Talk:Battle of Bir Hakeim

message: 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)
thread_title: tactital stuff

message: 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 !!
NicDumZ ~ 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation from [[:fr:Bataille de Bir Hakeim]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments after the translation 

message: It is interesting to note that Bir Hakim was possibly the only place where an orchestrated battle took place between Free French (De Gaulle) and forces aligned to Vichy France (Pétain).  This came about as the 90th Light contained three regiments, of which one – the 361st Mot Regt, consisted of large numbers of French Legionnaires, whilst Bir Hakim was occupied by the Free French Division of Gen Koenig.
Farawayman (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't. the Free French 1st Light Infantry Division under Paul Legentilhomme fought against the Vichy in the Syria-Lebanon Campaign. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regular French forces while under Vichy (july 1940 - november 1942) never operated side by side with Axis forces. They only saw action in what they saw as defensive operations of French colonial territories (Dakar, Madagascar, Syria & Lebanon, and briefly Morocco and Algeria) - obviously Lybia & Egypt were not part of these. Of course Vichy did however allow anti-communist or pro-nazi elements to recruit French individuals that served as volunteers in the Axis forces on the eastern front (see Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism), but it is not the same thing. What's your source for French nationals being part of a German regiment at Bir Hakeim? PpPachy (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there might be a slight confusion here. The "Legionnaires", were, I believe, Germans who had served in North Africa with the French Foreign Legion between the two wars. They were employed in the Afrika Korps because of their knowledge of fighting in desertic terrain. Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I think PpPachy has summed it up correctly - the troops referred to were not actually Vichy forces, but were recruited from pro-Vichy or pro-German elements in France and North Africa.  As for actual French units, the Germans selected +-300 troops from the French Foreign Legion and incorporated them into the African Special Purposes Division (1941).  On 28 Nov 41, this division was re-named the 90th Light Division, consisting of 155th Mot Regt, 200th Mot Regt and 361st Mot Regt.  Most of the ex Legionnaires were in 361st Mot Regt.  [Littlejohn, D.  Foreign Legions of the Third Reich, Vol 1: Norway, Denmark ad France, Pg198.]  Farawayman (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: French Conflict

message: While the battle was undoubtly a morale success for the French, the numbers for the German strenght and casualties seems to be a bit out of place especially since both is not sourced. At first the strenght -  45,000 would mean that the whole Afrika Korps stormed the oasis - and that is simply not true, so i changed it. The second are the casualties. One would need a good and reliable source for such large casualties, but there is given none. And i think there will never be one, because when determining the German casualties 2 problems occur: At first from the French side, they simply cant know or even estimate the German casualties, because they had to leave the battlefield. So one has to make archival research in German sources, but with the Gazala battle raging it would be hard to isolate the casualties only for the Hakeim battle. I guess nobody has done that, since there are not very much (english) books about this topic. I have a French book, which gives numbers for the German casualties as: 52 tanks, 11 armored cars, 5 self-propelled guns destroyed, 7 aircrafts shot down by the AA defense + numerous unarmored vehicles and about 277 German/Italian POWs (123+154), but of course no overall casualties. As long as nobody comes up with a good source for the whole casualties, i will insert only these numbers StoneProphet (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also edited the result, as it was a French success, but on the strategic scale it didnt changed much for the Allies at the Gazala disaster. StoneProphet (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above. I would even go one step further to say it does not make sense that the French troops took POW at all. What did they do with them when they broke out of the siege? I can not believe that they left their wounded just to take POW. Waechter talks about 500 French casualties and 500 wounded, most of them during battles after break out of the French. He also states that the entire battle was used for propaganda purposes by all sides. Likely this battle was of less importance than it was made to be. Unless anybody can add the needed references, I will start editing the article to a more neutral view point. Jerryscuba (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I again removed weird casualties claims for the Axis. French casualties were certainly about ~1000 (captured including dead/wounded), but German/Axis casualties are not determinable. E.g. 3,300 dead Axis is impossible, as German casualties for the whole Gazala battle were only ~3,500 (and the Italian even less). StoneProphet (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That extensive german casulty number does seem far fetched. Are there any reliable sources that have a number?Beefcake6412 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess not. StoneProphet (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: German strenght + casualties

