest blows i can recall during the war. Not only were its military effects grievous, but it had affected the reputation of the British armies"

Barr himself states:

"British forces had been defeated many times during the war but the battle of Gazala, fought from 26 May to 20 June, saw a numerically superior and better supplied Eighth Army and completely outthought and outfought by rommel's Panzerarmee Afrika. Gazala and the loss of Tobruk represetned Britain's complete military humiliation."

p. 17 Barr notes that the American responce to the defeat at Gazala and Tobruk was to offer to ship the 1st Armoured Division to prop up the Eight Army - a parallel with Operation Sunnblume and Compass.

p. 17 Gazala and Toruk seen as a "Stategic humiliation"

p 19 When Rommel sent a direct appeal to Mussolini and then onto Hitler for permission to carry the advance instead of waiting in Libya and taking out Malta before carrying on the advance, Hitler sent message to El Duce that "It is only once in a lifetime that the Goddness of Victory smiles"

p. 20 talks about Rommels intel and Col. Fellers and that Rommels decission to launch his attack was also based on the fact he knew, via Fellers, that the British Army was in no state to stop him.

p38 "when the Eighth army reached the Alamein line it had been bled dry of supplies and ammunition it would need to fight a further battle" p. 38 also has a tabel showing that since the behinning of Gazala until the beginning of July (9-10 following Gazala) nearly 10,000 tons of ammo (nearly 13 million rounds) had been lost, nearly 800,000 shells for the arty, AT and AA guns. p.38-39 not to mention all the other thousands of tons of material which Eighth Army had to destroy or the Germans captured and let alone the 6000 trucks they captured.

p.40 The condition of Eighth Army was indeed deperate as the men of Rommel's AFrika Kors motored on through the dust and the haze of their own exhaustion. The entire position of the British Empire in the Middle East hung int he balance.

To sum up, the Germans inflicted a world wide humliating defeat upon the Eighth Army and had also thrown open the road to Alexandria and the Nile Delta. To call it simpley a Phyrric victory and "haha those silly Germans beat themselves senceless and achieved nothing with this victory" is greatly underestimating how badly they defeated the army and how nearly they clinched the campaign because of this battle.
More later--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept from the above (and other references) that the Gazala defeat was a "heavy defeat" but I also feel that the issue here is the definition of "Decisive". If it is to mean something other than "heavy" (if not, why not just use "heavy") then I go along with the point made above that a decisive victory must be strategically decisive. The German and Italian higher commands never saw it as that : In June, Field Marshal Kesselring, German Commander-in-Chief South (Mediterranean) and Italian Generals Ugo Cavallero, chief of the General Staff, and Ettore Bastico, supreme commander for Africa, visited Rommel at his headquarters. Kesselring was opposed to continuing the offensive. The Panzerarmee was worn out and dependent on captured supplies, whereas the British, despite losses, were continuously resupplied and reinforced. Rommel ...persuaded the Italians to change their minds. Kesselring went along. After the war, Kesselring mused that the decision to continue east spelled the end of Axis military domination of North Africa. (Holt (2007), Exit Rommel, p. 3).

The fact is Rommel was a gambler who rarely paid attention to the impact of logistics. He knew that there were no supplies coming in and that he had to rely on captured materiel. His forces were worn out by the time they reached Alamein and short of fuel. He misjudged the level of British and Commonwealth preparation at Alamein (which admittedly, through their own fault was in place only just in time) and lost the battle, underlying the more balanced post war view that Rommel was a great divisional commander, a poor corps commander and a lousy army commander.

Listening to contemporaneous quotes from political leaders tends to be misleading as they always have an agenda. Hitler and Mussolini never once exchanged a straight word between them! The defeat was humiliating for the British mainly because of the propaganda value of Tobruk (because of the high profile afforded it by Curchill during the Siege in 1941). Churchill as usual was backseat driving - Tobruk had become a kind of mascot. On February 2 1942 Auchinleck's instructions to Ritchie included:"...You will retain the use of Tobruk as long as possible, but will not hold it if in danger of investment." (Compton Mackenzie p. 571) Under pressure from London by June 14 Ritchie was recommending to Auchinlek that he "...fight alongside and prevent it being invested...If I fail, to allow Tobruk to be invested rather than to allow the garrison to fight its way out" It's also interesting that Mackenzie points out that "If Ritchie had gone straight back to the frontier after Bir Hacheim fell and if Tobruk had been immediately evacuated....the Eighth Army could probably stayed on the frontier indefinitely"

So, a heavy defeat, yes, a humiliating defeat, possibly (certainly for Churchill) but a decisive defeat, no (any more that Crusader was decisive). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that i agree with your thoughts compeltly on Rommel and i also understand that the army had no intention of holding Tobruk a second time until the last minute. While one should take what politicans say with a pinch of salt (i.e. check out Churchills view of what happened in the aftermath section of Operation Brevity) the CIGS Alan Brooke also called the defeat at Gazala/Tobruk a "staggering blow" (p. 269, Alan Brooke war diary).

Am not arguing here if the result should be called a "Decisive victory" victory or not, am stating it is much more then a phyrric one. This article calls such a victory "a victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole" - if the Germans won the campaign yes i would call it so however as with Strategic victory it just doesnt quite cover what happened..

