Talk:Middle East campaigns

Why this article needs to exist

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)

I restored this article because Slim of one considered it to be one campaign --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Fictious?

Likewise in regards to the article covering the somewhat fictious "Middle East Theatre" according to the British official history of the fighting in the Middle East, there was no "Middle East campaign".

There was however numerous campaigns fought within the Middle East but not under any overarching campaign - i.e. Operation Compass, the battle of Gazala, El Alamein all being part of the Western Desert Campaign.

Is there any source which describes all of the fighting in the Middle East as one single overarching campaign?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. As the creator of this article you should have informed me that you had put it up for deletion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not own the article! A notice was placed on the article proposing it should be deleted due to it being fictional - yes there were seperate campaigns but no there was not one single "Middle East Campaign"; you are taking what William Slim states out of context - that there are other articles covering the same area etc; and it was deleted on that ground by someone who agreed with those statements.

I will making a second request for deletltion based off the same above facts and that there are two articles covering this subject.

I don't own the article, but please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion "While not required, except for copyright concerns, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a message here for 20 days voicing my concern before i did anything. You have not worked on this article since last year and since then there has only been a few edits made.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the word "campaign" is in lower case is because it is a descriptive name. We have a number of overview articles like this one. For example:

• North African Campaign (Western Desert Campaign) and Operation Torch as well as the combined campaign once command of the 8th Army passed from the British Middle East Command to AFHQ*

Even if it is a descriptive name - its fictional. Several campaigns were launched in the Middle East - some closley related, others not. They have been described in brief in a section on two articles and dont need yet another covering it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Italian Campaign

Both of these articles could be included in the Mediterranean Theatre of World War II but it is useful to have stand alone articles to link the sub articles together. Why do you think that I have quoted Slim out of context?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have take his quote out of context above - not in the article. Silm at no point suggests that this one overarching campaign. He tells us above the 4 best commands one could have in the Army and then describes the "fun" he has had with the division - quickly listing off a bunch of places he and his division fought in and what they were currently up to when he was ordered off to Burma. There is no evidence within that page or the next to support "William Slim, commander of the Indian 10th Division certianly looked on it as one campaign".--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No merge and no deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination)

As the original author of this article I should have been informed about any AfD. Why was I not informed. I an against a merge or a delete. There was no agreement to merge the article further a glance at the talk page of the proposed article it was to be merged with will show that user:EnigmaMcmxc does not like the name of that article either! --PBS (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google of books ["Middle East campaign" Persia ]would show that this is not just a descriptive name see for example:

• Democracy and War By David L. Rousseau p. 223
• A Short History of the Middle East By George E. Kirk p. 199
• 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."

--PBS (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The section in the Middle East Theatre of World War II#Middle East Campaign is in summary form with Middle East campaign and a detailed article to the summary, as one usually does in such cases. The obvious answer is to make the section in the other theatre article Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II unless of course that article remains only for the Mediterranean and does not include Persia. In which case it ought not include Iraq either as that was not part of the Mediterranean theatre. --PBS (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok other than the fact you care to ignore a decission made by the wiki community, and one you were informed of, lets play your little game:

As the original author of this article I should have been informed about any AfD.

Which you, on your user talk page at 15:52 on 16 December 2008 (UTC) by myself.

There was no agreement to merge the article further a glance at the talk page of the proposed article

If you had of glanced the talk page you will have noted the following at the top of the page:

The result was merge to Middle East Theatre of World War II. kurykh 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You will have also noted a 2:1 vote in favour of mergeing the articles.

will show that user:EnigmaMcmxc does not like the name of that article either!

I think you need to Assume good faith; a personnel attack agaisnt you has not been made, an attempt to better the wiki was and my personel opinion influenced the discussion very little - i made my point and that was it. Nor is my bais, in your opinion, a defence to launch a last stand action following yet another discussion that has been concluded (i.e. the one made to merge these articles last summer), which you do not agree with.

So to your sources which support there being a Middle East Campaign:

1. Source 1 Rousseau claims that the Middle East Campaign consisted of the war in Iraq and the campaign in Iran - thus not supporting this article as it states that the campaign was only Iran and Iraq - not Syria nor the Italian bombings.
2. Source 2 - The only one that does appear to cover the 3 campaigns as one but, doesnt include the Italian bombings.
3. Source 3 - Silm - as discussed before, you are taking him out of context. He does not state anywhere in that paragraph that there was a single campaign. He actually states there was a bunch of places he and his division fought in. If you replaced Slim with say, Kurt Meyer who could probably say something simlar i.e. fought several campaigns in close proximity; that would'nt make Poland, France and the Balkans all one campaign.

Now the consensous of the historical community is that they are all seperate campaigns not one:

1. British ME and Med Campaiagn series (compiled by the British govenment and Army, the author having held several high ranks throughout said war should know what he is talking about).
2. Regimental histories, for instance the Essex Regiment (who fought in the ME and consider them all seperate campaigns).
3. Oxford Companion to the Second World War, which makes no mention of a Middle East Campaign.
4. As noted, as a description it doesnt fit due to the definition of what a campaign is.
5. etc etc etc

I would rather not carry on this useless discussion, are you ready to accept that the community has made a decission and stick to it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for saying that you did not inform me. I missed it because of this edit sequence: My edits:

• 09:37, 17 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers ‎
• 13:05, 16 December 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Philip Baird Shearer ‎ (→Category: Roundheads vs Parliamentary supporters)

edits to my talk page:

• 07:00, 17 December 2008 Madalibi m (37,974 bytes) (→Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers: Removed unnecessary section title)
• 06:59, 17 December 2008 Madalibi (38,035 bytes) (→Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers: new section)
• 05:46, 17 December 2008 Arilang1234 (37,382 bytes) (→Arilang requesting urgent action) (undo)
• 05:25, 17 December 2008 Arilang1234 (35,669 bytes) (→Arilang requesting urgent action) (undo)
• 05:18, 17 December 2008 Arilang1234 (35,637 bytes) (→Arilang) (undo)
• 02:46, 17 December 2008 Arilang1234 (34,502 bytes) (→Arilang) (undo)
• 15:52, 16 December 2008 EnigmaMcmxc ((33,874 bytes) (→Middle East campaign: new section) (undo)

Your message to me got lost in the noise!