message: If it is true that at Bir Hakeim there were over 1,000 Spaniard Republicans , that means that over some 30% of the Free French garrison was made up of Spaniards. Perhaps it's an overclaiming, but this article should  mention it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaniard Republicans 

message: (Transferred from Kirrages talk page to this talk page as being a more appropriate place for this discussion)
hi Kirrages, and thank you for contacting me. Bir Hakeim is one of my great interests. It was a battle within the larger battle of Gazala, which was clearly a major defeat for the8th Army, leading to the loss of Tobruk and the retreat to Alamein. Within that defeat, though, I would argue that Bir Hakeim constituted a real victory for the Free French, for the following reasons
1 As the Rommel Papers make clear, Koenig held his position much longer than expected, thus foiling Rommels intention to encircle the British and destroy them. The British official history, "The Mediterranean and Middle East, vol 3' says Bir Hakeim" saved the British 8th army from a disaster...Holding back Rommel allowed the British forces to escape from its meticulously planned annihilation".
2. Thce stand at Bir Hakeim gave the Free French government in exils great political capital, by establishing their forces as a credible fighting force, allies able to make a real contribution to the Allied cause. Both De Gaulle in his memoirs and Churchill in his history of the Second World War acknowledge this, and Lutz Koch in his "Rommel" reports Hitler saying "The French are, after us, the best soldiers... after this war, we will have to find allies able to contain a country which is capable of military exploits that astonish the world like they are doing right now in Bir Hakeim".
3. Also, the French attained their aim of holding their positions until ordered to leave, and then kept their force in being, while Rommel failed in his aim of destroying them and taking the position quickly. Therefore, I see Bir Hakeim as a victory  for France.
Regards,Red and Black Partisan.Red and black partisan (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have read WP:POV as I suggested. They were not "my errors" - I didn't write it. However, I do respect consensus established by Wikipedia contributors. The "Axis victory" is the established consensus supported by two citations from credible external published sources (Bimberg and Waechter). I accept your 3 points above but none of them as far as I can see explicitly describe the battle as a French victory. Yes the French fought outstandingly but ultimately they were forced to withdraw. You just changed Axis to French and left the existing citations supporting the original. The way Wikipedia works is that if you change a fact, especially one supported by documented citations, you cannot do it because it is your opinion (POV). You have to create an argument supported by external published sources and secure the agreement of the other editors, in other words change the consensus. My edits reverting your changes reflect only that you have violated accepted procedure and have made edits reflecting your opinion rather editorial consensus based on credible references. Your repeated violation drove me treat it as vandalism. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You can "repeat" all you like but the fact remains: after your edit there is no reference / footnote to support your change. In fact you leave the existing footnotes supporting an Axis victory. This is inconsistent, inappropriate and degrades the credibility of the article. Please conduct this discussion on this talk page, not on my talk page. Thank you. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose victory? 

message: Tidied the references and layout.Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did more tidying and added a collapsible frame to the OOB. Does the Notable people section need to be there? It's a bit elitist, I'd get rid.Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Notables gone unless anyone objects, began to tidy ready to add citationsKeith-264 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Looking through the order of battle, British troops were present and the RAF too which provided a umbrella over the area too. Perhaps add them into the combatants? Shire Lord 23:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means.Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Shire Lord 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I've searched for missing citations but without the sources can't do much more. Since the banner's been up for three years, I'm minded to delete the ones which are un-cited when I finish tomorrow. Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work once again. Well done. Shire Lord 23:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Eythenkew! Deleted the wiki bot, having cut the broken link.Keith-264 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

text: So everyone seems to be mad at me for not letting the British flag here but, again I do not believe the British participated in this particular battle enough to list it as a Franco-Britsh battle. The whole front was under British control but this particular battle was only fought by Koenig's men. Occi31000 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a reminder British troops, women and airmen did fight in the battle - the 11th City of London Yeomanry Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment most notably were present during the siege itself as well as the DAF (RAF). In addition to this during the breakout attempt the Royal Army Service Corps escorted by the 2nd King's Royal Rifle Corps (KRRC) and the 2nd Rifle Brigade helped to get the French out. Hope this helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add British as combatant? 

