Talk:North African campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

German operations

Western Desert

• Sonnenblum / Sonnenblume
• Skorpion
• Sommernachtstraum
• Theseus
• Venezia
• Aida
• Brandung

Tunisia †

• Eilbote: Capture the Kebir River dam and to drive the French off the Eastern Dorsal in Tunisia
• Morgenluft: Against Gafsa after Operation FRUEHLINGSWIND
• Frühlingswind / Fruehlingswind: German Fifth Panzer Army attack against Sidi Bou Zid
• Sturmflut: Against the Kasserine Pass and Sbiba gap
• Capri: An attack against Médenine
• Ochsenkopf: Extend the Tunis bridgehead by capturing Bédja and Medjez el Bab
• Ausladung: Secondary attack designed to extend the Tunis bridgehead in the north as part of Operation OCHSENKOPF

† - Definitions taken from US Army Index of Code Names

HOW ITALIANS ACCEPTED WORLD WAR II (citation).

Sir David Hunt (officer of the British Secret Service) said: "I believe that the war of 1940 was the most popular war the Italians were ever engaged in...For the first five months of the war at least, all the prisoners we and the Greeks took, spoke with great confidence of a successful outcome and boasted of the future greatness of Italy, victorious at the side of Germany."

Gibraltar

It said the "pivotal island nation of Gibraltar." This is clearly incorrect as Gibraltar is a peninsula and not an island. I am really not sure of the validity of that whole sentence, but I left that for wiser men with better credentials to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.140.142 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to "Strait of Gibraltar" which I think is more accurate in the context of the sentence.

moved from the article for the mo

The Northern African Campaign was strategically pivotal to the ambitions of both the Allied and Axis Supreme Commands. For the Allies, the campaign was a very deliberate means of stretching the Axis forces along a second front. Hitler's primary concern remained "Fortress Europa", and it was his determination to focus prime resources towards helping ease pressure along the Eastern Front, that would prove to be of vital relief to the Allied Forces in North Africa and the Mediterranean. The Axis powers had planned to dominate the Mediterranean by first planning to control the pivotal Strait of Gibraltar and also the Suez Canal. Hitler had, along with his War Cabinet, ambitiously planned to follow a successful campaign in North Africa with a strike North to the rich oil fields of the Middle East. Hitler's primary goals being to: (1) cut off Allied access to the oil supplies, and (2) in so doing, simultaneously and tremendously increase Axis oil supplies for which to power the Axis War Machine.

Article structure

I'll be working on this article once I get the proper background material (ie, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War) done. Oberiko 03:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The region itself was of considerable importance, as it held key resources such as oilfields and could serve as a launching point into the vulnerable southern front of either Fortress Europe or the Soviet Union." I've removed this, as I'm unaware of any oilfields in North Africa, then or since. Writer was presumably assuming that the Middle East was included. As far as I'm aware the only important resource in the areas was the Suez Canal. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The canal was important, but the points about southern Europe and the USSR are also correct and it was well-known that the whole region had some oil. Libya is a major petroleum exporter.

Also I really wish people would not use "British" and "American" instead of Allied, especially when they represent a minority of the Allied forces concerned. Grant65 (Talk) 15:26, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

From a British perspective, "The North African Campaign" is only part of this theatre because the Middle East Command in Cairo which commanded the forces in the western desert, was also responsible for All of the Middle East and East Africa including Persia (when Persia was not under India Command). That is why there was a mention of Oil and the Soviet Union. At the time it was half expected that Germany would invade the North of the Middle East either by Greek island hopping or via Turkey. I am not sure where articles on the none African portions of the command should be placed. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Philip Baird Shearer 20:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Asides from the North African Campaign (which we'll assume for the moment includes the East African Campaign, the Western Desert, Torch and Tunisia), the only other events of scale are the Battle of the Mediterranean and possibly the Iraqi uprising. I think it would probably be best to expand on the British perspective on those from within the respectice articles, and have British Middle East Command as a sort of second-parent to them and the EAC, WDC, and the British role in Tunisia.

