Talk:North African Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North African Campaign article.
Article policies
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.
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.)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Military history of the United Kingdom

There is a lot of detail in Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II this is not here, or in the related articles. It would be a nice task for someone to expand these articles based on that (without the UK focus of course). DJ Clayworth 20:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)