Jump to content

Talk:East African campaign (World War II)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Much improved

[edit]

The last part of the article in particular is much better now - Keith-264, your handiwork I assume? Now that 'Italian last stands' (how many can there be??) is gone and better chronology established, I'm thinking of adding a couple more lines on Belgian-Congolese ops at Asosa and Saio (have a good source, Weller's War by George Weller).

As I read through, I keep thinking "patriots" (as used here), should be capitalized... but can't quite decide. Thoughts? Tomseattle (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your edits have been much appreciated too. I can add quite a few more citations to paragraphs from the OH, while I'm nursing a trapped nerve in my shoulder. I toyed with using Arbegnoch but if you prefer Patriots I'd go with a capital P too.Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CE

[edit]

Tidied references and split the External links into Further reading, added portal and category box.Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rm dupe wikilinks, tided references.Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Continued to tidy citations and references, adding cites where needed.Keith-264 (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most done, rest to followKeith-264 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Commonwealth?

[edit]

The term "British Commonwealth" was not very much in use before the late 1940s and the independence of India, and at any rate meant only the UK and the Dominions until then. Since the troops involved were mostly from African colonies and India, the term "British Empire" or "British Imperial" or "Imperial" would be more appropriate. I doubt that you will find contemporary accounts of that campaign that refer to "British Commonwealth" troops.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to British and Commonwealth and also added detail about colonies and the British Empire to lead.Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

I think the Aftermath section is largely irrelevant to the subject at hand and should be deleted. At the very least those portions on events in Ethiopia, Eritrea and French Somaliland that occurred decades after the end of the East African Campaign. The article is long enough like that. --Lubiesque (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about it too but I'll abide by the majority.Keith-264 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added some detail about Ultra to the analysis and split the aftermath into a subsequent operations section and notes for the post-war decolonisation.Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

[edit]

Added archive for old discussionsKeith-264 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can u add to he main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.149.184 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horn of Africa

[edit]

I see that most references to East Africa in this article have been replaced by Horn of Africa. Not wishing to be too pedantic but the definition of the Horn of Africa in Wikipedia does not include Sudan or Kenya. Since the campaign saw operations in both these territories I believe that East Africa remains more appropriate. Any thoughts? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer East Africa because it isn't a metaphor but we can't use Wiki as a source. The British OH doesn't have an entry for Horn but does have East Africa and Italian East Africa in the contents and index (pp. v-ix, 490).Keith-264 (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really trying to put up Wiki as a source... I'd just prefer some consistency to avoid confusion. I'll leave it a bit to see if any other comments come up but my inclination is to revert to East Africa. The only argument against I can see is if East Africa has become anachronistic usage but since it's pretty much descriptive that would seem unlikely. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are sources which use the term, I'd get rid or put it in a footnote.Keith-264 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that I've used the term in the sea section as a synonym.Keith-264 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CE

[edit]

Pruned British Somaliland as it has an article and put the details in there.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did the same for Keren, any thoughts as I plod on? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Put the French Somaliland passages together, continued adding citations and wikilinks.Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still ploughing on although I'm not sure I've got all the geography and chronology right yet. If anyone has the OOBs for the air and naval forces it will help so I can move some of the details to the OOB page. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to bugger up then unbugger the background section but I lack sources for Italian military forces so have asked for help. The article needs a prelude section separating the strategy of the contenders as well as the military balance on the eve of military operations, which I hope to do soon.Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had another go at establishing a logical structure.Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working my way through the sections to make them succinct and then expand the linked articles but the sources I have are sketchy about Italian details and tend to leave the rightful owners of East Africa as anonymous extras. Can anyone suggest sources that don't? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on the main page and the linked ones but am unsure about the Background section, it really needs to be split into a background and a prelude but the information in it is the stuff my sources are vaguest on. Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated from personal talk page

[edit]

East African Campaign casualties

The losses at Culqualber are mentioned here: http://www.ilcornodafrica.it/st-melecaculqualber.pdf

Is this a published source?Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for Gondar, the related page gives this source for the casualties: Maravigna, P. (1949). Come abbiamo perduto la guerra in Africa (in Italian). Roma: Tosi., p. 191.

