Talk:Middle East campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any particular reason why this article needs to exist alongside Middle East Theatre of World War II? Grant65 (Talk) 17:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes because the Theatre covers all the campaigns which the Middle East Command oversaw of of which the Western Desert Campaign was by far the most important, but also East Africa and Greece. This just covers the action in Middle East (Southwest Asia) one of several campaigns. Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

But what real purpose does it serve, that can't be covered by Middle East Command or Middle East Theatre of World War II? I think this material belongs on one or both of those pages. Grant65 (Talk) 18:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

That is also true for all the campaigns like the East African one they too could all be lumped into one article. For that matter why have the North African Campaign because it too links in a number of different campaigns. I would argue that the campaigns mentioned in this article fit neatly together. William Slim, commander of the Indian 10th Division certianly looked on it as one campaign.

"We had scrambled thought skirmishes of the Iraq rebellion, been blooded, but not too deeply, against the French in Syria, and enjoyed the unrestrainedly the opéra bouffe of the invasion of Persia. We had bought our beer in Haifa and drunk it on the shores of the Caspian. We could move, we could fight, and we had begun to build up that most valuable of all assets a tradition of success. We had a good soldierly conceit of ourselves. Now in March 1942, in spite of dust storms....it was stimulating to be in what we all felt was a critical spot, waiting for the threatened German invasion of Turkey."

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The emipre strikes back

I think that British Empire and Dominions forces conveys more information and links to more appropriate pages than Commonwealth forces. At the very least it should be British Commonwealth, but as the Commonwealth links into a page which is predominantly about the modern "Commonwealth of Nations" it is not much use as a link. "Dominion" and British Empire seem to me to be more appropriate pages. Philip Baird Shearer 15:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree. And I'm not sure what you mean by "modern"; as the Commonwealth of Nations article says, the term has been used since 1926. Grant65 (Talk) 18:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

To quote the article: It was once known as the British Commonwealth (or British Commonwealth of Nations), and many still call it by that name, either for historical reasons or to distinguish it from the many other commonwealths around the world. The section "Origins" is of relevence to WWII links but most of the rest of the article is post World War II. Therefore the direct links to "Empire" and "dominion" are more useful in WWII articles and just as accurate (if not more so) than the link to Commonwealth. Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm oppposed to the use of "Dominion" for a number of reasons. First and foremost, while technically correct, it's not well-known or widely used outside of Canada. Secondly, the Dominions underwent a major change in status during the 1930s and 40s. For example, whereas the UK declared war in 1914 and the Dominions went along with it, it 1939 they all declared war separately.Grant65 (Talk) 02:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)