This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Western Desert campaign 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 |
Archives: 1 |
List of sources |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No mention of the Rhodesians. They were at least part of the LRDG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.98.103 ( talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged this as dubious:
"It's notable that he had resources far in excess in quantity and quality to those of his predecessors"
The comment is often trotted out to disparage Montgomery but it's clearly incorrect. The Allies had a roughly two-to-one superiority throughout most of the Desert campaign (see
Gazala,
Crusader,
Battleaxe for examples). Montgomery only had the same advantages; his skill was in using them wisely.
Xyl 54 (
talk)
14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- - That map is flawed, Germany occuped the north and west of france , Vichy france was only in the south and not the whole country as the map seems to imply. Goldblooded ( talk) 12:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just read an excellent academic treament of British Special Forces in the Desert War and believe this page could benefit from a citation/reference - particularly as regards the section on 'raids'. It is:
Hargreaves, Andrew L., ‘The Advent, Evolution and Value of British Specialist Formations in the Desert War, 1940-43’, in Global War Studies, Vol. 7, No.2, (2010), pp.7-62
From what I understand Dr. Hargreaves wrote a PhD on WWII Special Forces, but am not sure if he has written any books.
This could be useful to other pages dealing with similar units.
Best,
David Trill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.118.20 ( talk) 07:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have also read this article and can confirm its quality. It is publicly available and can be found on the likes of ingentaconnect. As it connects special forces to the Western Desert campaign I would definitely recommend placing it in Further Reading - it is probably of much more value to those pages dealing with individual units.
92.26.170.219 (
talk)
01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence mentioning the USAAF build-up seems to be randomly dropped into the introductory section and an odd interjection in the summary of the strategic campaign. Perhaps it would be better placed at some point after the entry of Japan into the wider global conflict is raised, for instance in the section on Rommel's 2nd offensive? Bonza9683 03:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The article states "After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Australian forces were withdrawn from the Western Desert to the Pacific theatre". While it is correct, it creates the impression that the Australians (9th Division AIF) were withdrawn soon after the Japanese entered the war. In fact they were not withdrawn until late January 1943, more than a year later, and after the Australians had made an important contribution in the El Alamein battles. Baska436 ( talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The term is never explained: why "Western"?
My best guess is a British-centric POV: the deserts west of Egypt, but that's just pure guesswork.
What is the origin of calling this desert campaign "Western"? Where did the - I assume - corresponding "Eastern Desert Campaign" take place? CapnZapp ( talk) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Gave the page a spring clean, shortened header titles, rm duplicate wikilinks, revised citations and references. Still needs citations for each paragraph at least. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
[ [1]]I changed the pics to thumbnail to make more room and because they enlarge for people who want them to. Thumbnail is quite sufficient but I experimented with a big map to start since it's a campaign page, although it turned out to be a flop. The default for pics and maps is the right margin and I'd rather reduce the number than have a slalom. Keith-264 ( talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've put some stray articles into the campaignbox as Associated articles and wonder if Operation Venezia this should be incorporated into Battle of Gazala and the page deleted? If anyone knows of other strays pls let me know regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Added material from Creveld (a bit long despite pruning) to the analysis and will look for an equivalent for British supply. Will put a paragraph or two of generic description of time, distance etc into the Prelude. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's almost ready for a B class review despite being deficient of air power and intelligence sections. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Keith-264 and I have a disagreement over the introduction, as can be seen from the last few edits/reversions. Other opinions would be helpful. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Lately, I have been translating (and expanding) some pages from the Italian wiki about battles involving Italian forces, such as Nibeiwa, Mechili and Bir el Gubi. One page is still left, " Scontro di Knightsbridge", part of the Battle of Gazala. I am not sure wheter to translate it or not, since I do not know if it was significant enough. Any opinions?-- BaoBabbo49 ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
[2] There's something here about codenames not being italicised. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering parts of the campaign were fought on Egyptian territory, did Egypt have any involvement at all? Did Egyptian troops ever fight the Axis? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 23:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Egyptian troops actually fighting the Axis, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. Egypt formally joined the Allies in February 1945, along with a load of other Middle Eastern and South American countries - OTOH that may have been to earn themselves a seat in the UN which was then being set up. See also the Abdeen Palace Incident of 1942 when the British Ambassador surrounded the Royal Palace with armoured cars and insisted that a more pro-British government be installed. Paulturtle ( talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The lead photo of the article - of British troops "advancing at Alamein" - is both well-known and well-known to be (and obviously) posed, is it not? I can't add that myself as I don't want to be hunting around for a cite which somebody will doubtless demand. Paulturtle ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tunisian Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I am just trying to correct a misapprehension here and getting some resistance. Rommel and his Panzer Division was definitely subordinate to the Italian command structure: General Bastico and CommandoSupremo. Rommel could not make any unilateral decisions on his own. They had to be approved primarily by the Italians and secondly, by the German high command (OKW) and Kesselring. He was definitely not some rogue commander able to do what he wanted. I think it is high time we stopped thinking of Rommel as this superhuman genius and see him as he really was: just one general out of a dozen generals involved in the North African campaign, including Italian generals who didn't really think that much of him, anyway, as did his own people like Kesselring. He was a competent tank commander, but certainly no genius. 134.36.250.200 ( talk) 13:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Keith, you are talking in generalities, while I am talking in the specific. Rommel was subordinate to Italian command, period. The sentence in question is:
The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner.
