This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siege of Tobruk 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article on Mustafa_Kemal says that he participated in the Defense of Tobruk. Where is he?
Someone added it again, and provided a source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.161.67.2 ( talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Royal Navy Day-by-Day in World War 2 by Don Kindell
The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean
Royal Navy Day-by-Day in World War 2 by Don Kindell
Royal Navy Day-by-Day in World War 2 by Don Kindell
[1] i) Treacle (19-29 August)
IN: Polish 1st Carpathian Brigade (Bde) and a Polish Cavalry Regiment OUT: 18th Brigade, 18th Indian Cavalry and 152nd LAA
ii) Supercharge (19-27 September)
IN: British 16th Inf. Bde, Advanced HQs of 70th Div., 32nd Army Tank Brigade (32ATB)* and 4RTR [32ATB was in fact the unchanged 3rd Armoured Bde] OUT: 24th Bde. and Australian 24th Field Park Company
iii) Cultivate (12-25 October)
IN: HQ 70th Div. British 14th and 23rd Infantry Brigades a Czech Infantry Bn and 62nd General Hospital. OUT: 9th Div HQ and Divisional Troops 26th and 20th Bdes and Australian 4th Hospital.
I first found out about it by reading Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story by Paolo Caccia-Dominioni in a page where he describes the circumstances leading to the death of the commanding officer of the unit (a sister unit for Caccia-Dominioni was CO of the 31st Combat Sappers Battalion). Paolo Caccia-Dominioni would have no reason to lie about the achievements of this unit for he has written about about his unit experiences during the battles of Alamein and his book has survived for decades with its reputation intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The template "unreliable source" is misleading here. My problem with the reference is that it is a link to a web page which has no identification so that the reference can have no title, no author, no publisher no date etc.. It is therefore a suspect source. I have no problem with Caccia-Dominioni source because it is fully identified. Is the web page an on-line version of the Caccia-Dominioni book? It would be very helpful if you could fill in some details to identify this web page ....my Italian isn't up to it!! Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Italian official history (Vol.II Tobruk, p.168) provides a rather more balanced perspective - the attack was a failure: "Aperti i varchi nei reticolati, i gruppi passarono oltre ma incaparono nell'intenso fuoco delle armi automatiche dei fortini e nel contempo si trovarono addosso l'immediato contrassalto delle riserve settoriali. Privi degli ufficiali, caduti quasi subito colpiti a morte, e sottoposti a dute perdite, i gruppi ripiegarono con difficolta attraverso i varchi ed a stento poterono riguadagnare la base di partenza." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.14.43 ( talk) 08:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article has a very strong Italian pov:
At the same time however in the Operation Compass section it glosses over the Italians who did fight well and did not give up as quickly as the rest of the garrison. i.e. "The Italian troops generally offered little resistance - large numbers surrendered without fighting." The article i think should on the same note referance the men who held out and offered much resistance.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Imo, something along the lines of: "While some Italian troops fought well, the majority generally offered little resistance with large numbers surrendered without fighting."
My grammar isnt at its best early in the morning when am bored in work (lol :p) but i think something to that effect covers all bases.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Brevity was not an attempt to lift the siege of Tobruk. I have removed referance to this once before and have just done so again since it is now back within the article. The main objective of the attack was to clear the Libyan-Egyptian border so Operation Battleaxe could be launched from a better position. -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oberiko do you have a source for that? It would be a nice addition to the Brevity article :) On reading the subject, the main objective was to clear the border area but Gott was also told to exploit towards Tobruk as far as supply would allow and without risking his force. Its because of this i dont think it should have its own section as a dedicated attempt to lift the siege although rolling it into another section as discussed above does seem like a decent idea.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Am finding this section to be extermly weak, as discussed above it pushes one point of view of the Italian soldiers without highlighting the fact some did fight well or explain why the men who didnt fight, didnt. It jumps all over the place, for instance what does the 9th Infantry Division have to do with the initial capture of the fortress, it doesnt.
On top of that, the "They also found that the Italians had constructed some impressive defences, including a perimeter of concrete pits." seems some what silly.
After reading the British Official History on the subject(am sure the aussie one will confirm with this outlook), they highlight the Aussie commander personally reconning the Tobruk defences before the attack and the assualt plan involved capturing 5 iirc of these concrete defence pits, therefore they cant have only found out about them after the battle as the article currently suggests.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I think the article does need to cover Operation Compass in brief, after all the article should cover how allied forces ended up occupying the fortress and Compass does seem to be the place to start.
In regards to the defences, let me establish am by no means an expert on Tobruk so am not trying to sound condescending here, we know the Australians before assaulting the fortress were aware of the concrete defence pits however it was only after they captured the fortress they discovered how well constructed they were?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been away for a few weeks and see that during my absence there has been some activity on this article. Two things strike me. The intro has been re-written in a rather Australian POV way. I imagine this is probably because the current text focuses on the fighting up to and over Easter and then covers the rest of the siege in a very cursory manner - not that I have a problem with that per se because the later fighting at Tobruk is covered in the Operation Crusader article. However, the article is supposed to cover the whole siege which lasted until November so the non-Australian force held Tobruk for some 70-80 days. I've re-written the intro to try and reflect the full period.