It also gets a bit more confusing, as Torch and (some of) Tunisia also fall under the Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO) as well as here. The best solution I can offer would be to mention those facts from within the respective arcticles. Oberiko 02:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that you are confused. The key to MTO is the "operations" bit it is an internal US Army term so that they can keep track of their own forces administratively. To understand what the term means, one has to understand that there is a difference between operational command and administrative command. For most armies particularly the American Army the rear echelon forces (REMF) are far more numerous than the fighting forces and all the forces have to be fed and clothed etc. (logistics). One of the things that the REMF do is keep track of who should get what gong to be handed out with the rations (campaign (not merit) medals). For this reason the US military keeps a list of campaigns which may or may not have anything to do with operational campaigns which are conducted in that theatre; because if no Americans take part in an operation, there is no gong, so no need to keep a record of it. (For example the Canadians were involved in fighting Holland in 1945, where is that campaign mentioned in the American ETO records?) So in the MTO there was the operational command AFHQ which was combined allied command, and the Administrative commands MTOUSA (for US troops) its British equivalent CMF. This is best illustrated by the South East Asian Theatre. The Initial command operational command was ABDA, followed by British India Command followed by a combined Allied command SEAC. But as there were US forces in the theatre they were administered through the China Burma India Theater which was not designated "Operations" because it did not have an operational command until SEAC was set up, the forces were under India Command not an Allied one.

Another example for you is Egypt-Libya Campaign. It exists because a few USAAF personnel fought with the Allies in the western desert (and the army administration needed to issue rations and a gong), but to give it any prominence in any list of operational campaigns is just confusing.

I think Articles on operational commands should on should only include information of the command structures and who ran what. Eg SEAC and sub commands like ALFSEA with links to an order of battle, and the main article on their campaings/actions . Campaigns and the battles should be in a separate article eg South-East Asian Theatre. In the long run we need two operational commands articles (Axis and Allied) for each campaign and battle.

Most people who read the articles in this encyclopedia expect to read about all the fighting in a theatre and not have it segmented up along the lines which were most convenient for REMF bureaucrats. In this case I think what we need to do is create another Article to cover a Broader Theatre which includes Greece, the Middle East, East Africa, and North Africa. The section in this document on East Africa should be moved out of this article into it.

It would look something like the North African Campaign article you have written but should contain an initial paragraph explaining the command structures (as I have added to the MTO and the Burma Campaign etc.) to explain to mortals what how modern Armies set up their command structures and to remove any detailed mention of it from the operational sections.

• Introduction
• Command Structures
• Middle east planning consideration
  • Strategic importance Oil and the Suez Canal.
    • Potential Attacks from: Greek islands into French Lebanon, Turkey, Caucuses, and the one which happened North Africa.
    • Potential lines of attack to: Air attacks on South east Europe Rumanian etc., Land attacks link up with the Soviets through Persia, or via Greece through the Balkans. and the one chosen accross the med to Italy (the one which was used)
• East Africa
• Balkans Campaign and the Battle of Crete
• Middle East (based on British_military_history_of_World_War_II#Iraq, Syria and Persia)
• North Africa (this article)
• Naval Warfare (sinking battle ships, supply ships etc), including Malta (A convoy with 4 aircraft carriers and 2 battle ships needs a mention)!
• The key role that Ultra played in the theatre in denying supplies to North Africa.
• The Balkans (part 2), the Partisans (in various countries) and the Greek Civil War.
• Also East Africa and East Indian Ocean (British fleet in Kilindini in east Africa), Vichy French Madagascar (Operation Ironclad).