To simpley call the battle a pyyhric victory misjudges how badly mauled the British Eighth Army were, who were comepltly routed and sent falling back all the way to El Alamein. The fact so much captured material was then used by Rommel's force (just to note, the German army was equipped by doing so - aqquiring motorised transport, small arms, tanks etc from each of there conquests i.e. an entire panzer division outfitted with a certain make of Czech tank for Barbarossa) and the fact he was stopped just in time should not, i think, be brought into the equation. There is surely a description, which accuralty describes the defeat inflicted upon the British and the victory won by the Axis forces more better then we have now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I misunderstood. It definitely wasn't pyrhic because that would imply that the casualties at Gazala did not justify the gains of pushing 8th Army back to the border. And the argument that the Axis failed at 1st Alamein because of the losses at Gazala is circular. So what do you suggest. "Heavy defeat for 8th Army"? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes something along those lines would seem more approbirate.

One should note that althought the argument is somewhat circular that the Axis lost because of the essentially in the nick of time positioning, stubbon defence at the 1st Alamein and losses incurred at Gazala, they would have never had got there without the heavy defeat they inflicted on the 8th Army.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In full agreement with the above. I believe "Decisive Axis victory" would be an appropriate result, given that nothing apart from a misguided Wikipedia article states that "decisive" necessarily implies final victory in the war—by that standard, even the Battle of France should be withheld the distinction (or Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland, for that matter). I would also point out that, of the two (real) citations for "Pyrrhic victory," one, "Marshall p. 77," says nothing of the kind. Indeed, browsing the surrounding pages, the reader encounters quite the contrary impression:

“ To the sun-bronzed troops, ...[these] were the days of glory. Rommel was eager to cash in on this spirit, and, conversely, after Bir Hacheim, on the confusion and demoralization of the enemy. ”

Or again, "British and American military circles were in shock." (p. 74) A pretty far cry from "another such battle would ruin us." After this duplicity, I have no reason to believe the sole remaining citation to be accurate, and will immediately make the correction. Albrecht (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. I can't find the "misguided wikipedia article" that says "decisive" implies final victory in the war. In fact Decisive victory says "a victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole". seems fair enough. Gazala was a thumping victory but decided neither the campaign nor the war. Decisive does not mean the same as emphatic; we have a rich and varied language and should use specific words with care to their actual meaning. "Decisive victory" is too often used in Wikipedia sloppily to mean "Convincing victory" or the opposite of "Indecisive result". Decisive victories almost necessarily need to be convincing. However, convincing victories are not necessarily decisive although they can be as well as humiliating and all the other things mentioned above. This victory was not decisive.... I would suggest "Convincing Axis victory". Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever remains to be settled, I hope we can agree that Gazala was by no stretch "Pyrrhic." For the rest, you seem to be raising an objection to our customary use of the qualifier "decisive" that would be more useful here. But to answer some of these issues specifically. I honestly don't find "convincing" to be much of an improvement. Convincing to whom? In what sense? And moreover, "decisive" does mean exactly that: convincing, emphatic, unmistakeable, unquestionable.

You say, "decides the outcome of a campaign," but I see absolutely no reason to hold it to that criterion. Campaigns are not universally defined or accepted entities. They are, in fact, quite arbitrary, owing as much to tradition and literature as to historiographical value. The Desert War may very well be conceived as a series of campaigns, in which Gazala is very much a "decisive" battle. Let's be very clear: there exists no authority on how the term "decisive victory" is to be used, least of all a Wikipedia article. (Which you can't find ...and then cite in the following sentence.)

"Decisive" is simply a stylistic standard that's been in place for as long as I can remember (and which happens to reflect the terminology most commonly used in military histories). Straying from this standard will lead, I assure you, to apocalyptic edit wars at worst or endless bickering at best. Imagine trying to find a consensus or adequate substantiation for "humiliating defeat." Imagine giving anyone with an Osprey rag on his shelf the power to use any descriptive phrase he pleases. This is a Pandora's Box I prefer to leave untouched. Albrecht (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have a problem with how the language is used (by the way, you can see that I never thought Pyrrhic was right). I agree there was a decisive result at Gazala but not a decisive victory. A decisive result means a victory (or a defeat) and so a decisive victory must mean more than this (or it is just tautological usage of "decisive" i.e. a decisive decisive result). So the extra meaning must be that the victory had some additional bearing or impact on the bigger picture (or campaign, however you define it). What I'm saying is that if by adding "decisive" you are not trying to say something about the broader implications of the victory, then adding the word adds no meaning. Try the opposite: does "indecisive victory" mean anything? No, a victory is a victory. Perhaps the simplest thing is to avoid ALL qualifiers to results and just have "Axis victory" or "inconclusive" etc.. This avoids most of the POV of describing results and hunting for an appropriate third party historian to cite.

In summary, what I'm saying is that using the "stylistic standard" adds no information and causes dispute as people exchange volleys of conflicting references. I dispute the so-called stylistic standard because I can just as easily say there are writers who use decisive in the precise way I believe it should be (and the others are just no better than "Osprey trash"!). Stick to simple results like "Axis victory" and let the rest (extent of the victory, wider implications etc) be debated in the main text.

By the way, the Wikipedia article I could not find (nor have yet to find) was theone that was represented as saying "decisive" necessarily implies final victory in the war. The article I actually found said a victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole. Quite different.

