Talk:Second Battle of El Alamein

The result parameter

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Decisive is as gone as Secretary Green.Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed my edit because this battle turned the tide of war into Allied favor in Africa. It was therefore a decisive victory. The Battle of France, for instance, was more a campaign rather than a battle. That's why it could be allowed to be removed there. Still, I think BoF is decisive as it decided the campaign for the Western Front of mainland Europe in 1940. KevinNinja (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No babe, that's ORKeith-264 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please get your obnoxious edits out of Wikipedia. Thanks! KevinNinja (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:civil really Kev, you can do better than this. Keith-264 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What did I tell you? KevinNinja (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You've broken 3RR; stop edit warring.Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You're the one edit warring, honey. KevinNinja (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the article and keep your insults to yourself. I suggest you begin listing the views of the RS instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Says the guy who started with the obnoxious comments. You make it too easy, Keith. Like a game. KevinNinja (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The arguments put forward over at the BoF debate apply here also:

• There's nothing in the article to support the assertion that this was a decisive victory;
• The template documentation proscribes any qualification of the victory;
• And now so does the MILHIST Manual of Style.

And I'll say it again: the infobox is not the place to accommodate nuance. It was an Allied victory. We don't need to know any more than that at this point in the article. If this victory was decisive enough that it warrants a local consensus override of both template documentation and MILMOS, then it should receive appropriate coverage in the article. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree; Kevin, you should be trying to make your case here, not posting sarcastic comments every time you edit war. Please start by disclosing your RS. Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Decisive, again...

I've tagged "decisive" in the infobox result parameter with citation needed lead. As part of the lead, the infobox should summarise the salient points discussed in the main body of the article, per MOS:LEAD. This article, however, does not discuss anything about the nature of the victory. Assuming that gets addressed, we can maybe then discuss whether the victory was decisive enough to ignore the template documentation and MILMOS, which advise against the use of qualifiers such as "decisive" in presenting the result in the infobox. Factotem (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't and coudn't be decisive, except in the hyperbolic and ignorant sense of the word. Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be framed in the sense it was decisive for advance eastward and any manoeuvre towards the Baku oilfields and control of the Middle Eastern oil supply routes. Between Suez canal and Soviet Azerbaijan oil supply there were practically no Allied defences. After the early stages of the Battle of the Caucasus and Case Blue failed to achieve it's objective, resulting in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad; victory at El Alamein and Axis continued-advance eastward during the Western Desert Campaign to capture Suez Canal and the oil supply routes was the only remaining option to support the Axis 1942-1943 battleplans. The strategic importance on refined oil supplies to support the Luftwaffe, and vital oil supplies to support the Soviet/Allied war-machine (Baku oil fields alone contributed ~70% of the total Soviet Oil production); essentially meant much of the war after 1942 was determined by oil - particularly where it affected the German forces on the Eastern Front and the Luftwaffe ability to control the air above the English channel and repel the D-Day landings. [1] As a result of this battle, the Panzer Army Africa and eliminating the German armoured capability in Africa subsequently resulting in a Decisive loss for the Axis in Africa and making any Axis advance eastward impossible. This battle the last in a series turning the tide of the war, and was decisive for both Africa and the Oil fields where conflict over the Middle Eastern oil supplies and Suez canal supply. There are plenty of historians that have studied this is depth with a focus on the strategic implications rather than the battle itself. Aeonx (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the hyperbolic and ignorant sense of the term and an obsolete Anglocentric strategic view that was flushed round the u-bend of history years ago; refer to Tooze, its most recent grave digger, if you want. The British tried to limit their commitment to the Western Desert once the 10th Army had been destroyed in early 1941 so that they could resume their European tour via Greece. This was in Europe, where the decisive theatre of the war was about to open. The survival of the Red Army sealed the fate of the German empire by September 1941 at the latest. Beyond the security of Alexandria, the desert war was irrelevant, apart from the parochial British interest in holding Malta. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there is so much argument over using the term decisive in this infobox only reinforces the idea that the infobox shouldn't include it, and the main text should explore the nuances. (Hohum ^@) 15:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The "survival" of the red army is practically irrelevant to this article. Large portions of the original French army "survived" too, and yet proved to be useless because they were unable to manoeuvre effectively. The red army and soviet economies would be almost immobilised without the oil supplies from the Middle-East & Baku oilfields. The fact you claim the North African theatre was irrelevant shows a complete disregard for both German and Allied battleplan and campaign objectives; and personally I don't think you should be contributing to the content of this article without having a WP:NPOV. The aftermath of this battle needs to accurately reflect the strategic importance of this battle as a part of those campaigns and influence it had on achieving (or not-achieving in the case of the Panzer Army) the objectives as reflected by almost all historians that cover this part of ww2. Aeonx (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The study of the war has moved on from the Anglocentric fatuities of the 60s and 70s; you should too. Look at Tooze The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy and Germany and the Second World War, Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union (2015)