Secondly I am confused by the role of 15 Pz Div. The original text said that Rommell only commanded 5 Light Div because 15 Pz had not yet arrived in Libya (this coincides with the Sonnenblume article which says, with reference quoted, 15 Pz tanks arrived in Africa between 25 April and 6 May and the division was not fully concentrated until end May). The current text ascribes quite a lot of activity to 15 Pz during mid-April and I have added "elements of" to the text, assuming that perhaps the non-tank elements of 15 Pz were available to Rommell during April, until I can go to some references to sort out what was really going on. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to confirm, 15 Panzer did take part in the siege. Ill dig up some details from Jentz book later today.
I updated portions of the Operation Sonnenblume article a while ago with the information Jentz provides although only in relation to the panzer regiment. He provides convoy details, which confirm the regiment, shipped over between April 25 and May 6, will get you a date the tanks reached the frontline (also information on the convoys).
Other units of the division were shipped over as well as flown across to N.Africa and took part in the attacks, ill dig up some details on that too.
I haven't read through the article in full yet but it appears from Jentz (who takes the war diaries and personal testimony from both sides) that 5th Light fought rather badly and didn’t stick to doctrine while the British tankers within the fortress had started to become more competent although were not fighting in combined arms manner with the allied forces inside. Don't know if this helps explain some of the bias? (again i haven’t really read the article so i don't know what your referring to :p)-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | Rommel's initial attack plan called for his tanks sweeping around Tobruk to the Eastern side, and attacking from the Bardia road, and cutting off Cairo. On ariving at Tobruk, he ordered elements of 15th Panzer Division commanded by General Heinrich von Prittwitz und Gaffron to attack Tobruk from the West, directly down the Derna Road to maintain the momentum of their attack. Rommel was expecting that the Allied forces would crumble under the attack. | ” |
This happened after the defeat of 2 Armoured Div on 8 April but before 11 April when the article goes on to say
“ | On 11 April, with his forces regrouped, Rommel reverted to his original plan, sending his tanks around Tobruk to the Bardia Road.
The city was now besieged on three sides (the harbour was in Allied hands) by the the Afrika Korps composed of the 5th Light Division and elements of 15th Panzer Division, and by three Italian infantry divisions and the Italian Ariete Armour Division. The Allied forces consisted of the Australian 9th Infantry Division and 18th Infantry Brigade of the Australian Imperial Force, as well as 12,000 British soldiers and 1,500 Indian soldiers. |
” |
....but 15 Pz Divs tanks didn't start arriving until 25 April at earliest. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye that is a bit confusing. Ill route through Jentz' book later on and get as much info on the 15 Panzer as possible and post it here. From the two chapters on Tobruk (not sure if there is more) am pretty sure there should be enough information to figure out when they arrived and what they got up to :)
I cant be sure since am not in front of Jentz maps but am sure the attacks (initial ones maybe?) were made along the southeast portion of the perminter.
Off topic: Ive noticed some mentions that the Italians had "Tankettes" i think that needs to be changed since there main tank the M13 was a medium.--
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
15th Panzer Division:
(Jentz, 217 - i get the impression these were flown in closer to the front and not towards Tripoli)
(jentz 215-216)
Panzer units at the front:
6 and 7 Kompanies landed in Tripoli on May 6 and was at the front on 28 May (Jentz 38)
The OOB for the attack on the 30th which the 15th took part is:
Jentz notes there OOB as being: Portions of the 1st Kompanie Pnz Rgt 8, Motorised Rifle Regiment 115, portions of Regiment 104, the recce battalion, Kradschutzen (motorcycle?) Battalion 15 (minus one company), Panzer-Jager Abt33, Pionier Battalion 33 (minus one company) and 200 (only one company) and the divisions arty and flak units. (Jentz, 118)
This attack however, went in agaisnt the southwest part of the perminter by elements of 4 divisions however the description of the fighting (Jentz Chapter 8) notes that only tanks from Panzer Regiment 5 only took part. The 15ths role in this attack was infantry and arty only.
So there we go... i think the question is answered :p
Yea the bit about the 1st Kompanie confused me too, its deff labeled as 30th April. I only assumes he means units of the 15th Panzer who was in africa on that date but not nesscesary at the front.
Now to answer the question in full, here is the list of units under his command:
The Rommel Papers, Pg 118
General von Prittwitz, commander of the 15h Panzer Division, part of which had just arrived in Africa, was now instructed to take command of the pursuit force and follow up the British to Tobruk. The 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 8th M.G. Battalion and the 605th Anti-Tank Battalion were put under his command. Not all of this force had arrvied yet, of course, but the machine-gun battalion had already refulled and was ready to contuine the pursuit.
Pg 122 mentions some stuff about the above elements in the attack in brief ... will type them up if you want?