I mean, here's a thought: why on the current criteria employed is Operation Crusader any less "decisive" than Gazala? If the one is an "Allied victory" then the other is surely an "Axis victory". Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You say "a victory is a victory," but you don't sound convinced, nor should you be. "Pedantry" aside, if we insist on challenging a descriptor that, to my mind, works rather well, let's make sure our arguments are in order. Your grammatical trap, for one, does not hold water: you rather craftily conflate the two meanings of "decisive"---"having the quality of deciding," in one case, and "to an extreme degree," in the other, to create a false dichotomy.

In reality, the conditions that make a battle "decisive" in the commonly understood sense---let's say the rout, capture, or annihilation of the enemy force, but there may be others (an irreversible shift in a relative strategic positions, for instance, such as the Marne 1914 and 1918)---are not necessary for adjudicating a simple victory or defeat; many (most, one should say) historical battles resulted in a clear victor (through casualties, possession of terrain, or other factors) but were not otherwise "decisive," i.e. they left both combating forces relatively intact and on comparable footing. The idea, whichever word we choose, is to convey the difference between a a Ligny and a Waterloo; a Lobositz and a Rossbach, etc. "Decisive" may not be perfect (cue Jimmy Wales), but it does the job reasonably well thanks to people like us.

Comparing Crusader and Gazala does little to advance your case. In the former, a well-prepared offensive captured a great deal of valuable ground from a retreating, inferior enemy force; thus a victory. But the article rightly calls it a "limited success," and with all the resources and arms at British disposal, anything less than what Crusader achieved would have been an embarrassment. In fact, the British were convinced at the start that Rommel was done for and were ultimately rather shocked that German units didn't disintegrate, but actually maintained themselves so easily in Cyrenaica. In brief, Rommel protected his lines of communication and kept his army intact. At Gazala, on the other hand, the British were utterly and completely routed, most of their equipment captured or destroyed; carefully-nurtured and assembled armoured divisions virtually ceased to exist (if memory of Churchill's memoirs serve); and only a small Free French force at Bir Hakeim saved them from possible annihilation. That a sufficient portion eventually escaped and rebuilt to hold at El Alamein should not change this fact. (Having said that, I won't argue the matter any further, considering this is not a forum.) Albrecht (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Whatever I've said or may yet say, I should add that I admire your immense courtesy in not edit warring over this. Albrecht (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

OK, basta. We've done this to death for the moment! I wouldn't "edit war" without the consensus behind me. In this case it isn't (even though the consensus sucks!) I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that the two different meanings of decisive which you pinpointed above can cause confusion particularly since the different meanings are often implied when talking about a "decisive battle" and a "decisive victory". By the way, I wasn't trying to sneak in a tricky cheap shot with a grammatical trick - any more I'm sure than you were bringing Saint Jimmy into the argument!. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We have without a doubt proved, via sources, that the battle was not a phrric victory as orignally labeled. However has any historian specifically stated that it was a decisve victory?

Barr in all the information he gave does not say it was one, although he shows that the Eighth army was in a dire state and that the "campaign hung in the balance".

Him saying such, would that be enough to state yes it was a desive victory? The rest of the information shows that it was indeed an heavy blow inflicted upon the Eighth army physically and propaganda wise which would support the propossal of "heavy defeat" - however is this a term in use? Is there any other terms which could be used in place?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a word, people. Rather than cite a hundred different adjectives—"Crushing victory," "Brilliant victory," "Overwhelming victory," etc.—we've chosen to use one adjective across the board: Decisive. Asking for the exact word to appear in the source is a fine piece of sophistry. If the losing side has suffered a calamitous defeat, the winners have won a decisive victory. Full stop. Albrecht (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I aggree with Stephen Kirrage. The logic of his argument seems undeniable to me. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Doesn't the term 'decisive' come from German nomenclature? Didn't Clausewitz, Moltke et al consider it to be the engagement which determined the rest of the campaign or war? Gazala was a heavy defeat for the British; the word 'rout' isn't inapposite although the extent of the attrition beforehand perhaps makes it a bit much. The 8th Army was able to hold at El Alamein after being routed from Mersa Matruh so it can't have been decisively defeated (in Clausewitzian terms). It seems to me that Gazala has much in common with Crusader - begnning with the attacker eventually prevailing but not destroying the enemy force.Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading through the discussion i actually disagree with the point raised by Albrecht stating that it is only a word and one that is used across the board. A word may only be such but they hold meaning as described above; looking at some of the heavily worked on Normandy articles, very few of them use the term and the ones that do i.e. Operation Cobra and Operation Tractable are clearly decisive moments in the campaign i.e. major turning points.

The source information from Barr shows that this was quite a defeat the Italian-Germans inflicted upon the Allied force but the terminology, used in the info box, doesn’t fit. Likewise Anderson stating it was a calamitous defeat doesn’t necessarily link up with the meaning of decisive.

Do we have any additional source information?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'The Gazala battles were considerable victories for Rommel; the enemy's armoured force was virtually destroyed and Tobruk was taken....However it was not to be...pp.375-376, The German Army 1933-1945 by Matthew Cooper. 'In winning our victory at Tobruk we . . . had expended the last of our strength.' Rommel p.233 (note 10, pp.375-376, The German Army 1933-1945 by Matthew Cooper.).Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Saturday

Out text states: "Throughout the Eighth Army 13 June became known as "Black Sunday"." But 13 June 1942 was a Saturday (see here). Am I missing something? Ericoides (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good spot. I've checked the Clifford ref and it is indeed "Black Saturday". Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Decisive battle definition which Gazala wasn't.

