Talk:Claude Auchinleck

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known. Dabbler 12:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

World War I

He must have been doing something...

can someone come up with good reference especially for last paragraph.

According to Philip Warner's biography (Auchinleck: The Lonely Soldier):

Auchinleck went to Egypt with his regiment in October 1914 to fight the Turks. In December 1915 they went to Mesopotamia and took part in the attack on Kut-al-Amara. After a brief leave in India in August 1916, Auchinleck rejoined his regiment for the march on Baghdad. He subsequently became Brigade Major of 52 Brigade and after the armistice with Turkey in October 1918 held staff appointments in the 1919 campaign against Kurdish rebels. During the First World War he learned important lessons that were of benefit to him as a General over 20 years later, such as the folly of frontal attacks against heavily prepared positions and the vital necessity of preparing and equipping troops properly before committing them to battle.

Added some details, but no ref yet to Kurdish actions. Folks at 137 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth?

Tim Collins' programme on Auchinleck last night stated he was born in Fermanagh and lived there before joining the army. This seems to say the same. Anyone know for sure? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The main source for Aldershot as the Auk's birthplace is John Keegan's "Churchill's Generals", p 131. There is no mention of any childhood period in India, but seems to otherwise be detailed. The "Dictionary of Ulster Biography" that Stubacca refers to seems reasonably complete on the Auk's military career but misses important detail of his childhood, eg, father's early death. Given that the relevant portion in "Churchill's Generals" is by Philip Warner, who wrote a biography of Auchinleck, I would support Aldershot as most likely to be correct. I will mention the difference, however. This site ([1]) supports Aldershot and even gives the address! Folks at 137 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, pretty big mistake by the BBC if there is no Ulster connection, including him on a programme called the Ulster Generals. Several other sources state Fermanagh, Northern Ireland or Ulster.[2] [3] [4] [5] The family definitely seems to be from Ireland. It seems unclear whether he was born in Ireland, or in Aldershot where his father was stationed at the time of his birth. Do you have Churchill's Generals? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do have a copy: it was on my knee as I typed - there are several Auchinleck biographies mentioned so I expect that they would support Aldershot as the birthplace. "...pretty big mistake by the BBC..." - depends whether the BBC takes responsibility for the content or whether it was by an external production company. There other sites (excluding ones derived from Wiki) that say Aldershot: [6], [7], I have seen a site ([8]) that says the Auchinlecks were Ulster Scots who settled in Co Fermanagh: his father served with the Royal Horse Artillery and was stationed in Aldershot when Claude was born (it doesn't say but it's a reasonable assumption that the family were together). On balance, I'd prefer a source that has a supporting bibliography, rather than the ones without citations. Folks at 137 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have Warner's biosgraphy? Google Books only has a limited preview, making one mention of Fermanagh. Even if he wasn't born there, I think it is worth mentioning the family are from Fermanagh. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have any bio on Auk apart from the chapter in "Churchill's generals", but I'll keep an eye on this and try to get more citations. Folks at 137 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Montgomery is also in the programme according to the same web site and he was born in London, I think they were looking at generals with Ulster ancestry and family connections. Montgomery's family came from Donegal (historical Ulster). Alanbrooke was born in France and he too is considered an "Ulster general" in the programme. Dabbler 11:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Montgomery considered himself "Irish and a Donegal man". Donegal is in Ulster, not historical Ulster. Auchinleck may have actually been born in Ulster, but with the conflicting sources it is hard to say. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Received from the National Army Museum in London:

"Thank you for your email of 11 July.

The three biographies (listed below) that we hold in this Museum and his entry in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography state that Field Marshall Sir Claude Auchinleck was born in Aldershot.

Field Marshall Auchinleck by Alexander Greenwood (Aldershot, Pentland).

Auchinleck the Lonely Soldier by Philip Warner (Aldershot, Buchan & Enright, 1981).

Auchinleck by John Connell (Aldershot, Cassell 1959).

I hope that you will find this information useful."

I think that settles it. Auchinleck was born in Aldershot into an Ulster family. Folks at 137 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does, good job contacting them. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It ought to be fairly easy to settle this by popping in to the General Register Office in London. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Correlli Barnett

Would anyone mind if ...sometime or other... I included something in reference to Correlli Barnett's 'rehabilitation' of Auchenleck's reputation. I thought his conclusions were interesting, especially his analysis of Auchenleck's contribution (in planning) towards the second battle of Alamein. Chrisw zeroenmity (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Postwar residence

Hello,

I have a letter from Auchinleck to Agar-Hamilton dated Nov 1954 and on printed notepaper with an address in London. Since Agar-Hamilton had sent him a copy of his book we might assume that he maintained his London address at that time (5 Green Park Chambers, Piccadilly, W.1.). I am not adding any comment since more detail might be needed. I will add Agar-Hamilton's book CRISIS IN THE DESERT MAY-JULY 1942 which is of direct relevance to Auchinleck.

anotheranne Anotheranne (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Auchinleck POV

I don't mean to be a jerk, but which apologist wrote the majority of this article? The whole thing adopts a glowing, almost idolatrous tone from the very start.

I realize Wikipedia exists primarily to house glowing, shame-free biographies that avoid "doing any harm" to anyone's historical legacy, but this is ridiculous. There's at least 4 paragraphs that are nothing but uncited anecdotes about Auchinleck's amazing manly derring-do, whether it's in the face of the Germans or appendicitis, and it's disgusting to anyone seeking a factual, even-toned assessment of his historical role in World War II. Anybody mind if I clean it up a bit? I didn't come to read the man's eulogy and I doubt anybody else did either. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than come in with a complete blanket denunciation of many years of work on this article, perhaps you could identify areas you find problematic and fix them with appropriate citations so that we are all convinced of your superior knowledge of the biography of the man and not that it is merely your opinion. Dabbler (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't blanketly denounce it all, just "the majority" :). And he has a point, this article doesn't look professional.