However it is not a personal attack to say that "user:EnigmaMcmxc does not like the name of that article either" which is clear for anyone who reads Talk:Middle East Theatre of World War II#Merger.

I think you are confused because you failed to make clear that it is a summary article so not all the information is in either of the two theatre articles. Some of the information is in both but not all of it in both. I am not sure if the people saying merge read the other article or took your statement on good faith.

I do not accept that the community made an informed decision. So if you would like to list it again then we can talk about it in detail. I would remained you that the name is descriptive and we can if you like move it to Middle East campaigns if you only concern is that the name is not accurate enough.--PBS (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didnt fail at all in stating my case, i presented the fact that its not historically accurate (which was supported by a further editor) and that it is not needed as a summery considering it has been covered by two other summery articles - hence the community deciding that rather than deleting the article per my original request it should be merged with the near identical article.

So your now asking for what accounts to a fourth discussion because once again you come in late and just dont agree with it anyway - two democractic votes have been taken. Do you wish to keep taking them until we end up with a result that you are happy with?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A result that we can all live with is how consensus is built on wikipedia. --PBS (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

enough!

[Sigh]...I hate to get involved in something which appears to be getting edgy but here goes anyway:

• I'm a great fan of having summary articles with subsidiary ones
• But here we have three overlapping summaries which is at least one if not two too many!
• Middle East Campaign I've done a lot of work on and was a great supporter. However, I agree it's not a campaign and it's not neccessary therefore to have an additional summary layer. Reasons why it's not a campaign:
  • The Anglo-Iraqi War
    • Was an HQ India affair until 5 May in northern Iraq and 9 May in southern Iraq when it came under HQ Middle East Command.
    • All troops in Iraq came under GOC 10 Ind Div in Basra until 7 May when GOC Troops Iraq (Quinan) also in Basra took over.
    • Habforce came from Palestine but came under Quinan once in Iraq
    • We were fighting the Iraqis (+ some German airmen) to secure the oil fields and the air route to India
  • The Syria-Lebanon Campaign was a campaign. However,
    • although a Middle East Command Affair, came under GOC Palestine (Wilson). The troops from Iraqforce, once in Syria were under his control. (I've conveniently ignored the small exception to this which was the brigade group in the Duck's Bill which was under GOC Iraq but this was a subsidiary action with no actual fighting)
    • We were fighting the French because....well because the War cabinet had been wound up by Free French General Catroux into thinking that Vichy was about to withdraw into Lebanon and hand Syria over to the Germans.
  • The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran was also under Quinan and Wavell ....but this time at GHQ India.
    • We were fighting the Persians to secure the oil and to create a supply route to Russia because the Arctic convoys had limited capacity and suffered dreadful losses.
  • So there's no compelling reason operationally or administratively to group them
• The Middle East Theatre of World War II article seems to group together the campaigns fought by "Middle East Command". Trouble is the Commander in Chief Middle East Command was only the land forces commander. For the area described, the Air force had an AOCinC for roughly the same area but the Navy had two CinCs - Mediterranean and also East Indies Stations (The latter covering actions in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean). It's all a bit messy.
• Consequently I am happy to see both Middle East Campaign and Middle East Theatre of WWII be rolled up into Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and rather than delete them, turn them into redirects. If you read the British Official history, it's easy to see why they have used this larger grouping: there are endless interdependencies in strategic decision making and prioritisation within the area - so it would be my hope that the summary article will be improved in due course to reflect this strategic narrative. It's also neater and avoids repetition!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting his hands up, I surrender over this article, I will merge this into the Middle East Article.

But a couple of points. The Middle East article needs work it should explain the complications over the command structure for the Middle East as you have mentioned here.

There were three article Middle East, Mediterranean and African. It is EnigmaMcmxc who wishes to merge the articles and started to do so by moving renaming the Mediterranean article and merging in the African article. I think that was a mistake. The African article should never have been merged into an article about these theatres. Personally I think it is clearer if the theatre articles are separated chronologically. Roughly the Middle East to cover from the start of the war up until the handover of the 8th army to AFHQ February 1943. With Med to cover the land operations for the period from Operation Torch and the fighting in Tunisia to the end of the war. I think that the "Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II", is a pigs ear of a title. If we are to merge the Middle East and the Mediterranean theatre articles, it would be much better to call it "Middle East and Mediterranean theatres of World War II" (as it fits better chronologically) and to extract the African bits which were not fought on the Mediterranean coast or around the Horn of Africa (but that is a discussion for another talk page). --PBS (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would understad that I didnt just do anything out of the blue, i asked around and gained consensus from the community before i made any changes - i have kept repeating this to you but you seem to just ignore this point; that the community agreed on a course of action and myself and others went along with it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)