"Instead of the traditional concept of a war won quickly by means of one or two "decisive" battles that annihilated the enemy's armed forces, thereby forcing the enemy to accept any peace terms, there now arose a vision, a nightmare to most, of a protracted war." Foley, R.T. German Strategy and the Path to Verdun (2007) p.5. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Basing our comments on general experience, the acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are the following:

1. Destruction of his army....

2. Seizure of his capital....

3. Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally....

To begin with, our forces must be adequate:

1. To score a decisive victory over the enemy's.

2. To make the effort necessary to pursue our victory to the point where the balance is beyond all possible redress.

Clauswitz,C. On War (1993), pp. 719-725. Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

British are "quiet"

I updated the quote on the main page from what I believe is the correct quote found found here: http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/usarmy/desert%20warfare/desert%20warfare%20annexes.htm I see the other quote is more popular on the internet, but those references are almost identical to what is also written here on Wiki; making me suspect they are all copies of each other. In any event, it makes more sense when you add the first comma. Forgive ignorance, I don't know how to update the main page "references". Llandale (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly Toppe would have written this in German and so variations in translations could occur. However, if you follow the link in the citation footnote it takes you to a photo of the original US Marines document. On page A-9-1 the wording is as it was originally here in the Battle of Gazala article. It may be the wording on the xenophon site has been "improved" but if one makes a direct quote from a document (as occurs here) one cannot change the wording it should be a direct transcription of the original document. I am changing it back to reflect the original source. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am new to this. When I first read it, I could not make sense of the first sentence, presumed it to be a misquote, and investigated. My original intention was to change the reference, not misquote the existing one. I see the original Marine reference has clearly marked page numbers; and this advantage may be compelling for purposes of referencing here. I note it was done in 1990 and has no translation remarks. The one posted on Xenophon was commissioned by US Army right after the war, which leads me to believe it was translated from the original German at that time (but I cannot find that out for sure). The "out" instead of "our" typo in the Marine version strongly suggests that version was copied, as it could not have survived translation and review. If it was copied, it was probably from the Xenophobe "original". I suggest perhaps while the Marine version is a better "reference", the Xenophobe is a more reliable "source". But, it probably doesn't matter. I've added the previous sentence of the quote in order to mitigate the error of the missing comma in the next sentence. Llandale (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I really hate seeing [sic] but that is just me. I wonder if we could add [sic] for the missing comma? lol Llandale (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In answer to one question, the study was written by General Major Alfred Toppe, a senior officer in the quartermaster division of the Heer (Army). He was assisted by some nine other officers who had experience in Africa, including Fritz Bayerlein and Siegfried Westphal. It was compiled for the Army over a two month period of time in 1952. The report was written in German and translated into English by E. Heitman, and reviewed by Captain N.E. Devereaux. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Result

Not decisive, the Eighth army survived it and won.Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

CE

Tidied references and citations, added a few oclc and isbns.Keith-264 (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Allied number of tanks

How come it states the Allies lost more tanks then they actually had (843 vs 1188)? --154.69.62.124 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re the above: even worse is that at the beginning of the article in the side-box it gives the German and Italian tank losses as MORE then what they started with and MORE than the losses of the Brit forces - who apparently were defeated! Or were they? The way this article reads its like the Brits really won. Honestly, this is load of tripe. It really is. Some Revisionist Brit has re-written this and turned it into a hard-luck story. An 'Ah but, if only....' It's a complete lot of nonsense. I mean, if the AK started the battle with less then 340 tanks how could they announce after the battle that they had lost 400 tanks? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.179.83 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The numbers might be a mistake or conflicting data depending on the source. It can also reflect the fact that tanks are hard to knock out and harder to destroy. Damaged tanks get counted as knocked out then are repaired and sent back into the battle and get damaged again and so on. One tank can be "knocked out" several times.Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

CE

Had a dash at tidying the page and prose, moved a few pics which were squashing the text (are there any with the tank etc facing left available?). Changed the headers somewhat to shorten them, added a couple to break up the narrative and moved a couple of paragraphs around. Changed a few spellings to BritEng, OK? Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Got confused by the Rigel Ridge section until I realised that it was 13 June not 23rd.Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tidied infobox and added a casualties section to the narrative.Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

recent edits

@ User:Gunbirddriver, rather than ad hoc edits, would you like to discuss them here to avoid cross purposes? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have made major changes to the article which has obscurred its narrative flow, have removed cited content, rephrased passages based apparently upon your own preference and have been removing images which were valuable and illustrated the events described. I have been pretty busy but I am not in agreement with the direction that has been taken here. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, although I'm disappointed that you've inferred unconstructive motives. I have made some changes to the structure of the article and added citations where they were lacking, which I think are an improvement. I ask you again to look at the guidance on images and suggest that we compromise on the number to be included, to avoid cramping the narrative and slalom-ing it around pics on both margins. I have changed some images from left to right margin and looked for ones facing left for the right margin. I have copy-edited several sections to remove extraneous words and trim baggy sentences of unnecessary adverbs, adjectives and judgements, in favour of description of the content of the source. I've also cleaned up the references section. That said, I'm open to persuasion so perhaps we could go through your objections one by one? If it helps I'm not planning to edit the page again as I'm looking at Western Desert Campaign instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Gazala. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5iVZnyaAi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avalanchepress.com%2FAriete.php to http://www.avalanchepress.com/Ariete.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.historyanimated.com/wwiianimated.com/index.php/el-alemein
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119232943/http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-gazala-1942/ to https://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-gazala-1942

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Metric?

