Talk:Anglo-Iraqi War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Iraq Anglo-Iraqi War is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] the treaty and the battle at the airbase

This page should not contain a one-sided view of the military treaty between the British and Iraq. Large parts of the world know how these treaties were negotiated and what they were for. Anyone who writes material about wars to uphold the sacred nature of British Treaties is creating nationalist nonsense material. They would have invaded with or without the military treaty. If anyone doesn't think so, look at the case of Iran. There was no treaty there and not any true legal justification at all. But the British not only went in with the USSR, they overthrew the government. Their actions can be justified reasonably by wartime necessity, but defending the military treaty and using it as a justification is wrong and has always played into the hands of nationalists.

That the British attacked first and deliberately without warning at the battle is well established historical fact. Its possible to argue a justification for their actions, but its not possible to pretend that it didn't happen that way. The Iraqi point of view must also at least be represented.

The strength of the British at the airbase has been consistantly misrepresented in British materials so as to make the defenders seem much more threatened than they actually were.

Its also silly to accept the offical British line that Iraq wasn't under military occupation during the war. When the British have large numbers of troops deployed across the entire country for years after there was any military need, that is military occupation. Most sources consider the occupation as lasting until October 26, 1947 when the all the troops aside from those at the airbases left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.133.154.10 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

I think that we both agree that the treaty was dictated by the British and was put in place to give them a at least the cover of a legal treaty to justify subsequent intervention in Iraq. I also agree that without it, the British would still have acted to protect their strategic and oil interests, as they did in Iran. That is what I am trying to say. Denying the existence of the treaty is nonsense. It existed regardless of its fairness or acceptance by iraqi nationalists.
To be surprised by an attack from a military force which you have threatened and made demands on seems to me to be either stupidity or arrogance. If you think the Iraqi forces were stupid by not expecting an attack then why not say so instead of complaining of British tactics? As for the weakness of the base's forces I have not challenged your assessment but tried to demonstrate the improvised nature of some of the defences.
I have tried to suggest that the British forces stayed in the country to maintain control, but they did this by supporting the pro-British government (and maybe by dictating policies) not by a formal military occupation with a British ruler. Unlike German occupied territories in Western Europe, nominally at least, the Iraqi monarchists were the government not a British military governor. Dabbler 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

- I dont think the intent is to deny the existance of the treaty, but to put sufficient language in to avoid the old problem of the British covering over their real intentions by using the sanctity of treaties.

- It is nonsense to claim that the British were not in military occupation of Iraq. They appointed "Town Majors" every town of signficance in the country including Baghdad, Kut, Habbaniya, Mussaiyib, Mosul... Every town had a military garrison watching over it. The troops in Iraq were deployed to control the entire country, not to guard any particular area like the oilfields.

- The fact that needs to be presented is that the British fired first. There were a whole series of provocations on both sides leading to the opening of hostilities which was by the British. When the British landed at Basra without permission, the Iraqis did not open fire. And I'm certain that if they had, they would find themselves denounced as aggressors for having opened fire first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.13 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

The treaty issue is well covered in the article's current incarnation, it is obvious that it was imposed and used as a figleaf.
There was fighting between Iraqis and the British Indian troops landed in Basra. No one is demeaning the Iraqis for being aggressors, but I believe that you are demeaning the Iraqi forces by this insistence that they were too stupid to realise that the British might attack them if they threatened their base at Habbaniya. I am curious why you have such a low opinion of the Iraqis?Dabbler 11:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"That the British attacked first and deliberately without warning at the battle is well established historical fact"

Sorry It isn't. Current reasearch on this campaign shows that the first military action was taken by Iraqi forces loyal to the Nationalist Government who struck first against British teams working on the new Amman - Baghdad Road. Secondly, the armed response by the forces at Habbaniya occured only after an ultimatum had been issued. Yes there a number of sources which say there was no warning, but in fact as is now verfied, AVM Smart did issue an ultimatum to the forces surrounding his base.

"The strength of the British at the airbase has been consistantly misrepresented in British materials so as to make the defenders seem much more threatened than they actually were. "

This is nonsense. The nature and number of the aircraft and other military resources within the Habbaniya compound is well established, so is the overwhelming superiority of the Iraqi army forces established on the plateau and around the perimeter of the base, and the Iraqi airforce resources within minutes flying time of Habbaniya.