Ok, let's look at this statement that by the way, has no citation to support it. In the North African theatre, the Italians were largely running the show; the German contingent was subordinate to Italian command (and not the other way round!). Do I have evidence to support it? Yes, plenty. But by the same token, do you have evidence to support the fact that it was Rommel running the show in North Africa and was the "dominant" commander there? Are we talking in general about the Germans being "dominant" or are we talking about a specific theatre of operations - the North African campaign? Can you show me evidence that Rommel was the "dominant" commander in North Africa?
It would be better sticking to the specific and delete the last part of the sentence to: "The German Africa Korps was under nominal Italian command." No "buts" required as it would give the reader the erroneous impression that Rommel was running the entire North African theatre on his own and that the entire Italian command was subordinate to him! (which would come as a great surprise to many Italian commanders like Bastico). 134.36.250.200 ( talk) 09:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
134.36.250.200 ( talk) 09:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, for starters, let's start with Wikipedia's own article, on Marshal Ettore Bastico.
/info/en/?search=Ettore_Bastico "On 19 July 1941, Bastico was named commander over all Axis forces in North Africa. As Rommel's superior in the North African campaign, his plans had to be first approved by Bastico."
Note the phrase "ALL Axis forces" and "Rommel's superior". In addition, as Italian forces accounted for around 80% of the Axis effort in North Africa, where is the German "dominance" here? I fail to see it. Sometimes a bit of leaning back, self-reflection and using one's "common sense" is sufficient. One doesn't need to find sources to prove something which is pretty obvious.
You can say that again! No wonder universities around the world forbid their students quoting anything from Wikipedia!
134.36.250.200 (
talk)
19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
So the corollary to that is: "The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner." is an unreliable, unsubstantiated statement, especially as it is lacking a citation. Who wrote that Nazi Germany was the dominant power in the North African theater, anyway? 134.36.250.200 ( talk) 20:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why a few? One should be enough. The irony of this is that I have to offer RS to remove or counter a sentence that has absolutely no RS or citation to it. The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner. The first part of the sentence I can accept; it is the second part that is erroneous for two reasons: it is a general statement that does not apply to the situation in North Africa (ie.the Italians were the dominant partner, not the Germans) and secondly, as that part is not cited and has no RS, you are asking me to counter it with a "few" reliable sources. That doesn't sound fair to me. I will offer one RS and that should be enough to counter an obviously erroneous statement that in fact, has no source. It is like having to provide 3 reliable sources just to affirm the sky is blue and not pink.
134.36.250.200 (
talk)
21:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
In the section on the second battle of El Alamein, a sentence begins: "Having decided to retire, Hitler ordered...". I am unable to make sense of this. To my knowledge Hitler never decided to retire from the German government. Presumably something else is intended. Perhaps "retreat" rather than "retire"? Bill ( talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
'Rommel decided on a retirement but Hitler ordered the Panzerarmee to stand fast.' In this, retirement means retreating. Due to the losses, Rommel wanted to retreat to get the supplies his troops wanted. But Hitler ordered to either win the battle, or die inflicting damage on the British. ShauryaOMG ( talk) 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Wdford: Dear WD you've been warned about this behaviour lots of times, it's all over your talk page. Pls you'll save all of us a lot of time and wasted energy. I suggest you put your preferred edit here and then we can discuss it. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.
