Talk:Western Desert campaign

Rhodesians

No mention of the Rhodesians. They were at least part of the LRDG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.98.103 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Montgomery's Allied offensive

I've tagged this as dubious:
"It's notable that he had resources far in excess in quantity and quality to those of his predecessors"
The comment is often trotted out to disparage Montgomery but it's clearly incorrect. The Allies had a roughly two-to-one superiority throughout most of the Desert campaign (see Gazala, Crusader, Battleaxe for examples). Montgomery only had the same advantages; his skill was in using them wisely. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

At Normandy in 1944 Montgomery's invasion forces had a 25% numerical advantage over the Axis defenders, when it is usually considered necessary to outnumber the defenders by 3-to-1 (300%) to have any chance of success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.56 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's merely a rule of thumb and you have not quite stated it correctly. The point is to have a 3:1 advantage *at the point of the attack*. That can be accomplished in several ways, one of which is to thin your front line in some places in order to be stronger in other places. It does not require actual overall numerical superiority, even though that is awfully nice to have. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Allied air superiority and naval firepower were also efficient force-multipliers in Normandy. It was the success of the landings and the first three days that led to the Germans going to ground on 9 June.Keith-264 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The 300% figure is actually for a land invasion, Montgomery did it with 25% in an amphibious one.

Map

- - That map is flawed, Germany occuped the north and west of france , Vichy france was only in the south and not the whole country as the map seems to imply. Goldblooded (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Source about raids/special forces

I have just read an excellent academic treament of British Special Forces in the Desert War and believe this page could benefit from a citation/reference - particularly as regards the section on 'raids'. It is:

Hargreaves, Andrew L., ‘The Advent, Evolution and Value of British Specialist Formations in the Desert War, 1940-43’, in Global War Studies, Vol. 7, No.2, (2010), pp.7-62

From what I understand Dr. Hargreaves wrote a PhD on WWII Special Forces, but am not sure if he has written any books.

This could be useful to other pages dealing with similar units.

Best,

David Trill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.118.20 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tricky; is it publicly available? Are you wanting to use it to support some statement here? If it isn’t readily accessible it can’t be verified. Does it have a lot to say about the Western Desert campaign or is it just broadly about special forces? If the former, and it is useful as background, you could always put it in the Further Reading section. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have also read this article and can confirm its quality. It is publicly available and can be found on the likes of ingentaconnect. As it connects special forces to the Western Desert campaign I would definitely recommend placing it in Further Reading - it is probably of much more value to those pages dealing with individual units. 92.26.170.219 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

USAAF in intro

The sentence mentioning the USAAF build-up seems to be randomly dropped into the introductory section and an odd interjection in the summary of the strategic campaign. Perhaps it would be better placed at some point after the entry of Japan into the wider global conflict is raised, for instance in the section on Rommel's 2nd offensive? Bonza9683 03:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Australian withdrawal

The article states "After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Australian forces were withdrawn from the Western Desert to the Pacific theatre". While it is correct, it creates the impression that the Australians (9th Division AIF) were withdrawn soon after the Japanese entered the war. In fact they were not withdrawn until late January 1943, more than a year later, and after the Australians had made an important contribution in the El Alamein battles. Baska436 (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian troops were retained until they could be spared without jeopardising the success of operations in North Africa. Churchill had earlier been obliged to send troops from North Africa to Greece in 1941 in an attempt at supporting Greece and this removal of troops from Egypt was one of the factors that allowed the Italians to survive in North Africa until Rommel's DAK arrived, thus throwing away an almost certain British victory, and prolonging the conflict in that theatre. Churchill didn't want that repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Western" Desert Campaign

The term is never explained: why "Western"?

My best guess is a British-centric POV: the deserts west of Egypt, but that's just pure guesswork.

