Talk:East African campaign (World War I)

German High sea fleet

The german high sea fleet only had one cruiser with 10 4 inch guns in the area. The cruiser SMS Koenigsberg after sinking the old HMS Pegasus retired into the Rufije delta were it was discoverd and sunk by the Royal Navy. The guns were later used by Lettow Vorbeck. The comment on German pre dreadnough or battlecruisers in the area is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.32.22 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of combatants -- France

France is listed as one of the combatants but I couldn't find a reference to French participation and there were no French territories in the region at the time (Burundi and the Congo being Belgian). I suppose it is possible that some French or Francophone troops were sent from north or west Africa, the other possibility of course is that Malagasy troops were involved or French troops or naval forces stationed in Madagascar. Does anyone know? Rexparry sydney 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hew Strachan, The First World War in Africa, p. 111:

In August 1914 Gaston Doumergue, first as France’s foreign minister and then as colonial minister, had suggested joint French and British operations in East Africa, hoping thereby to boost France’s claims in that quarter of the continent. The Colonial Office had no wish to excite French ambitions in an area where hitherto they had been non-existent. Thus, French troops in Madagascar remained unemployed.

Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there were no French involved in this campaign. Beware Burundi was at that moment still German and Belgian-Congolese troops occupied it only after fighing with the Germans. After the war Belgium received Burundi and Rwanda as a protectorate (Everberg Belgium) H.Trappeniers 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at resupply by Zeppelin

Can someone put in something about this? P.M.Lawrence203.221.32.204 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lake Tanganyika, repaired vandalism

The section on the lake battle had remains of an old vandalism by 69.40.112.213, who basically changed the battle direction. His/her other changes had been repaired some time ago, I covered the last ones and added a ref. Actually, I think we should exchange the whole section with the one in Lake Tanganyika. --Cmontero (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the numbers in this article are all wrong, esp. regarding Allied strength. Every book I've read have different figures, but the ones in this article are especially low. Someone check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.255.69 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a source and yes, the numbers are very different.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the numbers to those of my source, by the way.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WW!

Your edit in the ww1 Africa page needs work, the links did not work (poor tagging I think) and when copy and pasted did not produce a result.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The links all work. Give them time. They are PDF files. Thanks for reverting the result.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a link tht was not formated porperly, so did not work as a link, but thanks for correcting it now.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, actually they did work. See [1]. I meant thank-you for changing the Result from 'Allied victory' back to 'Tactical German victory'.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Its absurd. It was in no way a German victory. That's just stupidity of the highest order. Dapi89 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about. The Germans met their objectives and the British failed to meet theirs. I would argue that it is a strategic victory and at least a tactical stalemate, but I would need to look into that. Instead of blindly throwing insults, why don't you try justifying your argument.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No they didn't. Read the article. German strategy failed. Dapi89 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are reading Wikipedia. 250,000 troops, or, as mentioned elsewhere in this article, about one million men in all were tied down in German East Africa.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And Britain did not manage to vanquish the German resistance.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was British forces they attempted to divert. German strategy failed in diversion after 1916. German East Africa was abandoned in 1917. They survived by running away and ambushing, without a hope of winning. In every sense they were beaten. If they hadn’t surrendered in 1918, they probably would have starved. After the war their territory was lost. The fact that every German was not killed does not constitute a German victory - of any sorts. In case you hadn't noticed two-thirds of the German soldiers died. A comparable combat ration to British forces, most of which died from disease. Dapi89 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Indian and South African troops could have been used in Europe. 250,000 is huge. It's about the size of the entire Belgian army. How is that not diversion. von Lettow-Vorbeck held no hope of defending German East Africa for long. He only wished to pin down troops, and this he did. "After a series of retreats and evasive manoeuvres, in 1917 he slimmed his troops down to the fittest 3,000 or so (mostly the ones who had not succumbed to malaria) and set off to invade Portuguese East Africa rather than be trapped on German territory." [2]. He was in fact advancing successfully into Northern Rhodesia at the time he heard of the surrender. He and his men were definitely not about to starve.