Trying to argue about inferred ulterior motives in other editors is pointless but I remind you again that you've been here before. Why don't you try a different approach this time? Look at Noclador's recent edits, they're rooted in literary sources [3] and have greatly improved the articles he(?)'s worked on. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the unit titles from the time, British units weren't called British... Non-British units were distinguished by a national title like Indian, Australian, New Zealand...British was used as a shorthand term to distinguish between British (i.e. British, Indian and Commonwealth) and Axis armies/units [and still is in the literature]. When the Allied contribution increased, Allied was substituted for British. As for Monty, he arrived in the Desert on 13 August 1942 so I find it hard to understand why I'm pro-Monty when he was there for about ten months of a three-year campaign. If anything, I've tried to put Italy back into the war, not take the Axis out. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Make a list of the occasions when Dominion commanders appealed to their governments. As out colleague points out, Dominions were not sovereign states but hybrids. All swore allegiance to the King, used the £ and carried British passports. Your claims are vacuous, the Dominions were at war with the Axis, not the British empire. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
OK Keith-264 ( talk) 13:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
References
Not Rommel, The Axis'. Have you made a list of the times when Dominion commanders appealed to their Dominion government? Keith-264 ( talk) 14:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
In the spring of 1941, Rommel led Operation Sonnenblume, which pushed the British back to Egypt except for the Siege of Tobruk at the port. The British were defeated in Operation Brevity and Operation Battleaxe, then the Axis forces were defeated in Operation Crusader and retreated again to El Agheila. An Axis reconnaissance in force in January 1942 drove back the British back to Gazala between Derna and Tobruk. The Axis attacked again and in the Battle of Gazala defeated the British, captured Tobruk then invaded Egypt, pursuing the British as far as El Alamein. Over three battles, the Eighth Army held, then defeated the Axis forces. During the Second Battle of Alamein in October, Operation Torch, an Anglo-American landing in Morocco and Algeria began, threatening the Axis armies in North Africa from the west. In the Tunisian campaign, the Axis forces were forced to surrender on 13 May 1943.
The Axis never overcame supply constraints limiting the size of their forces in North Africa and the Desert War became a sideshow for Germany after the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. The delivery of Axis supplies was threatened by British forces in Malta and supplies to the British from the empire and the US, despite the long detour around Africa, began to arrive in increasing quantity and quality in late 1942.
Hi this is a notice that I will be changing the caption of the New main article image that was put in by Tobby 72.This is because the caption for the new image says Australian infantry advancing at El Alemein (forgive me if I spell this wrong) despite the fact that the caption for the same image on wiki commons and the Imperial War museum where the image originally came from says the infantry are British not Australian. For the sake of historical accuracy I will correct the main article image caption for the western desert campaign to British infantry advancing as that is what the image source (Imperial War museum) says the image actually is. Tobby 72 if you wish to challenge my decision post here and I will try and get back to you Anonymous contributor 1707 ( talk) 17:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Removed this red link. Some operations that never came to be are clearly notable and with plenty of reliable sources - for instance Operation Sealion would easily qualify as a red link - it would link to a very plausible article (and indeed one has existed for a long time already). But Buckshot? Highly doubtful. Since I cannot find any online sources discussing this operation, I removed the red link per WP:REDDEAL: "If the red link points to a target you feel reasonably certain would be deleted if an article were created, remove the red link."
Now I'm putting the onus on anyone believing there is reason to believe Operation Buckshot could sustain an article about a notable, sourced topic. But really, my advice would be to create the page Operation Buckshot as a redirect here - specifically, to Western Desert campaign#Battle of Gazala. I find it highly likely this section is the only place that Op will ever be discussed, let alone even mentioned. If you do, I've unlinked the red link for you already (the link would be a circular reference). You're welcome, CapnZapp ( talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Elinruby: If you want to copy-edit words you need to check if {{Use British English|date=October 2017}} applies, which means BritEng not AmEng. The % sign isn't used in prose, per cent is used instead (percent in AmEng). Wiki requires only one wikilink per word, phrase or title so if you want to add one e.g. for the 7th Armoured Division, you need to check to see if it has already been linked. There's a shortcut for this importScript('User:jEvad37/duplinks-alt.js'); which goes in a separate user page (see here User:Keith-264/common.js). You shouldn't break paragraphs but if you do you can't leave them un-cited, duplicate the cite instead. If you alter a header, you can't duplicate another header. Stylistic consistency is important and that is why I reverted all your mad commas (those next to conjunctions) which were inconsistent with the style of the article. New editors often meet these pitfalls so I wouldn't worry; I hope this will save you more wasted effort. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I have questions. I will group them here if that works for everyone.