Is the article metric → imperial or the other way round? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Allied vs Englische

I note that the photo being quibbled about is captioned in its source as "Nordafrika, Tobruk.- Marsch britischer Kriegsgefangener". I'm not proficient in German but, like DagosNavy would be happier to see a properly explanatory caption such as "Allied prisoners leaving (or being marched from) Tobruk". (I don't care for "going into the bag".) In addition to the four British nationalities, those troops included a big variety of Empire guys and other Europeans. Their consequent sufferings at the hands of Italians and Germans surely merit better acknowledgement than crass generalisation as "Englische". Bjenks (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite right. I changed the caption to address your concerns. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Bjenks, your comments are OR and rather ill-mannered; Gunbird, I think you have rushed to judgement, I suggest a moment of reflection. The only thing we know is that the caption uses englische (sic), not abiding by this is OR.Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh? Where is my comment "ill-mannered?" And how can it be OR to remedy an obviously incorrect term in a German caption which originally used "britischer"? Bjenks (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Drat, I just can't get that 'britischer' link to work reliably. To see it, go to the pic's Commons page, then click on the Accession number link in the Summary section, then click on the resultant thumbnail pic. The Archive title is beneath, reading 'Nordafrika, Tobruk.- Marsch britischer Kriegsgefangener; PK "Afrika"' Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Extraneous detail in the lead section

There is an entire paragraph in the lead section about Bonner Fellers, and the related intelligence leak. This material is not described in the body of the article, but it is presented in the lead as though this leak was the cause of the entire British debacle, being described as a "calamitous situation". Seemingly no mention is made in the article of the Allied access to Ultra intelligence, which gave them as much of an advantage if not more. This material is hardly significant enough to include in the lead, but if we are going to adhere to wikipolicy then it needs at least to be included in the body of the article before it can be "summarized" in the lead. Any such section on intelligence leaks must also include the British advantage of Ultra intercepts as well, for balance and neutrality. Wdford (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair point.Keith-264 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed there should be balance through provision of verified content about a British advantage, and that more detail needs to be included in he body of the article. However this detailed source (from Bonner Fellers) would indicate that the advantage enjoyed by Rommel was tactically of far greater value than was Ultra to the Allies at the time of Gazala and Tobruk. Bjenks (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting read. The questions are then: (1) Is this a reliable source? (2) If yes, then the source suggests that the Axis advantage (if any) was due to their own better efficiency and the British incompetence and ill-discipline - do we need a section in the article describing the comparative competence and efficiency of the code-breaking and analysis on both sides?

Until this is fixed up either way, I am removing the paragraph from the lead - we can put it back, suitably modified, once we have updated the body of the article. Wdford (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Wdford: Yet again you meddle with a lead rather than improving an article and altering the lead to suit, why? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, you didn't meddle with the lead, did you.... ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

These men died for freedom - they have earned more respect than to be lumped as just "Dominions" or "other"

This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. These soldiers came from countries that had actual names, and those names are not disputed. What possible reason could there be for not mentioning those countries by name in the lead , and instead lumping them under some imperialist label, when the countries are all mentioned in the body of the article? Apart, of course, from your relentless imperialist POV-pushing? Wdford (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you unhinged? Please follow BRD Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing BOLD about my edit. I am merely summarizing the article accurately in the lead. I see you have not bothered to offer a good reason for not mentioning those countries by name in the lead - possibly because you don't have a good reason? Wdford (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We have been through this too often for me to take your claims seriously; just in case I commend WP:Lead (again)

The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Where are your edits treating the Italians, Libyans and Germans? "These men died for freedom - they have earned more respect than to be lumped as just "Dominions" or "other"" is blatant POV pushing. Before you use "bullshit" again, I suggest you don't. You have added little to the article apart from trivia and gone back to turning the lead into a Trojan Horse. As I have pointed out before, your talk page is full of warnings about disruptive editing and even contains a guide to gaming the system. Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Things like [2] this and [3] don't make it easy to WP:AGF but several editors have tried anyway. Keith-264 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but wp:Memorial pretty much says we are not here to honour the dead, not matter how deserved.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion has been made that why don't we just lump both sides into "allied" or "axis" and let the OB differentiate them. I do have some sympathy with this idea, it avoid all this hassle.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Allied" would be premature, the "British" (who were preponderant in the theatre) is disputed and now "British, Commonwealth and Allied contingents" is disputed (by one editor). I would put British in the lead and gloss it in British preparations.Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would "Allied" be premature? Australia played a leading role at Tobruk in 1941, were rotated out and returned right after Gazala to help at Alamein. New Zealand and South Africa both played prominent roles in Crusader, which could not have been won without them, as well as at Alamein, and South Africa was at Gazala as well as Tobruk. By the time of the Gazala Gallop, both the USA and the USSR were also firmly in the war, and the USA had been supplying the Eighth Army with tanks for a while already. Why would "Allied" be premature? Wdford (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dominions weren't allies.Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That's an imperialist POV. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 declared the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be: "... 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." Similarly, the Statute of Westminster 1931 established the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire from the United Kingdom, and had the effect of making the Dominions largely sovereign nations in their own right. The "dominion countries" all had their own parliaments, they were not compelled to participate in Britain's wars, and all who participated did so as independent countries who could withdraw from the war at any time. As I made clear to you elsewhere, "dominion" divisions had the license to refuse orders from British generals, and they did exactly that when they felt it necessary. Jan Smuts had to fight hard to have South Africa assist Britain at all. Wdford (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You've been rebuked for casting aspersions so pack it in. "Allegiance to the crown" and "largely sovereign" isn't sovereign. You failed to give examples of Dominion Commanders appealing to their governments, have you found any? You would be well advised to write an article instead of tampering with leads. Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Well actually I did give examples where "dominion" commanders asserted their independence – as you well know. I also gave references which clearly admit that British generals had no actual authority over "dominion" commanders – as you well know. The Balfour Declaration etc make it abundantly clear where that independence came from – as you well know.

