Talk:Claude Auchinleck

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known. Dabbler 12:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

World War I

He must have been doing something...

can someone come up with good reference especially for last paragraph.

According to Philip Warner's biography (Auchinleck: The Lonely Soldier):

Auchinleck went to Egypt with his regiment in October 1914 to fight the Turks. In December 1915 they went to Mesopotamia and took part in the attack on Kut-al-Amara. After a brief leave in India in August 1916, Auchinleck rejoined his regiment for the march on Baghdad. He subsequently became Brigade Major of 52 Brigade and after the armistice with Turkey in October 1918 held staff appointments in the 1919 campaign against Kurdish rebels. During the First World War he learned important lessons that were of benefit to him as a General over 20 years later, such as the folly of frontal attacks against heavily prepared positions and the vital necessity of preparing and equipping troops properly before committing them to battle.

Added some details, but no ref yet to Kurdish actions. Folks at 137 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth?

Tim Collins' programme on Auchinleck last night stated he was born in Fermanagh and lived there before joining the army. This seems to say the same. Anyone know for sure? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The main source for Aldershot as the Auk's birthplace is John Keegan's "Churchill's Generals", p 131. There is no mention of any childhood period in India, but seems to otherwise be detailed. The "Dictionary of Ulster Biography" that Stubacca refers to seems reasonably complete on the Auk's military career but misses important detail of his childhood, eg, father's early death. Given that the relevant portion in "Churchill's Generals" is by Philip Warner, who wrote a biography of Auchinleck, I would support Aldershot as most likely to be correct. I will mention the difference, however. This site ([1]) supports Aldershot and even gives the address! Folks at 137 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, pretty big mistake by the BBC if there is no Ulster connection, including him on a programme called the Ulster Generals. Several other sources state Fermanagh, Northern Ireland or Ulster.[2] [3] [4] [5] The family definitely seems to be from Ireland. It seems unclear whether he was born in Ireland, or in Aldershot where his father was stationed at the time of his birth. Do you have Churchill's Generals? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do have a copy: it was on my knee as I typed - there are several Auchinleck biographies mentioned so I expect that they would support Aldershot as the birthplace. "...pretty big mistake by the BBC..." - depends whether the BBC takes responsibility for the content or whether it was by an external production company. There other sites (excluding ones derived from Wiki) that say Aldershot: [6], [7], I have seen a site ([8]) that says the Auchinlecks were Ulster Scots who settled in Co Fermanagh: his father served with the Royal Horse Artillery and was stationed in Aldershot when Claude was born (it doesn't say but it's a reasonable assumption that the family were together). On balance, I'd prefer a source that has a supporting bibliography, rather than the ones without citations. Folks at 137 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have Warner's biosgraphy? Google Books only has a limited preview, making one mention of Fermanagh. Even if he wasn't born there, I think it is worth mentioning the family are from Fermanagh. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have any bio on Auk apart from the chapter in "Churchill's generals", but I'll keep an eye on this and try to get more citations. Folks at 137 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Montgomery is also in the programme according to the same web site and he was born in London, I think they were looking at generals with Ulster ancestry and family connections. Montgomery's family came from Donegal (historical Ulster). Alanbrooke was born in France and he too is considered an "Ulster general" in the programme. Dabbler 11:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Montgomery considered himself "Irish and a Donegal man". Donegal is in Ulster, not historical Ulster. Auchinleck may have actually been born in Ulster, but with the conflicting sources it is hard to say. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Received from the National Army Museum in London:

"Thank you for your email of 11 July.

The three biographies (listed below) that we hold in this Museum and his entry in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography state that Field Marshall Sir Claude Auchinleck was born in Aldershot.

Field Marshall Auchinleck by Alexander Greenwood (Aldershot, Pentland).

Auchinleck the Lonely Soldier by Philip Warner (Aldershot, Buchan & Enright, 1981).

Auchinleck by John Connell (Aldershot, Cassell 1959).

I hope that you will find this information useful."