--93.65.1.215 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC) p14 The losses among the Italian troops were of 513 dead and 404 wounded among the approximately 1,580 nazionalii and 490 dead and 400 wounded among the Ascari.[reply]

To give an idea of the bloodshed paid for the defense of Culqualber, losses among national and colonial military about 2800 who fought between 13 and 21 November were over 1000 fallen and wounded 800.Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point; these casualties are not counted among those on 16 April 1941 (as they happened later), neither are those at Gondar. They should be added to the numbers in the Infobox.--193.206.177.144 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should but as yet the sources aren't enough for Italian losses. The British Official History gives the number of prisoners at Gondar and Qulquaber but not casualties. Pls note that the infobox has a note explaining that they are incomplete. [1] this source may be accurate but it isn't published so is questionable under WP:RS. Have you got any published sources instead? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The casualties at Gondar (4,000 killed, 8,400 sick and wounded) come from a published source: Maravigna, P. (1949). Come abbiamo perduto la guerra in Africa, Roma, Tosi, p. 191.
Also, I believe the 230,000 POW figure includes all prisoners taken during the entire campaign, Gondar, Wolchefit and Culqualber included.--93.65.1.215 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Maravigna data to Gondar but I need to read through the OH chapter on post-April operations because the data is spread all over it. Might I suggest that we continue the discussion on the article talk page? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're an Italian reader? The more citations and references you can offer from Italian (and East African) sources the better. I've been spelling my way through Santoro but it takes ages.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Keith, I contacted the author of that page, who directed me to this other pdf which confirms the number of killed/wounded at Culqualber: http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Imagestore/PDF/La%20Battaglia%20di%20CULQUALBER.pdf. Whereas this is not a published source, it is on the official site of the Carabinieri, so I think it can be considered a official figure.--93.71.144.146 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it's very helpful. I've stopped work on East Africa for the moment as I've procrastinated for too long over the Somme articles and got Bazentin Ridge into decent shape and am working on Ovillers but I'll take a look anyway. regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East African Campaign (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put out fewer flags

[edit]

Adding a flag next to names in the infobox when they're already in the section above is pure overkill but if your heart's set on it how about a flag for each nationality or allegiance? Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overkill according to WP:Manual of Style/Military history. I don't know why we would only add one per nationality, as the manual of style cites the Battle of the Atlantic as a good use of commander flags, when it uses several of the same flag to help represent the nationalities. In addition to that, having only a single flag per nationality just seems quite non-standard, and I have yet to come across an article that's done that, whereas there are plenty that will use repeats of the flags if there are multiples of their commanders among a variety (like the Pacific War). Indy beetle (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a multitude of commanders all from the same state it repeats the information ad nauseam, when the nationality is already flagged in the section above

Do the icons convey useful information to the reader or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not.

(my emphasis) and are merely decorative or redundant. I know that there are a lot of articles with six or seven British, French, German etc generals listed with a flag for each, which is why I changed my mind about it when looking at the Verdun page; much too much of the same thing already in the Belligerents section. The infobox isn't as useful for C20th battles that drag on for months and have many commanders involved, which is why I've also been stricter of late with notability, trying to add only the highest commanders and lower ones only if they are singled out in the text; I don't think that there is a definitive solution, only a best fit. Submarines, ships and aircraft have commanders and may be notable just for that but not routinely and it seems to me that for this article, which is about a theatre of operations, we need to avoid a long list of repetitive information and use those details instead in the specific articles attached to this main one. I'm still working on Flers-Courcelette User:Keith-264/sandbox4 and looking after a poorly cat, which is why the sub-articles I have in mind aren't ready. User:Keith-264/sandbox5 is what I want to move Capture of Kassala to and then do (or adapt) an article to cover southern operations, to have two substantial ones rather than a motley of superficial articles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'll go through with it and sea how it works. Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Assab

[edit]

I see there is a void link to Operation Chronometer, the capture of Assab. I have a dozen pages in Italian about the fall of Assab, from the Italian Navy official history; could they be of use for someone? I personally do not have the time to write the page myself.--Olonia (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have them, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the downloads, I forgot to ask for the source - title, author, year, publisher etc. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pier Filippo Lupinacci, Aldo Cocchia, La Marina italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale - Volume X - Le operazioni in Africa Orientale, Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare Italiana, Rome, 1961. Pages 187 to 197. --Olonia (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lupinacci, Pier Filippo; Cocchia, Aldo (1961). La Marina italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale: Le operazioni in Africa Orientale [The Italian Navy in the Second World War: Operations in East Africa] (in Italian). Vol. X (1st ed.). Rome: Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare Italiana. pp. 187–197. OCLC 955801310. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agordat 1941

[edit]

Cut the section in this article to two paragraphs now that Agordat is ready. Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

[edit]