by Horst Boog and Jürgen Förster and Volume VI: The Global War (2015) by Horst Boog, Werner Rahn, Reinhard Stumpf et al.Keith-264 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is off-topic because your justifying a position on this article - which is really only relevant to the North African Campaign - based on ONE historian's extreme American-biased POV. I've actually read some of Tooze's writing and listened to podcasts with him. His core belief that the US economy and resources to the Europe theatre were crucial is wrong. It's well known and documented (by key Soviet leaders, like Fyodor Tolbukhin) that the Baku oil-fields supplied ~70%+ of the ENTIRE soviet oil supply which mobilised the forces across the country along with the logistics supplies, aircraft, tanks, and economy as a whole; the supplies from the US were relevant to the British forces (whom abandoned the majority of their equipment during the Battle of France) but not to the Russians whom were the only real force contesting the Axis powers during 1942-43. If you don't think the Baku and Arab Oil fields weren't the single most important resources region, then explain the Eastern Front? Explain the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran? Explain the Syria-Lebanon Campaign and the oil pipeline from Haditha to Tripoli? Explain why Nazi Germany focused almost all military efforts to capture the region. Aeonx (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Horst Boog, Jürgen Förster, Werner Rahn, Reinhard Stumpf et al. beg to differ and since they're the unofficial official German historians, I'll trust their view over your obsolete and vapid assertions about what might have happened if, if if.... This is a crashing bore so I'll leave it here unless you reply with something interesting. Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

... but not to the Russians whom were the only real force contesting the Axis powers during 1942-43.. you should get out more. Try looking up RAF Bomber Command's offensive against Nazi Germany, or the Royal Navy's operations during the Battle of the Atlantic for the same period.

... and while you're at it you could also look up the Arctic convoys.

...oh and I nearly forgot. After El Alamein the British and Commonwealth armies advanced all the way to Tunis, a distance of over 1,500 miles, (2,500 km) making it the longest advance in military history, and resulting in the elimination of Axis forces from one entire theatre of war. And that's not decisive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion but it is OR; you might be treating decisive as a synonym of 'big' but in military history it means a war-deciding event, like the Battle of Smolensk in 1941. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of dead soldiers

When compared to the larger and far more rabid battles in Eastern Europe, the battles of El Alamein and North Africa was in size even less than a modest battle. It wouldn't even be all wrong to label it as a tiny battle. British author Norman Davies states a total of 4,650 soldiers died in North Africa between September and November 1942. Just as an example, during the 1941 battles around Ukranian Capital Kiev, 657,000 solders died between July and September in that year, within a similar time frame. A 130 times bloodier battle !!!. Davies counts the numbers of killed soldiers on all sides disregarding whom the dead had fought for. - Reference Norman Davies "Europe at War", chapter 1 (in the Swedish 2006 translation a table of killed in battles at page 40; page numbers may differ between languages but also between printings and especially between regular books and pockets).
If Davies' figures are wrong I doubt they are of a different magnitude. I think this is a typical case where older literature (closer to the event in time) is more likely to exaggerate. In order to compare the scale of war between Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR 1941-45, Davies uses "man monthts", One "man month" equals one soldier (or officers) engaged in front war during a month. If accepting this as a measurement, the western front during May-June 1940 used 9 million man-months totally. And between D-Day and the end of the war in Europe, 16,5 million man-months were used in the west. But just 5 million man-months were used in Northern Africa 1941-43 and another 4,4 during the remaining war in Italy. The figures for Hitler's war with Stalin overshadows everything else - 406 million man-months (including the 7 most bloody battles). Suggestion - somewhere here, and the earlier the better, point out that this was a minor battle in terms of the war in total.
Also - Goebbels "made" Erwin Rommel, colleagues like von Kluge meant that he lacked experience of leading large military units. Also Montgomery never really proved himself at the strategical level. Eisenhower did though. Boeing720 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The importance of military campaigns is not measured in the numbers of dead.

