Talk:Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis

message: Field Marshall Alexander of Tunis cannot have received the Order of Merit from King George VI in 1959 as the latter died in 1952. He either got it on that date from Queen Elizabeth II or from George VI on some other date. Can anyone advise? --F Sykes 20:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we even sure he was in the OM? My sources don't list him as such... Proteus (Talk) 00:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear so as his name is mentionned on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page493.asp which I suppose is as authorised as can be. --F Sykes 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Field Marshal  Alexander of Tunis received the Order of Merit from Queen Elizabeth II on 23rd April 1960. See List_of_Members_of_the_Order_of_Merit and http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1747.asp --F Sykes 12:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Merit 

message: :I'm puzzled by the claim that Alexander 'led the Baltic Landwehr'. I've looked at relevant German websites and they don't mention him, except occasionally to refer the reader to this Wikipedia article. This makes me wonder if he was simply a middle- or senior-ranking officer in the Baltic Landwher. 'Lead' implies that he was C-in-C or Chief of Staff. Moreover, it would have been very remarkable if a largely German force had placed such trust in a Briton so soon after the end of WWI. It looks as if there's been some misunderstanding about his role in the Baltic Landwehr.   Norvo 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John Keegan's anthology of biographies of British generals, "Churchill's Generals", refers to Alexander as "Commander Baltic Landeswehr" (p128) and there are details on pp 107 & 108. Alexander's title was "'Relief Adviser' but took command of the Baltic Landeswehr, consisting of German and Baltic soldiers, with a German Chief of Staff, Baron Rahden." The author, Brian Holden Reid, cites "Alexander of Tunis as Military Commander". I haven't checked Reid's reference, but it seems sound. Hope this helps. Folks at 137 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in Baltic Landwehr 

message: The Cossack General Domanov was in the group of Cossack officers who were brutally betrayed by the British authorities. Gerenral Domanov was the one who received a letter for the British Field Marshal Harold Alexander. On the May 27, 1945 at 5 PM the British Major B.P. Davis arrived to the hotel "Gold Fish" where General Domanov was residing at that time. The Major delivered a special order to the General from Field Marshal Alexander. This order stated that all cossacks must arrive to the city of Spital (Austria) to participate in a conference "Present political and military situation and the POW cossacks". General Domanov passed the British order to all Cossack officers. Following this betrayal order, 14 Cossack generals, 2359 officers, 65 military clerks, 14 doctors, 7 feldshers and 2 priests arrived to the designated location. They were all placed into a prison camp. British took away from the cossacks pocket knives, lighters, whistles, etc. The prison camp was surrounded by the British army with 6 tanks. On the 28th of May 1945 it was announced that there will be no conference. It was announced that all cossacks will be given away to the Soviet authorities. General Krasnof wrote several petitions to the King of England, League of Nations, International Red Cross but hey all remained unanswered. Few officers who didn't want to be given to the Soviets, took away their lifes. On the 29th the Soviets came and the British forced Cossacks into the lorries. While forcing Cossacks into the lorries, the British soldiers and officers were brutally beating them. By 5 PM of the 29th of May 1945 all remaining alive 2426 Cossacks were given by British to the  SMERSH (Russian acronym for "Death to the spies") group of the Soviet 3rd Ukrainian Front. 
This is a free-style and may be not of a very good quality abbreviated translation from:
http://www.cossacks.info/war/repatriation/chapter_lenivov21.html
:IIRC, the repatriation of Soviet citizens had been previously agreed between the Western governments and the Soviets and so any Soviet troops or citizens present in areas occupied by the Western powers were obliged to be handed over to the Soviet authorities. At the time the murderous nature of these authorities was not fully appreciated in the West.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infamous Harold: murdered of cossacks 

message: No indication if his marriage produced children. I'll do some research of my own.
:Done and included. Folks at 137 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of children 

message: GrahamBould 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Office in 1943? 

message: During the retreat to Dunkirk, Alexander's 1st Division was under 1 Corps but was transferred to II Corps on 18 May. Om 21 May the division received its only significant attack...On 28 May 1st was re-attached to I Corps and moved into the Dunkirk perimeter...On 31 May Alexander replaced Barker as commander II Corps i.e. after he arrived at Dunkirk. This all comes from Churchill's Lions: A Biographical Guide to Key British Generals of World War II. Alexander may well have been the last general officer off the beach at Dunkirk but was certainly not "instrumental in leading the retreat to Dunkirk". Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Barker was so ineffectual that Alexander had effectively been in command of the corps before then. To be honest your current wording looks okay. Leithp 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My point was to do with being instrumental in the withdrawal to Dunkirk. This was not the case since up to four days before his division's arrival at Dunkirk he was reporting to II Corps commanded successively by Brooke and Montgomery, both of whom arrived back from France with reputations enhanced. Barker was indeed ineffectual, but this meant that Alexander had to act very much on his own initiative in handling his division. He would not have had much influence on the other divisions in the corps - that's not the way the army works! There is no doubt, however, that once he became corps commander Alexander executed his task to "hold the perimeter alongside the French and to sagfeguard the evacuation of the rearguard" extremely well and Alexander's "...unflapability made a huge contribution to the success of Operation Dynamo, the rescue of the BEF." i.e. his impact was during the evacuation from Dunkirk not the withdrawal to Dunkirk. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dunkirk

