This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Gazala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 putting random notes here until I get to working on this article.
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.
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)
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 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:
Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Did they not take part in this battle?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
'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)
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)
"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:
To begin with, our forces must be adequate:
Clauswitz,C. On War (1993), pp. 719-725. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Not decisive, the Eighth army survived it and won. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Tidied references and citations, added a few oclc and isbns. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.historyanimated.com/wwiianimated.com/index.php/el-alemeinWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the article metric → imperial or the other way round? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@
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)
This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
Dominions weren't allies. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:13, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
I look forward to a rfc which might end your fatuous time wasting. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would stick to theatre commanders and army commanders. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Gazala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 putting random notes here until I get to working on this article.
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.
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)
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 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:
Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Did they not take part in this battle?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
'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)
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)
"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:
To begin with, our forces must be adequate:
Clauswitz,C. On War (1993), pp. 719-725. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Not decisive, the Eighth army survived it and won. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Tidied references and citations, added a few oclc and isbns. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.historyanimated.com/wwiianimated.com/index.php/el-alemeinWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the article metric → imperial or the other way round? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@
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)
This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
Dominions weren't allies. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:13, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
I look forward to a rfc which might end your fatuous time wasting. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would stick to theatre commanders and army commanders. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)