Talk:Syria–Lebanon Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arabs[edit]

Was there much support among the Arab population for the Axis? For the Allies? Jztinfinity 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a book that may help answer part of your question (The Third Reich and the Arab East). Mkpumphrey 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Format[edit]

There appears to be a formatting error, with use of firefox, default font, resolution 1024x768, such one of the sections is approximately 1 inch wide.Istand1337 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Force numbers[edit]

I've been giving some thought to the troop numbers in the infobox and I see a problem. It says there were 2,000 Indian troops involved. I reckon that 5th Indian Infantry Brigade fighting with the Free French would have alone accounted for this and more. In addition there was 10th Indian Division on the Euphrates (say another 12,000) plus most of 17 Indian Inf. Brigade in the Duck's Bill area of Syria - say another 4,000. Even allowing for the fact that splitting these units between Britain and India (each brigade had 2 Indian battalions and 1 British one) would account for say 11,000 indians and 5,000 Brits. I can't find any sources on this. Can anybody help? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also Habforce which was effectively an enlarged brigade, say 4,000 split 3:1 British:Palestinians. The numbers I'm giving are guesses but the orders of magnitude are in the right ballpark and don't fit with the infobox. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

only 5,668 men chose to join ... De Gaulle -- is disingenuous[edit]

"This left 37,736 Vichy French prisoners of war. But, when given the choice of being repatriated to France or joining the Free French, only 5,668 men chose to join the forces of General Charles De Gaulle. [13]"

Does anyone know the breakdown of the French vs Lebanese/Syrians who choose to join De Gaulle?

The above sentence is disingenuous, possibly unfairly impunes the reputation of the French Vichy forces. If one remembers that the absolute majority of Vichy forces were locals to the area, the fact that most of them chose not to go fight in Europe for France makes a lot more sense. Remember, after the 1000 French dead, there were 6000 left (minus wounded), it's possible that a huge majority of the French chose to fight with De Gaulle, while the Palestinian/Syrian Colonial Troops chose not to.

CraigWyllie (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that most of the Vichy forces were local. In fact the Armée du Levant was composed of French troops, colonial troops (Moroccan, Tunisian, Algerian and Senegalese) and Foreign Legion units(who were presumably of mixed nationalities). Besides the Armée du Levant, there were 11 battalions of what were called "Troupes Spéciales": locally recruited troops. However, these were considered to be of dubious loyalty and military value, and, except for some Circassian cavalry units and a few Bedouin companies, they didn't take much part in the fighting. Most of them were deployed to Northern Syria, to defend against an unlikely Turkish invasion.
Only the men of the Armée du Levant were given the choice of repatriating to France or fighting with the Free French. Those who chose to fight with De Gaulle break down into:
French:1046
Foreign legion:692
North-Africans:963
Senegalese:1584, total: 4285
There were also 1048 prisoners captured before the armistice, who were given a choice between spending the rest of the war in a POW camp, and joining the Free French, which somewhat limited their options... Total: 6,333 acording to Buffetaut, Y. ; De l'Irak à la Syrie 1941. In fact, of those who willingly joined the FFL, most were not French. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I see, thank-you. So the word "only" in the sentence I quoted is justified. So how do we prevent someone else from thinking that it's unjustified and possibly POV (like I did). Perhaps we should provide a breakdown? I'll suggest this:
"But, when given the choice of being repatriated to France or joining the Free French, only 1046 French, 692 Foregn legion, and 2547 North-Africans and Senegalese (plus 1048 various others captured earlier) chose to join."
Also I think that the infobox for this whole article is a tad incorrect and/or could show the further breakdown. It currently states that the breakdown of Vichy forces was 8000 French (seems accurate) and "Syrian/Lebanese: 25,000". Counting battalion from the Army_of_the_Levant page and scaling appropriately to get an equal rough final total (which means 1300 per battalion), I think it should be something like this:
French 8000
(hmmm, should we break this out into French and Foreign Legion? Wild guess, 4000 foreign legion, 3000 French)
Colonial (African) 17,000
Syrian/Lebanese: 13,000
So, by showing the breakdown in the infobox, and by giving the breakdown in the actual numbers of each subgroup that chose to join the Free French, and of course referencing where appropriate, we totally avoid appearing POV when using the overall figure and the phrase "only .... chose to join".
I'm not going to make the change just yet myself, as it must be obvious I don't have references for any of this, and as I said I'm making estimates based on the Army_of_the_Levant description, which itself notes that the colonial infantry (French regulars enlisted for overseas service) were brought to full strength by mixing in some colonial troops.
Please let me know what you think and/or if you have any better numbers. Cheers! CraigWyllie (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

map is wrong[edit]

The map is wrong, it shows Lebanon as part of Syria. That was not the case in 1940s, Lebanon's borders have been set in 1920, with several declarations of independence granted by France until the real effective one of 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.11.134 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

Free Czechoslovakia and Palestinian forces are stated to have taken part yet there is no citations nor any force numbers provided for them. Did they both contribute forces - i believe the Arab Legion (aka Palestine took part) but have no citations to support that at the momment.