I think that settles it. Auchinleck was born in Aldershot into an Ulster family. Folks at 137 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does, good job contacting them. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It ought to be fairly easy to settle this by popping in to the General Register Office in London. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should refer to Aldershot. Dormskirk (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Correlli Barnett

Would anyone mind if ...sometime or other... I included something in reference to Correlli Barnett's 'rehabilitation' of Auchenleck's reputation. I thought his conclusions were interesting, especially his analysis of Auchenleck's contribution (in planning) towards the second battle of Alamein. Chrisw zeroenmity (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Postwar residence

Hello,

I have a letter from Auchinleck to Agar-Hamilton dated Nov 1954 and on printed notepaper with an address in London. Since Agar-Hamilton had sent him a copy of his book we might assume that he maintained his London address at that time (5 Green Park Chambers, Piccadilly, W.1.). I am not adding any comment since more detail might be needed. I will add Agar-Hamilton's book CRISIS IN THE DESERT MAY-JULY 1942 which is of direct relevance to Auchinleck.

anotheranne Anotheranne (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Auchinleck POV

I don't mean to be a jerk, but which apologist wrote the majority of this article? The whole thing adopts a glowing, almost idolatrous tone from the very start.

I realize Wikipedia exists primarily to house glowing, shame-free biographies that avoid "doing any harm" to anyone's historical legacy, but this is ridiculous. There's at least 4 paragraphs that are nothing but uncited anecdotes about Auchinleck's amazing manly derring-do, whether it's in the face of the Germans or appendicitis, and it's disgusting to anyone seeking a factual, even-toned assessment of his historical role in World War II. Anybody mind if I clean it up a bit? I didn't come to read the man's eulogy and I doubt anybody else did either. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than come in with a complete blanket denunciation of many years of work on this article, perhaps you could identify areas you find problematic and fix them with appropriate citations so that we are all convinced of your superior knowledge of the biography of the man and not that it is merely your opinion. Dabbler (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't blanketly denounce it all, just "the majority" :). And he has a point, this article doesn't look professional.

For starters I propose deleting the first paragraph of the Retirement section. It's partisan, devoid of facts and 100% non referenced:

Although a somewhat dour character, Auchinleck was known as a generous and welcoming host. Despite being a general for longer than almost any other soldier, he was never pompous, and hated all forms of display and affectation. Above all, he was a soldier of the utmost integrity, whose reputation, unlike that of many Allied officers, has grown with passing years. To him, military action was a duty. As a person, he hated slaughter and was not prepared to sacrifice men no matter what orders came from London against his better judgment. Less so when the purpose was simply for securing a short-term political effect for a Prime Minister who took few risks himself.

Does anyone disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.92.88 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we simply edit the parts of the article that need citations or need to be edited for neutrality? The quoted para clearly lacks both citations and neutrality, and the point about pointless sacrifice is made elsewhere in the article with evidence from his WW1 experience. We could also describe the controversy around A by explicitly stating the for and against positions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph is lacking references, but largely does describe his character, for example when he turned down an offer of a barony, he was asked 30 years later by his biographer (A.Greenwood) why, and his biography notes as the reply to Mountbatten's letter

Again no written reply to this important letter survives, but when I taxed Auchinleck abut this in Morroco thirty years later he replied: `Oh, I replied on the telephone, I think. I told him I was easy about it and would do whatever he thought best at the time. I did tell him that I would not accept any further honours. I had achieved the highest rank in my profession and that was all that really mattered, to me at any rate. You know Alex, I'm a beer and skittles man. What would I do with all the trappings of a lord?'

I think this reply tells us a lot about the man and how he viewed things, it also shows up key inaccuracies in this article. I think a key problem is that the feud, if it could be called such a thing since it was one sided, between factions supporting Montgomery and Auchinleck has tainted many articles, so while the official explanation may have been given as him not wanting to appear to support partition we have to accept his word here, he was after, a beer and skittles man when it came to fancy titles.

So I do disagree with a lot of this article, I will make some edits and back them up with references in this talk area, there always will be at least two accounts of events, but key facts such as Auchinleck possessing an "overwhelming advantage in material" at the first battle of El-Alamein are distortions of history that are not backed up by facts. He took command (from his deputy) of a defeated army, that lacked transport, had inferior armor and was a long way from its supply lines, he fought an efficient and successful German/Italian army to a stand still by both working within the limits of his forces and also "out foxing the fox" (I will back this up with a key point in the battle). I believe it was an inconvenient fact to Monty and his faction that he appeared on the battlefield in a strong position, as it was much better for his image to write himself as the "savior" of the Eight army, to do this he had to write Auchinleck out of the history as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch r stanton (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The article was rated B-class in 2013 following extensive improvements and quite a lot of hard work. So if you are adding additional material please use in-line citations (specifying the book that you are using as a source and the relevant page number) in accordance with WP:SOURCE. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

North Africa

"By July 1942 Auchinleck had lost the confidence of Dominion commanders and relations with his British commanders had become strained." Is there a reference for this because I have not read anything to this effect? He was disconcerting the traditional tank officers - all proteges of Brooke - but that is another matter. Clearly Brooke had personal animosity against Auchinleck for his wish to get armoured and infantry forces more closely aligned, which ran counter to the traditions of the British Army.