However more importantly:
At about midday, Count Schwerin reported to me at a point some 25 miles west of Tobruk that General von Prittwitz had been killed a few hours earlier by a direct hit from an anti-tank gun
Is this a typo btw?: "General Heinrich von Prittwitz und Gaffron" -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno simplifed something like "General von Prittwitz with two battalions and an anti-tank battalion....."-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a quick read through the Aussie's official history of its forces in the second world war it is quite clear that the Australians lost on the night attack of 1 May R.3, R.4, R.5, R.6 and R.7 to Italian troops. There were a number of Australian attempts to recover these positions and it was the Polish Carpathian Brigade that finally recovered these positions and Medauar Hill and Acroma in December 1941. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkgeneral ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit fussed about the quality of some of the supporting references being included in this article. Books are one thing but links to websites which do not identify what the site is, the author and context have no value whatsoever. Here's an extreme but not untypical example: [2]. It's written in an encyclopaedic style but there is no identification as to its source (and therefore credibility) - even though the page claims copyrite for the (un-named) author! It doesn't help credibility that if you click on this link you get bombarded with all sorts of pop-ups to undesirable sites (even sex-related!). Please may we have better quality control, epecially on the weblinks! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found a nice source from the web - but I'm not sure how to cite websites properly! Grible ( talk) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC) http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/miller/miller.asp#m4
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
--
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The title says 'Siege of Tobruk' but the infox title say 'Battle of Tobruk'.....which one is it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.232.192 ( talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are all the photos from the Allied side? And none of German, or British, tanks? Sca ( talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This photo, as used in the article is dated June 1942 and does not correctly relate to the initial battle and siege of Tobruk. It depicts POW's captured by the German forces after the Battle of Gazala when Rommel re-captured Tobruk on 20 June 1942. I suspect the POW's in the photo are from either the 2/5 Mahratta Light Infantry or the 2/7 Ghurka Rifles. Farawayman ( talk) 10:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is a number for the casualties it should be added with a reliable source, otherwise it is pointless to have this unverifiable numbers in the article, which have been added when the article was still a 2 sentence stub without sources. StoneProphet ( talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Confusing enough, there are different numbers mentioned for the Australian casualties. Is it possible that these number differ because they take different periods in consideration? As main force the Aussies were relieved in the moonless periods in August, September and October. But due to attacks on the Navy transport, 2/13th Australian Battalion and two companies of 2/15th Australian Battalion together with some men of 9th Division headquarters stayed behind. They were not part of the garrison any more. When the outbreak of the garrison during Operation Crusader ran into trouble, the commander asked the present Australian to come to their aid and go into the offensive. They duly did, but at a price. The Banner talk 10:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Would be good if there was an OOB to indicate which units / formations were involved in the siege. The infobox shows Australian, Czech, Polish, UK and Indian involvement. Who were these units? Farawayman ( talk) 13:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
See http://ratsoftobrukvictoria.org.au/2011-11-27-04-49-36/2012-05-26-05-47-59/order-of-battle for the start of the siege. Note that the 18th Brigade was detached from the 7th Australian Division. The Australian official history is online (see the references to Maughan) and lists the Polish Brigade and the Czech Battalion followed by the British 70th Division. The 70th Division was formerly the British 6th Division which had served in the Syrian campaign and would later move to India where troops were detached to Special Force which was later renamed 3rd Indian Division. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Utterly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.34.222 ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014
@ 100menonmars: I have just removed this [3] which you have recently addeed. My reasons were listed in the edit summary; however, I will elaborate here so that further discussion can occur if need be. Essentially the edit stated that the instances of self inflicted wounds in the 9th Division were due "the capture of the Australian strongpoints and resulting casualties... [which] affected morale in the 9th Division...") yet this is not supported by the source you provided which no where states that it was the loss of these strongpoints or casualties caused by the Italians that resulted in this occurring. In fact it states: "Poor personnel selection, the activities of undesirables, the strain of the seige and a shortage of officers in some battalions weakened discipline... More disturbing was the large number of self-inflicted wound (SIW) cases. During a single week in May the division reported thirty SIW cases.". The source can be accessed here [4]. Pls be careful not to editorialise and add your assumptions. We need to stick to the facts provided by the sources used. Thank you. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed the citations to sfn so as to find the citations without a reference and vice versa, found some references to suit orphan citations. Will look for citations for the unreferenced sections presently. Hope no-one minds but the banners have been there a while. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Rolled back recent edits en masse as the editor appears to be our serial impostor. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
300px is the standard size for infobox pics. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I edited this sentence "The Western Desert Campaign was fought primarily in the [[Libyan Desert|Western Desert]]," changing the piped link to Libyan Desert for one to
Western Desert (North Africa). This was reverted with the edit summary "this link pointed to the Egyptian desert, while Tobruk is in Libya".
There's no argument about which country Tobruk is in, but the sentence is about the term "Western Desert", which is described here as being "from Mersa Matruh in Egypt to Gazala in Cyrenaica ". The purpose of the link is (or should be) to provide more information on the term used; in this case an explanation of what is meant by the term Western Desert. The new link is to the Name section of the
Western Desert (Egypt) article, which has a full explanation, while the current link to
Libyan Desert doesn't tell the enquirer anything.
As I've explained
here, I intend to change the links in all our WWII/Western Desert Campaign articles to Western Desert (North Africa), as the most neutral remedy to
an absurd situation. Is there any reason why the link here should not be changed?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
00:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Grant, you need to provide citations when you edit and think more about the words you use and the sentences that you put them in. Oscillates is not a verb which describes hot days and cold nights, they are a consequence of the climate and the rotation of the earth. You also changed tense in mid-sentence (something I'm prone to too). Thanks for not listing the Italian defences, I'll put that back. Always ready to discuss. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Keith, the solution I am citing became consensus elsewhere, long ago. These issues have been argued out many times before, in the context of articles about 1939–45. I haven't had the time to get anything set in policy, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that we are still arguing them.
Anyway, because the issues here are "undue emphasis" and "systemic bias", anything published by the UK government 57 years ago is problematic for your case. And less relevant than the three more recent examples I provided above, including one from the IWM, published this year. (For what it's worth, I deliberately avoided Australian sources, so you couldn't again accuse me of, what was it, "retrospective nationalism"?)
