Talk:Battle of Gazala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Gazala article.
Article policies
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

People interested in the North African Campaign could help us work out some issues regarding itnernational unit names at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units). Thanks. — B.Bryant 03:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Combatants

In the summary box I was surprised to see that the only allied combatants were from the UK. If I was a Polish, Free French, or Commonwealth/Empire veteran of this battle I'd be even more surprised. The Italians are mentioned on the Axis side... GrahamBould 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you know the score, so here's a link rather than the full content: {{sofixit}}. Leithp 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things of note

I'm putting random notes here until I get to working on this article.

  • The name of the British counter-attack was Operation Aberdeen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Decisive?

Look, Kurt Leyman, I decided to change the result of this battle after you removed the "decisive" victory from Operation Compass. In fact the battle of Gazala was the exact counterpart for the axis of Operation compass: an impressive victory, that brought a lot of prestige to the winners, but which failed achieve any decisive result. Neither battle crippled the enemy permanently, nor did it clinch the outcome of the campaign. "Decisive" is not just another word for "important", this battle was not decisive. Raoulduke47 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh....not another argument over "Decisive"...frankly I'm with Raoulduke but can't the guys of the military history project put their heads together and come up with a suggested convention? Suggestion: don't use the word at all; it clearly means different things to different people which means it means nothing....if you know what I mean!!Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"The battle ended in decisive victory for the Axis" is not a conclusive statement. This could very well mean, simply, that the battle ended decisevely, in a victory: ie that it was a clear-cut victory. No one is disputing this. The word "decisive" can have several meanings, but the relevant meaning here is "having the power or quality of deciding -a decisive battle-"( [1] ). This would only apply if this battle had somehow deicded the outcome of the North African campaign. I would be curious to know what other views might exist on this matter, but unfortunately, the proponent of the "decisive victory" has not deemed it necessary to expose his opinions in full. --Raoulduke47 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not put "Convincing victory" or "Comprehensive victory" or even "Clear-cut victory". I agree that Decisive or Conclusive would heve the meaning implied above ie it settled the campaign - which in this case it didn't. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I could live with that. But it's not me you'll have to convince. Raoulduke47 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's quite simple really. Kurt's definition of "decisive victory" is that the Germans won. Any event resulting in an Allied victory cannot be "decisive". Strategic outcomes don't enter into it. This is a very clear-cut case of POV-pushing. Check his edit history if you doubt me. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus.... I see what you mean. Agree, decisive this battle was not. This debate will certainly not result in a "Decisive Leyman victory".Dapi89 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't want to play devils advocate here nor am i actually going to edit the article to state this, however Nial Barr in his book does make out that Gazala was a decisive victory. Its been some time since ive read his book and books am currently reading are before or well after this event (havent even read the official history on it yet) so am not really up to speed on it, however i recall him commenting that the battle did nearly settle the campaign, gave the Axis army enough momentum and supplies to strike deep into Egypt and nearly win the campaign. If i recall he mentions it was basically down to the stiff defence from the South Africans on the El Alamein line that halted them long enough for the opportunity to pass. Just another possible point of view, although as i say Barr's book is the only one i have read in some time which has covered Gazala.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a decisive victory lead to a strategic decision? Gazala was a tactical and operational success for the Axis which led to a strategic dead end.Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] San Marco Marines

I am deleting a short section on the San Marco Marines because the events occurred in September while the article is about the Battle of Gazala in June. I would also comment that:

  • As far as I can see no-where else in this article have we dealt in such detail as to describe actions of single battalions, even in the most important actions. I suggest this piece should appear in a page dedicated to the history of the San Marco Marines
  • A reference was given for this short section but the details of the action included (dates, numbers, prisoners etc) do not appear in the referenced article
  • I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the reference because:
    • it is a website selling board games and the page includes a link to purchase their Island of Death game. This qualifies it as spam. OK apparently the author is a PhD but can't we find a "proper" publication of his to support this article?
    • It's rather "gung ho" (=POV)

Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand Division

Did they not take part in this battle?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)