... however if you insist, then that logic should also apply to just about every other battle or campaign of the war, and I wish you luck trying to get this description of 'minor' battle accepted and applied to all the other articles. For example, by that criteria the only 'major' naval battle or campaign of the war was the Battle of the Atlantic, which dwarfs every other battle fought at sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Major and minor are best avoided by using affair, action and battle. Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Western Allies were able to achieve decisive strategic effects at far lower cost than the Soviets. The Normandy campaign wrote off as many German divisions as the simultaneous Soviet Operation Bagration (known to Germans as 'The Destruction of Army Group Centre'), but the Western Allies used far fewer men and sustained far fewer casualties. Soviet casualties in Bagration were actually even worse than those of the Germans. By 1943, RAF Bomber Command, with just 5,000 Allied flyers on the average full-strength raid, was holding down more German manpower, weaponry and materiel than the 5,000,000-man Red Army, and the Soviets evidently could not have succeeded without the Western Allies putting that tap on German resources.

At Waterloo there were perhaps 10,000 killed on both sides. Trivial, no doubt, to the Soviet fanboi tendency (and to the Russian nationalist Tolstoy, who refused to recognise the battle's importance), but Waterloo was decisive. It concluded the Napoleonic Wars and put an end to general warfare in Europe for 99 years, making possible the transformative social, intellectual and economic progress of the Victorian age. Second Alamein, a victory achieved with impressive economy of means, was decisive, since it determined the outcome of the North African campaign and hence, combined with the successful British defence of Malta, the war for control of the Mediterranean, denying the Axis some of their greatest strategic goals (such as the seizure of British-held oilfields in Iraq and Persia).

On the whole, military victories with decisive strategic results are considered the greater when achieved with the minimum expenditure of lives and resources. Not when they are achieved the way the Soviets always did it, at idiotically and inhumanly catastrophic cost, because, for instance, Soviet infantry were committed completely unarmed and were expected to collect arms and ammunition from dead comrades as they went along, and Soviet tanks were sent in without radio equipment and thus unable to co-ordinate their actions. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite so, thank you Khamba. In addition, Allied control of the Mediterranean allowed the re-opening of the shipping routes from the UK to India and the Far East via the Suez Canal, which had been closed to UK-based shipping since the entry of Italy into the war in 1940, and which necessitated all shipping to these destinations going around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope. The re-opening of the Canal allowed for a much shorter shipping route to India and the Far East for the war against Japan and hence a reduction in the shipping times as well as the number of ships required. This in itself free-ed up ships for the forthcoming Invasion of Europe as smaller vessels that could not make the passage via the Cape could make the journey via the Canal.

BTW, the Suez Canal wasn't actually closed, shipping still transited it but only to as far West as Alexandria. The route further westward to Gibraltar was too hazardous due to the proximity of Axis airfields on the North African coast and due to Axis submarines operating around there.

This is OR not a description of what the RS say. Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps one ought to widen one's field of RS in-which to research. The necessity of re-opening the Suez Canal to ease re-supply of India and the Far East ought to be fairly easy to source. It was after all, one of the main priorities for the British, although some of her allies didn't seem able to grasp this. With the Canal closed, RAF aircraft and Army vehicles for the Far East had had to make the lengthy trip around the Cape of Good Hope, thus explaining, to some extent, why inadequate numbers of these equipments were available for the defence of Singapore, Malaya, and Burma.

BTW, the distance between Liverpool and Bombay (Mumbai) via the Suez Canal is around 7,000 miles. The distance via the Cape of Good Hope is around 11,000 miles. The latter trip, IIRC, took around two to three months.

It was, obviously, an Axis priority to close the Suez route to the British, and a British priority to keep it open. And the British won. Globally and decisively. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Italian bravery

One of the things that strikes even as a casual reader is the number and tone of the references to the fighting qualities of the Italian soldiers. I counted no fewer than half a dozen testimonials to their bravery, fighting spirit etc. We are told they “fought with exemplary courage”, “with great spirit”, that Rommel sad they “astonished the German soldier”, that the tank regiments “fought with great audacity” and much else. Now I suppose the Australian and NZ troops had a pretty good reputation as fighting men, as did many Indian units, not to mention the Germans of course. But only the Italians are mentioned in such glowing terms. We even have a whole sub-section titled “performance of Italian troops during the battle” with gushing quotes from Rommel and Churchill. And the trouble is that some of the most striking quotes are unverifiable. The Rommel quote is given a source in a book by Arrigo Petacco, which hardly inspires confidence. If Rommel really said it, we should be given the quote from a reliable source, say in his diaries. An attempt to verify the Churchill quote comes to a similar dead end. We’re told he uttered the words in a speech in the Commons “a month after El Alamein”. The source cited is an Italian news report, which gives no primary source. I suggest that the tone of panegyric should be turned down to encyclopaedic level and solid references found for the quotations, otherwise we might as well eliminate them as well as the section on “performance of the Italian troops” from the article, where they certainly stick out incongruously. Even if someone feels a psychological need to boost the Italians, this boosterism really defeats its purpose.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A few years ago a spammer was uncovered who had been bigging up the Italian contribution. Several editors went through the Desert War articles taking out the hyperbole; some may have been overlooked. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So I guess I can take some of this out in the next few days, unless there are reasoned objections.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that WP:NPOV undue weight should cover it. Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section titled "Performance of the Italian troops". I will look through to see whether anything else needs to be edited.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Main image caption I believe is incorrect