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-783-0107-27, Nordafrika, italienischer Panzer L3-33.jpg|thumb|{{centre|Italian [[L3/33]] [[tankettes]]}}]].
In general if the content of the photo faces right it should be left-justified and if it faces left, right-justified. When you copy-edited them, you put left into the centring formula. Since images go to the right margin unless you specify left or centre, you should have done it like this,
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-783-0107-27, Nordafrika, italienischer Panzer L3-33.jpg|thumb|left|{{centre|Italian [[L3/33]] [[tankettes]]}}]] so that the left-justifying term would look like this |thumb|left|{{centre| (bolded for emphasis), which I would have reverted under the image content convention. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do you want to add material about the Free/Fighting French? Keith-264 ( talk) 18:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The intro is pure non-sense. Trying to correct it but Keith-264, ( talk), you keep re-adding this incorrect information. Why? It literally makes zero sense.
Operation Compass lasted for two months (9 december 1940-9 february 1941), not 5 days. The thing is that it was originally planned as a raid but was extended into a large counter-offensive because of its success. The British were still on Egypt on December 14 (Sollum was recaptured on December 16). At best you can say that the initial phase of Compass was a 5-days-raid in Egypt, then it became a general two-months-advance into Libya.
This sentence is the key problem here:
Operation Compass, a five-day raid by the British was so successful that it led to the destruction of the Italian 10th Army (10ª Armata).
Compass begun on December 9, the 10th army was destroyed at the
Battle of Beda Fomm on February 7.
If you look at the page of Operation Compass, it correctly says that Compass lasted up to February.
So you are effectively writing that there are 5 days between December 9 and February 9. Like, what?
Barjimoa ( talk) 10:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Removed about 20 dupe w/l. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Western Desert campaign 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 |
Archives: 1 |
List of sources |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No mention of the Rhodesians. They were at least part of the LRDG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.98.103 ( talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged this as dubious:
"It's notable that he had resources far in excess in quantity and quality to those of his predecessors"
The comment is often trotted out to disparage Montgomery but it's clearly incorrect. The Allies had a roughly two-to-one superiority throughout most of the Desert campaign (see
Gazala,
Crusader,
Battleaxe for examples). Montgomery only had the same advantages; his skill was in using them wisely.
Xyl 54 (
talk)
14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- - That map is flawed, Germany occuped the north and west of france , Vichy france was only in the south and not the whole country as the map seems to imply. Goldblooded ( talk) 12:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just read an excellent academic treament of British Special Forces in the Desert War and believe this page could benefit from a citation/reference - particularly as regards the section on 'raids'. It is:
Hargreaves, Andrew L., ‘The Advent, Evolution and Value of British Specialist Formations in the Desert War, 1940-43’, in Global War Studies, Vol. 7, No.2, (2010), pp.7-62
From what I understand Dr. Hargreaves wrote a PhD on WWII Special Forces, but am not sure if he has written any books.
This could be useful to other pages dealing with similar units.
Best,
David Trill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.118.20 ( talk) 07:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have also read this article and can confirm its quality. It is publicly available and can be found on the likes of ingentaconnect. As it connects special forces to the Western Desert campaign I would definitely recommend placing it in Further Reading - it is probably of much more value to those pages dealing with individual units.
92.26.170.219 (
talk)
01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence mentioning the USAAF build-up seems to be randomly dropped into the introductory section and an odd interjection in the summary of the strategic campaign. Perhaps it would be better placed at some point after the entry of Japan into the wider global conflict is raised, for instance in the section on Rommel's 2nd offensive? Bonza9683 03:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The article states "After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Australian forces were withdrawn from the Western Desert to the Pacific theatre". While it is correct, it creates the impression that the Australians (9th Division AIF) were withdrawn soon after the Japanese entered the war. In fact they were not withdrawn until late January 1943, more than a year later, and after the Australians had made an important contribution in the El Alamein battles. Baska436 ( talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The term is never explained: why "Western"?
