Talk:Battle of Bir Hakeim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

WikiProject Echo has identified Battle of Bir Hakeim as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Allied victory of defeat 2 tactital stuff 3 Translation from fr:Bataille de Bir Hakeim 4 Comments after the translation

[edit] Allied victory of defeat

First and to be honest, I am French, so I might be biaised and ignore it. I think it is weird to consider this battle an Axis victory considered they didn't reduce the place before the English could regroup, which was the objective. Secondly, the French could not be captured either, (except the wounded), so basically the Axis couldn't reach any of their objective (take the place on time to carry on pursuing the British, and capturing the FFL). It s hardly a "French victory" either, couldn't we have a middle ground ? I want the opinion of other persons, if some people express against mine, I will be ok with this. BTW, I check the Battle of Cameron, and it is considered a Mexican victory, even though the two battles can be somehow compared in aftermath (the French held long enough).

Hmm, a strategic victory but a tactical loss. I suggest taking this to WP:MILHIST and seeing what the opinion there is. Oberiko 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me say : this is far from being an accettable historycal introduction to the Bir Hakeim episode. Any linking between Bir Hakeim and El Alamein is pure fiction. Should be written again by zero, explaining step by step : 1 - the existance of the Gazala - Bir Hakeim line, consisting mainly of British minefields 2 - so Rommel was running overnight into the desert, outflanking Bir Hakeim, his plan was to beat quickly the British troops entrenched back to the Gazala line 3 - Bir Hakeim was left simply warded by Italian troops (Trieste division? not sure), not encircled 4 - Italian troops were not so consistent and equipped to get Bir Hakeim, nor this was their target 5 - Italians had to suffer strong attacks from a British armoured brigade, fortunately they withdraw to North to join the main battle 6 - the first attack of Rommel to Britsh troops was a disaster,loosing 1/3 of his tanks, so he was reduced into the Caudron in short supply and the forgotten Bir Hakeim became a vital problem 7 - the problem was over when Italian division Brescia opened some clean ways into the minefields 8 - by this new supply line, Bir Hakeim was no longer a major problem 9 - Rommel won the Caudron battle BEFORE considering any new action against Bir Hakeim 10 - Bir Hakeim was finally taken after strong bombing by Stuka and arrival of new Italian division (Ariete?) 11 - Axis losses were strong in first Gazala battle, but only very few men and tanks were lost in Bir Hakeim, and mainly they were Italians, so considered not of primary level 12 - on the other side, many Stuka of Luftwaffe were lost on Bir Hakeim due to RAF and good ground antiaircraft defence Concluding: By numbers, hardly we can say there was a battle at Bir Hakeim, this was just a local fighting. Under any military point of view, the overal battle of Gazala was an Axis victory, while Bir Hakeim was a local and tactical Allied victory and the definition of "Axis pyrrhic victory" is total nonsense. More important, Bir Hakeim was the first moral victory for free French troops, making aware the world of their existance and succesfully fighting Axis troops. Most important, BBC emphasize the Bir Hakeim fighting and got a brilliant propaganda success for Allied, creating a new mood for French-British cooperation after the bad things happened in Mers-El-Kebir and Dakar.