Without this additional information the articles on WWII theatres are missing a lot of information. It is as if an Australian wrote an article about the Pacific war concentrating on the South-West Pacific Area under the command of Douglas MacArthur, (Using Australian battle honours for the name of campaigns even if they are not the usual names which are used) and ignoring the whole of the Pacific Ocean Areas under Chester Nimitz. Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to including which admisitrative body held command where, I never said I did. What I am against is removing content from this article to place elsewhere (though copying it to put it into MEC or MTO is quite satisfactory). I also have no problem with having a section on the possible goals or consequences of actions here in other theatres or campaigns.

what is MEC do you mean AFHQ?

By MEC, I mean (British) Middle East Command

What I do object to is bloating this article with information that is best held elsewhere. Operations in the Mediterranean are, generally from I've read, held somewhat separate from the North African Campaign (which focuses on the land campaigns). Most of the naval actions fall within the Battle of the Mediterranean (BoM), which I agree are part of the MEC, but not, IMO of the NAC. I do believe there is some overlap (such as naval bombardment) but on a whole they are two fairly seperate, if heavily linked, campaigns.

And the East African Campaign is argueably part of the North African Campaign (it was in North-East Africa), and, when it is mentioned (it gets little attention in comparison to the Western Desert), it is usually alluded to as part of the greater campaign. For now I would leave it in along with a tag-line stating that is sometimes considered somewhat seperate.

As for campaigns within the general region, but not in North Africa, I'm not sure where to put them either, for, as I stated, the only major ones I know are the BoM and the Iraqi uprising. Being that the BoM should have it's own full article, that just leaves the Iraqi uprising which should probably have its own as well. Likely we need a full Africa and the Middle-East theatre (as I seen you've done in the template) and simply place them under there as well as in the MEC. Oberiko 14:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most of the Navel activity, with the exception of the sinking of the French fleet [which I think is a condition reflex in the the Royal navy "We are at war! Quick sink the French navy. Now who is it we fighting?" ;-) ] was tactical to help the the Army based in Egypt it was nothing like the battle of the Atlantic. It is impossible to understand the importance of Malta without North Africa. To secure Ultra every ship on its way to North Africa which was to be sunk had to be eyeballed by a spotter plane. Without Malta that would have been difficult. If those supplies of men and material had got through, it might have been enough to tip the balance in the theatre. So there is a symbiotic relationship between Ultra, Malta and North Africa. The Royal Navy was hardly likely to risk 4 aircraft carriers and 2 battle ships for anything less than theatre domination.

I think that the key lies in the command structure, particularly when the article is not large. For example the (first) Balkans Campaign and the Battle of Crete fit in well with the Middle East because the same C-in-C was responsible for both. Knowing that Crete was seen at the time as a potential island hoping campaign (like the Americans later in the war across the Pacific) helps to put it in context. This of course works both ways and helps to explain the decision that Hitler made to attack the Balkans before the Soviet Union, was not just a political act to aid Italy, but had strategic reasons in sealing that line of attack into Germany from the British Middle East. What the British could not know at the time was if the move by the Germans was was defensive (as it turned out to be) or offensive.

Although the US contribution to North Africa should not be under-estimated it should not be over-estimated either. If Operation Torch had not taken place the British would have won in N. Africa without US Ground forces. The British had been fighting four campaigns commanded by the British Middle East Command: Balkans, North Middle East, East Africa and the Western Desert. By the time operation Torch started the end was in sight in that theatre and a new one was about to start in Southern Europe. So to break the work of the AFHQ command into two campaigns/theatres makes sense because the action took place on two diffrent continents and the input of AFHQ in Africa was modest (It did not take command of the theatre until February 1943 and the Axis forces in Africa surrendered on May 13), Most of the fighting had been done under the command and planning of the Middle East Command. What does not make sense to me is to include two of four camaigns in an article and ignore the other two. If this article is about the North Africa campaign , why include East Africa if there is a parent article about the whole theatre?