For some reasons people keep labeling the main image of this article here and in other articles as it was recently added as the main image for the Western desert campaign as being Australians in this case directly said to be the Australian 9th division who where involved in the Western Desert campaign. From looking at the original source this assumption that the soliders in the photograph are Australian is incorrect as the Imperial War museum who holds the photograph has a caption saying the soliders are British so unless somehow they put Australians in the same category as British troops the soldiers in the photograph are British meaning the caption on the image is incorrect as this was stated to be the case by the photographs owners who I assume are correct. I have already corrected the caption this image has on the western desert campaign article to British troops charging as this is what the source says they are. I will do the same with this next day if nobody tells me why the soliders are Australian and not British as the photographs owner the Imperial War museums says they are. I am doing this solely for historical accuracy no bias intended simply want the information about the photographs to be correct Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC).

changing the image caption

Changing the image caption now people have had more than enough time to challenge me on it Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism

"Rommel ordered the Italian X and XXI Corps and the 90th Light Division to hold while the Afrika Korps withdrew approximately 6 mi (9.7 km) west during the night of 3 November. The Italian XX Corps and the Ariete Division conformed to their position and Rommel replied to Hitler confirming his determination to hold the battlefield. The Desert Air Force continued its bombing and in its biggest day of the battle it flew 1,208 sorties and dropped 396 long tons (402 t) of bombs.[105]

On the night of 3/4 November, Montgomery ordered three of the infantry brigades in reserve to advance on the Rahman track as a prelude to an armoured break-out. At 17:45, the 152nd Infantry Brigade with the 8th RTR in support, attacked about 2 mi (3.2 km) south of Tel el Aqqaqir. The 5th Indian Infantry Brigade was to attack the track 4 mi (6.4 km) further south during the early hours of 4 November; at 06:15, the 154th Infantry Brigade was to attack Tel el Aqqaqir. The 152nd Infantry Brigade was mistakenly told the Axis had withdrawn from their objectives and unexpectedly met determined resistance. Communications failed and the forward infantry elements ended up digging in well short of their objective. By the time the 5th Indian Brigade set off, the defenders had begun to withdraw and their objective was taken virtually unopposed. By the time the 154th Brigade moved into some artillery-fire, the Axis had left"

This entire paragraph appears to have been copied from [here]. Or vice versa. Can anyone edit it so it isn't just paraphrasing?--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

British victory

@Excommunicato: We should sort things out here to avoid 3RR. I gave you reasons for leaving "British" in the result section of the infobox against which you demur. Dominions weren't sovereign states and neither were emigre forces. The US was involved and this was a sovereign state but several air aquadrons amount to a contingent. The overwhelming majority of the Eighth Army was British and this should be reflected in the infobox which is not a place for nuance. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also that British is shorthand for "British Commonwealth"/"British & Commonwealth". Perhaps one day DUKE (Dominion, UK and Empire - not my invention, I should say) will become a useful and used alternative. Bit of a digression: the dominions were mostly sovereign though generally following UK's lead, and their forces (volunteer/volunteered) were subordinated once in theatre to the overall British command so their government influence is reduced to less than eg a Gulf War type coalition. There's much yet to be done in history in re-balancing the narrative from British (UK) to British-led but the infobox is not the place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Dominions were mostly sovereign though generally following UK's lead....."

More than that. King George VIth was the Head of State of each dominion (and remains so - King Charles III is the head of e.g. Canada and Australia to this day) Back in 1939, all the dominions were bound by an oath of loyalty to the Emperor i.e George VIth. The dominions were therefore OBLIGED to enter the war on behalf of the British Commonwealth and Empire but their near complete independence enabled them to exercise some control over HOW they prosecuted their war. Canada's Parliament didn't approve the declaration of war against Germany & Italy until 11th Septmeber 1939 and McKenzie King, Canadian PM, directed volunteers into the RCAF since he believed air force work would result in a more political acceptable lower number of Canadian casualties. The Canadian government desperately wanted (and succeeded in) avoiding general conscription since Francophone Canada - with little love for the British Empire - would likely refuse cooperation. In fact, a number of French speaking, Quebecois regiments fought with great distinction in Normandy and the battle for Northern Europe.86.132.255.75 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Canada was a sovereign state from 1927 accodording to the Canadian Supreme Court but Australia became a sovereign state in 1948 (or according to some sources, in the 1980s, when appeals to the Privy Council were abolished). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly just an attempt at imperialist erasure to pretend it was the British and British alone who won at El Alamein. The Americans were present, for one thing, which negates this as a "British" victory in its own right. By that logic, the Battle of the Bulge was an American victory, since they did the overwhelming majority of the fighting. There were also Greek and Free French forces present. They may be subordinate to British command, but that doesn't make them British. Again, by that logic, because the British, Canadians, Poles, etc. were subordinate to American command during the invasion of Normandy, the invasion of Normandy must be an American victory. Allied victory is clearly the only solution here.(92.19.44.36 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC))

