Grumbler's Guide On How To Make Friends And Influence People

[Agelastus]

If so, it would give a new meaning to the regrettable derogatory "Indian Giver"

I had to google the phrase to work out what you meant; it doesn't seem to have transferred to British English.

Now I have done so, though, all I can do is .

[grumbler]

Believe what you will. There's not one single source that agrees with you, from the Wikipedia page (named solely because it's the first result on google, not because of it's quality) onwards.

...
The critical passages are in chapter 6, page 100 onwards, and includes the following -

"O'Connor, who was unaware of this plan, received his order on the 11 December 1940, 'a most unwelcome piece of news, namely that the 4th Ind. Div. was to be withdrawn as early as possible for service in the Sudan'." This is referenced from Connor's own report on Operation Compass.

Further on we learn the sequence -

02.12.40 - 08.12.40: Sometime between these dates Wavell, under pressure from London and Smuts, makes the decision to send 4th Indian to Sudan (as of the 2nd he's still expressing doubts concerning transport issues and stating that offensives must be launched even if they will be slow - not saying that he's going to transfer troops.)
08.12.40: Wavell telegraphs Dill in London to say that he would transfer 4th Indian "later in the month if situation permits."
09.12.40: Operation Compass begins - Wavell contacts Platt to give tentative details of the transfer, again subject to situation on Western Desert Front.
10.12.40: With the "good news" from the western desert, Wavell decides to bow to the political pressure and expedite the transfer.
11.12.40: O'Connor is told he is to lose the division.

At the very earliest the decision to send 4th Indian cannot be pushed back before the 26.11.40 because that is when he received the cable from Dill expressing London's (and Smuts') disappointment at proposed delays in Cunningham's offensive. Before that cable came offensive operations were due to be delayed until May 1941 instead of commencing in January.

None of this disagrees with my assertion that O'Conner knew before the 11th that he was going to lose the 4th at some time ('when conditions in the Western Desert permit," as Wavell put it), and that "the plan" he "knew nothing about" was Wavell's plan to pull out the 4th at the earliest opportunity.  There would be no reason for Wavell to hide this knowledge from O'Conner, and many reasons why he would want O'Conner, and the 4th, to know what he planned for the 4th.  Major troop movements don't happen overnight; they have to be planned for, and most of the planning is carried out by the unit.  Why would Wavell keep this a secret?

It's also very difficult to square the telegram to Dill on the 8th (which is the first London heard of the transfer) with any suggestions that this was planned with O'Connor in conjunction with Compass since he was already with his men at the front well before this date.

Why suggest that "this was planned with O'Conner in conjunction with Compass" at all?

You state two things.

(1) O'Connor knew. From his own words and the timing of the decision we know he did not.
(2) That the move of the 4th Division had been "in the works for months". Which it wasn't; at the most it had been in the works for 2 weeks, and at the least for 3 days before the critical date.

(1) I state that O'Conner knew that the 4th was destined to go to the Sudan, but not when.  This is entirely in consonance with the evidence, and the contrary position, that Wavell for some reason was keeping his plans for the 4th secret from O'Connell, makes no sense and lacks motive.
(2) Wavell notes in his dispatch (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/37628.pdf) that he had "always intended if possible to send the 4th Indian Division to reinforce the Sudan during the winter 1940/41, in order to enable our forces in the Sudan to recapture Kassala and to take the offensive against the enemy.  I had proposed to relieve them in the Western Desert by the 6th Australian Division as soon as this was ready and equipped."  That's a primary source.  Your timeline has the earliest date for such a decision as Dec 2, though how you get that is a mystery.  Certainly the Wavell book doesn't say that's the earliest possible date, and the fact that he talked about relieving them "at the earliest possible date" doesn't imply it would be in two weeks, because he would know the status of the Australians much better by that date.  His dispatch seems to me to imply that the decision was made weeks or months, not days, before it was implemented.

The fact that none of the division boarded ships before the 28th (despite being withdrawn on the 11th and in a position to do so by the 20th) is yet another sign that the decision was not planned far in advance but taken and implemented hastily. 

Ah, the innocence of civilians! 

Something can be planned in advance and still go awry.  Hasty implies fuckup, but fuckup doesn't imply hasty.

So I'll just continue laughing at you as you continue to tilt at windmills over the issue. 

So I'll laugh right back at your concept of the grand (though unexplained) Wavell Conspiracy of Silence.