message: The two PCs in the list of honours after Alexander's name are in different places in the infobox and the main article.  There must be rules about this sort of thing, but I don't know what they are.  Could someone please 'do the honours'. Cheers. GrahamBould (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of his part in the Tunisian campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Honours after his name

message: Rettetast seems to have reformatted the article by removing any and all date links in the article, as well as, repositioning the [Image:AlexanderMacLeanJovanovic.jpg] image. The result is that the text is not positioned correctly and has a large gap in between paragraphs. Applied undo to article version prior to Rettetast’s edit. -- Gaston200 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I dit not reposition any image. I only removed unneccesary links according to WP:MOSNUM. I don't see any difference in the placement of any image. Can the problem beyour browser. Remember that readers use different browsers and screen resolution and that the layout changes to fit the screen. Therefore it will display differently. Rettetast (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the problem is the image since it is forced down by the infobox in IE. It looks the same way in both my edit and in the undone edit. Just move the image down. Rettetast (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reformat

message: 7 August 1942 – 18 February 1943: Commander-in-Chief Middle East 
I have changed the date he was appointed and provided a source, do you have a source for the date he left this post as we could use it over on the Middle East Command page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle East Command 

message: I saw a request for opinions at WT:CITE.
IMO, what we have now is not good.  The ==Notes== section is fine.  The ==Citations== section, however, contains some short citations and some full citations, which is odd.  If the point of separating short and full citations is to help the reader who wants to know more or less what sources were used to create the article, then we're failing to meet the goal.  The reader should not have to read through both ==Citations== and ==References== to find that information. 
The two solutions are:
* Put all short refs in one section and all full refs in another, even if that means having a long list of full refs, many of which only get used once.  The <ref> group system will help you out there.  (I suggest, BTW, making the default group be for full refs.)
* Run them all into one section and let the reader skip the items that don't interest him/her.  
If there are more short refs than full refs, I'd pick the first option.  If there are more full refs than short refs, I'd pick the second.  The current mixed-up approach really doesn't work for me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite right. All the long refs are either magazine / web or newspaper refs. It's difficult to shorten these, especially the London Gazette ones because to get the correct link to the LG website you have to use  which automatically produces a long reference. To me, the fact that there are not many short refs underlines that the article is under-referenced from book sources. I have to say I find it strange to separate things based on their size. At present we have a. Explanatory footnotes, b. Specific citations for fact verification and c. A list of sources (books) which people can read for more detail and to which some of the individual citations point. That makes sense to me. Even if the differing sizes of the citations can look a bit untidy I would suggest that the structure is more important than appearance. Perhaps we could prevail on a coding king to tweak the LG template to produce something shorter?! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: break

message: As all previous governors general of Canada had been members of the peerage, and as a reward for his leadership in North Africa and Italy, Alexander was created by King George VI on 1 March 1946 as the Viscount Alexander of Tunis and Errigal in the county of Donegal.
To me that reads somewhat awkward should it be something like:
As all previous governors general of Canada had been members of the peerage, and as a reward for his leadership during World War Two, on 1 March 1946 King George VI made Alexander the Viscount Alexander of Tunis and Errigal in the county of Donegal.
or something to that effect?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His peerage wasn't anything to do with him becoming GG. All the British WWII field marshals were elevated after the war for their war service: Alanbrooke, Monty and Alexander became Viscounts and Wilson became a Baron etc. (similar titles for RAF and Navy equivalents). So I would be tempted to just remove the mention of previous GGs being peers. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying that Alexander would have been elevated to the peerage on the exact date that he was - merely 20 days before his appointment as GG - even if he hadn't been appointed GG? Seems awfully coincidental, if that is indeed the case. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the souce information say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As a footnote, if you look at the Gazette citation for Alex being awarded the GCMG, it is clear that that was connected to being appointed GG. Freyberg was in the same GCMG list and was being appointed GG of New Zealand. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentance? 