Some remarkable notes. There were many Germans into the Legion, some of them (maybe wounded) were kept by Italians and released to Germans, by personal order of Rommel they were not shooted and treated as French. Africa was a gentlemen war. My father was in in Italian division Ariete and was one among the first entering Bir Hakeim. He and many others Italian were still believing that De Gaulle was in Bir Hakeim and he was taken away in hurry by an English airplane before the fall of the fortress. My father still swore to have found "the hot bed and hot lunch of the just escaped De Gaulle" in Bir Hakeim, diary and many papers originally written by him, these were delivered to Italian HQ. This comment is by Branstef. Branstef 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous comment was written straight off. Anyway it is correct and after a brief documentation, need some qualification only. Italian division Trieste was originally charged to cover Bir Hakeim, but during the night lose its way in the desert, colliding then with minefields in Gott El Ualeb, north of Bir Hakeim, just in front of the 150° armoured brigade. It is confirmed that taking Bir Hakeim was not in the Axis plan. General Bayerlein complained with Rommel for this decison, adding another uncertainty to an already too risky plan. In fact DAK (Deutsche Afrika Korp) was close to be defeated for this bad plan. During the outflanking, on May 26th overnight, division Ariete was the Axis corp passing closer to Bir Hakeim and was leaving some troops to mask the position. The major part of division Ariete joined the main battle in the Caudron. This part of Ariete masking Bir Hakeim was 30 tanks and two companies of Bersaglieri only. On May 27th, morning, they were attacked in Rugbet el Atasc by a tank group, most probably the 3rd Indian Mot. Brigade (have found the name of British Gen. Harry Filose). The Indian brigade was 10 times stronger than this small group of Ariete, anyway its attack was badly managed. The Italians lost 15 tanks, 30 killed and 40 wounded, one tenth of Indian losses, and captured many tanks, vehicles and 1000 prisoners. Then the Italians were only feeling the ground and testing the French in Bir Hakeim until June 2nd. The battle of Bir Hakeim started only on June 2nd, when division Trieste finally arrived. It is reported by some authors that Rommel sent a part of the 90th Light division to South for assaulting Bir Hakeim. On June 2nd the DAK had overpassed its shortage, by crushing the 150th brigade, keeeping Gott El Ualeb (the true SCHWERPUNKT of the battle), opening some supply corridors into the minfields, so was well furnished and entrenched. But it is unlikely that Rommel divested consistent German forces from the coming defensive battle of June 5-6 for sending them to Bir Hakeim. On June 2nd, with a total underevaluation of French willpower and defensive disposal, the Ariete and Trieste (have no evidence of Germans joining the assault) attacked Bir Hakeim, getting a severe kick and loosing 34 tanks, 4 deads and 87 prisoners. I have to amend my former statement "not of first quality": Ariete was at the top of Italian Army, one of the few corps estimated same level of German divisions 21st, 15th and 90th, at least by training and moral, not certainly by equipment. The further 5 days Bir Hakeim was heavy bombed by Stuka. The result was poor and many aicraft were lost (have no number). Incredible, but true, the French stated that German bombing was only "a lot of sand in the sky", but complained for RAF bombing them several times by mistake and inflicting serious damages. During the night from 10 to 11 June, the French troops retired with few losses. Aftermath now. The original plan of Rommel was first to outflank Bir Hakeim, go North and beat the British in 24 hours, so nothing else was needed, unfortunately after 3 days nothing was decided and DAK went short in water, oil and ammunition. As a secondary option, Italian engineers were charged to open the minefields at Gott El Ualeb. Key of the trouble for the DAK was German Intelligence, not knowing (as usual) that 150th brigade was deployed in Gott El Ualeb, just back the minefields and was in position to fire the Italian engineers of division Brescia and Pavia while they were working into the minefields. Without Bir Hakeim and without Gott El Ualeb, Rommel was much close to have to surrender. The turning point of the battle was the British Army staying inactive for 6 days while the Germans were distroying the 150th brigade. The resistance of free French men in Bir Hakeim was strategically valuable until June 2nd, even if they were partially neglected by Axis troops. After Germans destroyed the 150th brigade, got Gott El Ualeb and Italians broke the minefields, Bir Hakeim lost its importance and any the further resistance was not strategically needed. But the French were not ordered to retire until June 10th. The French victory of June 2nd is anyway much valuable for other reason: moral, ethical, propaganda. So the decision to retire on July 10th was totally correct. French Free Corp performed over any expectation at Bir Hakeim. Its resistance, although secondary to the battle of 150th at Gott El Ualeb, gave to British Army a full chance to destroy the DAK and the Ariete, so ending the war in Africa 1 year before El Alamein. It is much established that gen. Ritchie, in his HQ in Gambut, never appreciated correctly the situation and miss the bus by leaving inactive the British Army for 6 days. Note: I am talking of British Army (of Nile), as VIII Army has born only October 23, 1942. Any quote of this army before this date should be regarded as a mistake. Comment by Branstef.Branstef 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the responsibility to revert it as an Allied Victory. I am belgian, so I am neutral and consider any further discussion as useless. You can talk as long as you wish about exact casualties or events. The problem is pure french-bashing. If this battle has been considered as an "Axis Phyrric Victory" by some user, it is by pure anti-french feeling for sure. Why ? Because there are a lot of other battles in history that could be considered Pyhrric victory. But the only and most important free french action in WWII has been reduced by someone who wants to further the legend of France being a "weak" country and a "loser" nation. I am not french and I don't give a fuck in the french or american patriotism. But I am a strong wikipedia supporter and I think it is ridiculous that this battle should be mentionned with such a stupid and pompuous "Axis phyrric victory". This is not true : the objective was fulfilled and the status of victory for this battle by the Allied is certified by many scholars from any nations in the world. Even Germany recognized it as a defeat. I sincerely feel sorry that such a wonderful project as wikipedia is the victim of this ridiculous and unhistorical tendency to re-write french history in an infamous way. Myself, I feel neutral. And I am in Belgium one of the most important scholars about WWII. I also am a strong defender of wikipedia in my country. 81.244.86.141 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the result to an Axis pyrrhic victory and Allied strategic advantage. Regardless of how assimetic the force proportions was, the simple fact is that on a tactical level the French did retreat. Granted that it was in an organized way, but claiming that they won is equivalent to saying that Thermopilae was a Greek victory because Leonidas ordered the main body to withdraw. However, it was a strategic defeat to the Axis point of view as the Afrika Korps was delayed for too long. Given the disporpotionate forces and Rommel's reputation for chivalry while waging a "Krieg ohne Hass", he conceded a (deserved) moral victory to the defenders.