All the personnel from the dominions were British subjects (i,e., British citizens) and remained so until after WW II. That means they were 'British' whether present-day sensibilities like it or not.

FWIW, I would change the result to 'Allied victory' as despite most of the ground troops being British there were substantial USAAC elements involved and after a look at the Battle of the Bulge page, a battle which is usually classed by some as an 'American victory', the Wiki page for the latter also gives 'Allied victory'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than trying sort it out by self-guided analysis, let's see what the published sources say:

• Jonathan Dimbleby writes repeatedly in Destiny in the Desert (2021, ISBN 9781639360321) that it was a British victory. A few instances of "Allied victory" appear in the text, most of which refer to the eventual triumph against Nazism in 1944.
• Stephen Bungay writes in Alamein (2010, ISBN 9781845136505) that Second Alamein restored American confidence in the British fighting spirit. It's a subtle slant, but the text portrays a primarily British plan and a primarily British success. But Bungay never says that victory in the battle was specifically British or Allied.
• Simon Godfrey, military historian PhD, wrote on page 94 in 2013's British Army Communications in the Second World War (ISBN 9781441108920) that "The British victory at Second Alamein, November 1942, was decisive and led to the retreat of Axis forces back towards Tunisia."

I think it's fair to characterize the victory as British. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Our interlocutor seems ignorant of the basics of NPOV and can't tell an anarchist when he reads one. See Volume III: British Fortunes Reach Their Lowest Ebb, Major-General I. S. O. Playfair et al., 1960 and Volume IV: The Destruction of the Axis Forces in Africa, Major-General I. S. O. Playfair, Brigadier Charles Molony et al., 1966 Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Volume IV: The Destruction of the Axis Forces in Africa, Major-General I. S. O. Playfair, Brigadier Charles Molony et al., 1966. Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is always an orphan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Havsjö: see here Template:Infobox military conflict for rules on infobox usage. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

British victory again

Keith.

Would you stop Changing the Results as British victory . Allied victory is only the solution. There were many Allied and Commonwealth countries fought in this battle. It would be like saying that Operation Overlord was all but American victory alone. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I restored the 'British' label, as it had been changed back to Allied by a single-edit IP, and there is nothing in the above talk page discussion that seems to indicate a change in consensus from calling it a British victory. Loafiewa (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My mistakes . I thought it was Keith's edit. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is even controversial and keeps getting changed. There's belligerents listed, which includes Greece, France, and the United States on the winning side (setting aside the issue of whether Canadians are "British" at this time) and it's blatantly obvious the only thing it should say is "Allied victory" otherwise it's inherently confusing. Like, if it's a British victory, what about the other people? It's begging a question that has no need to exist. It's an objective correction. If the belligerents aren't just British, and are allied, and they won, it's an allied victory. That's literally the definition. EnterTheLongMan (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No look at the discussion up the page. Keith-264 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

None of that discussion is convincing. Either the article should fully explain how a victory obtained by several Allied nations is not an allied victory and is instead a British victory, or it should follow that the victorious side, which is not just British, is the Allied side. As I noted, it's injecting confusion into the article for no purpose. It's factually incorrect based on what is in the same info box. The revision in other words makes the article self-contradicting, which is far below the standard of any legitimate resource and diminishes the legitimacy of Wikipedia by extension, so it's a big deal. So either explain that or change it back. EnterTheLongMan (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Put me down as a vote for "Allied". The dominions at this point had already been granted equal status with the UK under the Statute of Westminster 1931, and even a small contingent should be enough to make it an Allied victory. I tend to agree with EnterTheLongMan on this. In contrast, for "British", whilst I have sympathy with the argument that British forces played the primary leadership role here, it does not say "primarily British victory", does it? I don't think this is the kind of thing we would tolerate from the Americans if they tried to claim even something like Guadalcanal or the Battle of the Coral Sea for America only. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)