I've asked you before what the problem is, in your opinion, with the words Allies and Allied. You have never answered that, other than to wave a finger in the general direction of a preference for "British" in sources half a century old. A response which does not actually address the words themselves.
Time for you to WP:DTS I think.
Grant | Talk 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them.
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them.
Linking this to my nationality is also obviously a form of personal attack.
"British was a misleading term for Eighth Army...."
• Do you imagine that this somehow supports your position?
" Pub date is the edition date as you should know."
• Which totally misses/ignores the point.
"You want me to disprove a negative?"
• A fallacy and it's a very simple question: "And in return, I would like to hear a reason why you believe "Allies" and "Allied" are incorrect in this instance. Note that I'm not asking about the alternatives or asking for a source stating this – just a logical explanation."
"The nature of the anti-German coalition varied from time to time and place to place, are Red Army victories listed as "Allied"?"
• When they involved non-Soviet forces they are.
Grant |
Talk
11:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Anything else? Grant | Talk 03:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
On the point that Allied/Allies is a
WP:COMMONNAME and use of it is a long-standing
WP:CONSENSUS in articles relating to the Second World War:
• the
very first form of the article on 15 August 2004, a one-sentence stub by Oberiko, read like this: "The Siege of Tobruk was a lengthy confrontation between Axis and Allied forces in the North African Campaign of World War II" and;
• when
an infobox was introduced on 9 December 2004 by Kudz75, Tobruk was described as an "Allied victory" – that wording remained until 9 August 2016, when it was changed twice: firstly, by SamHolt6 to "Tactical draw, Allied strategic victory" and then, by Keith-264, to "British victory" in
this edit.
Hence "Allied" was used, uncontested, at definitive points in both the text and infobox, for almost 12 years.
Usage of "British" for things and people otherwise not connected to the UK – against, as the paragraph above suggests, current common usage – relies on a controversial, ambiguous and now archaic/obsolete usage of "British", i.e. in the senses of:
• a short form for "British Empire" or "Commonwealth", and/or;
• individuals and/or organisations that were not technically subject to UK authorities, and were ultimately
ultra vires of them.
I am also suggesting that such a use of "British" falls under
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and when this is an issue, it cannot be resolved by reference to
WP:RS alone because:
• reliable sources are divided on the matter;
• official/authoritative sources, especially those closest historically to the point of controversy, are more likely to take a controversial position.
Which is where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS come in.
Grant |
Talk
10:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, The Banner. It was getting like an echo chamber in here B-) Grant | Talk 03:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to get involved in this fight but can we at least try to hold down the national assignments of units to where they are introduced in the article or it's immediately important to the narrative? There is a danger that when reading it becomes a little foolish - the Australian 17th Brigade who were Australian moved up to the left of 7th RTR who are British,the Allied forces including some British, Indians and Australians then attacked the Axis lines held by some German and Italian forces. - i exaggerate for effect. But once the reader knows the nation of origin for a given formation can we hold back a little? It's just making the article a bit "chewy" IMHO. Also there is a tendency to highlight the non-British Allied formations, leaving the reader to assume other units when named without an identifying nationality are British, I'm not sure which side of the Anglo-centric debate that falls on since it can have the effect of obscuring the actual British contributions! Otherwise, preferring Allied over lists of individual nations when more than one allied nationality is involved seems sensible, Grible ( talk) 08:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said on 14 June last year (see above): use of "British" or "UK" for other Allied forces, whether they are US, Soviet, Dominion and/or Free European exiles is wrong for a number of reasons, while Allies/Allied is not wrong. It cannot be resolved by reference to WP:RS alone because:
Which is where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS come in.
There is an unspoken consensus among editors (not only of this article, but in WW2 articles in general) that we refer to multinational Allied forces in general as Allies or Allied. That is, we do not refer to British forces as US/American, even when they are under US command, and vice versa.The independent Dominions of the Commonwealth, which were given independence in foreign policy in 1931, have been treated in the same way. (The only acknowledged exceptions have been forces from crown colonies/overseas territories e.g. India, Jamaica or Southern Rhodesia.)
Between December 2004 and June 2017 the consensus described above was observed in this article, as the editing history shows. As do the lengthy comments above by me, User:The Banner, User:Grible etc. As far as I'm aware, the only objectors have been Keith-264 and anonymous editor 95.xxx.xx.xxx (see above).
In my opinion, an editor who shows a persistent disregard for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS, in the face of protracted attempts by other editors to achieve these things, clearly falls under WP:DISRUPT. Grant | Talk 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If there are conflicting sources on this topic? then I'd recommend an Rfc be held, to determine which term to use. GoodDay ( talk) 15:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Got there in the end, isbn 13'd the references, minor ce, rm dupe wikilinks; weights and measures inconsistent so put them in imperial for convenience, happy to discuss. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox_military_conflict, I've put the list of belligerents in order of importance to the conflict, as best I understand the chain of command and military contribution. Factotem ( talk) 08:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The history of Tobruk City Saied Mousa ( talk) 22:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi can this article be renamed to the 2nd siege of Tobruk, as a few history sources mention including yourselves, in January 1941 then Italian held Tobruk was surrounded by British and Australian troops of the XIII corps, this "Blockade" or Siege carried on for 2 months thus i think should be classified as a siege or at least mentioned in this article as a first pharse of the siege. Infomanfromearth ( talk) 14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siege of Tobruk 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article on Mustafa_Kemal says that he participated in the Defense of Tobruk. Where is he?