message: Three paragraphs left to cite but they're from French sources which I don't have. I'll ask around.Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found citations for the oob.Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing French sources was difficult but managed it for some, cut the others.Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Template:Infobox military conflict
result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Pyrrhic is not warranted.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, if "X victory", "Decisive X victory", "Inconclusive" and "see Aftermath section" are the only acceptable results, then how did the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands attain featured article status? Indy beetle (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know but I bet the assessments have got more stringent; I think that some of them don't deserve a C grade. When I look back at my earlier efforts, the result sections sometimes resemble symphonies of hair-splitting and logic-chopping. Now that I know the criteria, I assume that they are intended to force the writer to choose broad terms for brevity and "see Aftermath section" exists for the occasions when it won't work, like the miscellaneous file in a system. Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result section 

message: Just caught an edit conflict so I'll keep away for the nonce. Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Seriously, how could this be a French defeat, or conversely, how could this be a German victory?
To make it short:
- The Germans lost plenty of troops in front of a weaker enemy
- The Germans never managed to take the position they wanted
- The Germans only were able to enter the fortress once their enemy allowed them to do so, at which stage the fortress had lost its relevance
- The French only left the fortress once they were asked to by the British, WAY after they were supposed to, and in good order
...and you would call that a French defeat?
Wow, I wish the Axis powers had more victories like the one they had at Bir-Hakeim, the war would have been much shorter...
I suppose Pearl Harbour is a Japanese defeat too, I mean, the Japanese navy did not conquered the entire USA that day, and their planes had to go back to their base afterwards, so yeah, it's not a victory, am I right? It's like Stalingrad, I mean, come on, the Soviets did not conquer anything at Stalingrad. Was D-Day really an Allied victory? Because you know, initially, the objective in D-Day was greater than the one acheived, so yeah, definitely, Operation Overlord is a German victory...
:We can have opinions here but in the article we have to describe what the RS say. Disputes like this tend to be differences of emphasis between tactics, operations and strategy. It's indisputable that the Axis defeated the Eighth Army and that the French withstood a siege but were ordered out before they were overrun, not because they'd done their job. (According to the RS).
:: - It's a french defeat like Battle of Thermopylae was a greek defeat.
:Yet again I draw everyone's attention to Template:Infobox military conflict
 and suggest that See aftermath be left alone. If not, list the RS that give the verdict you prefer because it isn't out opinion that matters. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: How could anyone call this a French defeat?

message: Despite the polite notice in the infobox and similar requests on his talk page, User talk:Occi31000 has repeatedly maliciously edited the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Please stop your disruptive edits to the Bir Hakeim page, the article makes the scope of French and British involvement in that part of the battle of Gazala clear with citations and references. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't about the battle of Gazala, it's about the battle of Bir Hakeim which is part of the Battle of Gazala. French and British troops and the DAF took part in the Battle of Bir Hakeim. I should know, I wrote the thing. Please stop your disruptive edits.Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. The article is about Bir Hakeim and the French and British operation there. Stop your malicious edits.Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: It's not a translated page and you would be well-advised to read the article. Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: A flare rose, the Axis troops nearby began to fire, the guide of the HQ column got lost and was blown up three times by mines. When Kœnig caught up with the main column, it was blocked by troops of the 90th Light Division and he ordered a rush, regardless of the mines; Lamaze, Captain Bricogne and Lieutenant Dewey were killed in the mêlée.[41] The reception was organised by 550 Company Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) which drove lorries and guided field ambulances with inexperienced rear-area crews, escorted by the 2nd King's Royal Rifle Corps (KRRC) and the 2nd Rifle Brigade on either side. The ambulances became separated in the dark but were recovered and guided to the rendezvous.[42] The commander the 3rd Battalion was captured but most of the brigade managed to break out, reach Bir el Gubi, then withdraw to Gasr-el-Arid by 7:00 a.m. on 11 June. About 2,700 men, including 200 wounded of the original 3,600 men escaped and during the day, British patrols picked up stragglers.[39]  Try harderKeith-264 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 7th Motor Brigade ran four supply convoys into Bir Hakeim from 31 May – 7 June.[43] Keith-264 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: You are outnumbered 2:1 on a matter of fact. I suggest that you reflect on that. Keith-264 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