What is the origin of calling this desert campaign "Western"? Where did the - I assume - corresponding "Eastern Desert Campaign" take place? CapnZapp (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not the campaign that was Western but the Desert. The Sahara Desert west of the Nile was known as the Western Desert (or sometimes Libyan Desert) and the Sahara Desert east of the Nile was known as the Eastern Desert. The campaign was named after the desert. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. In addition, vast parts of the area were unsurveyed at the time, and the British found that one of the first things they had to do was to create reliable maps of the area. Indeed, up until the late 1960s the only accurate maps available of large parts of Libya, Tunisia etc., were those made by the LRDG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

CE

Gave the page a spring clean, shortened header titles, rm duplicate wikilinks, revised citations and references. Still needs citations for each paragraph at least.Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Have re-edited the first sections and hope to work down the page to make it ready for a B class review. All suggestions welcome. Regards, Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, looks great. Shire Lord 14:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm not sure about the headings yet though....Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Illustrations

[[1]]I changed the pics to thumbnail to make more room and because they enlarge for people who want them to. Thumbnail is quite sufficient but I experimented with a big map to start since it's a campaign page, although it turned out to be a flop. The default for pics and maps is the right margin and I'd rather reduce the number than have a slalom.Keith-264 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If alternating right/left does not fit here then remove some images that are less needed. Maps with text should be enlarged some so they can be read. But do whatever, I won't bother. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, it looks better than it did. It seems pointless to enlarge things in the text when they enlarge for anyone who wants them to though. I suppose the long west-east distance doesn't help with scaling. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As an experiment I've added a gallery at the bottom, to avoid crowding the narrative and will remove pics if it works. Grateful for advice and opinion. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do we think images should not be placed on the left? Putting all the images on the right is not manual of style, nor is it a visually interesting choice. Images placed in a gallery should be there to provide further visual information, but if they are descriptive of what is discussed in the narrative than my view is the body of the text is the best place for them. A gallery should be used to further illustrate what has been discussed. Images in a gallery should not be repeats of what has already been placed in the body of the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We've already established that we differ and that the default setting is right margin. The pics in the gallery are a proposed place for some of the pics in the narrative section not a definitive selection. For a hub page like this 1-2 paragraph summaries and links to the main pages are sufficient; this makes adding pictures and maps difficult since there isn't much room. I'm undecided and trying out various things not trying to dictate to anyone.Keith-264 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I carefully picked images for the Tunisian Campaign (although the article needs copyediting), but alternating left & right with maps but majority on the right margin. See what you think? Shire Lord 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like an improvement but I've only glanced at the article previously. There's a difference between what I want (nothing on the left and only thumbnails on the right) and what I can have, which is what every other editor will agree to. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Took out several maps, most of which I'd put in, to see how it looks.Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Operation Venezia

I've put some stray articles into the campaignbox as Associated articles and wonder if Operation Venezia this should be incorporated into Battle of Gazala and the page deleted? If anyone knows of other strays pls let me know regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Creveld

Added material from Creveld (a bit long despite pruning) to the analysis and will look for an equivalent for British supply. Will put a paragraph or two of generic description of time, distance etc into the Prelude.Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Plodded on through the sections, to have 1–2 paragraph summaries under each heading. I'm by no means committed to the present form of the article and welcome suggestions. Eythenkew Keith-264 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

CE

It's almost ready for a B class review despite being deficient of air power and intelligence sections.Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Haven't done much as I'm plundering the generic sections for other articles but now I've got Creveld back can think about finishing the analysis section and putting it in for a B.Keith-264 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for opinions

User:Keith-264 and I have a disagreement over the introduction, as can be seen from the last few edits/reversions. Other opinions would be helpful. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The two-paragraph version is probably preferable to the four-paragraph revision in my opinion as I don't really see how multiple short two-sentence non-paragraphs is grammatically correct. That said I'm Australian and among our many vices, we are notorious for our poor grammar (and poor cricket now it seems, although the English are probably equally guilty of that...). As such I'll accept maybe I don't know what I'm talking about on this one. Regardless, it seems a fairly trivial editorial matter that could no doubt be resolved by the main contributors discussing the various merits of their proposed alternatives. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the wording but would prefer to discuss revisions (if necessary, word-by-word). I prefer paragraphs to roughly be the same size, rather than leaving a sentence or two dangling, which makes them look hideous. I don't consider my grammar to be superior (except to that of English English Lit graduates, obviously) but I think that a consistent style in an article is an advantage. Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A paragraph is supposed to be about a single point or idea. My four paragraphs are about: (a) an overview (b) fighting pre-Rommel (c) fighting with Rommel and (d) analysis. The current two paragraphs have no such clear separation. Paragraph breaks are not meant to create uniformly sized chunks of text. (b) and (c) could be merged into one, I suppose.