To quote General Slim:

It was especially good to be commanding the 10th Indian Division. We had as a division, found ourselves. We had scrambled through the skirmishes of the Iraq rebellion, been bloodied, but not too deeply, against the French in Syria, and enjoyed unrestrainedly the 'opera boufe' of the invasion of Persia. We had bought our beer in Haifa and drunk it on the shores of the Caspian... Now in March 1942... it was stimulating to be at what we all felt was the critical spot, waiting for the threatened German invasion of Turkey. [Page 3 of Defeat into Victory]

Philip Baird Shearer 18:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I won't argue if you want to seperate East Africa from under the North African Campaign, as it seems that I find as many sources including it as I do excluding it. I do suggest that at the least, we leave a note in the begining noting that it is sometimes considered a part of this conflict (much like the Continuation War is to the Eastern Front).

I'm not against including the impact that Malta and the BoM had on the NAC by any means, I just don't want to have them be focal points or highly detailed (they are, as mentioned, entitled to full seperate articles). Statements concerning the shifting supply situations, diversion of resources or other matters that affected the ground campaign should of course iLink to appropriate pages and give some details. Oberiko 22:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that we have two theatres Middle East Theatre of World War II and Mediterranean Theatre of World War II I would like to go ahead and remove East Africa from this article. This is because the Middle East Theatre does not include Operation Torch or anything after the Eighth Army leave Libya. So the two articles East Africa and Western Desert are referred to directly not via this article. I would like to make this a major article in the Mediterranean theatre but restrict that theatre to countries bordering the Med. Taking East Africa out of this article does that. Philip Baird Shearer 20:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be very sensible.Grant65 (Talk) 02:56, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

General Alexander?

Perhaps it is due to the African theatre being seperated from the middle east, - which is, as noted above an american idiosyncracy - but I found it strange there was no mention of Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis here. --D.C.Rigate 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Patton

This is my first time. I don't claim to be an expert but Patton was the "on the ground" commander during the U.S. African fighting -- not Eisenhower. If you are going to give Montgomery as commander of British Forces, then his counterpart was Patton -- not Eisenhower. There was another brit -- I can't recall his name, over all land forces during this time.

If you need me to, I can site a reference to a biography of Patton I just read last summer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.192.143.213 (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

General Alexander was in overall ground command of operation torch. 122.148.142.131 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Patton and Monty (as well as others) have been removed now in favour of only Army Group and Theater commanders.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower WAS the overall commander of Torch. Patton was commander of Operation Brushwood which was a component part of Torch.GDD1000 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nations

Can we have some justification (troops, divisions etc.) for nations involved in the NAC outside of the British Empire, Australia, United States, Italy and Germany? I don't believe all the ones currently listed are major belligerents. Oberiko (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thought. The French had a Corps in Tunisia (plus the Brigade with 8th Army), so no prob there, Aussies had 2 Divs on and off as did the South Africans and Indians, NZ had 1 Div, Poles had a brigade as did the Czechs and the Greeks. Depends what you consider "significant" and where the cut-off should be. One obvious error is Canada which had its first experience in the mediterranean in the Sicily campaign, so shouldn't be there at all! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

Canadian Forces http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/northafrican_e.htmlGDD1000 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In which battles did this Czech brigade serve?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tobruk apparantly - http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=133582GDD1000 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More Czech info here http://www.nasenoviny.com/FreeArmyMidEastEN.htmlGDD1000 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea thats right, jogged my memory now :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue against Canada, one RAF squadron can't be considered a major investment. I'm also not keen on including the Czechs, Poles and Greeks if it's just one brigade each; instead I'd favour using "Allied governments-in-exile" as an umbrella term. Oberiko (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada obviously had ground troops there. For that reason I would say include them. Same goes for the other nations. If they had a fighting contingent there then show it as such.GDD1000 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, that reasoning leads to a chain reaction. Let's look at Brazil. They had a relatively prominent role in the Battle of Monte Cassino, does that make them a major belligerent in the Italian Campaign? If so, wouldn't that make them a major belligerent in the Mediterranean theatre of World War II? If so, wouldn't that make them a major belligerent in the European-Atlantic Theatre? If so, wouldn't that make them a major belligerent in World War II? A second example would be Vichy France; they sent volunteer divisions over to assist the Germans on the Eastern Front, does that make them a major belligerent there?