Someone added it again, and provided a source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.161.67.2 ( talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Royal Navy Day-by-Day in World War 2 by Don Kindell
The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean
Royal Navy Day-by-Day in World War 2 by Don Kindell
Royal Navy Day-by-Day in World War 2 by Don Kindell
[1] i) Treacle (19-29 August)
IN: Polish 1st Carpathian Brigade (Bde) and a Polish Cavalry Regiment OUT: 18th Brigade, 18th Indian Cavalry and 152nd LAA
ii) Supercharge (19-27 September)
IN: British 16th Inf. Bde, Advanced HQs of 70th Div., 32nd Army Tank Brigade (32ATB)* and 4RTR [32ATB was in fact the unchanged 3rd Armoured Bde] OUT: 24th Bde. and Australian 24th Field Park Company
iii) Cultivate (12-25 October)
IN: HQ 70th Div. British 14th and 23rd Infantry Brigades a Czech Infantry Bn and 62nd General Hospital. OUT: 9th Div HQ and Divisional Troops 26th and 20th Bdes and Australian 4th Hospital.
I first found out about it by reading Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story by Paolo Caccia-Dominioni in a page where he describes the circumstances leading to the death of the commanding officer of the unit (a sister unit for Caccia-Dominioni was CO of the 31st Combat Sappers Battalion). Paolo Caccia-Dominioni would have no reason to lie about the achievements of this unit for he has written about about his unit experiences during the battles of Alamein and his book has survived for decades with its reputation intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The template "unreliable source" is misleading here. My problem with the reference is that it is a link to a web page which has no identification so that the reference can have no title, no author, no publisher no date etc.. It is therefore a suspect source. I have no problem with Caccia-Dominioni source because it is fully identified. Is the web page an on-line version of the Caccia-Dominioni book? It would be very helpful if you could fill in some details to identify this web page ....my Italian isn't up to it!! Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Italian official history (Vol.II Tobruk, p.168) provides a rather more balanced perspective - the attack was a failure: "Aperti i varchi nei reticolati, i gruppi passarono oltre ma incaparono nell'intenso fuoco delle armi automatiche dei fortini e nel contempo si trovarono addosso l'immediato contrassalto delle riserve settoriali. Privi degli ufficiali, caduti quasi subito colpiti a morte, e sottoposti a dute perdite, i gruppi ripiegarono con difficolta attraverso i varchi ed a stento poterono riguadagnare la base di partenza." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.14.43 ( talk) 08:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article has a very strong Italian pov:
At the same time however in the Operation Compass section it glosses over the Italians who did fight well and did not give up as quickly as the rest of the garrison. i.e. "The Italian troops generally offered little resistance - large numbers surrendered without fighting." The article i think should on the same note referance the men who held out and offered much resistance.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Imo, something along the lines of: "While some Italian troops fought well, the majority generally offered little resistance with large numbers surrendered without fighting."
My grammar isnt at its best early in the morning when am bored in work (lol :p) but i think something to that effect covers all bases.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Brevity was not an attempt to lift the siege of Tobruk. I have removed referance to this once before and have just done so again since it is now back within the article. The main objective of the attack was to clear the Libyan-Egyptian border so Operation Battleaxe could be launched from a better position. -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oberiko do you have a source for that? It would be a nice addition to the Brevity article :) On reading the subject, the main objective was to clear the border area but Gott was also told to exploit towards Tobruk as far as supply would allow and without risking his force. Its because of this i dont think it should have its own section as a dedicated attempt to lift the siege although rolling it into another section as discussed above does seem like a decent idea.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Am finding this section to be extermly weak, as discussed above it pushes one point of view of the Italian soldiers without highlighting the fact some did fight well or explain why the men who didnt fight, didnt. It jumps all over the place, for instance what does the 9th Infantry Division have to do with the initial capture of the fortress, it doesnt.
On top of that, the "They also found that the Italians had constructed some impressive defences, including a perimeter of concrete pits." seems some what silly.
After reading the British Official History on the subject(am sure the aussie one will confirm with this outlook), they highlight the Aussie commander personally reconning the Tobruk defences before the attack and the assualt plan involved capturing 5 iirc of these concrete defence pits, therefore they cant have only found out about them after the battle as the article currently suggests.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I think the article does need to cover Operation Compass in brief, after all the article should cover how allied forces ended up occupying the fortress and Compass does seem to be the place to start.
In regards to the defences, let me establish am by no means an expert on Tobruk so am not trying to sound condescending here, we know the Australians before assaulting the fortress were aware of the concrete defence pits however it was only after they captured the fortress they discovered how well constructed they were?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been away for a few weeks and see that during my absence there has been some activity on this article. Two things strike me. The intro has been re-written in a rather Australian POV way. I imagine this is probably because the current text focuses on the fighting up to and over Easter and then covers the rest of the siege in a very cursory manner - not that I have a problem with that per se because the later fighting at Tobruk is covered in the Operation Crusader article. However, the article is supposed to cover the whole siege which lasted until November so the non-Australian force held Tobruk for some 70-80 days. I've re-written the intro to try and reflect the full period.