As for the partiotism/French bashing matter, I'm Brazilian, and the simple truth is that France didn't fare well in a general way, but it also must be kept in mind that nobody was able to really hold a Blitzkrieg offensive until Kursk - thus the French lasting for so long was indeed a feat. But! Even if Bir Hakeim was one of the high points in French bravery and resilience, it is a fact that in the end they had to give ground or be overwhelmed. Many coutries had such desperate stands and they are honoured as high points of military valour. Saying that the battle itself was an "Axis pyrrhic victory" in view of the end result and the casualty lists is certainly far more respectful to the French effort (and to truth) than resorting to euphemisms such as calling it a "glorious defeat" or even worse, a shameful outright lie by claiming an Allied victory. If I wanted to really be biased against the French, I'd have to remind that the British supplied the French and the RAF also fought (apparently against both sides, but nominally for the Allies), so their flag is missing on the combatants... ;-) Cmdr. Maegil 16:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Phyrric Victory is an absurd term. THis battle is the ONLY ONE in the whole wikipedia to be considered neither a victory nor a defeat. The Free French left this territory only because they were asked to do so by the british commandment who didn't need anymore to defend this place. THis is a victory and that's all. 81.246.195.45 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Axis captured the area, which was their main objective. Regardless of cost, it was a victory. Oberiko 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article in other languages, and all but the French agrees to it having been an Axis victory. The problem here is resumed in the (extremely short) German Wiki article: "Die für den Kriegsverlauf letztlich bedeutungslose Schlacht von Bir Hakeim wird heutzutage in Frankreich als Geburtsstunde des France Libre, des freien Frankreichs, glorifiziert." "The battle of Bir Hakeim, insignificant for the war process in the long run, is glorified nowadays in France as the birth of the Free France".