"To be surprised by an attack from a military force which you have threatened and made demands on seems to me to be either stupidity or arrogance."

The actual situation seems to be that only the higher ranks of the Iraqi armed forces were aware of the purpose of their manoeuvres in and around Habbaniya. When the RAF attacked, many of the Iraqi PBI were genuinely surprised. The junior ranks in the RIAF air bases in and around Badghdad were also genuinely surprised when the RAF took their attackes there. Dudgeon reports correspondence from an Iraqi pilot to this effect.

"I have tried to suggest that the British forces stayed in the country to maintain control, but they did this by supporting the pro-British government"

Churchill's whole purpose in Iraq was to create a huge supply base from which American supplies could be forwarded into the USSR keeping them in the war. This given, Churchill was uninterested in the domestic policy of the Iraqi Government.

PDFM 1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] year of war?

infobox says 1940, article says 1941 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmoose (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1941 Dabbler 03:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which base did the iraqis approach?

Hi, I can't tell from the article where the initial battle took place, Basra or Habbaniya? The text says "twelve days after the initial British landings in Basra, the Iraqi Army established itself on the high ground to the south of the base." Which seems to indicate the basra base, but later text made me think Habbaiya. Could somebody who knows please mod the above quote to make it clear. Thanks Steven jones 09:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV page

This page is biased and wrong. The page is almost entirely written from the British point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.127.0.51 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and will be making changes. Fluffy999 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The above unsigned comment is more than a year old. Please review the changes since then and I would ask you to discuss your proposed changes here on the Talk Page before making major changes. Thanks Dabbler 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me check... nope only 1 minor change since my reading of the article and subsequent post. Fluffy999 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"This page is biased and wrong"

Please specify what is biased and what is wrong. PDFM 1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdfm (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It uses "to secure", "compliant Iraqi government" and "to protect British interests" which could be phrased in another POV as "to occupy", "puppet regime" and "to rob oil". Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the relation with WWII

Why is this conflict considered separate form the rest of World War 2? Repdetect117 May 24, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.144.136 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. I think it should be included in the general framework and not treated seperately. The Iraqis wanted German assistance and support - and got it. 129.69.160.219 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Losses.

During the Anglo-Iraqi war Germany lost 23 planes, Italy 7 planes. Great Britain 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.150.125 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for Fallujah

Image:Http://files.boardgamegeek.com/bggimages/pic162922.jpg With Baghdad the target and the road network limited, the easiest and most practicable plan was to seize the Iron Bridge over the Euphrates River at Falluja. An elaborate plan was created and carried out without a loss. Iraqi resistance was non-existent. With the town in British hands, the attacking force was dispersed elsewhere. The British did not think the Iraqis would counterattack. On May 22, in the early morning, the Iraqi 6th Brigade\3rd Division (800 men) with CV33 tankettes attacked. Iraqi artillery pulverized the two British companies holding the town in their trenches surrounding it. They were forced to pull back into the town. The three Iraqi battalions with tanks were as good as the British by accounts in combat but for one thing: steady morale. From 3 a.m. to 10 a.m., the two British companies held but were nearing their end in this urban type combat. Luckily, the Luftwaffe had failed to support this attack (although they did the following day!). At 10 a.m., the tables began to turn when two additional British companies arrived. The battle did not stop but raged onward until the Iraqis gave up at 6 p.m. The road to Baghdad was now open. It had been a near thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the above is correct, it should be added into the article. Are there any references for German and Italian military involvement? What were their numbers? Folks at 137 21:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Iraqi counter-attack on Fallujah followed the plan used in practice manoeuvers the previous year.

The counter-counterattack at Fallujah turned when the RAF forces from Habbaniya attacked the defending forces who had no air support of their own. The RIAF was all but destroyed by this point, the Luftwaffe contingent at Mosul seemed unaware of the importance and urgency of the battle, and the Italians had yet to arrive. PDFM 1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdfm (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of war June 1st?

How do we know for sure may 31th was the day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.162 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I've found a reference to the date in a book and cited it Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)