Secondly I am confused by the role of 15 Pz Div. The original text said that Rommell only commanded 5 Light Div because 15 Pz had not yet arrived in Libya (this coincides with the Sonnenblume article which says, with reference quoted, 15 Pz tanks arrived in Africa between 25 April and 6 May and the division was not fully concentrated until end May). The current text ascribes quite a lot of activity to 15 Pz during mid-April and I have added "elements of" to the text, assuming that perhaps the non-tank elements of 15 Pz were available to Rommell during April, until I can go to some references to sort out what was really going on. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to confirm, 15 Panzer did take part in the siege. Ill dig up some details from Jentz book later today.
I updated portions of the Operation Sonnenblume article a while ago with the information Jentz provides although only in relation to the panzer regiment. He provides convoy details, which confirm the regiment, shipped over between April 25 and May 6, will get you a date the tanks reached the frontline (also information on the convoys).
Other units of the division were shipped over as well as flown across to N.Africa and took part in the attacks, ill dig up some details on that too.
I haven't read through the article in full yet but it appears from Jentz (who takes the war diaries and personal testimony from both sides) that 5th Light fought rather badly and didn’t stick to doctrine while the British tankers within the fortress had started to become more competent although were not fighting in combined arms manner with the allied forces inside. Don't know if this helps explain some of the bias? (again i haven’t really read the article so i don't know what your referring to :p)-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | Rommel's initial attack plan called for his tanks sweeping around Tobruk to the Eastern side, and attacking from the Bardia road, and cutting off Cairo. On ariving at Tobruk, he ordered elements of 15th Panzer Division commanded by General Heinrich von Prittwitz und Gaffron to attack Tobruk from the West, directly down the Derna Road to maintain the momentum of their attack. Rommel was expecting that the Allied forces would crumble under the attack. | ” |
This happened after the defeat of 2 Armoured Div on 8 April but before 11 April when the article goes on to say
“ | On 11 April, with his forces regrouped, Rommel reverted to his original plan, sending his tanks around Tobruk to the Bardia Road.
The city was now besieged on three sides (the harbour was in Allied hands) by the the Afrika Korps composed of the 5th Light Division and elements of 15th Panzer Division, and by three Italian infantry divisions and the Italian Ariete Armour Division. The Allied forces consisted of the Australian 9th Infantry Division and 18th Infantry Brigade of the Australian Imperial Force, as well as 12,000 British soldiers and 1,500 Indian soldiers. |
” |
....but 15 Pz Divs tanks didn't start arriving until 25 April at earliest. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye that is a bit confusing. Ill route through Jentz' book later on and get as much info on the 15 Panzer as possible and post it here. From the two chapters on Tobruk (not sure if there is more) am pretty sure there should be enough information to figure out when they arrived and what they got up to :)
I cant be sure since am not in front of Jentz maps but am sure the attacks (initial ones maybe?) were made along the southeast portion of the perminter.
Off topic: Ive noticed some mentions that the Italians had "Tankettes" i think that needs to be changed since there main tank the M13 was a medium.--
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
15th Panzer Division:
(Jentz, 217 - i get the impression these were flown in closer to the front and not towards Tripoli)
(jentz 215-216)
Panzer units at the front:
6 and 7 Kompanies landed in Tripoli on May 6 and was at the front on 28 May (Jentz 38)
The OOB for the attack on the 30th which the 15th took part is:
Jentz notes there OOB as being: Portions of the 1st Kompanie Pnz Rgt 8, Motorised Rifle Regiment 115, portions of Regiment 104, the recce battalion, Kradschutzen (motorcycle?) Battalion 15 (minus one company), Panzer-Jager Abt33, Pionier Battalion 33 (minus one company) and 200 (only one company) and the divisions arty and flak units. (Jentz, 118)
This attack however, went in agaisnt the southwest part of the perminter by elements of 4 divisions however the description of the fighting (Jentz Chapter 8) notes that only tanks from Panzer Regiment 5 only took part. The 15ths role in this attack was infantry and arty only.
So there we go... i think the question is answered :p
Yea the bit about the 1st Kompanie confused me too, its deff labeled as 30th April. I only assumes he means units of the 15th Panzer who was in africa on that date but not nesscesary at the front.
Now to answer the question in full, here is the list of units under his command:
The Rommel Papers, Pg 118
General von Prittwitz, commander of the 15h Panzer Division, part of which had just arrived in Africa, was now instructed to take command of the pursuit force and follow up the British to Tobruk. The 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 8th M.G. Battalion and the 605th Anti-Tank Battalion were put under his command. Not all of this force had arrvied yet, of course, but the machine-gun battalion had already refulled and was ready to contuine the pursuit.
Pg 122 mentions some stuff about the above elements in the attack in brief ... will type them up if you want?