Until I get round to the Southern Front article I'm putting stuff temporarily onto this page, not trying to bloat it. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty, this is an old chestnut that comes back like indigestion. Dominions became sovereign states incrementally beginning in 1867. Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and South African sovereignty is a moveable feast which does not end with the Statute of Westminster 1931 but continues into the 1980s. These are facts which can be checked with RS. Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, in the real world, the Statute of Westminster 1931 did in actual fact grant these countries full sovereignty - just read the thing. [2] At the time of World War Two, commonwealth countries were independent sovereign countries, and not imperial possessions to be ordered around by the British government. Now please stop edit-warring, cease your personal attacks and deal with the facts. Wdford (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you refuse to engage on facts, and instead hide behind personal attacks. South Africa became a sovereign independent state per the Statute of Westminster 1931. The law is unambiguous, reliable sources support this position, and any source which contradicts the law is by definition not a reliable source on the topic. Please stop edit-warring, observe WP:NPA, and engage on the facts only. Wdford (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and any source which contradicts the law is by definition not a reliable source on the topic" this OR is fatuous, even for you. NPA? try The Mote and the Beam Keith-264 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As the statute removed nearly all of the British parliament's authority to legislate for the Dominions, it had the effect of making the Dominions largely sovereign nations in their own right." Not sovereign; my italics. Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Statute of Westminster 1931 is unambiguous, and it clearly states that "no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion." It also states that "No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion." You can read the Statute in full over here [3] The Statute thus makes it clear that South Africa was henceforth no longer subservient to Britain, and nowhere do I see anything reserving "the British parliament's authority to legislate for the Dominions". Please state which paragraphs of the Statute reserve any power for Britain to legislate for South Africa? Wdford (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@Havsjö: Using modern titles of countries consistently is OK but they didn't exist in 1940-1941. The colonial titles used to be in the infobox, which is what I'd prefer since they can be linked for people who are interested in pre-independence colonies. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cavallero and Comando Supremo

[edit]

This prompted General Ugo Cavallero, the new Italian Chief of the General Staff in Rome, to adopt a new strategy in East Africa. In December 1940, Cavallero thought that Italian forces in East Africa should abandon offensive actions against the Sudan and the Suez Canal and concentrate on the defence of the AOI. In response to Cavallero and Aosta, who had requested permission to withdraw from the Sudanese frontier, Comando Supremo ordered Italian forces in East Africa to withdraw to better defensive positions.

Why would Cavallero seek permission from Comando Supremo when he's the chief of the general staff? What exactly is meant by Comando Supremo here? Srnec (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, he was chief of staff of the army; Comando Supremo the armed forces high command (like OKW) wasn't created until 1941. Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede / possible general overview

[edit]

Well done all for this well-written and well-reffed article. However, by the time I got to section 3 - Southern front, 1940 - I realised that that I was getting bogged down in specifics without been having given a general overview of the whole campaign. A general yet interested reader like me is almost battered with detail which at times seems overwhelming. I wonder if a 'General overview' section might be useful, summarising each of the sections in a concise paragraph or two, and indicating the general flow of the campaign as a whole. I personally dislike ledes longer than two or three paragraphs, but other editors might feel that it doesn't do justice to the whole article.

For example, the lede states "On 13 June 1940 an Italian air raid took place on the base of 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron RAF at Wajir in Kenya and continued until Italian forces had been pushed back from Kenya and Sudan..." - this implies that the air raid continued for the whole of the campaign, and leaves out a vast amount of information. I hope this doesn't seem like carping, but I feel that a wider outlook could be worthwhile for the general reader. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The detail for the Southern Front is there because the articles haven't been written yet. When they are, the sections in this article can be reduced to 1 or 2 articles [paragraphs]. Trouble is, I've had a full-time job since 2018 and it has slowed me down somewhat. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised para 3 of the lead at your suggestion, how now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes much better sense now, thanks. MinorProphet (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of soldiers in Italian East Africa

[edit]

@Keith-264:, I did some digging and the source for 350,000 comes Mussolini himself.[1] But most figures pust the strength of Italian soldiers in East Africa to be around 256,000 or between 250-280,000.[2][3][4][5] Mussolini estimate for Italian troops stationed in East Africa was the highest estimate and likely an exaggerated. محرر البوق (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Military_Review/WKq61YWJ5PQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=350,000+italian+east+africa&pg=PA66&printsec=frontcover
  2. ^ https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Africa_War_and_Conflict_in_the_Twentieth/C35aDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=250,000+italian+east+africa&pg=PT116&printsec=frontcover
  3. ^ https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Mussolini_and_Italy/Y7CIAYPTx2gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=250,000+italian+east+africa&pg=PA130&printsec=frontcover
  4. ^ https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Tobruk/j5Q7AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=280,000+italian+east+africa&pg=PP41&printsec=frontcover
  5. ^ https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Blood_and_Ruins/p-E2EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=280,000+italian+east+africa&pg=PA50&printsec=frontcover

Thank you for taking the trouble, I will re-check my sources. Note that Mussolini isn't necessarily a Reliable Source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

why east Africa was involved in world war 2 explained? 102.222.234.122 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla wars

[edit]

@Fanti: Thanks for the addition, can you add the page numbers please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_African_campaign_(World_War_II)&oldid=1232395684"