Template talk:Campaignbox World War II/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Baby with the bathwater
There is no point replacing the Westen Front and Scandinavia with empty articles. If someone writes one then they can be replaced with better articels but at the moment Western Front (WWII) and Operation Weserübung are the best available. The Allied campaign in Norway is also a candidate.
The North West Europe Campaign if it refers to anything was the British Canadian push of 44-45. But the Americans fought on a wide front not a narrow one. For example those troops who landed on French med coast (US Seventh Army) in operation Operation Dragoon fought on the Western Front not the "North West European Front". Also the US front stretched from Belgium to Switzerland so if WWI had a Western Front so did WWII. Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think when they say North West Europe, they are referring to, essentially, France (plus a few other countries, such as Austria) as a whole. Operation Dragoon in Southern France is still (relatively) in North Western Europe.
- If we keep it as just Western Front, then we can't disambiguate between it and the Western Front which encompasses the Battle of Britain, Fall of France, the NW Europe campaign, and, to some, the Norway Campaign.
- If you want to revert it to the other articles where it was previously (until the new ones are complete), that's fine though. Oberiko 22:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done Philip Baird Shearer 00:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't Malta count as part of the Battle of the Mediterranean? Oberiko 13:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes Malta was the eye of the storm, but until someone writs the Battle of the Med and has a section on Malta, the article on the famous convoy Operation Pedestal is better than nothing and it allows people not familiar with the theatre a glimpse at the scale of the naval engagement when one convoy involved an escort of 2 battle ships, 4 aircraft carriers, 7 cruisers and 32 destroyers! Although that was the big one, there was a convoy a month to Malta, either from Alexandria or from Gibraltar both involved a different flat top. So a lot of British naval stratagy was based around keeping the life line open. Philip Baird Shearer 14:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What happend in West Africa?
The Battle of Dakar/Operation Menace, September 1940. Vichy France won, so maybe that's why not many English speakers know about it. There was also the success of the Free French at Gabon, a smaller operation in November. Grant65 (Talk) 15:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I see what you mean. Philip Baird Shearer 16:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Africa, Middle East and Indian Ocean
I suppose long term the article Battle of Madagascar needs to be moved under East Africa, just as Malta needs to placed into a Battel of the Mediterranean article.
But it might fit better into South-East Asian Theatre of World War II, becuase the primary reason for the attack was, that after the Japanese Indian Ocean raid 1942 the British Indian Ocean fleet retreated from Cylon to to Kilindini near Mombasa in Kenya, and Madagascar could have become a forward submarine base for the Japanese to attack that fleet. This is mentioned in the article on that theatre
Such are the complexities of trying to map a global war onto a liniar formated article. :-) What are your thoughts on this Oberiko?
- A solution would be to have a seperate "Indian Ocean Theatre" which would be part of the "Other" category. Our other solution, which I'm leaning towards, is to have an "Africa, Mediterranean and Middle-East Theatre of World War II", where we could easily place these. Oberiko 12:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Madagasacar has nothing to do with Abyssinia or South East Asia. Have a look at a map. Operation Ironclad was directed from London, and Wavell in India was opposed to it. And why keep trying to drag the Middle East into it? "Mediterranean" covers the Middle East, especially when the only significant campaign immediately east of the Suez was the Vichy defeat in Syria/Lebanon. Don't try to twist/cram history into shapes it never had. If the problem is the categories, then we need more categories. Grant65 (Talk) 15:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
The Horn/East Africa is also east of the Med. I disagree with you over this because the land based Mediterranean theatre did not realy exist until the American entered the war. Before that the land theatre is better described as the Middle East because it was focused on that area, particularly as the major British command was the Middle East command based in Cairo.
- Middle East Theatre of World War II
It does not really matter if the Madagascar attack was organised from London because it was definatly not reachable from a tube station, so it makes sense to place it in a local geographic theatre as it effected those theatres. I would name an article on the Naval engagements in the Med the Battle of the Mediterranean and include in that the seige of Malta. That article would stand alone from the MET or MT(O). I'm not to hot on an "Indian Ocean theatre" because I am not sure that there is enough independent naval action to justify it, when compared to the Med, Atlantic and Pacific. Philip Baird Shearer 16:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think we only really have two options: Either create a new super theatre (Africa, Middle-East and Mediterranean) or simply put Dakar and Madagascar under a generic "Other" category. I was toying with the idea of a African Theatre of World War II which would have the NAC, EAC, Dukar and Madagascar; but the problem arises with the huge overlap with the Mediterranean Theatre of World War II.