The current version is also poorly written. E.g. "Operation Compass a British five-day raid in December 1940 led the destruction of the Italian 10th Army". Compass wasn't a five-day raid, and "led the destruction"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A paragraph can be about a point or idea but can also contain lists, which obviates a staccato form; I prefer it that both criteria should be considered. If there is enough material to form consistent paragraphs about a point or idea then and only then does it make sense to separate it. It shouldn't be too difficult to add material from the body of the text if your heart is set on itKeith-264 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for why I asked for third party comments, when you get reverted wholesale twice and get called an illiterate to boot, things could have gotten heated pretty quickly. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I fear you've got hurt feelings and treated my answer to your question as personal, which it wasn't and for which I apologise. You have intervened in several articles recently and appear to have overlooked the possibility that some changes you made might have been for the worse. I've concentrated on changing articles sufficient to merit a B class rating so they're works in progress and all can stand substantial improvement. I don't own anything about them except my share of our collective ambition. I'm also snowed under with work for the first time in ages, which has knackered my ability to tie up loose ends.Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My initial cmt aside, I agree there are some issues with the current lead also - perhaps though you might propose a revised version for discussion? For instance would something along the lines of the following deal with the specific points you identified (issue of paragraph structure aside):

"The Western Desert Campaign or the Desert War, took place in the Western Desert of Egypt and Libya and was a theatre in the North African Campaign during the Second World War. The campaign began in September 1940, with the Italian invasion of Egypt. The Italians halted to bring up supplies and Operation Compass, a British operation in December 1940 and January 1941, led the destruction of the Italian 10th Army." Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Western Desert Campaign or the Desert War, took place in the Western Desert of Egypt and Libya [from 1940–1943] and was a theatre in the North African Campaign during the Second World War. The campaign began in September 1940, with Operazione E, an Italian invasion of Egypt. The Italians stopped their advance at Sidi Barrani, built fortified camps and began to construct a water pipe line and to improve the road from the frontier, to carry supplies for a further advance to Mersa Matruh. During the lull, the British conducted Operation Compass, which began as a five-day raid on the fortified camps in December 1940 and was continued into January 1941 to exploit its success, which led the destruction of the Italian 10th Army at the Battle of Beda Fomm in western Cyrenaica.Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. How could I possibly take the insinuation of illiteracy as personal? That aside, I stand by my last version, with the exception of merging the two middle paragraphs and correcting my misunderstanding of the scope of Operation Compass ("The Italians halted to bring up supplies, but Operation Compass, initially a British five-day raid in December 1940, was prolonged and resulted in the destruction of the Italian 10th Army."). The current two-paragraph structure is an illogical mishmash. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, that's an insinuation which I don't take as personal.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am caught between - both versions seem fine, however I think more paragraphs are acceptable here since this is a very long campaign and article. Shire Lord (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the way forward is expansion not dispersal.Keith-264 (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Engagement at Knightsbridge"

Lately, I have been translating (and expanding) some pages from the Italian wiki about battles involving Italian forces, such as Nibeiwa, Mechili and Bir el Gubi. One page is still left, "Scontro di Knightsbridge", part of the Battle of Gazala. I am not sure wheter to translate it or not, since I do not know if it was significant enough. Any opinions?--BaoBabbo49 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I like what you've done, since the British sources are rather sketchy on the fighting and the 1940 articles are sadly lacking in the Italian perspective. I translated (sic) material from an Italian source (Santoro, G. (1957) [1950]. L'aeronautica italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale) that I enjoyed but it took ages to get two pages' worth. Having an Italian speaker filling in the gaps is invaluable. Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Operation codenames

[2] There's something here about codenames not being italicised. Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian involvement

Considering parts of the campaign were fought on Egyptian territory, did Egypt have any involvement at all? Did Egyptian troops ever fight the Axis? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question, thanks, I think Egypt was neutral Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 .Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Egypt was a British Protectorate and while it may have tried to remain neutral that would for all practical purposes have ended with the Italian Invasion of 1940.