text: They were all fighting, stop splitting hairs. Take account of Dead Mary's comments too.Keith-264 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: - You do realise that the reference you provided actually lists Wikipedia as its source don't you? At any rate it seems to me that the level of British involvement in this action is sufficient to justify their inclusion in the infobox and from reviewing this thread I can see that several editors have also said this, so there does not appear to be consensus for your position at the moment. Please be aware that repeatedly reverting the article as you are doing is disruptive and constitutes edit warring, which may result in you being blocked by an Administrator. You would be best advised to discuss the matter here and not change the article again unless you can achieve agreement on said change (please see WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss for the suggested way to handle disagreements over content). Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: The article clearly states that the 1st Free French Brigade was part of the British XXX Corps and provides two inline citations (one to Bimberg and another to Playfair). The involvement of British ground and air forces is also plainly spelt out with references provided. I do not have access to the sources used here by other editors but I have no reason to believe they don't support the text as written. Perhaps if you have an issue with it though you should obtain the references in question and check for yourself rather than continuing to make unsupported assertions. You seem to be insisting that British involvement not be listed in the infobox because they did not have combat troops directly involved in the ground fighting, yet you have cited no policy which says that such a even threshold exists (probably because it does not). Ultimately, this is a question of editorial judgement and comes down to achieving consensus. So far there is no consensus for your interpretation hence I invite to undo your last edit  and continue the discussion in good faith. Anotherclown (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from [[User talk:Occi31000]] 

message: Left and right only make sense if the orientation perspective is clear.  Is the following from the German perspective?
The German left flank is anchored on the sea or is this just left and right wrt the Bir Hacheim box? Perhaps this could be made explicit - including that it is the German left.  Alternatively, compass references could be used as they are less likely to be ambiguous. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point but I've put a lot of books into storage and can't find the details. I'll need to look through them tomorrow. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Could be but Pitt's in the corner too.Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left and right? 

message: "The fortification was a rough pentagon pointing north" This doesn't do much for me as a description.  A regular pentagon points in 5 directions?  A rough pentagon elongated (on two opposite sides) to resemble an arrow pointing north ie 🠵.  On the otherhand, the battle map shows it as roughly a semi-circle with the arc facing south.  A bit confusing for me. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point but I've put a lot of books into storage and can't find the details. I'll need to look through them tomorrow. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rough pentagon ? 

message: Saying: "Kœnig put the fort under the command of Amilakhvari, the Foreign Legion commander and left the fort at the head of the column in his jeep, driven by an English ambulance driver, Miss Susan Travers." is confusing since he then catches up with the main column.  Should this be the "HQ column"? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be but Pitt's in the corner too.Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of column 

message: I prefer 100 to a hundred, it seems prolix.Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a matter of existing style wrt WP:numbers I wouldn't argue (acknowledging my error in in making some edits).  However imo it obviates the messy alternative in this particular case: "with only  and  rounds left" versus "with only  and  rounds left". Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just like, your opinion, man. If you don't like this form, it can be reworded.Keith-264 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did reword per WP:Number: "But adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes, not 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes." and "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures: five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs" Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I remember when I experimented with × rather than x in the article space after comment that numbering items that have numbers in the title could confuse and not liking the results much. Taking them out is one of the tidying tasks I've been doing when other peoples' edits get me looking at old articles. There are a few more dotted around; pity I didn't read WP:Number at the time. Did you like my Big Lebowski quip? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't make the connection :) Cinderella157 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written numbers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Bir Hakeim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204110006/http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/birhakeim/birhakeim01.htm to http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/birhakeim/birhakeim01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Let's assume that the photo comes from the British Imperial War Museum, as the source claims. That it is an authentic picture of the battle, is however extremely unbelievable, for the following reasons:
1) The picture seems so well set up that the whole scene was most likely organized by a professional director.
2) French foreign legionnaires too would wear a helmet during a battle and not the kepi, the head covering to wear during the free time
--Werfur (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved from top of talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity of the photo 