My best guess is a British-centric POV: the deserts west of Egypt, but that's just pure guesswork.
What is the origin of calling this desert campaign "Western"? Where did the - I assume - corresponding "Eastern Desert Campaign" take place? CapnZapp ( talk) 10:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Gave the page a spring clean, shortened header titles, rm duplicate wikilinks, revised citations and references. Still needs citations for each paragraph at least. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
[ [1]]I changed the pics to thumbnail to make more room and because they enlarge for people who want them to. Thumbnail is quite sufficient but I experimented with a big map to start since it's a campaign page, although it turned out to be a flop. The default for pics and maps is the right margin and I'd rather reduce the number than have a slalom. Keith-264 ( talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've put some stray articles into the campaignbox as Associated articles and wonder if Operation Venezia this should be incorporated into Battle of Gazala and the page deleted? If anyone knows of other strays pls let me know regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Added material from Creveld (a bit long despite pruning) to the analysis and will look for an equivalent for British supply. Will put a paragraph or two of generic description of time, distance etc into the Prelude. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's almost ready for a B class review despite being deficient of air power and intelligence sections. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Keith-264 and I have a disagreement over the introduction, as can be seen from the last few edits/reversions. Other opinions would be helpful. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Lately, I have been translating (and expanding) some pages from the Italian wiki about battles involving Italian forces, such as Nibeiwa, Mechili and Bir el Gubi. One page is still left, " Scontro di Knightsbridge", part of the Battle of Gazala. I am not sure wheter to translate it or not, since I do not know if it was significant enough. Any opinions?-- BaoBabbo49 ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
[2] There's something here about codenames not being italicised. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering parts of the campaign were fought on Egyptian territory, did Egypt have any involvement at all? Did Egyptian troops ever fight the Axis? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 23:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Egyptian troops actually fighting the Axis, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. Egypt formally joined the Allies in February 1945, along with a load of other Middle Eastern and South American countries - OTOH that may have been to earn themselves a seat in the UN which was then being set up. See also the Abdeen Palace Incident of 1942 when the British Ambassador surrounded the Royal Palace with armoured cars and insisted that a more pro-British government be installed. Paulturtle ( talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The lead photo of the article - of British troops "advancing at Alamein" - is both well-known and well-known to be (and obviously) posed, is it not? I can't add that myself as I don't want to be hunting around for a cite which somebody will doubtless demand. Paulturtle ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tunisian Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I am just trying to correct a misapprehension here and getting some resistance. Rommel and his Panzer Division was definitely subordinate to the Italian command structure: General Bastico and CommandoSupremo. Rommel could not make any unilateral decisions on his own. They had to be approved primarily by the Italians and secondly, by the German high command (OKW) and Kesselring. He was definitely not some rogue commander able to do what he wanted. I think it is high time we stopped thinking of Rommel as this superhuman genius and see him as he really was: just one general out of a dozen generals involved in the North African campaign, including Italian generals who didn't really think that much of him, anyway, as did his own people like Kesselring. He was a competent tank commander, but certainly no genius. 134.36.250.200 ( talk) 13:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Keith, you are talking in generalities, while I am talking in the specific. Rommel was subordinate to Italian command, period. The sentence in question is:
The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner.
Ok, let's look at this statement that by the way, has no citation to support it. In the North African theatre, the Italians were largely running the show; the German contingent was subordinate to Italian command (and not the other way round!). Do I have evidence to support it? Yes, plenty. But by the same token, do you have evidence to support the fact that it was Rommel running the show in North Africa and was the "dominant" commander there? Are we talking in general about the Germans being "dominant" or are we talking about a specific theatre of operations - the North African campaign? Can you show me evidence that Rommel was the "dominant" commander in North Africa?
It would be better sticking to the specific and delete the last part of the sentence to: "The German Africa Korps was under nominal Italian command." No "buts" required as it would give the reader the erroneous impression that Rommel was running the entire North African theatre on his own and that the entire Italian command was subordinate to him! (which would come as a great surprise to many Italian commanders like Bastico). 134.36.250.200 ( talk) 09:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
134.36.250.200 ( talk) 09:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, for starters, let's start with Wikipedia's own article, on Marshal Ettore Bastico.