[Agelastus]

...more Grumbler denial of reality...

I'm not arguing this any further with you. Every book on the subject, even one about Wavell, follows O'Connor's line that he knew nothing of the impending transfer of the 4th. They take this directly from O'Connor's report on Compass written while he was an Italian POW in 1941-43; this report, while unfortunately not on-line, is clearly footnoted and referenced to by the various authors (in other words, they are not relying on each other's works.)

The sole evidence you present is a report in the Gazette which dates from 1946 and is almost certainly an edited and expanded version of the original despatches. While one can make assumptions based on it it nowhere contains the critical timings for the decision provided by other documents - in particular, the known fact mentioned by all these authors that the first mention in the regular communications between Cairo and London of the transfer of the 4th Division is a communication to Dill one day before Compass was due to be launched (on the 08.12.40.) This is so despite the document providing copious dates and timings for just about every other aspect of the planning and execution of operations, strangely enough.

In fact, I agree with one thing you've said - that being that it makes no sense for Wavell not to have told O'Connor before Compass that he was going to lose the 4th Division. However, according to O'Connor this is the absolute truth and the timings do provide Wavell with some excuse for this since the planning for Compass was largely completed by the time London started pressurising Wavell (with the communication of the 26.11.40) to do something about the proposed delays in the East African offensives.

----


As for your comment concerning "the innocence of civilians" I can only conclude that you chose not to read the chapter I directed you to since my comment was a paraphrase, albeit perhaps excessively shortened, of a section of that very chapter. The author in question being a US army veteran.

http://www.hraugh.com/bio.html

I would strongly recommend you do read that chapter; it contains a very interesting letter that Wavell sent to O'Connor in June 1945 which reads almost as a rehearsal for that section of the 1946 Gazette printing. It's a shame that the author doesn't go into more detail concerning the circumstances of the letter being written; it does strike one as slightly odd that Wavell would be writing to O'Connor about Compass four years after the fact considering that they were both stationed in India with a still belligerent Japan to the east at the time.

[grumbler]

We are right where we were before you re-opened this issue.  There are two arguments, your and mine.  Yours requires Wavell to be a liar and a fool, and despite the fact that you argue that every source agrees with you, you can't point to any sources that does so unambiguously.  I have an argument that fits all the facts we have as well as your argument does, and requires no one to be a liar or a fool.  You insist yours is right, and mine laughable.  I assert that mine is plausible, and that it fits the facts better than yours.

There won't be any change in either position barring new evidence, so you probably don't need to bring it up a third time, unless you actually have some new evidence.

[Agelastus]

We are right where we were before you re-opened this issue.  There are two arguments, your and mine.  Yours requires Wavell to be a liar and a fool, and despite the fact that you argue that every source agrees with you, you can't point to any sources that does so unambiguously.  I have an argument that fits all the facts we have as well as your argument does, and requires no one to be a liar or a fool.  You insist yours is right, and mine laughable.  I assert that mine is plausible, and that it fits the facts better than yours.

There won't be any change in either position barring new evidence, so you probably don't need to bring it up a third time, unless you actually have some new evidence.

O'Connor, who was unaware of this plan, received his order on the 11 December 1940, 'a most unwelcome piece of news, namely that the 4th Ind. Div. was to be withdrawn as early as possible for service in the Sudan'.

You really have to twist the English language into a pretzel to claim the above passage is "ambiguous"!

Anyway, have a good evening; when I'm a bit wealthier I may have to visit King's College London (my alma mater and holder of Richard O'Connor's papers) and the National Archives but that's not happening for a good while yet. So as it's past 2am here I'll bid you adieu.

[Razgovory]

He's going on about something that CC said half a decade ago.

[Maximus]

I'm not arguing this any further with you.

if only

[garbon]

I'm not arguing this any further with you.

if only

I think you meant - only if.

[HVC]

tiny boats for all!

[garbon]

tiny boats for all!

[HVC]

tiny boats for all!

i don't even remember what that thread was about, all I remember was that there were many pages discussing what is the definition of a tiny boat.

[garbon]

tiny boats for all!

i don't even remember what that thread was about, all I remember was that there were many pages discussing what is the definition of a tiny boat.

Well I need a big ass boat, ok?

[HVC]

Ever the size queen

[garbon]

Ever the size queen

Win big or go home.

[Sophie Scholl]

I like the thread title change.   Though grumbler is not capitalized and it is win friends, not make.