I can't agree to it having been insignificant, as the Allies would have been in dire straits if the Afrika Korps offensive hadn't lost the two weeks it did. From the French Wiki, "Le général britannique Playfair dira : (...)La concentration de plus en plus importante de l'Axe, pour percer cet abcès, a sauvé la 8e armée britannique d'un désastre." "The British General Playfair said: (...)The increasingly important concentration of the Axis, to bore this abscess, saved the British 8th Army from a disaster."

Still, while if for the French this is a simple matter of national pride, on the opposite side 201.230.221.157 removed the "Allied strategic advantage" under the pretext that "battles are supposed to have 2 outcomes. There is no sense in acepting a Pyrrhic Axis Victory them claim an Strategic advantage. the advantage was axis one but at a high cost"(sic). I think I understand what he/she means, but can't agree either as there are plenty of examples of losing battles to win a war; this is a classical delaying action tactic 'sacrificing' a small contingent to gain time to regroup the main force.

To try and appease all parties, I'm reverting the result to "Axis pyrrhic victory; Allied strategic advantage; disputed by France as an Allied victory". I sincerely hope that this will end the discussion about the result. PLEASE! Cmdr. Maegil 23:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For a start, could you please avoid linking to the French article and saying it was "disputed by the French". Wikipedia is not a source.

In this case, the tactical success was with the French, and the strategic advantage with the Axis, who won the battle of Gazala.

You have to consider the disproportion in forces: on one hand the Free French: One Brigade, only 3600 men, no tanks. On the other hand the entire Afrika Korps, tens of thousand of men, hundreds of tanks, not counting artillery and aircraft. The fact that the French held out at all was a feat in itself. But hold out they did, for longer than anyone expected, and gained valuable respite for the 8th Army(which was called 8th Army). The fact that the British did not take advantage of this respite to regain the initiative was entirely due to the timidity of the British command(Ritchie not being the best of generals), after their previous defeats in the cauldron.

As has been said already, this was a delaying action, and you can't judge the success of a delaying action by the fact that the French were finally forced to relinquish their position. Their purpose was to buy time, and in this they were successful beyond all expectations.

I also understand that this battle has a mythical aspect, for the French(honour regained...), and that this has led some people to be suspicious of the reality of the outcome. However, these events have been well documented, and it was not a "glorious defeat", or any such nonsense, but a success, albeit on a small scale. Also, by diverting his main force and constantly battering it against a secondary objective, Rommel did not show great generalship on this occasion. Raoulduke47 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tactital stuff

why don't you use the tactical victory, military defeat stuff that is used elsewhere? it would close the debate. by the way there's no version of this battle in german language, maybe they don't like so much grand pyrrhic victories. about victories that depends on who is involved or not, there is the epic pyrrhic retreat of the Battle of Dunkirk... Paris By Night 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation from fr:Bataille de Bir Hakeim

Hello !

I've translated the French featured article into English here, and merged the links. I'll make sure, asking by natives English, to get rid of all the language mistakes and impurities. (Of course feel free to read and correct it)

Please feel free to add any content that would be in the English article and not in the translated one !!

“	The battle then centred upon Bir Hacheim, where the Free French resisted with the utmost gallantry. Around this the struggle surged for eight or nine days. Finally it was decided to withdraw the garrison, and this was successfully accomplished, though with heavy losses. Here, no doubt, was a turning point in the battle. Whether anything more could have been done we cannot tell.	”
—Parliamentary Debates , House of Commons Official Report

NicDumZ ~ 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments after the translation