/info/en/?search=Ettore_Bastico "On 19 July 1941, Bastico was named commander over all Axis forces in North Africa. As Rommel's superior in the North African campaign, his plans had to be first approved by Bastico."
Note the phrase "ALL Axis forces" and "Rommel's superior". In addition, as Italian forces accounted for around 80% of the Axis effort in North Africa, where is the German "dominance" here? I fail to see it. Sometimes a bit of leaning back, self-reflection and using one's "common sense" is sufficient. One doesn't need to find sources to prove something which is pretty obvious.
You can say that again! No wonder universities around the world forbid their students quoting anything from Wikipedia!
134.36.250.200 (
talk)
19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
So the corollary to that is: "The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner." is an unreliable, unsubstantiated statement, especially as it is lacking a citation. Who wrote that Nazi Germany was the dominant power in the North African theater, anyway? 134.36.250.200 ( talk) 20:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why a few? One should be enough. The irony of this is that I have to offer RS to remove or counter a sentence that has absolutely no RS or citation to it. The German Afrika Korps (Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel) was under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner. The first part of the sentence I can accept; it is the second part that is erroneous for two reasons: it is a general statement that does not apply to the situation in North Africa (ie.the Italians were the dominant partner, not the Germans) and secondly, as that part is not cited and has no RS, you are asking me to counter it with a "few" reliable sources. That doesn't sound fair to me. I will offer one RS and that should be enough to counter an obviously erroneous statement that in fact, has no source. It is like having to provide 3 reliable sources just to affirm the sky is blue and not pink.
134.36.250.200 (
talk)
21:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
In the section on the second battle of El Alamein, a sentence begins: "Having decided to retire, Hitler ordered...". I am unable to make sense of this. To my knowledge Hitler never decided to retire from the German government. Presumably something else is intended. Perhaps "retreat" rather than "retire"? Bill ( talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
'Rommel decided on a retirement but Hitler ordered the Panzerarmee to stand fast.' In this, retirement means retreating. Due to the losses, Rommel wanted to retreat to get the supplies his troops wanted. But Hitler ordered to either win the battle, or die inflicting damage on the British. ShauryaOMG ( talk) 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Wdford: Dear WD you've been warned about this behaviour lots of times, it's all over your talk page. Pls you'll save all of us a lot of time and wasted energy. I suggest you put your preferred edit here and then we can discuss it. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.
Trying to argue about inferred ulterior motives in other editors is pointless but I remind you again that you've been here before. Why don't you try a different approach this time? Look at Noclador's recent edits, they're rooted in literary sources [3] and have greatly improved the articles he(?)'s worked on. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the unit titles from the time, British units weren't called British... Non-British units were distinguished by a national title like Indian, Australian, New Zealand...British was used as a shorthand term to distinguish between British (i.e. British, Indian and Commonwealth) and Axis armies/units [and still is in the literature]. When the Allied contribution increased, Allied was substituted for British. As for Monty, he arrived in the Desert on 13 August 1942 so I find it hard to understand why I'm pro-Monty when he was there for about ten months of a three-year campaign. If anything, I've tried to put Italy back into the war, not take the Axis out. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Make a list of the occasions when Dominion commanders appealed to their governments. As out colleague points out, Dominions were not sovereign states but hybrids. All swore allegiance to the King, used the £ and carried British passports. Your claims are vacuous, the Dominions were at war with the Axis, not the British empire. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
OK Keith-264 ( talk) 13:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
References
Not Rommel, The Axis'. Have you made a list of the times when Dominion commanders appealed to their Dominion government? Keith-264 ( talk) 14:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
In the spring of 1941, Rommel led Operation Sonnenblume, which pushed the British back to Egypt except for the Siege of Tobruk at the port. The British were defeated in Operation Brevity and Operation Battleaxe, then the Axis forces were defeated in Operation Crusader and retreated again to El Agheila. An Axis reconnaissance in force in January 1942 drove back the British back to Gazala between Derna and Tobruk. The Axis attacked again and in the Battle of Gazala defeated the British, captured Tobruk then invaded Egypt, pursuing the British as far as El Alamein. Over three battles, the Eighth Army held, then defeated the Axis forces. During the Second Battle of Alamein in October, Operation Torch, an Anglo-American landing in Morocco and Algeria began, threatening the Axis armies in North Africa from the west. In the Tunisian campaign, the Axis forces were forced to surrender on 13 May 1943.