By the way, I looked at the page's history. [3] seems to be the first change from the original "Treaty of Versailles" to "Stalemate". The same guy then changes his mind ("actually that would be even more accurate") and puts "Tactical German victory" instead [4]. It was then changed to "British victory" [5] without comment. Another user adds the Belgian commander, and chages the result to "British-Belgian victory" [6]. The original guy then comes back here [7], and explains "germans acheived their goal of tieing up large entente foces". After this our argument begins.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, the reason I thought a link was broke was the orphan closing tag so I copyed and pasted the address, my mistake. As to German tactical victory. The Germans had no chance of holding DOA and knew it. The bes they could hope (and the avowed stratergy) was to tie down as many allied troops as posible for as long as posible (and by the way they were able to invade and defeat Portugese troops as late as 1917 (the 'abandonment') re-entering GOA in September of 1918 (using that same logis a re-conquest. Its ture that as a real threat (except to the portugese) Von Lettow Vorbeks forces had ceased to be one in 1917. Its also possible that the South Africans would have been unwilling to deploy such a large force outside Africa. But Von Lettgow Vorbek did tie down large numbers of allied forces in DOA for years of pointless fighting in a classic of gurrila warefare. Could he have held out much longer, doubtfull I suspect he only had another couple of months in him at best. But he achived (his limited) aims, the allies failed to achive thiers. that is to my mind a tactical victory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to the Talk page.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Godd idea, and I would add this. In battle for the Bundu the author has this to say about Von Lettow Vorbeks Berlin Parade “It did not matter, no one needed immaculate goose-stepping grey ranks to be reminded that Germanys only undefeated army was giving the beaten nation its only victory parade”Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the best place to have this discussion.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it sghould also be noted that many sources call Von Lettow Vorbek Germanys onlu undefeated general.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What don't you two understand about this? He failed in his strategy, and he was forced to surrender in the end. It doesn't matter that his force was not totally destroyed, it is the end that counts! Besides a source has been found. I doubt you'l find a source that calls this a German victory of any sorts. Its just ludicrous. Dapi89 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

His stratery was to tie up allied forces, he did. His startergy was never to try and hold DOA. He was not forced to surrender, he did so after his country surrenderd (he had to be informed by the British that the war was over (November 14) and did not actualy surrender untill November 23, 12 days after the end of the great war). I did find a source (I susgest you read my ppost of 25 October 2009.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. As per the sources, his strategy was diversion - he FAILED. Perhaps he should read sources instead of wikipedians opinions. And the essay of Crowe's (which I note is full of errors) is not very good. It is written more like hero-worship than an academic paper. Dapi89 (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which sources? Battle for the Bundu says that his stratergy was to compel the emeny to bring in the largest posible force thus diverting men and materials (slight abridgement on my part, but essentials the same), not division. Crowes essay? I assume then that the battle for the Bundo quotes it, but it does not contradioct it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether Vettow-Vorbeck’s strategy was successful is one issue, but there is another issue you are avoiding. He was never defeated. Nor was he near defeat. (He was on his way to South-West Africa when he heard of the defeat!) Hostilities ceased. If Lettow-Vorbeck was never defeated, then how can you say his opposers were victorious? You are looking at post-war events. Spain ceded Puerto Rico in 1898, but it was never defeated militarily there. (See Puerto Rican Campaign infobox) German East Africa was in a similar position. There should be no argument as to whether the article should be titled ‘Allied victory’. Let us put ‘stalemate’ or ‘inconclusive’ instead now, before we continue discussing if Lettow-Vorbeck met his objectives.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source: "Lettow-Vorbeck waged a highly mobile hit and run guerrilla-style campaign that was still humiliating the British allied forces when the armistice was signed in 1918 ending the war in Europe. During his four-year campaign, he had tied up almost a million allied troops from the Ivory Coast, The Gambia, Nigeria, South Africa, British East Africa, Uganda, Zanzibar, the Belgian Congo and Mozambique as well India, the West Indies and Britain itself."

APA: (2008). Funny money. African Business, (343), 78-79. http://search.ebscohost.com

MLA: "Funny money." African Business 343 (2008): 78-79. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 29 Oct. 2009

--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An "African busniess" source? Are you kidding? "Humiliating", are you kidding? His Army was starving and he was living on borrowed time. "A million men" no chance. As I have said, IT'S THE END the matters. One does not have to beaten on the battlefield to lose a campaign, or a war. Dapi89 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraph, "Whether . . . objectives"?