If we don't curb, we do the readers a disservice. Not only do we create far-to-large infoboxes, but we do add confusion about the nations that were major belligerents by "watering down" the list. Oberiko (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No Canadian infantry or armoured units took part in the fighting in North Africa. An infantry division and an armoured brigade was transferred to the Med theater for Husky after the conclusion of fighting in North Africa and after there high command requested action. The link you provided only states that they provided air and some naval support.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Oberiko's argument - in principle (although actually there were no Brazilians at Cassino - they didn't start leaving Brazil for Italy until July 44). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, my mistake. I suppose I was thinking Winter Line instead of Gothic Line. Oberiko (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Combatants

Come on guys last finish this off, who is staying and who is going? In a simlar discussion for Battle of Normandy i voted for the inclusion of countries such as Australia, Norway etc which are now in the info box as i see it being somewhat disprespecting to remove them because they only provided x ammount of men/resources but others provided more.

However, in the Operation Overlord article - the countries have been named in the article itself and the info box just has the general title "Western Allies". Which also seems suitable.

Prehaps we should do the latter? Since like the Overlord article this is the top layer. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost on this one. I notice that the Free French are not mentioned (nor their commander in theater) and that there is no mention of Montgomery in the commanders box, despite being mentioned in the text a number of times. Also, is there an specific order for the commanders (alphabetical, temporal etc.)?

Re EnigmaMcmxc comments, I think that the ANZACs should be mentioned (I am not clear on Norway) as there were certainly Australian units who played a significant role (my father was a staff officer in the NA campaign and that was always the impression he gave). Purple Aubergine (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of Montgomery / Free French commander not appearing in the infobox: since this is the "top layer" article it should have only the top layer commanders i.e. theatre and army group commanders. This is why Montgomery does not appear (nor Rommel for that matter). As to combatants I believe that any country that made a material contribution should appear. We currently seem to have everyone who provided a brigade or more mentioned. Personally at this level I would cut it off at a division but I can live with the current position. The infobox should provide an at a glance summary giving the key bits of information to the casual reader. Putting in too many names (particularly peripheral ones) is unhelpful in this respect but there again so is putting in too little (and I suggest that putting in "Western Allies" as the combatants falls into the too little category). I can't see how one can codify this so it ends up subjective (and therefore not easy). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Axis Casualties?

I'm just wondering how Germany can have casualties of around 16,000 and the British can have casualties of around 33,000, and yet the Axis has 950,000 total casualties? I have to assume this is some kind of a mistake/vandalism, but I'm no expert. And also, shouldn't Monty be a British commander? TheXenocide (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking at the reference given, the 950,000 includes the 250,000 captured after the surrender in Tunisia and presumably the large numbers of non-mechanised troops that were captured after Alamein 2 and also the 130,000 odd captured after Operation Compass. The British Empire numbers look low considering they include Western Desert and Tunisia (and the figure for Alamein 2 alone is given as 16,500) but I haven't found a suitable reference with a more plausible number. As far as the commanders box is concerned, only Theatre and Army Group commanders are included in this high level article so Monty's out. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

has no one good figures of british casualties? -- HROThomas (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

british casualties

british casualties seem to be wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

I'm not being funny but shouldn't it be titled North Africa Campaign. The current title suggests the campaign is African, rather than stating the location of the campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.50.104 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranks

Can we please give the commanders there correct ranks, ive just changed several instances of people having been given promotions by writers.