The Italian Invasion was a de facto act of war which would have invoked the obligations of the above treaty for Britain to defend Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.56 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Egyptian troops actually fighting the Axis, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. Egypt formally joined the Allies in February 1945, along with a load of other Middle Eastern and South American countries - OTOH that may have been to earn themselves a seat in the UN which was then being set up. See also the Abdeen Palace Incident of 1942 when the British Ambassador surrounded the Royal Palace with armoured cars and insisted that a more pro-British government be installed.Paulturtle (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As a protectorate the Egyptian Government was responsible for Egyptian internal affairs, the British being responsible for the external defence of Egypt (hence 'protectorate'), however with a war already raging in which Britain was heavily involved, and in which the Suez Canal was of vital importance to both sides, any unfriendly action by the Egyptian Government was not likely to be tolerated, as indeed it also wasn't in Iraq in 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Posed photo

The lead photo of the article - of British troops "advancing at Alamein" - is both well-known and well-known to be (and obviously) posed, is it not? I can't add that myself as I don't want to be hunting around for a cite which somebody will doubtless demand.Paulturtle (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it would be easy to find the cite that they were Oz troops attacking their cookhouse but I was wrong. You will need a cite though. ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tunisian Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Rommel and his Panzer Division

Hi,

I am just trying to correct a misapprehension here and getting some resistance. Rommel and his Panzer Division was definitely subordinate to the Italian command structure: General Bastico and CommandoSupremo. Rommel could not make any unilateral decisions on his own. They had to be approved primarily by the Italians and secondly, by the German high command (OKW) and Kesselring. He was definitely not some rogue commander able to do what he wanted. I think it is high time we stopped thinking of Rommel as this superhuman genius and see him as he really was: just one general out of a dozen generals involved in the North African campaign, including Italian generals who didn't really think that much of him, anyway, as did his own people like Kesselring. He was a competent tank commander, but certainly no genius.134.36.250.200 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Formalities can be nominal as well as actual; the ascendancy of Germany after the Italian defeats in Greece, Libya and East Africa is indisputable. You are resorting to OR rather than offering sources which take your line. Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Keith, you are talking in generalities, while I am talking in the specific. Rommel was subordinate to Italian command, period. The sentence in question is:

The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner.

Ok, let's look at this statement that by the way, has no citation to support it. In the North African theatre, the Italians were largely running the show; the German contingent was subordinate to Italian command (and not the other way round!). Do I have evidence to support it? Yes, plenty. But by the same token, do you have evidence to support the fact that it was Rommel running the show in North Africa and was the "dominant" commander there? Are we talking in general about the Germans being "dominant" or are we talking about a specific theatre of operations - the North African campaign? Can you show me evidence that Rommel was the "dominant" commander in North Africa?

It would be better sticking to the specific and delete the last part of the sentence to: "The German Africa Korps was under nominal Italian command." No "buts" required as it would give the reader the erroneous impression that Rommel was running the entire North African theatre on his own and that the entire Italian command was subordinate to him! (which would come as a great surprise to many Italian commanders like Bastico).134.36.250.200 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

134.36.250.200 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than go round in circles, I suggest you offer a few OR that lead you to your conclusions.Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, for starters, let's start with Wikipedia's own article, on Marshal Ettore Bastico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Bastico "On 19 July 1941, Bastico was named commander over all Axis forces in North Africa. As Rommel's superior in the North African campaign, his plans had to be first approved by Bastico."