For starters I propose deleting the first paragraph of the Retirement section. It's partisan, devoid of facts and 100% non referenced:

Although a somewhat dour character, Auchinleck was known as a generous and welcoming host. Despite being a general for longer than almost any other soldier, he was never pompous, and hated all forms of display and affectation. Above all, he was a soldier of the utmost integrity, whose reputation, unlike that of many Allied officers, has grown with passing years. To him, military action was a duty. As a person, he hated slaughter and was not prepared to sacrifice men no matter what orders came from London against his better judgment. Less so when the purpose was simply for securing a short-term political effect for a Prime Minister who took few risks himself.

Does anyone disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.92.88 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we simply edit the parts of the article that need citations or need to be edited for neutrality? The quoted para clearly lacks both citations and neutrality, and the point about pointless sacrifice is made elsewhere in the article with evidence from his WW1 experience. We could also describe the controversy around A by explicitly stating the for and against positions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

North Africa

"By July 1942 Auchinleck had lost the confidence of Dominion commanders and relations with his British commanders had become strained." Is there a reference for this because I have not read anything to this effect? He was disconcerting the traditional tank officers - all proteges of Brooke - but that is another matter. Clearly Brooke had personal animosity against Auchinleck for his wish to get armoured and infantry forces more closely aligned, which ran counter to the traditions of the British Army.

"Once more, Auchinleck's appreciation of the situation was faulty (Auchinleck had believed the Axis forces would attack the centre of the British line, whereas Rommel's attack outflanked the British from the south). The Eighth Army retreated into Egypt; Tobruk fell on 21 June." I believe it would be fairer to say that Auchinleck advised Ritchie that the attack would come from one of 2 directions and that he should be certain whether he not he was facing a feint attack before committing his forces and he outlined a position from where he could cover both lines of attack, which Ritchie ignored.

can you list the bad appointments made by Auchinleck - apart, obviously from Ritchie and, arguably, Cunningham and Corbett? De Guingand, for example, seems to have been a success. The comments on Dorman-Smith are unfair in that he was only in post for just over a month, during which Auchinleck achieved his biggest military success.

Quevedo (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

One point: Carver gives a quite different account of Auchinleck and Ritchie's relationship in "Dilemmas of the Desert War", and certainly one that is more favourable to Ritchie than the one you state above. Chapter five covers the battle and, rather than stating that Ritchie "ignored" Auchinleck's advice, it actually quotes Auchinleck's agreement with Ritchie's positions. This is obviously contrary to Corelli Barnett etc, but I'm inclined to believe Carver over him. Although there is obviously room in the article for both accounts. Leithp 16:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that I would quote this in Ritchie's favour. I have just consulted Barrie Pitt's Crucible of War again. It is clear that Auchinleck expected the attack to come from the west but still saying that Ritchie should cover both options by placing his 2 armoured divisions astride the Trig Capuzzo. In fact, Ritchie placed both of his armoured divisions to the south. However, having guessed correctly that Rommel would attack from the south, Ritchie's army did not act concertedly, mainly because the commanders - Norrie, Lumsden and Messervy - refused to cooperate. Carver was present at the battle and had direct experience of how the commanders refused to work together, with the result that the armour was diluted and too much focus was placed on static boxes. Did Ritchie realise that his team were not on the same side? Maybe Auchinleck in Cairo should have realised but it looks to me as if Ritchie on the ground was unaware of the problems. I would fault Auchinleck however in agreeing to the creation of brigade groups - he had not yet realised that mass artillery and mobility were the keys to this war. Quevedo (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Feud with Monty

In his memoirs, Montgomery claimed that on his arrival in Egypt, the Auk showed him only the plans for retreat up the Nile. In fact, he showed him the whole strategy for what became the second Battle of Alamein, with the Nile retreat as a contingency plan in the event of defeat. Under threat of a lawsuit by the Auk, the next printing of the memoirs had to carry a formal correction. 86.179.207.23 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Auk's marriage

You say his wife left him for an RAF officer in 1946 - and that is the only mention her. Who was she? When and where did they marry? Did she accompany him on any of his postings? And were there any children? 86.179.207.23 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks wrong

The following, from Retirement, looks wrong:

"Lord Auckinleck attended the 1953 Spithead Review. He boarded the MV Caltex Bahrain, a merchant tanker of the Overseas Tankship Fleet."

-- I suggest it be removed, entirely and right away, until someone who knows all this well tidies it up -- just for instance, a) he wasn't a Lord, and b) his name isn't even spelled correctly -- so both of those make me suspect that the silly-sounding & citation-needed remainder, "attended the 1953 Spithead Review. He boarded the MV Caltex Bahrain, a merchant tanker of the Overseas Tankship Fleet", is just some troll mucking about, here. Kessler (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I expect there was a Spithead Review in 1953 -- and Auchinleck may have been there, yes, altho that needs a cite -- but why does it matter, to anyone, that he boarded the MV Caltex Bahrain? And even if he did that needs a cite too. Kessler (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

.....

MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CENTURY

WINSTON spent some time in the punjab, saw ugly dark side babylonia :)), developed prejudice... then he had a thing for scots....

AUK...went through the grind, saw tougher nobler hindustan that evaded churchill... then he had a thing for snobbish english elite that sat behind desks giving orders...

then the war came...:)))

WINSTON brave but little stupid.... AUK..patient..may be seen as weakness..but he was like FORCED into soldiering, not soldier, saint....

I dont know why punjabi babylonians attach themselves to the AUK, he has nothing to do with u heathen lot...he is a Soldier's Man....not Tribal's man...clowns...

story over...go eat lunch...