General is not the short term for Lieutenant-General, there different ranks.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact, the term "General" can be used for any of the General ranks except Brigadier and Field Marshall. It's a matter of opinion whether or not Major or Lieutenant needs to be put in front to qualify the rank.GDD1000 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct when considering how to address a general in direct speech. However, just lazy writing in an encyclopaedia and confuses the casual reader. The normal style in Wikipedia is to establish precise rank on first mentioning an individual and then referring only by name (without rank) unless a promotion occurs during the period being written about. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very useful information, something with which I can readily agree. Thank you.GDD1000 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a slight error describing Rommel as field marshal at the beginning of campaign in africa. As far as I know he was promoted to field marshal after he captured Tobruk in 1942 after his victory in the battle of Gazala. I think his rank in 1941 was lieutenant general. See wiki page about Rommel to confirm this. Emtom (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct: he was promoted generalleutnant (major-general) in Feb 1941 when he arrived, became General der Panzertruppe (lieutenant general) in July 1941 and Generaloberst (general) in Jan 1942. He attained field marshal rank in June 1942. Best to leave rank out of the article to avoid confusion! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Total casualties, both sides

Due to the lack of sources providing total casualties for the entire campaign, per my proposal here would anyone have a problem tallying up all the information we currently have and presenting it within the info box?

Tunisian Campaign losses are well cited and am sure we can source up figures for Torch to ensure the current ones are accurate, tallying that information up with the available information for the Western Desert Campaign would bring us to a total of, if my maths is not mistaken:

• Allied:229,512 casualties
• Axis:551,968 casualties

As per the proposal linked above, a note would have to accompany these figures stating these are minimual numbers etc. Of course the above figures maybe become subject to change if sources come to light for the entire campaign or when the Torch and various Western Desert articles become more accurate and sourced.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's this article by a guy named David T. Zabecki that gives these casualties: "For the entire North African Campaign, the British suffered 220,000 casualties." and "Total Axis losses came to 620,000, which included the loss of three field armies." The article states that US losses in Tunesia amounted to 18,558. That'd make allied casualties somewhat around 240,000 not including free french etc. (Not sure about ANZAC). Should we trust this article and correct/add numbers in the infobox? --Nwinther (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent find, i will enquire with some admin regarding relaiabilty.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Total number of troops?

What I would like to see here is the a figure for the total number of troops involved in the campaign. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Outcome

It is written there in section Tunisian campaign "although the largest percentage of Axis troops escaped Tunisia." - Is there any source for this claim? - As far as i know, it is not true; and at least Churchill emphasizes, that due to the attention of the Royal Navy only a few people escaped. But also in the summary - Result: "Axis forces in North Africa retreat to Italy" - it should be corrected in: "Surrender of Axis forces" --85.182.107.180 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

"The Axis, by fighting against the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, provided relief for the British and later American forces fighting in North Africa." This really makes no sense. How did the Axis powers provide relief for the British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noadsplease (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. David (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. The situation is more complex. Hitler's decision to invade USSR quickly distracted him from the western desert war, thus relieving pressure on the British on that front. Later, Operation Torch prevented Hitler from moving even more troops from Africa to the Eastern front, thus relieving pressure on the USSR. and in fact this was one justification for Operation Torch in the first place. I don't think there is a quick fix but I'll try something this evening if someone has not handled it earlier. -Arch dude (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Western desert war" confuses me.

I know why they call it that: it's to the west of the British forces in Egypt. But the overall campaign had two fronts, and this front is the eastern front of the campaign. Operation Torch opened up the western front of the campaign. Should we explain this somewhere, or just assume that an intelligent reader will eventually figure it out? -Arch dude (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not why they call it that. It's because the Egyptians called the deserts the "Western Desert" and the "Eastern Desert" (either side of the Nile), so it's the campaign in the Western Desert region.Richard Gadsden (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

220,000/British casualties

Is the source used reliable? Tallying the various articles, one arrives at around 145,000 British casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B10B:42BE:A0A3:50DB:BA54:D8F6 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AnnalesSchool's self promotion

Per Wp:avoideditwar, you failed to take your own advise and take the issue to the talk page. Rather you have insisted on edit waring and issuing threats rather than discuss the removal of contested material.