And yet you still persist in pretending that I have not brought that evidence. You made an unsubstantiated accusation of Trojan Horse, which is an attack on me. You have repeatedly reverted my edits by using baseless accusations of vandalism etc, always without justification. And now you accuse me of "tampering with leads" when I am merely trying to summarise the uncontested info in the article in a NEUTRAL manner. Please stop with these ad hominem attacks, and address the issues of content.

Wdford (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you offered conjecture. Quote an example of a Dominion commander exercising the right to refer to his government. Try using your energy to write an article or two. Keith-264 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Its hardly "conjecture" as you describe it. I specifically cited the case of Blamey wanting Australian troops withdrawn from Tobruk. Auchinleck declined, and Churchill backed Auchinleck, so Blamey called on the Australian government, who forced Churchill to back down and withdraw the Australian troops. See for example Playfair at pg 23-24 at [4], and Maughan Volume 3 Chapter 8 at pgs 380-381 at [5]. This was done in accordance with the agreed terms of engagement as per the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, which granted legislative independence to the "dominion countries". All "dominion" commanders had that independence, and they usually didn't need to call on their respective governments to enforce it because the British generals knew they would lose if they persisted. We can also add Barr pg 156 at [6], and Hammond pg 41 at [7], and Nash pg 170 [8]. Do you still persist in pretending that this independence is mere "conjecture"?

I have started articles. However my main contribution is to improve existing articles which are lacking in balance and neutrality. Anglo-centrism is not neutral.

Now please stop with these ad hominem attacks, and stop distracting from the main point, which is the fact that there is no reason why the lead should portray the battles of the Desert War as being fought by "Britain and some vassal states", rather than mentioning all the countries who made significant contributions by name - or at least treating all countries equally under the groupings "Axis" and "Allies".

Wdford (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Was Blamey the Australian commander in Tobruk? No, he commanded Anzac troops in Greece and was deputy commander of Middle East Command. You're hopeless Keith-264 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

OK guys, I picked up this complaint at MilHist and dropped on by to check things out. First and foremost, there is a direction from Wikipedia to assume good faith. From the comments, there is precious little of that going on. A couple of things here. First, don't put things in the leed without it being in the body. Secondly, it is normal to put the overall commander's nation as the army unless he or she is leading an all foreign force. Pick out the subunits in the result box. Conversely, you could just name the units as they appear in the narrative. Putting that much detail in the leed would be a bit much. Leeds are supposed to be short summations of the event without citation. However, everything in the leed has to be in the body and should be cited. I retired from Wikipedia after letting a rather nasty gentleman wind me up to the point we ended up in an ANI. There is very little in Wikipedia to be worth that hassle. I didn't return for years. Points of argument over POV in my experience tend to get nasty in a hurry. I try on my part to do a Walter Cronkite dry recitation of fact to avoid it whenever possible. I'm advising to sit back, cool down, then work to a consensus.Tirronan (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Blamey was the overall commander of all the Australian troops in the Middle East at that time. He was thus Morshead's direct boss at the time of the siege of Tobruk. However, you already knew that, didn't you?

Now please stop with these ad hominem attacks, and stop distracting from the main point, which is the fact that there is no reason why the lead should portray the battles of the Desert War as being fought by "Britain and some vassal states", rather than mentioning all the countries who made significant contributions by name - or at least treating all countries equally under the groupings "Axis" and "Allies".

Wdford (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I know what he was; I know what he wasn't. He wasn't a divisional commander like Freyberg; his involvement was to press for a change of policy not a refusal of orders. Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tirronan: Glad you've come back; I wish you luck. Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another attempt at distracting attention from the main point. Blamey's "involvement" was NOT "to press for a change of policy"; Blamey was the most senior Australian officer, and his "involvement" was specifically demanding that the British generals adhere to the ORIGINAL agreement of not splitting up the Australian units as though they were all just part of the British army. Auchinleck refused to comply, so Blamey called in the Australian government to assert their independence, and the British caved in. See Maughan 310-311 specifically. This is yet more proof that "dominion" units were NOT British vassals, they were independent countries, and they were doing Britain a favour by helping out. I also provided references that prove that Australian, South African and New Zealand divisional commanders refused British orders when they thought it necessary, and the British generals were powerless to do any more than "persuade". Accordingly, please can we dispense with this blatant Anglo-centric POV, and have the lead fairly reflect the list of countries that participated in these battles? Wdford (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't refusing orders and you have no case; relent Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another attempt at distracting attention from the main point. The POINT, as you well know, and for which I have presented copious reliable evidence, is that the Australian, South African and New Zealand divisions were NOT British vassals, but were soldiers of independent countries. The references I supplied all show that the Australian, South African and New Zealand divisional commanders refused British orders when it suited them, with impunity. Accordingly, please can we dispense with this blatant Anglo-centric POV, and have the lead fairly reflect the various countries that participated in these battles? Wdford (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You have gone round in circles making straw men claims. I suggest you have another look at Tirronan's comments. Keith-264 (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