- Frankly, I think that they're better off going in the "Other" to try and keep confusion to a minimum. Oberiko 19:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of what one or other military command was called, as a sometime student of Middle East history, I can tell you that the term "Middle East" wasn't all that common until the 1950s. And military commands are sometimes called very idiosyncratic names anyway. Cairo and Egypt were and are in both North Africa geographically and the Mediteranean region geographically. We are not obliged to stick to military conceptualisation/terminology, unless we are dealing with proper names. Which is why I think "Africa and The Mediterranean" is an apt name. I have already started an African Theatres of World War II page for clarification.
I have to agree with Philip about the idea of "Indian Ocean theatre/s": there really wasn't enough action to justify it (and are we then going to have to create a South Atlantic theatre for the Battle of the River Plate?) Grant65 (Talk) 05:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is another reason for having an larger "Africa & the Mediterranean" category. The forces involved were fairly constant: mostly Commonwealth (with a heavy representation from UK and Africa) and Free French v. Italian, German and Vichy French. Which makes it easier if one is (e.g.) South African or French, and looking for details of battles which S.Africans and French forces fought, rather than hunting through several battles in an "Other" category. Grant65 (Talk) 00:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
It is because the actors and the stage changed that I think that Africa (other than North Africa) should not be included in a Mediterranean (land) Theatre. Philip Baird Shearer 00:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well the Pacific Ocean Areas didn't have a lot, if anything at all, to do with the South East Asia Command either. Yet they are both listed in the "Asia-Pacific" category. Grant65 (Talk) 10:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ah! I think you and I are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about the structure of theatre articles, you are talking about the category in the template. But given that I think that the East Africa should come under "ME Theatre" and Noth Africa should be under "ME Theatre" and "MTO", I tend to agree with Oberiko and the little known, small, "West African" operation should be under Other. Or it should be included in one of the Naval articles; persumably the Mediterranean Naval one as I guess the operations were either run from Gib or used Naval forces based at Gib. Philip Baird Shearer
- Asia-Pacific is grouped together because currently we have both in the "Pacific War" article and because they are closey related. Two small, relatively unknown campaigns are not worth creating an entire theatre for, especially when only geography, not the forces or the command structure, is what loosely links them together and it will have a very high overlap rate with another, established theatre. Oberiko 11:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought the point of Wikipedia categories was to direct casual visitors or people who know little about a subject to general articles, such as those on whole campaigns, not direct them to articles which are purely about idiosyncratically-named military commands. By the way, Madagascar lasted six months and involved several divisions; unknown it may be, but there was nothing "small" about it.Grant65 (Talk) 14:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- It is, but it's also to present things in the way they are generally known as well as a simple and intuitive a way as possible. Let's say we have an African Theatre of World War II; about 80% of what's in there is already going to be contained in the Mediterranean Theatre (which MUST be a theatre as that what the commands were named after and where most of the same forces were confined). Furhter adding confusion is that the forces in Madagascar were from South-East Asia, having almost nothing to do with the command or forces from the Med. Logically, I don't think it makes much sense to loosely link them together in a geographical theatre which is already almost completely redundant. IMO, that's what the "Other" category is for. Oberiko 15:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not proposing that they are linked by a theatre, which is why the article I've started is called "African theatres..." (plural). The forces in Madagascar were not "from SE Asia", unless you count the two Japanese subs alleged to have been present; as far as I'm aware there were no Free French or S.African forces in SEAsia. The British 5th Div may have been on its way to India, but as I've said before, Wavell was opposed to the operation and India is barely any closer to Madagascar than London. Grant65 (Talk) 01:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I have created a Mediterranean Theatre of World War II article and diverted the "Mediterranean" heading there, as the Mediterranean Theater of Operations article is limited in its scope, i.e. it concentrates on US and British operations, post-1942 and doesn't give the broader geographical picture. (The MTO article is linked into the new article near the top.) There is some overlap with "Africa" and "Middle East", but that makes it easier for people to find particular campaign articles if they are not sure which geographical heading they come under. Grant65 (Talk) 12:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
The reason why the Med. and Africa should come before the Middle East in the heading is that the naval campaign was the first in any of those areas, followed by the East African land campaign. Grant65 (Talk) 02:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
We have to use common sense rather than relying on names that the military used for convenience. Just because the British MEC was in charge at that point, it doesn't mean that East Africa thereby becomes part of the area that most people call the Middle East (i.e. the area east of Suez). Because of the vagaries of the campaigns, most of these commands covered areas which the name did not suggest, e.g. South West Pacific Area didn't really cover much of the Pacific at all and South East Asia Command was really focussed on South Asia. We need to distinguish between geographical theatres/campaigns and the names of Allied/national military commands. Grant65 (Talk) 02:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- From the Southwest Asia page:
- A map showing Southwest Asia - The term "Middle East" is more often used to refer to both Southwest Asia and some North African countries.