However more importantly:
At about midday, Count Schwerin reported to me at a point some 25 miles west of Tobruk that General von Prittwitz had been killed a few hours earlier by a direct hit from an anti-tank gun
Is this a typo btw?: "General Heinrich von Prittwitz und Gaffron" -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno simplifed something like "General von Prittwitz with two battalions and an anti-tank battalion....."-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a quick read through the Aussie's official history of its forces in the second world war it is quite clear that the Australians lost on the night attack of 1 May R.3, R.4, R.5, R.6 and R.7 to Italian troops. There were a number of Australian attempts to recover these positions and it was the Polish Carpathian Brigade that finally recovered these positions and Medauar Hill and Acroma in December 1941. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkgeneral ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit fussed about the quality of some of the supporting references being included in this article. Books are one thing but links to websites which do not identify what the site is, the author and context have no value whatsoever. Here's an extreme but not untypical example: [2]. It's written in an encyclopaedic style but there is no identification as to its source (and therefore credibility) - even though the page claims copyrite for the (un-named) author! It doesn't help credibility that if you click on this link you get bombarded with all sorts of pop-ups to undesirable sites (even sex-related!). Please may we have better quality control, epecially on the weblinks! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found a nice source from the web - but I'm not sure how to cite websites properly! Grible ( talk) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC) http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/miller/miller.asp#m4
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
--
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The title says 'Siege of Tobruk' but the infox title say 'Battle of Tobruk'.....which one is it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.232.192 ( talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are all the photos from the Allied side? And none of German, or British, tanks? Sca ( talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This photo, as used in the article is dated June 1942 and does not correctly relate to the initial battle and siege of Tobruk. It depicts POW's captured by the German forces after the Battle of Gazala when Rommel re-captured Tobruk on 20 June 1942. I suspect the POW's in the photo are from either the 2/5 Mahratta Light Infantry or the 2/7 Ghurka Rifles. Farawayman ( talk) 10:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is a number for the casualties it should be added with a reliable source, otherwise it is pointless to have this unverifiable numbers in the article, which have been added when the article was still a 2 sentence stub without sources. StoneProphet ( talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Confusing enough, there are different numbers mentioned for the Australian casualties. Is it possible that these number differ because they take different periods in consideration? As main force the Aussies were relieved in the moonless periods in August, September and October. But due to attacks on the Navy transport, 2/13th Australian Battalion and two companies of 2/15th Australian Battalion together with some men of 9th Division headquarters stayed behind. They were not part of the garrison any more. When the outbreak of the garrison during Operation Crusader ran into trouble, the commander asked the present Australian to come to their aid and go into the offensive. They duly did, but at a price. The Banner talk 10:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Would be good if there was an OOB to indicate which units / formations were involved in the siege. The infobox shows Australian, Czech, Polish, UK and Indian involvement. Who were these units? Farawayman ( talk) 13:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
See http://ratsoftobrukvictoria.org.au/2011-11-27-04-49-36/2012-05-26-05-47-59/order-of-battle for the start of the siege. Note that the 18th Brigade was detached from the 7th Australian Division. The Australian official history is online (see the references to Maughan) and lists the Polish Brigade and the Czech Battalion followed by the British 70th Division. The 70th Division was formerly the British 6th Division which had served in the Syrian campaign and would later move to India where troops were detached to Special Force which was later renamed 3rd Indian Division. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Utterly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.34.222 ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014
@ 100menonmars: I have just removed this [3] which you have recently addeed. My reasons were listed in the edit summary; however, I will elaborate here so that further discussion can occur if need be. Essentially the edit stated that the instances of self inflicted wounds in the 9th Division were due "the capture of the Australian strongpoints and resulting casualties... [which] affected morale in the 9th Division...") yet this is not supported by the source you provided which no where states that it was the loss of these strongpoints or casualties caused by the Italians that resulted in this occurring. In fact it states: "Poor personnel selection, the activities of undesirables, the strain of the seige and a shortage of officers in some battalions weakened discipline... More disturbing was the large number of self-inflicted wound (SIW) cases. During a single week in May the division reported thirty SIW cases.". The source can be accessed here [4]. Pls be careful not to editorialise and add your assumptions. We need to stick to the facts provided by the sources used. Thank you. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed the citations to sfn so as to find the citations without a reference and vice versa, found some references to suit orphan citations. Will look for citations for the unreferenced sections presently. Hope no-one minds but the banners have been there a while. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Rolled back recent edits en masse as the editor appears to be our serial impostor. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
300px is the standard size for infobox pics. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I edited this sentence "The Western Desert Campaign was fought primarily in the [[Libyan Desert|Western Desert]]," changing the piped link to Libyan Desert for one to
Western Desert (North Africa). This was reverted with the edit summary "this link pointed to the Egyptian desert, while Tobruk is in Libya".
There's no argument about which country Tobruk is in, but the sentence is about the term "Western Desert", which is described here as being "from Mersa Matruh in Egypt to Gazala in Cyrenaica ". The purpose of the link is (or should be) to provide more information on the term used; in this case an explanation of what is meant by the term Western Desert. The new link is to the Name section of the
Western Desert (Egypt) article, which has a full explanation, while the current link to
Libyan Desert doesn't tell the enquirer anything.
As I've explained
here, I intend to change the links in all our WWII/Western Desert Campaign articles to Western Desert (North Africa), as the most neutral remedy to
an absurd situation. Is there any reason why the link here should not be changed?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
00:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Grant, you need to provide citations when you edit and think more about the words you use and the sentences that you put them in. Oscillates is not a verb which describes hot days and cold nights, they are a consequence of the climate and the rotation of the earth. You also changed tense in mid-sentence (something I'm prone to too). Thanks for not listing the Italian defences, I'll put that back. Always ready to discuss. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Keith, the solution I am citing became consensus elsewhere, long ago. These issues have been argued out many times before, in the context of articles about 1939–45. I haven't had the time to get anything set in policy, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that we are still arguing them.
Anyway, because the issues here are "undue emphasis" and "systemic bias", anything published by the UK government 57 years ago is problematic for your case. And less relevant than the three more recent examples I provided above, including one from the IWM, published this year. (For what it's worth, I deliberately avoided Australian sources, so you couldn't again accuse me of, what was it, "retrospective nationalism"?)