"Once more, Auchinleck's appreciation of the situation was faulty (Auchinleck had believed the Axis forces would attack the centre of the British line, whereas Rommel's attack outflanked the British from the south). The Eighth Army retreated into Egypt; Tobruk fell on 21 June." I believe it would be fairer to say that Auchinleck advised Ritchie that the attack would come from one of 2 directions and that he should be certain whether he not he was facing a feint attack before committing his forces and he outlined a position from where he could cover both lines of attack, which Ritchie ignored.

can you list the bad appointments made by Auchinleck - apart, obviously from Ritchie and, arguably, Cunningham and Corbett? De Guingand, for example, seems to have been a success. The comments on Dorman-Smith are unfair in that he was only in post for just over a month, during which Auchinleck achieved his biggest military success.

Quevedo (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

One point: Carver gives a quite different account of Auchinleck and Ritchie's relationship in "Dilemmas of the Desert War", and certainly one that is more favourable to Ritchie than the one you state above. Chapter five covers the battle and, rather than stating that Ritchie "ignored" Auchinleck's advice, it actually quotes Auchinleck's agreement with Ritchie's positions. This is obviously contrary to Corelli Barnett etc, but I'm inclined to believe Carver over him. Although there is obviously room in the article for both accounts. Leithp 16:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that I would quote this in Ritchie's favour. I have just consulted Barrie Pitt's Crucible of War again. It is clear that Auchinleck expected the attack to come from the west but still saying that Ritchie should cover both options by placing his 2 armoured divisions astride the Trig Capuzzo. In fact, Ritchie placed both of his armoured divisions to the south. However, having guessed correctly that Rommel would attack from the south, Ritchie's army did not act concertedly, mainly because the commanders - Norrie, Lumsden and Messervy - refused to cooperate. Carver was present at the battle and had direct experience of how the commanders refused to work together, with the result that the armour was diluted and too much focus was placed on static boxes. Did Ritchie realise that his team were not on the same side? Maybe Auchinleck in Cairo should have realised but it looks to me as if Ritchie on the ground was unaware of the problems. I would fault Auchinleck however in agreeing to the creation of brigade groups - he had not yet realised that mass artillery and mobility were the keys to this war. Quevedo (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel there is an over reliance on quotes from Allanbooke`s war diaries in this article, particuarly when one considers Alanbrooke was almost a patron of Montgomery (the man he recommended and pushed for to replace Auchinlek). The whole thing seems too negative about Auchinlek`s abilities as a General. Let`s remember that (according to Gordon Corrigan : The Second World War p288) Churchill wanted to get rid of The Auk for refusing to attack Rommel too soon, and put in Montgomery who in actual fact attacked one month later than Auchinlek had insisted upon waiting until ! --JustinSmith (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Churchill's own history of WWII (Vol 4, The Hinge of Fate, Chapter 22) contains many original telegrams between Churchill and Auchinleck, and it's clear from these that Churchill believed Auchinleck was adopting too defensive a strategy: in particular waiting for Rommel to attack. Churchill thought - wrongly or rightly - that an early attack might have succeeded as Rommel would have had less time to build up his forces. But although there's no clear statement along the lines I "[Churchill] wanted to get rid of The Auk for refusing to attack Rommel too soon" in the book, it is clear that Churchill felt he had been misled by Auchinleck over his plans to defend Tobruk, which Churchill clearly felt at the time had been surrendered too easily. Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The commanders in North Africa prior to Montgomery where hampered by factors he himself was able to eradicate, the lack of spares and general unreliability in the desert of the British armour, as well as having their plans unwittingly placed in Italian and German hands by Bonner Fellers, the US military attaché in Cairo, with as an additional result of these leaks being much replacement materiel intended for the British forces ending up on the bottom of the Mediterranean. In addition, these leaders were goaded into making premature attacks by Churchill - who was under pressure in the House of Commons at the time - when they weren't actually capable of taking advantage of any wins.