Note the phrase "ALL Axis forces" and "Rommel's superior". In addition, as Italian forces accounted for around 80% of the Axis effort in North Africa, where is the German "dominance" here? I fail to see it. Sometimes a bit of leaning back, self-reflection and using one's "common sense" is sufficient. One doesn't need to find sources to prove something which is pretty obvious.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source Keith-264 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You can say that again! No wonder universities around the world forbid their students quoting anything from Wikipedia! 134.36.250.200 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So the corollary to that is: "The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner." is an unreliable, unsubstantiated statement, especially as it is lacking a citation. Who wrote that Nazi Germany was the dominant power in the North African theater, anyway?134.36.250.200 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"I suggest you offer a few OR" apologies, I meant RS. I suggest you offer a few RS on your view. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Why a few? One should be enough. The irony of this is that I have to offer RS to remove or counter a sentence that has absolutely no RS or citation to it. The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner. The first part of the sentence I can accept; it is the second part that is erroneous for two reasons: it is a general statement that does not apply to the situation in North Africa (ie.the Italians were the dominant partner, not the Germans) and secondly, as that part is not cited and has no RS, you are asking me to counter it with a "few" reliable sources. That doesn't sound fair to me. I will offer one RS and that should be enough to counter an obviously erroneous statement that in fact, has no source. It is like having to provide 3 reliable sources just to affirm the sky is blue and not pink.134.36.250.200 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

While it is true that Rommel and the DAK were nominally under Italian command the Italians were recovering from a series of defeats and had lost any initiative, hence Rommel brought a fresh mind to the task.

Italy wasn't 'dependant' on Germany In North Africa, most of the Axis shipping that did get through was Italian, however the Italian local leadership in the theatre - under Marshal Graziani - had pretty much proved itself unable to cope with the tactical situation - Graziani had in fact resigned his post as Italian Commander-in-Chief in North Africa in 1941 and I suspect that by the time Rommel arrived he may have simply outranked any Italian leader in the theatre. Update: Graziani had been replaced by Italo Gariboldi, who in turn, was replaced by Ettore Bastico, who was promoted upon taking up his post so that Rommel would not outrank him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hitler retiring?

In the section on the second battle of El Alamein, a sentence begins: "Having decided to retire, Hitler ordered...". I am unable to make sense of this. To my knowledge Hitler never decided to retire from the German government. Presumably something else is intended. Perhaps "retreat" rather than "retire"?Bill (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Wdford: Dear WD you've been warned about this behaviour lots of times, it's all over your talk page. Pls you'll save all of us a lot of time and wasted energy. I suggest you put your preferred edit here and then we can discuss it. Keith-264 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You have seen my preferred edits. As usual, I am merely trying to correct the blatant pro-British bias in these articles, and make the articles more accurate and more neutral. I still don't understand why you persist in your POV-pushing.

I initially trimmed all extraneous detail because you had expressed a concern about length. It is now apparent that that was merely a ruse.

I object to the inclusion in para 2 of the phrase "failed to destroy their opponents". There were many occasions where the British squeaked out a minor victory but failed by miles to destroy their opponents - why does the British humiliation of the Gazala Gallop merit this apologetic?

The Eighth Army had more Commonwealth troops than British - but yet you persist in trying to create the impression that this was purely a "British" victory - why not be more accurate and honest?

You make a big deal of the fact that the British sent some of their resources to Greece etc, but you refuse to admit that the survivors of that debacle returned to Africa - as did some divisions that were rotated to Syria. Yet you make a big deal of the fact that Axis reinforcements did arrive. Why not be more accurate and honest?

About 75% of the troops in the Torch landings were American - why not be more accurate and honest?

In short, while you have made it abundantly clear that you are Montgomery's biggest fan and apologist, why are you such a POV-pusher?

Wdford (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead is not the place to argue about history, it is a short description of the contents of the article. This is an article about the Desert War, it is B class not A so it has flaws and omissions but the wars in East Africa, Greece, Syria, Iraq British-US invasion of the Vichy colonies to the west are footnotes to this story. If you want to write a book with your version of history go ahead but this is not the place for yet another contest. I would like you to save your energy for something constructive. Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So let's fix the flaws and omissions, eliminate ALL footnotes from the lead, and have an accurate and honest lead section? Wdford (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead reflects the article; if you can improve what's already there the changes can be reflected in the lead as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