• ComandoSupremo is not the research site it was ten years ago. It has changed ownership, is now a barely active forum, and has very little contributions made to its article section. It was, once, a good site. Now The it is practically dead, which brings us to:
• Due to the changes, the forum is now inhabited by the likes of fredleander, a moderator/admin, who attempts to peddle his self published book and is a laughing stock amongst ameture and professional historians online due to his lack of research, his methods, and inability to back up his claims. That is not opinion, it is fact. Research!
• The link to the site does not link to any particular article that could further this one. Rather, it links to the main page, which happens to be full of AnnalesSchool's own articles. The link is mere self promotion at this point. Not to mention the articles in question are of extremely dubious quality littered with insults, flag waving, and straw man arguments.
• Wiki should not be used as a base for self promotion or link to such dubious quality information. There are much more balanced research forums out there and if readers want to find ComandoSupremo and AnnalesSchool's sub par contributions, that is what Google is for not the wiki (with the lofty ambition of providing sourced and balanced articles not slandering historians we don't like and promoting others who happen to agree with our warped POV despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary).2600:1015:B107:78F5:CDB5:7376:65A:AB8B (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree - ComandoSupremo [1] really doesn't belong here per WP:ELNO. Also given User:AnnalesSchool's prominent contributions to that website I'd say there are WP:COI issues as well. That said this article seems to include a number of other external links that probably don't make the grade either and should be culled. Anotherclown (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what a vicious, nasty and unwarranted personal attack upon me, the ComandoSupremo website and certain contributors to it! You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. As far as threats are concerned, I wrote that I would lodge a complaint if you continued your unwarranted and uncalled for edit warring. As for not taking it to the Talk Page, if you are the initiator of the edit, then you are required to take it to the Talk Page and justify the edit, as I requested you should.

I've read the rules relating to Conflict of Interest and External Links and see no conflict there at all. I think you need to calm down a little.AnnalesSchool (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Commandosupremo.com [2] is a blog at worst, or at best a collection of user submitted articles about topics associated with Italy during World War II (none of which appear to be peer reviewed), and which only loosely relate to the specific topic of this article (i.e. the North Africa Campaign). What about any of that do you believe would qualify it as a reliable source under WP:RS? To me it would seem to miss the mark with WP:ELNO in a few places including:

• "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website..."
• "11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites..."
• "13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject..."

IRT your Conflict of Interest there are three "articles" written by you, or someone with a remarkably very similar username, that are prominently linked on the main page of Commandosupremo.com [3]. Yet our Advertising and COI policy states: "... you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide..." (see WP:ADV). I'd suggest you be more careful to ensure you comply with policy in future when adding links to articles. Anotherclown (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Image of Italian Empire November 1942

re File:Italian empire 1942.PNG. Is this map accurate/convey the correct impression to readers? The Italian expansion into Egypt was along the coastal area. Having a 'vertical' line sharply delineating the eastern edge seems a bit off. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Map

This article is crying out for a decent, detailed map, showing places like Tobruk, Sidi Barrani, El Aghelia and Beda Fomm. At the moment there is only a rather vague drawing of the entire continent of Africa showing the Italian Empire in 1942.
Reading about various places is no good if one has no idea where they are. RASAM (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Strategy/goals?

Might it be useful to include a section that covers the strategic goals and implications of the campaign? Why were the two sides fighting there? What did each hope to gain? What would the potential outcomes mean to the larger war? 24.214.238.86 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. One hell of a dessert war in the middle of nowhere – and they sure were not fighting for Libyan oil. As stated in the previous chapter, the fight was for the Mediterranean Sea and the sea route from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mussolini's colonial ambition was AFAIK the real reason the the Italian African campaigns (including the Ethiopian campaign). The reason for german involvement was (again AFAIK) that the Italian retreats threatened the Duce's political position and Hitler wouldn't allow that. The later - obvious - strategic goals, such as sealing off the Suez and weakening the British position as well as Rommel's fantasies about African ressources and Persian Oil.--Nwinther (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

At the time Egypt was a British protectorate and so Britain was under a treaty obligation to defend it against the Italian invasion. Besides Egypt, the Italians also invaded British Somaliland, another protectorate. Palestine was also a protectorate and Britain would have been obliged to also defend it if attacked. The British also had, via BP, what was at the time the world's biggest oil refinery at Abadan Refinery in Persia - now Iran.