We have been around a few circles here because you keep hopping about to avoid the main point. If you really believe that my openly stated concern with this Anglo-centric POV is just a straw-man, then why not let us fix the Anglo-centric POV and see what happens? Wdford (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You've been humoured but if you resume tampering with the lead you will be reverted by me or someone else. Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read the basics of this discussion and some of the editing history of the article. My thoughts are as follows. Cramming info, cites, and edit warring the lead or infobox is not helpful. As for British vs Australian/other Commonwealth nations, if the nationality of the unit is of something other than UK (e.g. 1st Australian Division) , than it is by definition not British, even if operating under British command. Now if it were a bunch of Australians in a British unit, then they should be referred to as "British troops". When referring to these together, it seems that "Allied" would be perfectly acceptable, or possibly "British Commonwealth" troops, but not simply "British", that would be factually inaccurate. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I will happily accept "Allied", as it treats all participating nations equally. However to say "Britain, plus British India, plus British Commonwealth" is still highly Anglo-centric, and still denies the identity of the other nations - who actually did much of the work and without whom the Desert War would not have been won. Wdford (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Not in 1941, not for Dominions, it's ahistorical, anachronistic nonsense. Australia did not become an independent sovereign state until the 1980s. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet, in 1941, Australian Prime Minister John Curtin told the great Winston Churchill exactly where to get off his high horse, and Churchill, with much muttering, climbed down. When the Great Imperial Power has to call on its vassals for rescue, the Empire crumbles.

Please can we dispense with this Anglo-centric POV, and name the various countries who won this war appropriately? Wdford (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I do think it's of importance that Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa had to offer their own declarations of war against the Axis, unlike the typical colonies like India or Nigeria. Also, there appears to be a broad consensus that the Commonwealth countries be considered separate in the article infoboxes, unlike the colonies which are normally bulleted under the mother country (e.g. Dutch East Indies campaign, Normandy landings). -Indy beetle (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

OR; Allies = Britain and France, Britain and the USSR, Britain, the USSR and the USA. "Britain" = Britain, the Dominions, the empire (the Commonwealth) and various Free forces, French, Belgian Dutch etc. The Dominions weren't treated as sovereign states and didn't claim that status until well after 1945. RS do not support the term "Allies" for Dominion and empire forces but sometimes use "Commonwealth". Must we go through this again? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A Milhist RfC might be in order, because this has remifications across many articles. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite agreeKeith-264 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Keith-265: We only have to go through it again, if you insist on retaining your Anglo-centric POV in the lead.

Reliable sources DO support the term "Allies" for the various Commonwealth countries who participated. See for instance the Encyclopaedia Britannica – that epitome of a BRITISH reference work – at [9]. It states: "More generally, the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations." It then helpfully provides a list of the "Allies" - which includes Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.

The "Dominion" countries most certainly WERE treated as sovereign states – that was the entire point of the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster 1931. The official report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee on the Imperial Conference of 1923, refers to the "group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions." It states that the position and mutual relation of this group of nations may be readily defined, 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.” See the full report here [10]. In other words, Britain is itself a member of the Commonwealth, and Britain has no extra status above any other member of the Commonwealth. The subsequent statute itself recognized the sovereign right of each dominion to control its own domestic and foreign affairs, and to be separately represented in the League of Nations. See [11]. That all sounds very sovereign to anybody who does not labour under an Anglo-centric POV.

In addition, in 1934 the South African parliament passed the Status of the Union Act, 1934, which declared the Union of South Africa to be a "sovereign independent state" and explicitly removed any remaining power of the Imperial Parliament in South African legislation.

I have also presented copious evidence that not only were all the countries considered to be independent in law, but that they demonstrated this independence in practice too, specifically during the war, and specifically during the Western Desert Campaign, where non-British divisions made up a big chunk of the Eighth Army, and did a lot of the work.

If you insist on using the word "Commonwealth", then we must also accept that Britain was merely an equal member of the Commonwealth – so it would be very non-neutral to list Britain by name but to lump the other Commonwealth member states under a general collective.

@ Indy beetle: Thanks for your suggestion. In order to correct this Anglo-centric POV, my first preference would be to actually name all the countries that participated, in the lead itself. It would only require a few extra words to do it properly. If the lead then for some reason needs to be trimmed by a few words to "accommodate" this, then we can trim a few other words without much damage.

However if that is somehow impossible, then we can use the term "Allied", with all Allied nations being treated equally under that collective label. If that is somehow also impossible, then third choice would be to use "Commonwealth", provided Britain is also included under that collective label just as an equal member with no superior status, exactly as the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster 1931 intended.

Wdford (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone with this anachronistic obsession refers to the statute of Westminster but fails to not what it excludes. this is a tedious waste of time. If you turn the lead into a list you will fail; it will not be supported by third parties. Try writing some articles instead. Keith-264 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Keith-264: What exactly does the Statute of Westminster 1931 "exclude", that is so fundamentally important to this point? Please would you actually explain what is "excluded" that would make a difference here, so that we can all understand your POV a bit better?

There is no intention to "turn the lead into a list" - that is just another distraction. The lead obviously already contains a list of participating countries, and all that is proposed is to change a few words so as to remove an Anglo-centric POV, and make the lead more neutral, and more informative.

There were a lot of people present from many other Allied nations as well, who were serving in British or South African or French units or ships or squadrons etc. I therefore propose to change the word "troops" to "units".