message: Kirrages, you stated in your edit summary that the position of grand master of the Order of St. Michael and St. George carries no alternate post-nominal letters. However, the London Gazette shows two previous grand masters, Prince Edward, Prince of Wales, and Alexander Cambridge, Earl of Athlone - as holding the post-nominals of GMMG (). Was the practice altered before Alexander was appointed to the position? --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HMM. Interesting. I can't say I know for sure but if you search the Gazette for the Duke of Kent's entries since becoming Grand Master, they have GCMG — For instance here here and here. If you do the same for Alexander after his appointment in 1960 you get the same result: GCMG. So I can only assume the practice changed. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand master post-noms 

message: There's a little to and fro-ing going on about whether Alexander was an AdC(P). He wasn't. This is usually given to someone much more senior or in the Royal family. If you look at the final paragraph in the Personal Aide-de-Camp article you will see  This is what he was (being a colonel, temp brigadier) and why he relinquished his position on promotion to major-general. You will note that in the London Gazette during the period of his aideship he has the post nomials ADC not ADC(P) for example here and here. You will see there is a distinction between the Personal AdC, the Air ADC (equivalent to AdC General in the army) and ordinary AdCs (Air Commodores and Group Captains, equivalent to brigadiers and colonels) at this link.  Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my fault; I thought all aids-de-camp to the monarch were personal aides-de-camp. I've put the link back pretty much the way you had it before. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: One thing to note is that the monarch doesn't just have aides-de-camp from the UK's army; individuals from the forces of the other countries over which the sovereign reigns can be appointed as aide-de-camp or equerry to the monarch. I put the "British" qualifier in to disambiguate from which group Alexander came; though, I suppose it's self-evident enough to not need it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Btw, have you found any examples of ADCs who were not in the Regular British armed forces? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them posted from the Canadian Forces to act as A-de-C when the Queen is in Canada, or acting on behalf of Canada abroad (eg. in France). I don't know if they've ever been notable enough to have their names published prominently, though. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aide de Camp 

message: Re the above - shouldnt all these be in the 'See also' section as none of them are links to external websites.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals and stuff at bottom of the artcle 

message: What was the reason for changing this? As far as I can see the replaced one is a) used in practically every other earl's page b) Is in the preferred svg file format (uses less storage space) rather than the reviled png and c) Has a straightforward "own creation" GNU Free Documentation License (the new image has a restricted copyright requiring permission from the copyright holder for usage - has this been done?). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's been released for free use and looks better than the other version...? It also comes from a complete set of coronet images, as opposed to the series from which the previous image came from, which has an odd baronial coronet. Thus, through the series of Canadian GG articles, John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, for example, would have a differently represented coronet than all the others. If it's really a huge deal, it can be changed back, though. I merely wanted graphic consistency across the various articles. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl's coronet image 

message: At present Alexander's second and third post-nominals are PC PC - which shows in blue two the same: PC PC.   Looking up the wikipedia page for "Queen's Privy Council for Canada" I found this abbreviated to QPC, so, with I hope understandable logic, I changed the second PC to QPC.  Can someone please explain why these two should be PC PC and not PC QPC ?  Two the same does not make sense to me, which is why I investigated and changed.  P0mbal (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The post-nominal letters used by a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada were (and still are) PC; adding a Q would limit the use of the post-nominals to only the reign of a queen. QPC is just an acronym for use in the Queen's Privy Council article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-nominals 

message: I havent made any changes incase this is intential; in the lead it states "the king of Canada", should this not be King - with a capital K?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure; George VI was the monarch of Canada, separately from his position as monarch of any other countries, but there was, at that time, no title "King of Canada". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Moncahy 

message: I was surprised to see no reference of this book, which Harold Alexander published in 1962 (Cassell & Componay Ltd). I found it in a charity shop recently. Should someone who knows more than me add it in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjinkerson (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Alexaber Memoirs 1950-1945 edited by John North 

message: Due to a misunderstanding of Canadian copyright laws, material was incorporated into this article from . Since the terms of that website are not available under license consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I have removed or revised material that I found that remained derivative of that source. The article has been heavily edited, but some content remained too close. If there are passages I've missed, please revise or remove those as well. Contributors are welcome to reuse the facts from that source, but please make sure that the text is completely rewritten and restructured. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was nearly as bad as you made it sound. Some of what you removed wasn't even in that source at all (i.e. kilometers travelled while viceroy); there was only one particular sentence that came close to mimicking the source directly, but simply recomposing would have been better than deleting it all-together, no? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: Demophon recently made some changes to the chronology of Alexander's titles. This caused a few problems: 1) It added post-nominal letters, which are not titles and repeated what is listed just below; 2) it obliterated his titles as Governor General of Canada; 3) it made the list inconsistent with those on all other Governors General of Canada. I've tried to meld some of his edit into the list and, at the same time, trimmed out the military positions Alexander held during WWII, as I don't think those were actual titles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the exclusion of the military appointments but someone's formal style is how they are described in official documents, and this includes post-nomials. So take the formal gazetting of Alexander's Earldom. It says "The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the llth instant, to confer the dignity of an Earldom of the United Kingdom upon Field-Marshal the Right Honourable Harold Rupert Leofric George, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, K.G., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., C.S.I., D.S.O., M.C." So actually we should also be including the DSO and MC as well. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an official document, though; here, honours and styles are separated into different sections in order to clearly impart information to the reader without repetition. Regard any bio article for a member of the Royal Family, or, more closely related, those of the other Canadian Governors General. The way its listed here and now creates inconsistency with no discernable benefit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles

message: These are different animals altogether, not two species in a genus. "The Right Honorable Lord Alexander" indicates that he is (was) a member of the Privy Council. Most current British cabinet ministers get this title, and formerly governors-general of Canada and Australia and some Commonwealth prime ministers were also Privy Council members.
"The Honorable," on the other hand, is a hereditary courtesy rank (not strictly a title). It is granted to children of peers who do not have a real courtesy title to use. (Courtesy titles are accorded to the heir of a peer who has a secondary title in reserve to extend to his eldest son during his own lifetime.) When a person known as "the Honorable" is granted or succeeds to a title, I believe it is universally customary that he or she (usually he, of course) drops "The Honorable." Hence, after 1942 when the general was knighted but before he was ennobled as Viscount Alexander, he should be known simply as Sir Harold Alexander (without The Honorable), with, of course, his military rank before his name and the letters of his orders and decorations after it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Line (talk • contribs)  
:Not to suer of the usage of Honorable, but I beleive Right Hon is actually used by all peers, regardless of whether they are privy counsellors, for commoners, Right Hon is only used by privy counsellors. David Underdown (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about dropping The Honorable when getting knighted. I thought it was only when one accedes to the peerage that it's dropped. Haven't found documentation on this though. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right Honorable" and "The Honorable" 

message: Can someone help? The article and the London Gazette record that Alexander received the Polish Virtuti Militari 5th class. Most graded awards (eg Order of Suvorov) have 1st as the highest and the next as 2nd and so on. This would mean he received the Silver Cross of the Virtuti Militari. This seems surprising given the role he had, particularly in Italy with a significant Polish contingent. Italian wiki records he was awarded the Knight Grand Cross, ie class 1. Which is right? Has someone at the Gazette confused the sequence? I have seen other examples with the Virtuti Militari gradings. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Virtuti Militari

message: An editor has added "king of Canada" to the sentence saying Alexander "was in 1946 appointed as governor general by George VI, king of Canada, on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada...."  The curious phrase "king of Canada" is redundant and jarring, and therefore I will remove it.  TFD (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir#RfC on use of 'king of Canada' for an already ongoing discussion on the same matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Canada 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis. 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://archive.is/20061009193413/http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/alexander_e.asp to http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/alexander_e.asp
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.di2.nu/files/kipling/IrishGuardsv2.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20140407092520/http://www.di2.nu/files/kipling/IrishGuardsv2.html on http://www.di2.nu/files/kipling/IrishGuardsv2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116065436/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081225.wnbvanier1227/BNStory/nationbuilder2008/home/?pageRequested=all to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081225.wnbvanier1227/BNStory/nationbuilder2008/home?pageRequested=all&print=true
*Added archive https://archive.is/20061009193413/http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/alexander_e.asp to http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/alexander_e.asp
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) 09:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The content of Alexander's radio speech of 13th November 1944 is known in Italy as the "Proclama Alexander" (Alexander Edict, as bad as that sounds...), see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclama_Alexander. It announced what had already taken place since Operation Dragon: a diminished Allied focus on partisan war in Italy. Is it worth mentioning it? 83.219.35.163 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander's 13/11/1944 speech and partisans activities in Italy 

message: The only source I could find that Alexander was appointed to the Imperial Privy Council is a biography that says he became a member when he was appointed defence minister in the British government. But ministers in the UK are not appointed to the Privy Council and there is no record in the UK Gazette of his appointment. The  book does not say where it got this information. Unless someone can show he was appointed, I will remove it. TFD (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Privy Councillor

message: Almost all the articles about British people on Wikipedia have the person's post-nominal letters after the person's name at the very beginning for the article.  For example: Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, RA.
Why did someone remove the post-nominal letters from after Harold Alexander's name at the beginning of this article?  It's very annoying, since many people use Wikipedia to quickly see what knighthoods, awards, and other honours a British person has received, and it is easy to obtain this information simply by looking at the post-nominal letters after a person's name (as in the example of Winston Churchill which I mentioned above).
But in this article about Harold Alexander, someone has removed the post-nominal letters from after his name at the beginning of the article.  Thus, the only was to determine what honours he received is to scroll down to the section  concerning his honors, which takes much longer.  Can someone please restore the post-nominal letters after his name at the beginning of the article, just like how almost every other article about a British person has their post-nominal letters after their name at the beginning of the article. 69.138.243.14 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were his post-nominal letters removed?