When Montgomery arrived the leaks from Cairo had been stopped, and he set about correcting many of these problems, including making sure the troops knew him, and what sort of leader he was, as many of the troops had never seen their commanders and as a result morale had become low. He also resited Churchill's attempts to make him go-off at 'half cock', instead instigating a training and fitness regime for the men to bring them up to the standards he considered necessary. He was also greatly assisted by the arrival from America of 300 Sherman tanks which were probably the best tanks in North Africa when they arrived. He was also given a specific goal to achieve, which was to "Destroy Rommel and his Army" which allowed him to plan a more long-term strategy. It is probably fair to say that both the earlier leaders and the men had become mentally tired of all the repeated advances and subsequent retreats previously and needed a rest. Troops were disillusioned with taking ground at cost in lives, only to see it given up because the forces lacked the strength in numbers, or indeed a plan, to hold it. Montgomery said that this would not happen again, and for the most part, it didn't.

The commanders in North Africa prior to Montgomery are often criticised for their handling of the early phase of the campaign but it should be born in mind that they had been forced to 'make-do' with what was then-available. It may also be fair to say that some of them may not have taken the lessons of France in 1940 to heart to the extent that Montgomery had, but that may be incorrect.

I nearly forgot, Montgomery also had the benefit of Ultra, he had been fully-briefed on it shortly before arriving in North Africa, and he wasn't able to mention this in any of his published books due to the Official Secrets Act, as it's existence was only admitted publicly in 1973 three years before his death. He was IIRC the first field commander to be so-informed, none of his predecessors had been aware of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.241 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Feud with Monty

In his memoirs, Montgomery claimed that on his arrival in Egypt, the Auk showed him only the plans for retreat up the Nile. In fact, he showed him the whole strategy for what became the second Battle of Alamein, with the Nile retreat as a contingency plan in the event of defeat. Under threat of a lawsuit by the Auk, the next printing of the memoirs had to carry a formal correction. 86.179.207.23 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, Monty's wiki-page says: He was threatened with legal action by Field Marshal Auchinleck for suggesting that Auchinleck had intended to retreat from the Alamein position if attacked again, and had to give a radio broadcast (20 November 1958) expressing his gratitude to Auchinleck for having stabilised the front at the First Battle of Alamein. The 1960 paperback edition of his memoirs contains a publisher's note drawing attention to that broadcast, and stating that in the publisher's view the reader might reasonably assume from Montgomery's text that Auchinleck had been planning to retreat "into the Nile Delta or beyond" and pointing out that it had been Auchinleck's intention to launch an offensive as soon as the Eighth Army was "rested and regrouped". Valetude (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"I arrived at the airfield outside Cairo early on the 12th August. I was met and taken to the Mena House Hotel near the Great Pyramid, where General Auchinleck had a room; there I had a bath and breakfast, and was driven to Middle East H.Q. in Cairo. I arrived there soon after 10 a.m. and was taken to see Auchinleck. It was very hot and I was wearing service dress as in England; I had sent my A.D.C off to buy me some desert kit.

Auchinleck took me into his map-room and shut the door; we were alone. He asked me if I knew he was to go. I said that I did. He then explained that at all costs the Eighth Army was to be preserved 'in being' and must not be destroyed in battle. If Rommel attacked in strength, (my bold) as was expected soon, the Eighth Army would fall back on the Delta; if Cairo and the Delta could not be held, (my bold) the army would retreat southwards up the Nile, and another possibility was a withdrawal to Palestine. Plans were being made to move the Eighth Army H.Q. back up the Nile.

I listened in amazement to this exposition of his plans. I asked one or two questions, but I quickly saw that he resented any question directed to immediate changes of policy about which he had already made up his mind. So I remained silent.

He then said I was to go down to the desert the next day spend two days at Eighth Army H.Q., getting into the picture and learning the game. He was himself still commanding the Eighth Army, and he had ordered Ramsden to act for him. I was not to take over command till the 15th August, the day on which he would himself hand over to Alexander; he wished these two events to be simultaneous. In the event of an enemy attack, or of some crisis occurring, he himself would at once come to Eighth Army H.Q. and take direct command again from Ramsden. It all seemed most peculiar and I got out of the room as soon as I decently could.

.... "The acting Army Commander, Lt.-Gen. Ramsden, met me. I knew him of old since he had commanded the Hampshire Regiment in my 8th Division in Palestine in 1938-39; he was a very good battalion commander in those days and I had not met him since. He explained the situation to me. I cross-examined him about the Army plans for a withdrawal if Rommel attacked; certain orders had been issued but they were indefinite (my bold). There was an air of uncertainty about everything in the operational line, nor was Army H.Q. in close touch with the H.Q. of the Desert Air Force.