Trying to argue about inferred ulterior motives in other editors is pointless but I remind you again that you've been here before. Why don't you try a different approach this time? Look at Noclador's recent edits, they're rooted in literary sources [3] and have greatly improved the articles he(?)'s worked on. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting how you hide behind wikirules when it suits your POV, but you blatantly disregard wikirules when that suits you better. So you are now saying that if you have been able to get away with a biased and non-neutral article so far, the lead is now LEGALLY REQUIRED to also be biased and non-neutral? Actually, my edits better reflect the body of the article than do yours. The current lead also leaves out quite a lot, so a big revision is necessary to ensure that the lead properly summaries the main points of the body of the article.Wdford (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything, I'm describing, there's a difference. Tamper with the lead and you will be reverted by editors. Improve the article and you won't. Please stop wasting everyone's time by altering leads without bothering to improve an article with descriptions from Reliable Sources on the subject. Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"The Eighth Army had more Commonwealth troops than British - but yet you persist in trying to create the impression that this was purely a "British" victory" - at the time, all these 'Commonwealth troops' were British subjects, most Commonwealth nations didn't get their own citizenships until post-1945. Hence "British". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the unit titles from the time, British units weren't called British... Non-British units were distinguished by a national title like Indian, Australian, New Zealand...British was used as a shorthand term to distinguish between British (i.e. British, Indian and Commonwealth) and Axis armies/units [and still is in the literature]. When the Allied contribution increased, Allied was substituted for British. As for Monty, he arrived in the Desert on 13 August 1942 so I find it hard to understand why I'm pro-Monty when he was there for about ten months of a three-year campaign. If anything, I've tried to put Italy back into the war, not take the Axis out. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The generals of Australia, South African and New Zealand all had standing instructions from their "home governments" to refuse orders from British commanders if they felt their troops were being used as cannon fodder, and they all made use of that protection wherever they felt it necessary. The "Commonwealth" governments stood up to Churchill on these matters, and Churchill always gave way - probably because the Eighth Army would not have existed without the Commonwealth divisions. Many individuals living in Commonwealth countries enlisted in British Army units (and navy and air-force too), but Commonwealth divisions did not consider themselves British, and never acted as though they were British. The Indian troops, on the other hand, were basically stuffed.

I am very happy to put Italy's contribution into a proper light. It would also be nice if the contributions of other countries were also put into their proper light in the lead, rather than being appropriated as "British". However I disagree with doctoring the lead to buff up the British performance, as well as making it look like Monty won the desert war while downplaying the huge contributions from the "Torch" forces - which were themselves only half British. Slight changes in wording would solve the problem, but you persist - so its become hard to AGF. Wdford (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Make a list of the occasions when Dominion commanders appealed to their governments. As out colleague points out, Dominions were not sovereign states but hybrids. All swore allegiance to the King, used the £ and carried British passports. Your claims are vacuous, the Dominions were at war with the Axis, not the British empire. Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a brief summary about the Western Desert campaign. The last paragraph now delves into too much detail and analysis that should be fit for the Aftermath section. I therefore think the last paragraph should be deleted altogether and perhaps mention Op Torch and siege of Malta in second paragraph? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

OKKeith-264 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, after Singapore Australian general Blamey wanted the Australian troops rotated out of besieged Tobruk, and the Australian government forced Churchill to order the rotation over the objections of Auchinleck. After Greece and Crete Freyberg refused the British plan to defend Mesa Matruh, with government support, and when he was left stranded he abandoned the position on his own initiative. Jan Smuts was Churchill's greatest supporter, but after the loss of a South African brigade in Crusader, Pienaar objected to every order that seemed stupid to him, and there was nothing the British could do to him. See specifically

References

Agree with Eastfarthingan, except that Rommel's supply constraints were central to the campaign - with a bit more fuel the result would have been different. This sentence should remain. For a complete summary, we should also mention Brevity, Battleaxe etc. Wdford (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is why siege of Malta should be mentioned as it constrained Rommel's supply situation. Malta was they key to winning in North Africa IMHO. We can play it by here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Not Rommel, The Axis'. Have you made a list of the times when Dominion commanders appealed to their Dominion government? Keith-264 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Eastfarthingan: Agreed. Malta was also a side-show to the Germans, as Mussolini wanted to annex it but Hitler was focused on the USSR. One extra division in Africa would have swung everything, but Hitler couldn't be bothered – Russia was more important to him than Suez. I propose that para 2 & 3 be reworded as follows:

In the spring of 1941, Rommel led Operation Sonnenblume which pushed the British back to Egypt except for the Siege of Tobruk at the port. The Allied forces were defeated in Operation Brevity and Operation Battleaxe, but the Axis forces were defeated in Operation Crusader and retired again to El Agheila in good order, then rebounded to Gazala. In 1942 Axis forces drove the British back again in the Battle of Gazala and captured Tobruk, but failed to destroy their routed opponents. The Axis invaded Egypt and the Allies retreated to El Alamein, where at the Battle of El Alamein the Eighth Army held then defeated the Axis forces. While the Battle of El Alamein was still in progress, an Anglo-American force landed in Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch), threatening the Axis armies in North Africa from the west. Under attack from east and west in the Tunisian campaign, the Axis forces surrendered in Tunisia on 13 May 1943.

The Axis never overcame the supply constraints limiting the size of their land and air forces in North Africa, and the desert war became a sideshow for Germany when the invasion of the Soviet Union began on 22 June 1941. Although both sides received supplies and reinforcements, Axis supplies were constantly throttled by Allied forces in Malta, while US supplies, equipment and personnel arrived for the Eighth Army in increasing amounts.

What do you think?

@ Keith-264: Did you read the reference I provided, which inter alia clearly states: "An option always available to the Commonwealth generals who were not answerable to the British government"?

Wdford (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Keith looks good to me. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

In the spring of 1941, Rommel led Operation Sonnenblume, which pushed the British back to Egypt except for the Siege of Tobruk at the port. The British were defeated in Operation Brevity and Operation Battleaxe, then the Axis forces were defeated in Operation Crusader and retreated again to El Agheila. An Axis reconnaissance in force in January 1942 drove back the British back to Gazala between Derna and Tobruk. The Axis attacked again and in the Battle of Gazala defeated the British, captured Tobruk then invaded Egypt, pursuing the British as far as El Alamein. Over three battles, the Eighth Army held, then defeated the Axis forces. During the Second Battle of Alamein in October, Operation Torch, an Anglo-American landing in Morocco and Algeria began, threatening the Axis armies in North Africa from the west. In the Tunisian campaign, the Axis forces were forced to surrender on 13 May 1943.

The Axis never overcame supply constraints limiting the size of their forces in North Africa and the Desert War became a sideshow for Germany after the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. The delivery of Axis supplies was threatened by British forces in Malta and supplies to the British from the empire and the US, despite the long detour around Africa, began to arrive in increasing quantity and quality in late 1942.

Almost there. How about:

In the spring of 1941, Rommel led Operation Sonnenblume, which pushed the Allies back to Egypt except for the Siege of Tobruk at the port. The Allied forces were defeated in Operation Brevity and Operation Battleaxe, then the Axis forces were defeated in Operation Crusader and retreated again to El Agheila. An Axis reconnaissance in force in January 1942 drove the Allies back to Gazala, between Derna and Tobruk. The Axis attacked again in the Battle of Gazala and defeated the Allies, captured Tobruk and then invaded Egypt. They pursued the Allies as far as El Alamein, where the Axis forces were eventually defeated by the Eighth Army in the Second Battle of Alamein in October-November. Operation Torch, an Anglo-American landing in Morocco and Algeria, began during the Second Battle of Alamein, and threatened the Axis armies in North Africa from the west. Under attack from east and west in the Tunisian campaign, the Axis forces were forced to surrender on 13 May 1943.

The Axis never overcame supply constraints limiting the size of their forces in North Africa, and the Desert War became a sideshow for Germany after the invasion of the Soviet Union began in June 1941. The delivery of Axis supplies was threatened by Allied forces in Malta. On the other hand supplies to the Allies from the British Empire and the USA, despite the long detour around Africa to the Suez Canal, continued to arrive in increasing quantity and quality through 1942.

Wdford (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, to support Rommel and the Afrika Korps Hitler personally ordered the transfer of most of the Luftwaffe's transport aeroplanes and almost the entire bomber force from the Russian Front to North Africa so presumably Hitler himself thought the African theatre of some importance.

It was there in North Africa that the Luftwaffe's transport force was effectively wiped out, leaving Germany with little or nothing in the way of air transport or bombing force for use in the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.159 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)