The Axis never overcame supply constraints limiting the size of their forces in North Africa and the Desert War became a sideshow for Germany after the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. The delivery of Axis supplies was threatened by British forces in Malta and supplies to the British from the empire and the US, despite the long detour around Africa, began to arrive in increasing quantity and quality in late 1942.
Hi this is a notice that I will be changing the caption of the New main article image that was put in by Tobby 72.This is because the caption for the new image says Australian infantry advancing at El Alemein (forgive me if I spell this wrong) despite the fact that the caption for the same image on wiki commons and the Imperial War museum where the image originally came from says the infantry are British not Australian. For the sake of historical accuracy I will correct the main article image caption for the western desert campaign to British infantry advancing as that is what the image source (Imperial War museum) says the image actually is. Tobby 72 if you wish to challenge my decision post here and I will try and get back to you Anonymous contributor 1707 ( talk) 17:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Removed this red link. Some operations that never came to be are clearly notable and with plenty of reliable sources - for instance Operation Sealion would easily qualify as a red link - it would link to a very plausible article (and indeed one has existed for a long time already). But Buckshot? Highly doubtful. Since I cannot find any online sources discussing this operation, I removed the red link per WP:REDDEAL: "If the red link points to a target you feel reasonably certain would be deleted if an article were created, remove the red link."
Now I'm putting the onus on anyone believing there is reason to believe Operation Buckshot could sustain an article about a notable, sourced topic. But really, my advice would be to create the page Operation Buckshot as a redirect here - specifically, to Western Desert campaign#Battle of Gazala. I find it highly likely this section is the only place that Op will ever be discussed, let alone even mentioned. If you do, I've unlinked the red link for you already (the link would be a circular reference). You're welcome, CapnZapp ( talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Elinruby: If you want to copy-edit words you need to check if {{Use British English|date=October 2017}} applies, which means BritEng not AmEng. The % sign isn't used in prose, per cent is used instead (percent in AmEng). Wiki requires only one wikilink per word, phrase or title so if you want to add one e.g. for the 7th Armoured Division, you need to check to see if it has already been linked. There's a shortcut for this importScript('User:jEvad37/duplinks-alt.js'); which goes in a separate user page (see here User:Keith-264/common.js). You shouldn't break paragraphs but if you do you can't leave them un-cited, duplicate the cite instead. If you alter a header, you can't duplicate another header. Stylistic consistency is important and that is why I reverted all your mad commas (those next to conjunctions) which were inconsistent with the style of the article. New editors often meet these pitfalls so I wouldn't worry; I hope this will save you more wasted effort. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I have questions. I will group them here if that works for everyone.
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-783-0107-27, Nordafrika, italienischer Panzer L3-33.jpg|thumb|{{centre|Italian [[L3/33]] [[tankettes]]}}]].
In general if the content of the photo faces right it should be left-justified and if it faces left, right-justified. When you copy-edited them, you put left into the centring formula. Since images go to the right margin unless you specify left or centre, you should have done it like this,
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-783-0107-27, Nordafrika, italienischer Panzer L3-33.jpg|thumb|left|{{centre|Italian [[L3/33]] [[tankettes]]}}]] so that the left-justifying term would look like this |thumb|left|{{centre| (bolded for emphasis), which I would have reverted under the image content convention. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do you want to add material about the Free/Fighting French? Keith-264 ( talk) 18:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The intro is pure non-sense. Trying to correct it but Keith-264, ( talk), you keep re-adding this incorrect information. Why? It literally makes zero sense.
Operation Compass lasted for two months (9 december 1940-9 february 1941), not 5 days. The thing is that it was originally planned as a raid but was extended into a large counter-offensive because of its success. The British were still on Egypt on December 14 (Sollum was recaptured on December 16). At best you can say that the initial phase of Compass was a 5-days-raid in Egypt, then it became a general two-months-advance into Libya.
This sentence is the key problem here:
Operation Compass, a five-day raid by the British was so successful that it led to the destruction of the Italian 10th Army (10ª Armata).
Compass begun on December 9, the 10th army was destroyed at the
Battle of Beda Fomm on February 7.
If you look at the page of Operation Compass, it correctly says that Compass lasted up to February.
So you are effectively writing that there are 5 days between December 9 and February 9. Like, what?
Barjimoa ( talk) 10:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Removed about 20 dupe w/l. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)