It was clear to me that the situation was quite unreal and, in fact, dangerous. I decided at once to take action. I had been ordered not to take over command of the Eighth Army till the 15th August; it was still only the 13th. I knew it was useless to consult G.H.Q. and that I must take full responsibility myself. I told General Ramsden he was to return at once to his Corps; he seemed surprised as he had been placed in acting command of the Army, but he went. I then had lunch, with the flies and in the hot sun. During lunch I did some savage thinking. After lunch I wrote a telegram to G.H.Q saying that I had assumed command of the Eight Army as from 2 p.m. that day, the 13th August; this was disobedience, but there was no come-back. I then cancelled all previous orders about withdrawal." .

If the claim about threatening legal action is true then if going to law Auchinleck would most likely have lost, as there was no-one else in the room and it was one man's word against the other's. Any reputable solicitor could have told either of them, and the publisher, this.

BTW, Auchinleck's plan for possible withdrawal (alleged or not) was a perfectly sound strategy if made on the assumption of the Eighth Army having insufficient strength to hold Rommel off, which as far as Auchinleck was concerned, may indeed have been the case. It was also sound to wish to preserve the Army rather than risk its loss as had almost been the case for the BEF at Dunkirk, and as had actually happened to the Italians in North Africa earlier. However, Montgomery had been personally informed before he left England by Churchill of the impending arrival of reinforcements in the shape of 300 Sherman tanks. In addition, Montgomery's instructions from Alexander expressly stated his task was to be "To destroy Rommel and his Army", i.e, to attack rather than to preserve the Eighth Army at all costs. Simply put, the Army's priorities had been changed, as had its commander, and so Auchinleck's previous plans had become to some extent, irrelevant.

" ... had to give a radio broadcast (20 November 1958) expressing his gratitude to Auchinleck for having stabilised the front at the First Battle of Alamein." - that was part of Auchinleck's job - Montgomery had no need to thank him for just doing his job, a job which would be expected of any army commander. Unfortunately, if true, it says more about Auchinleck as a commander than it does about Montgomery.

" ... In fact, he showed him the whole strategy for what became the second Battle of Alamein, ... " - I rather suspect that if he had Montgomery would have mentioned it in his memoirs, as well as pointing out everything he thought wrong with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.222 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the quoted text above is from the 1958 first edition of Montgomery's memoirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.249 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Auk's marriage

You say his wife left him for an RAF officer in 1946 - and that is the only mention her. Who was she? When and where did they marry? Did she accompany him on any of his postings? And were there any children? 86.179.207.23 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Details of the officer now included. Dormskirk (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks wrong

The following, from Retirement, looks wrong:

"Lord Auckinleck attended the 1953 Spithead Review. He boarded the MV Caltex Bahrain, a merchant tanker of the Overseas Tankship Fleet."

-- I suggest it be removed, entirely and right away, until someone who knows all this well tidies it up -- just for instance, a) he wasn't a Lord, and b) his name isn't even spelled correctly -- so both of those make me suspect that the silly-sounding & citation-needed remainder, "attended the 1953 Spithead Review. He boarded the MV Caltex Bahrain, a merchant tanker of the Overseas Tankship Fleet", is just some troll mucking about, here. Kessler (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I expect there was a Spithead Review in 1953 -- and Auchinleck may have been there, yes, altho that needs a cite -- but why does it matter, to anyone, that he boarded the MV Caltex Bahrain? And even if he did that needs a cite too. Kessler (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed quite a bit of uncited material about activities during his retirement. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Statue.

Why is there no mention of his statue near Five Ways in Birmingham that previously stood in the recently demolished Auchinleck Square?213.205.252.240 (talk)

"The house where Auchinleck was born as it was in 2016"

I find this image absurd. It doesn't illustrate the life of Auchinleck, so does anyone have any views against removing it? Moonraker (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Support its removal. Dormskirk (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of homosexuality or worse

Is somebody able to edit in the fact that although Ronald Hyam does indeed allege that Auchinleck was "let off with a high-level warning" over his relationships with Indian boys, his book, Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience, provides no source or reference for the allegation? I can find nobody who has gone to print with anything more concrete than hearsay on this matter. I'd pen the caveat myself, only editing is restricted. The relevant pages are online if anybody needs to check. There is a footnote, but it refers to other points in the paragraph.Charley Fortnum (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What is actual pronunciation?

What is actual pronunciation of his name? Please add the IPA! Propatriamori (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)