message: "two companies were detailed to stay behind to disguise the retirement."
 "retirement" in English means to stop working and receive a pension.
Possible intended meanings are "retreat" or "removal (of mines)". 
Perhaps from French retraite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strambotik (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The first meaning given for "retirement" in the OED is "The action or an act of falling back or retreating from a place or position (now chiefly in military contexts). Also: the action of receding; movement back or away", and that is what is meant here. So, not an error. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty English 

message: I did not remove the UK from the list of belligerents as the RAF for example did support the Free French during the operation... which means it was involved and needs to be there. I simply removed the mention that "the French troops fought under overall British command there" which would be appropriate if it was about Gazala. The article is about the battle of Bir Hakeim itself where the troops were clearly led by Koenig himself, not about the greater battle in which they were indeed under British leadership. I don't even know why this is controversial. The sources and the article itself say as much. It was the first independent action undertaken by the Free French themselves. Nobody is saying that about the Battle of Gazala. I don't really care for the dick-mesuring contest you're having with that other user about removing the UK as a belligerent . Maybe you assumed it was me. But no, the UK is also listed as a belligerent in francophone sources at Bir Hakeim. I simply removed your nonsensical reason as to why the UK shouldn't be removed. Checked it again, and the UK very much still appeared on the page as a belligerent after my edit. I don't know what your problem is. (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking in a mirror, minding your manners and reading a few books. Keith-264 (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership 

message: AmilakHvari is more faithful to the original Kartuli, but the man himself used Amilakvari in French service: there is/was even documentation with his own signature on the net at one time.
In the Legion, there is the tradition of a new identity in any case; that was his new identity.
More importantly, having been stateless (born a Georgian Russian, he was hardly USSR...) for nearly two decades, he was awarded French citizenship in 1940 - partly for his recent war-service - and that was the style formally chosen by him for his new country: France.
Finally, Amilakhvari/Amilakvari's dates were (1906-1942). Of those c.35 years, he was an Ottoman or Turkish resident for one year or less (pre-Republic), a Russian citizen (or Georgian, or both...) for c.15 years [1906-1921], and a French resident/subject/citizen for c.20 years [1922-1942]. He was a French citizen for his latter c.2 years, and was French - not merely 'in French service' - at the time of his death. France uses: Amilakvari.
https://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/fr/compagnons/dimitri-amilakvari
Choose one, choose some, choose all? Dixi.Protozoon (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amilakhvari/Amilakvari 

message: Amended citation format to sfn and other minor edits Keith-264 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits Comment 

message: Template:Infobox military conflict strength1/strength2 – optional – the numerical strength of the units involved (emphasis mine). See also Usage. Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox criteria 

message: hello. I do not understand why you reverted my edit. While that photograph clearly shows a 75mm served by North-African Free French soldiers, it is unsure when and where it was taken. The 22e Compagnie Nord-Africaine that fought at Bir Hakeim was not the only North-African Antitank Company, two others (21e and 23e Compagnie Nord-Africaine) did serve in Libya in 1942, but not with the 1st Free French Brigade. The legend of the photograph indicates only "Libya" and "1942", without more precision.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good morning, if you click on the picture it takes you here  with this, "Lot 11588-38: North African Campaign. The Free French forces in the western desert of Africa, although not very large in numbers, are doing most valuable work. They have their own famous 75 mm. guns, maintain patrols with armored vehicles, and are manning outposts in some of the most forward areas, 1942. Office of War Information Photograph, 7909-ZE. (2016/02/11).".Hope this helps. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you. However, the text does not state that this photograph was taken during the battle of Bir Hakeim. That's why I added "as the ones used at Bir Hakeim" to the caption. -- Le Petit Chat (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of a 75mm gun