The lead is currently 311 words long. Adding or removing half a dozen words is not going to make any practical difference to the length thereof.

The first paragraph of the lead currently ends with the sentence: "Eighth Army …. comprising British, Indian, Commonwealth and Free French troops."

My suggestions for the lead are as follows, in order of preference:

1. "Eighth Army …. comprising British, Indian, South African and Free French units." (312 words long)
2. "Eighth Army …. comprising units from various Allied countries." (309 words long)
3. "Eighth Army …. comprising Commonwealth and Free French units." (309 words long)
4. "Eighth Army …. comprising personnel from various Allied countries." (309 words long)

In addition, I am not sure that we should refer to Auchinleck as the commander of the Eighth Army here, because at the time of this battle he had not yet sacked Ritchie and taken personal command of the Eighth Army.

Wdford (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Not. in. the. lead. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to offer a more coherent response than that please. My proposed edits are all factually correct, as well as being accurate summaries of the material in the body of the article. My proposed wording is no more bulky than your wording, but my wording is more neutral and more informative. Please would you set aside your Anglo-centric POV, and instead help to improve the article? Wdford (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

You have been banging away at this against the consensus for weeks; you are not a historian, you can't be trusted to follow wiki rules and if given an inch will take a mile. Write an article instead of meddling with leads to indulge your idee fix. If you return to tampering with leads you will be reverted by many editors who's patience you have exhausted. Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I commend WP:Lead (again)

The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere. I think an RfC is needed to resolve this. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I know, agreed.Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason why we are not getting anywhere, is because Keith-264 refuses to engage in proper discussion about the content. The references I have cited in this discussion prove my case abundantly, and all I am asking for is to name in the lead the specific independent countries whose divisions made major contributions to the battle, rather than promoting Britain while lumping some other Allied nations under a "miscellaneous" heading. This improvement will not affect the size or readability of the lead, it is information that is already in the article and is not the slightest bit controversial, and it is correct per wikipolicies. The only possible reason for refusing to "allow" this improvement is to protect an Anglo-centric POV. This POV problem also exists at other World War 2 articles as well.

WP:NPOV requires that we avoid "editorial bias". The policy specifically states that the NPOV policy "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It also specifically states, at [12], that an Anglo-American focus is contrary to NPOV, and that this problem should be corrected by removing all examples of cultural bias. That is exactly what I have been trying to do, with much opposition from one editor.

WP:Lead specifically states that the lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and that the average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. By leaving this Anglo-centric POV entrenched in the lead, we are misinforming the average reader who might not read the rest of the article. WP:Lead therefore also demands a neutral point of view.

Keith-264 has also not yet explained what exactly does the Statute of Westminster 1931 "exclude", that would somehow support his POV? Does he even have such an explanation to offer, or any valid reason to continue to block these improvements to the article? Wdford (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"These men died for freedom - they have earned more respect than to be lumped as just "Dominions" or "other"" do you deny that this is biased Wdford? Keith-264 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

How could that be biased? On what possible basis? This is just another attempt at a diversion, from an editor who refuses to engage with the content.

On the other hand, to describe the Eighth Army as "comprising British, Indian, Commonwealth and Free French troops" is biased. After the Statute of Westminster 1931, Britain was also part of the Commonwealth, an equal member with no higher status than any other, so British troops were also "Commonwealth troops". We can either list all the individual sovereign countries who contributed divisions, or we can use accurate collective labels like "Allies", but to name Britain individually and then lump others as "Commonwealth" is Anglo-centric POV-pushing.

Do you perhaps have a valid reason to avoid naming the individual sovereign countries who contributed divisions?

Wdford (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to a rfc which might end your fatuous time wasting. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As usual, you offer no coherent answers, no good faith discussions on the content, just evasions and insults. Wdford (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, just an accurate description of your conduct. See you at the rfc.Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

One question

Some sources say it was just Rommel who planned the attack on Gazala , but some other sources say it was Rommel And Bastico (Axis commander in North Africa). Did they really planned together the attack or it was just Rommel. Thank you for anyone who answered. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Never mind. I found a source tells that it was Bastico and Rommel that planned the attack . In conclusion. They planned it together the attack. Case closed Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

They actually Planned it together by Bastico and Rommel. Case closed. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Command Corps of Axis and Allied Armies

Keith. Since stuffing too much in the infoxbox is not good. But here's my proposition. I'll add the corps command. For example. The Commander of the Italian XX Corps I'll add it's Corps commander but I will not add flags beside it. Is it okay or bad? Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the Battle of Gazala was composed mainly of Corps from both sides. Just like El Alamein Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

From Template:Infobox military conflict combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article.

I would stick to theatre commanders and army commanders. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, but I'll add the corps commander but no flags later Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't, it's overkill. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Is something bad is gonna happen on the page. Give me 3 good reasons for ireconsider the edit Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1. See the policy above 2. I'll revert you and 3. I'll revert you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Again. By that logic, Then the Pages like Operation Crusader and First Battle of El Alamein then needs to be shortened. The commanders corps for both sides will be removed, Ciao. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Italian nomenclature

@Jheeeeeeteegh: [13] You can find Italian terms here. Keith-264 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jheeeeeeteegh: Do you have the page numbers for your edit? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately No. I found that source with full edition on Issuu a couple of months ago, but it's publication is currently closed right now. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Annoying isn't it? I'd blank it until the page No. is available, in the meantime, you can try asking here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)