Secondly, the vichy force is stated to be made up of:

35,000 regular troops (including 8,000 French infantry) and 10,000 Syrian/Lebanese infantry

Considering the Syrian/Lebanese and French infantry have all been counted who the hell are these other 27,000 guys?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Germans[edit]

As we probably know, the Germans actually left Syria prior to the campaign being launched however German aircraft based in the Dodecanese attacked British ships in the Med supporting the operation. Do we count them as a partipant in the info box?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Germans were not stationed in Syria other than ground crews maintaining and refueling pseudo-Iraqi aircraft on their way to Northern Iraq. They never had combat troops in Syria or Lebanon, even the attacks on British ships were not directly related. PpPachy (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Well they didnt have combat troops based within Iraq either ;) But yea i think your right, the attacks on shipping in the Eastern Med do appear to be not directly related therefore - other than a possible passing mention when talking about shipping - they appear to not need to be included in the combatant list.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jordan[edit]

Although part of the original League of Nations mandate of Palestine, Britain split this into Palestine and Transjordan in 1923. Britain recognised it as a state and gradually phased out control. Therefore, it has to be listed separately from Palestine in the info box. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be a fair argument but that is not what you have done you have added in a country which was not established until after the Second World War! What you are talking about is Transjordan, which is still a seperate state from modern day Jordan that you have added to the article.
The British mandate article states the following:

From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan, 23% of the entire territory, as "Palestine", and the part east of the Jordan, 77% of the entire territory, as "Transjordan." Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transfer of authority to an Arab government took place gradually in Transjordan, starting with the recognition of a local administration in 1923 and transfer of most administrative functions in 1928. Britain retained mandatory authority over the region until it became fully independent as the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan in 1946.

If we look at the Transjordan article it states the following in the lead:

The Emirate of Transjordan (Arabic: إمارة شرق الأردن ʾImārat Sharq al-ʾUrdun) was a former Ottoman territory incorporated into the British Mandate of Palestine in 1921 ... formalized by the addition of a August 1922 clause to the charter governing the Mandate for Palestine.[2][3] ... and remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations and British administration, until its independence in 1928.[4] .... Transjordan remained under British control until the first Anglo-Jordanian treaty was concluded in 1928. Transjordan became nominally independent, although the British still maintained a military presence and control of foreign affairs and retained some financial control over the kingdom. This failed to respond to Jordanian demands for a fully sovereign and independent state .... Britain recognized Transjordan as a state on May 15, 1923, and gradually relinquished control, limiting its oversight to financial, military and foreign policy matters. ..... In March 1946, under the Treaty of London, Transjordan became a kingdom and on May 25, 1946, the parliament of Transjordan proclaimed the emir king, and formally changed the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. After capturing the 'West Bank' area of Cisjordan during the 1948–49 war with Israel, Abdullah took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949.

Whatever way you cut it Jordon was not established until 1949. Transjordon may have existed as an autonomous state however everything above reads that it was techically still part of the Palestine mandate and to speculate on my part it reads more like the country was never really autonomous and rather a protectorate i.e. the British military and finacial control over the kingdom.

Fair enough, but Transjordan was recognised as an independent state by the British, which is more than you could say about India or Palestine, which are listed. It was technically part of the Palestine mandate only for the purposes of reporting back to the league. For all intents and purposes it was as independent as Australia. There was no intention of making it part of a Jewish state. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The creation of the Jewish state has no relevence here: the plan for the mandate was to split everything west of the Jordon into two - one a Jewish state and the other an Arab iirc
I dont see how one could claim Transjordon was "as independent as Australia", when the evidence shows the British retained control over the kingdoms finances and was militarly occupying her. Australia was a Dominion whereas it seems clear to me at least that Jordon was a soverign kingdom in name only, a undeclared protectorate of the Empire.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, mistyping there; I meant to say Transjordan was less independent than Australia, but more so than India. It wasn't militarily occupied; the British just controlled key positions in the Transjordan military establishment. It's listed in the info box under the UK, as a non-independent state. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

General Hackett[edit]

Was it during this campaign that Hackett was awarded the MC?Miletus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:WW2InfoBox[edit]

For those of you not aware, there's an important discussion mentioning this article at Template talk:WW2InfoBox, where input is welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag in infobox[edit]

I'm not sure which of these two flags should be in the infobox for the French mandate of Syria: [1] [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebanese Official respond to the conflict.[edit]

Lebanon was republic with president and PM as well as Parliament, and they called for cease fire as written in Lebanese history books, Should this information be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.203.105 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

CE[edit]

Found more citations, moved OOB and casualty details to text and rm similar from infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, Keith. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Good for you for doing the edit which reminded me. It looks like an excellent opportunity to give the AOH an airing.Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Found one citation, blanked another and added an Analysis section.Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Keith, I've updated the assessment. There is probably more that could be added (the War on the land section potentially could be expanded with prose), but I feel it is basically B class now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've added to the lead but there needs to be more than a list in the battle section. I'd call it C class rather than B until then. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a view as to using ref /refs or sfns?Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)