The Suez Canal was also under British control (due to an Anglo-French treaty with Egypt) as it had been paid for and built by the French and subsequently the British government had bought shares in the French company that owned it. After the Fall of France in 1940 control of the Canal was taken over in its entirety by Britain. The Canal was strategically important for British shipping going to, and from, India and the Far East as otherwise it would have to take the longer route via the Cape of Good Hope.

BTW, "In addition, as Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, had long been demanding a second front be opened to engage the Wehrmacht and relieve pressure on the Red Army" - Stalin was in no position to 'demand' anything. Prior to May 1941 his country had been a de facto ally of Nazi Germany and the only benefit to the Western Allies that the Soviet war effort provided was in draining away substantial German forces to the east. It was his country the Germans were occupying. Not Britain or the US. If anything, the latter countries by diverting Nazi forces to other theatres were preventing an overwhelming victory for the Germans in the east.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.207 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Un-sourced?

I was wondering why the first 4 paragraphs of this article are completely un-sourced, this aritcle is over 5 years old and I don't understand it. Pastorma (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(If I've understood your question correctly) From the article title to the contents list is the lead section; as a summary of the rest of the article it doesn't need sourcing because what is said there should be sourced further down in the article. Unless it's a very short article, sourcing in the lead (in my opinion) is a bit of a giveaway that the article content is contentious. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Japan among the belligerents?

...are we sure? Never heard of any Japanese involvement in North Africa, even marginal.--Olonia (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

British Sudan

British Sudan should be listed as a belligerent. (86.133.255.185 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North African Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622015407/http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/Historical/hinsley.html to http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/Historical/hinsley.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

German casualties

Seeing that for the German casualties there's a "better source needed" - I would like to point out that in the page German casualties in World War II it is reported that Rüdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Oldenbourg 2000, ISBN 3-486-56531-1, p. 336 and p.174, gives a figure of 16,066 German soldiers killed in Africa. --193.206.176.82 (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

On a related note: Paul Carrel is a /horrible/ source for anything, least of all for British casualties. I would suggest that the British and US official histories would make more sense, be more accurate, and be less likely to consist of fish tales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.252.188 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes misalignment

I’m viewing the article on smartphone. Mobile view. The whole of the infoboxes ‘section’ is misaligned, such that the left hand edge strays ‘over the edge’ to the left - the left-most part of it is off-screen. It is actually not possible to see the left hand edge of it. The rest of the article aligns properly. This *may* be because the very first line is too long? But there may, of course, be another reason. I’ve tried re-loading the page, closing and then reopening Safari, but no change. Boscaswell talk 22:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In para 2 of the Western Desert section: “British forces (along with Indian and Rhodesian troop said under the empire) based in Egypt...” ?

And then there’s this para, further down the same section: “Of great significance, on 29 June US reports from Egypt of British military operations stopped using the compromised "Black Code" which the Axis were reading, so learning of British "strengths, positions, losses, reinforcements, supply, situation, plans, morale etc".”

I’m sure it’s not all like these two examples, but could someone who knows the subject please make it readable? Thanks! ;) Boscaswell talk 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Now fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Burma Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Francois Darlan Killed-in-Action?

It seems a little misleading to say that Francois Darlan was killed-in-action when he was assassinated by a dissident. Killed-in-Action implies he was killed by Allied Forces. JSUMN (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi to the people a that are here. Come to

Hi. 24.22.207.72 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

The more and the merry. 24.22.207.72 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To the people

Good* 24.22.207.72 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi 24.22.207.72 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Here

I am 24.22.207.72 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)