I've asked you before what the problem is, in your opinion, with the words Allies and Allied. You have never answered that, other than to wave a finger in the general direction of a preference for "British" in sources half a century old. A response which does not actually address the words themselves.
Time for you to WP:DTS I think.
Grant | Talk 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them.
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them.
Linking this to my nationality is also obviously a form of personal attack.
"British was a misleading term for Eighth Army...."
• Do you imagine that this somehow supports your position?
" Pub date is the edition date as you should know."
• Which totally misses/ignores the point.
"You want me to disprove a negative?"
• A fallacy and it's a very simple question: "And in return, I would like to hear a reason why you believe "Allies" and "Allied" are incorrect in this instance. Note that I'm not asking about the alternatives or asking for a source stating this – just a logical explanation."
"The nature of the anti-German coalition varied from time to time and place to place, are Red Army victories listed as "Allied"?"
• When they involved non-Soviet forces they are.
Grant |
Talk
11:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Anything else? Grant | Talk 03:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
On the point that Allied/Allies is a
WP:COMMONNAME and use of it is a long-standing
WP:CONSENSUS in articles relating to the Second World War:
• the
very first form of the article on 15 August 2004, a one-sentence stub by Oberiko, read like this: "The Siege of Tobruk was a lengthy confrontation between Axis and Allied forces in the North African Campaign of World War II" and;
• when
an infobox was introduced on 9 December 2004 by Kudz75, Tobruk was described as an "Allied victory" – that wording remained until 9 August 2016, when it was changed twice: firstly, by SamHolt6 to "Tactical draw, Allied strategic victory" and then, by Keith-264, to "British victory" in
this edit.
Hence "Allied" was used, uncontested, at definitive points in both the text and infobox, for almost 12 years.
Usage of "British" for things and people otherwise not connected to the UK – against, as the paragraph above suggests, current common usage – relies on a controversial, ambiguous and now archaic/obsolete usage of "British", i.e. in the senses of:
• a short form for "British Empire" or "Commonwealth", and/or;
• individuals and/or organisations that were not technically subject to UK authorities, and were ultimately
ultra vires of them.
I am also suggesting that such a use of "British" falls under
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and when this is an issue, it cannot be resolved by reference to
WP:RS alone because:
• reliable sources are divided on the matter;
• official/authoritative sources, especially those closest historically to the point of controversy, are more likely to take a controversial position.
Which is where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS come in.
Grant |
Talk
10:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, The Banner. It was getting like an echo chamber in here B-) Grant | Talk 03:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to get involved in this fight but can we at least try to hold down the national assignments of units to where they are introduced in the article or it's immediately important to the narrative? There is a danger that when reading it becomes a little foolish - the Australian 17th Brigade who were Australian moved up to the left of 7th RTR who are British,the Allied forces including some British, Indians and Australians then attacked the Axis lines held by some German and Italian forces. - i exaggerate for effect. But once the reader knows the nation of origin for a given formation can we hold back a little? It's just making the article a bit "chewy" IMHO. Also there is a tendency to highlight the non-British Allied formations, leaving the reader to assume other units when named without an identifying nationality are British, I'm not sure which side of the Anglo-centric debate that falls on since it can have the effect of obscuring the actual British contributions! Otherwise, preferring Allied over lists of individual nations when more than one allied nationality is involved seems sensible, Grible ( talk) 08:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said on 14 June last year (see above): use of "British" or "UK" for other Allied forces, whether they are US, Soviet, Dominion and/or Free European exiles is wrong for a number of reasons, while Allies/Allied is not wrong. It cannot be resolved by reference to WP:RS alone because:
Which is where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS come in.
There is an unspoken consensus among editors (not only of this article, but in WW2 articles in general) that we refer to multinational Allied forces in general as Allies or Allied. That is, we do not refer to British forces as US/American, even when they are under US command, and vice versa.The independent Dominions of the Commonwealth, which were given independence in foreign policy in 1931, have been treated in the same way. (The only acknowledged exceptions have been forces from crown colonies/overseas territories e.g. India, Jamaica or Southern Rhodesia.)
Between December 2004 and June 2017 the consensus described above was observed in this article, as the editing history shows. As do the lengthy comments above by me, User:The Banner, User:Grible etc. As far as I'm aware, the only objectors have been Keith-264 and anonymous editor 95.xxx.xx.xxx (see above).
In my opinion, an editor who shows a persistent disregard for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS, in the face of protracted attempts by other editors to achieve these things, clearly falls under WP:DISRUPT. Grant | Talk 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If there are conflicting sources on this topic? then I'd recommend an Rfc be held, to determine which term to use. GoodDay ( talk) 15:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Got there in the end, isbn 13'd the references, minor ce, rm dupe wikilinks; weights and measures inconsistent so put them in imperial for convenience, happy to discuss. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox_military_conflict, I've put the list of belligerents in order of importance to the conflict, as best I understand the chain of command and military contribution. Factotem ( talk) 08:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The history of Tobruk City Saied Mousa ( talk) 22:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi can this article be renamed to the 2nd siege of Tobruk, as a few history sources mention including yourselves, in January 1941 then Italian held Tobruk was surrounded by British and Australian troops of the XIII corps, this "Blockade" or Siege carried on for 2 months thus i think should be classified as a siege or at least mentioned in this article as a first pharse of the siege. Infomanfromearth ( talk) 14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)