- The theatres (and commands) roughly covered the areas as described in the Geography pages. So it not unreasoble to bundle in the Horn of Africa into the Middle East particularly as it has a strategic importance because it does command one side of the the Red Sea. (and that is leaving aside its cultural links). No use controling Suez if the enemy has a naval base or big guns on the Horn of Africa. The Mediterranean Naval war, was run from two commands one at Gib the other at Alexandria, so it was as much a part of the Middle East Theatre as the Mediterranean. As the campaigns in the Middle East, for those campaigns which are not shared, tended to happen before the campaigns which are not shared in the Mediterranean, it makes sense to place the Middle Eastern theatre before the Mediterranean theatre. Philip Baird Shearer 18:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The (Allied) commands (and their names) have nothing to do with geography as most people know it, and I think the names of the theatres/campaigns should match commonsense geographical areas. Why should they conform to rather eccentric military terminology, as used by one of the sides involved? Second, the Middle East article does not mention the Mediterrannean naval campaign, which as we know, happened first. Neither should it be, since I have never seen/heard anyone refer to a "Middle East naval campaign". Grant65 (Talk) 23:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
What's up with the change man?
I separated the mediterranean, africa and middle east section into two sections. Helps to clarify the geographic location and make more people aware that battles were fought in Iraq, Iran and Syria. Get more people interested. What's wrong with that?
- Because those campaigns which took place around the Mediterranean include the North Africa Campaign and the those of the Middle East include Western Desert Campaign (which is also a subcampaign of North Africa). The Balklands can be seen as the classic multi-theatre campaign: it took place in European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern theatres. The European because the actions took place in Europe (Indeed at the moment there is a prototype article to include it in the Eastern Front (see Eastern Front (WWII)/Rewrite)), the Mediterranean because they bordered the Mediterranean and the Middle East because the Commonwealth supplied and commanded the campaign from Egypt and in doing so it affected the outcome of the Western Desert Campaign, (as it can also be argued that it affected Operation Barbarossa). There is no reason why a campaign can not be in more than one theatre at the same time. The Middle East Campaign covers the sub campaigns of Anglo-Iraqi War, Syria-Lebanon campaign and the Persian Corridor; but there is also a link from the Mediterranean Theatre of World War II dirctly to the Syria-Lebanon campaign because it can be argued that that campaign took place in lands bordering the Mediterranean.
- The campaigns listed in the Theatre articles are either accessible directly, or once removed in the WWIITheatre Template. Either through the theatre descriptions, or the as a sub-campaign in one of the listed campaigns. This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. Eg one can get to the action in Lybia either throught the Middle East Theatre or the North Africa Campaign both list the more detailed Western Desert Campaign. This is similar to how ABDACOM is handled in the Pacific Asia Theatre section.
- Personally I am open to the idea of the Mediterranean theatre covering nothing but the Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO) but you will run into opposition to that and it is perfectly valid to say that the Mediterranean consists of more that the period after the start of Operation Torch. (Just as the European Theatre covers more than the ETO). --Philip Baird Shearer 18:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
From the history of the template:
- The winter war is not normally considered part of World War II in English language sources because of this Winter War#Franco-British plans for a Scandinavian theatre -- 17:57, 1 August 2005 User:Philip Baird Shearer
- "Winter War" is not contemporary - it is part of World War II) -- 15:44, 2 August 2005 user:Dna-webmaster
Please explain how it is part of World War II as neither of the belligerents were engaged in the general configuration called World War II and the Western Allies seriously considered supporting Finland against the Soviets. Philip Baird Shearer 19:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I yield.:) I have moved it back to "contemporary". Thanks for your message, and most of all, thanks for your very clear motivation! I have actually never considered exactly these facts (put together), but since USSR attacked Finland before Germany attacked USSR, it is quite clear that you are right: The Winter War was not a part of WW2. It is not everyday one learns something new, so my thanks to you! Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 20:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
In Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (which is part of WW2 isn't it?) Germany and USSR agrees that USSR can conquer Finland. Germany had already attacked Poland. Give me a valid reason why it isn't part of WWII. "and the Western Allies seriously considered supporting Finland against the Soviets." Sure a valid reason why it isn't WW2? Just because it was early war and USSR was still "axis"?--22.214.171.124 06:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Please explain how it is part of World War II as neither of the belligerents were engaged in the general configuration called World War II" Oh really? Sure USSR wasn't participating in a pact called Molotov Ribbentrop? You don't consider it to be part of WW2? I can't really see what's your point - if Britain planned to support Finland, does it matter whether it was part of WW2 or not? The configuration was the same in Invasion of Poland. --Pudeo (Talk) 22:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Soviet-Japanese Border War
Turning this into campaignboxes
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|