The "Bataille de Bir Hakeim" is translated into good English but the content is not history. Need to clarify immediately that this is not a national dispute, there is not a German, Italian, French or British version of the battle of Bir Hakeim. There is good agreement between all historians about fact and figures. Discussion can be about "if" or about "why", but no question about "what happened", everything is well known. I suppose that 1 French on 2 has read the very popular "La seconde guerre mondiale" by Raymond Cartier. This history is a milestone, translated into every language. Gazala and Bir Hakeim are the matter of Chapter XVI. Raymond Cartier is French and his version is the same of Desmond Young, Alan Moorehead, David Irving, Liddell Hart, and so on. I suppose that an honest and accettable action could be to rewrite it conforming to them. Facts and figures are that 200000 men were fighting the battle of Gazala, focused in the Cauldron around Gott El Ualeb. The secondary episode of Bir Hakeim involved 3500 French legionaires and nothing more than few hundreds Italian soldiers, raised to (maybe) 2000-3000 Italian and German during last days. Some hundreds men were killed or wounded at Bir Hakeim, while it is true that Bir Hakeim was heavily bombed and many Stukas were shut down by RAF. There is a total agreement that Bir Hakeim is a French local victory, a tactical victory, a moral victory, a great propaganda success. Bir Hakeim resistance gave to British tank force the possibility to destroy the Afrika Korps, but this chance was lost. That's all, without fantastic exhaggeration like 45000 Axis troops fighting at Bir Hakeim and 3,300 Axis dead and wounded. Nobody tried such a fantastic link like Bir Hakeim to El Alamein, there are 2 main battles in the middle, KnigthsBridge and the fall of Tobruk. By the way, I see that a link has been created to something called Bir-El-Harmat. Never heard, never read that Jewish Brigade was already in 1942 and was in Bir Hakeim. Comment by Branstef.84.223.94.30 07:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. All i did was translating the French article, which is a Featured Article. I promised a while ago to fetch the books to reference every number, but I just can't find the time. If I understand your point, I don't think that the numbers are this Wrong. The only sure figures we have are : 1 allied Brigade against 3 axis Divisions. That makes a huge gap. And yet, they held on...

Also, about Bir-el-Harmat, all I did again was a translation. That other article really lack of sources, there are controversies about the term "Jewish Brigade" because it was later used in another sense : at that time it was only a Brigade of Jewish, from several countries, fighting together. The Jewish Brigade may be not linked to the Jewish Brigade, since dates do not match. There's also de:Schlacht von Bir el Harmat but I really don't understand deutsch, so it does not help a lot. NicDumZ ~ 07:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can modify the english Wikipedia page,if you agree.

By sure, I would like to amend Bir Hakeim to "Allied tactical victory". Meaning the Axis forces really fighting agaist French Corp, Axis forces should be "approx. 3000" and Axis losses "approx. 300". To reach figures around 30000 Axis soldiers and 3000 Axis losses, you have to mean all the battle around Bir Hakeim. Division Ariete was fighting overnight against 3rd Mot.Indian Brig., while german DAK collided with 7th Mot. Brig., these are reported as "light" fightings, losses were extimated few hundreds. Later on, division Ariete was severely attacked by 4th Armoured Brig., trying to clean the way to Bir Hakeim, these were heavy fightings, thousands of soldiers died on both sides. The rest of the story, I can rewrite conforming to official history

Regarding Bir-el Harmat, the German Wikipedia page is not adding any source other than the already mentioned one. If you are French, you can read the book of Gen. Koenig, as far as I know he never mentioned this story. Unfortunately it was never translated from French, so my information is second-hand from an Italian summary. Jewish volunteeers were in the desert, they were not Palestinian but Jewish escaped from Germany, so very useful as speaking German. Most of them worked in translation service and prisoner interrogation. British long range/special forces, running the desert for infiltration and sabotage, were much consisting of these German Jewish, but they were carefully covered by British documents. Branstef ~«~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.94.94 (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe last word was not clear, apologise, "carefully covered by British documents" means they had British identity papers, to put them covered by Geneva prisoner convention (although there were no SS in Afrika Korp). Weighing up the British mood about Jewish in 1942, a David star flag waved that year and an Allied general permitting this, this sounds much strange.84.222.51.183 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)