I believe the source is actually a book, but source is comprehensive. Where did you get the picture that his army was starving? And "on borrowed time"? Are you kidding? He fought for over four whole years! And what is this about the end? In the end, Lettow "ceased" his campaign on November 17th. He never admitted defeat. That is the end of the article, because this article is about a specific military campaingn, not about diplomatic negotiations half year after the campaign ended. The ultimate political outcome of events should be mentioned, but "victory" must refer to a military victory. The Entente never acheived a military victory to the East Africa Campaign. That is unarguable.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle for the Bunda has this to say "When Hawkinf told Von Leetow that his battalions food supplies had been exausted...the German commander came to the rescu8e, cutting ouot a lerge portion the the shutztruppens cattle herd".Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

There's a discrepancy here.
The Assessments section says "one modern estimate is 100,000 dead on all sides", while the infobox says "365,000 civilian lives" on the Allied side alone. This looks wrong; as the fighting was predominantly in German East Africa, I'd have thought most of the civilian casualties would have been there, not in the Allied colonies. Or is it saying these were all killed by the German forces, regardless of location? Should this figure be in the infobox at all? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Refs and cites

Did some additions and tidied existing work but used sfn's as they're the only ones I know. Can change the rest of the parentheticals if desired. Added books to new further reading section.Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

Shall we attempt to reach consensus?Keith-264 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are too many sections at the bottom of the article. It throws off the balance of the table of contents, which should mainly be about the actual contents of the article. Currently we have:

4 See also
5 Gallery
6 Notes
7 Footnotes and references
8 Bibliography
9 Further reading
10 External links

I reduced this to:

4 Gallery
5 See also
6 Notes
7 Bibliography
8 Further reading

I did not delete anything, except the "See also" section the first time around. (The second time I put it below the gallery, but that doesn't matter.) I object to the "See also" section, but I consider that of secondary importance to the bloatedness of these appendices at the end of the article. "External links" are just a form of "Further reading". We can combine all the notes under one heading, since you do not access the notes via the TOC anyway—you get there by clicking on a number or letter. The "See also" lists 2 campaigns that are already in the campaignbox near the top of the article, where they should be, and the WWII campaign that is unrelated (it did not take place in the same part of East Africa and involved different combatants). Mimi and Toutou Go Forth: The Bizarre Battle for Lake Tanganyika should be linked in the bibliography, the logical place. That leaves Carrier Corps. Why can't that be linked in the body of the article? We don't link every formation that took part in the "See also". Srnec (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Other people saw fit to add those sections and I see no reason to tamper with them, although I wouldn't have done it that way. Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections so bad?Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If other people saw fit to vandalize the article, I'm sure you's see no reason to tamper with that, right? Even if you wouldn't have done it that way. This is a non-argument.

Nothing I did goes against the MOS, except removing the External links header. I am happy to keep that and remove the See also. Srnec (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility Please try to avoid belittling, it's not civil. I don't mind the see also going but I would rather see you putting your energies into improving the article content.Keith-264 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for leaving the small headings in the Bibliography, I find it helps to break up the ones with lots of sources.Keith-264 (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: 'German strategic success'

Hello. It strikes me that the statement in the infobox 'German strategic success' sits rather at odds with the conclusion in the body text: '[Lettow-Vorbeck] failed to divert additional Allied manpower from the European Theatre after 1916. While some shipping was diverted to the African theater, it was not enough to inflict significant difficulties on the Allied fleets.' If Lettow-Vorbeck failed to divert Allied resources from the decisive theatre, can this be called a 'strategic' success? --IxK85 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree but one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. A manpower diversion was one aspect of strategy but not everything (morale, maintaining a presence to influence post war negotiations etc). It's incongruous as it stands though.Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

CE

Shuffled the pictures about, to make room for recent additionKeith-264 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious sections

Has anyone got a decent source on 2.2 Naval war and 2.3 Lake Tanganyika expedition? I'm really not sure about the narrative, which might be two events or a duplication. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong

South African troops were not considered for European service as a matter of policy is totally wrong. What about the 1st Infantry Brigade (South Africa) which served as part of 9th (Scottish) Division on the Western Front from May 1916? Hamish59 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Generalmajor

There seems to be confusion by an IP regarding von Lettow-Vorbeck's rank. In the second paragraph of the lede:

"The strategy of the German colonial forces, led by Lieutenant Colonel (later Generalmajor) Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck"...

the IP is trying to change Generalmajor to Major general. This is incorrect as, at that time (WWI), the Generalmajor rank was equivalent to a British or American Brigadier General as the Imperial German Army did not have a Brigadier General rank. It is only in the post-WWII era that Generalmajor has been upgraded to be equivalent to Major general in the German Army. See also Brigadier general#Germay or Comparative officer ranks of World War I. Hamish59 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hamish wants to talk

Here is source: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q157148 What's yours?-194.25.30.13 (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also: https://translate.google.de/?oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&client=tw-ob#en/de/general%20major, http://dict.leo.org/ende/?lang=de&from=fxdesktop&search=generalmajor, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/generalmajor -194.25.30.13 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The translation of Generalmajor to Major General is not the problem. Try

• Cron, Hermann (2002) [1937]. Imperial German Army 1914–18: Organisation, Structure, Orders-of-Battle. Helion & Co. ISBN 1-874622-70-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Stumpf, Reinhard (1982). Die Wehrmacht-Elite. Rang- und Herkunftsstruktur der deutschen Generale und Admirale 1933–1945. Boppard am Rhein: Harald Boldt Verlag. ISBN 3-7646-1815-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kursietis, Andris J. (1999). The Wehrmacht at War 1939–1945. Soesterberg, Netherlands: Aspekt. ISBN 90-75323-38-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Boff, Jonathan. "Military structures and ranks". British Library. Retrieved 17 December 2015.

Hamish59 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What do they say?-194.25.30.13 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the BL link, which provides a handy table that lists British ranks and their German equivalent. Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Another source that says that your claim is wrong: Major general "The German Army and Luftwaffe referred to the rank as Generalmajor (OF-7) until 1945."-194.25.30.13 (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, and we cannot very well cite our own articles in other articles. Do you have any actual sources? Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Result

There appears to have been a recent conflict over the 'result' in the infobox, and it would be worth discussing it here (previous discussions above are several years old). Personally I can see the merit for both an "Allied victory" and "Indecisive", but perhaps it would be worth getting some WP:RS involved here to break the deadlock? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a conflict on my part, I reverted the edit because I thought it was on the WWII article.... I question the recent change because it seems to split hairs between a decisive defeat leading to local surrenders and a local surrender determined by the decisive defeat.Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

While the campaign may have been tactically indecisive, it certainly was strategically decisive in favor of the allies. My 1918, while Lettow-Vorbecks army was still largely intact, all of the armies that had remained in German East Africa was destroyed so as by the end of the war, all of German East Africa was secure in Allied hands. The only German force left in the theater was Lettow-Vorbecks, which had left the colony and was heading west when the war ended.XavierGreen (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

The Operations section here says that "the Congo Act was first broken by the British", and that "In response" Lettow-Vorbeck began to organize for battle. This is suggesting that if the Brits had taken no action, Lettow-Vorbeck would not have mobilized, and that therefore (presumably) the East African Campaign wouldn't have happened. Is there any evidence at all for this? Or is someone trying to manufacture some blame for the British, here? Whatever the hopes of the governors in Tanganyika and Kenya, the military men were going to fight; the Konigsberg sailed on 31 July, and the RN was hardly going to tolerate the use of German East Africa as a base for her. And Lettow-Vorbeck's plan was to tie down as many British troops as possible; he could hardly do that while sitting on his hands. Also, the Belgians were in no mood to overlook the invasion of their country, no matter what the other two governors wanted. So I suggest this be re-written to better reflect the reality of the situation. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you interpreting and inferring? The passage should be a description of the RS not conclusions about them, that would be OR.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See below, a number of sources (strachen being one) say that whilst most of the civil, authorities wanted to stick to the terms of the 1885 Berlin African affairs conference that declared the "conventional basin of the Congo" neutral in times of war. Whilst True that Lettow-Vorbeck intended war it is also true that the British did as well. But the first act was the shelling of Dar es Salam. But yes the article should not imply that Lettow-Vorbeck only responded to AGGRESSION, it was clear (as Stachen points out) that he was preparing for (and wanted) war.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying

@Keith-264: What I'm getting is that saying "the Congo Act was first broken by the British", is a massive oversimplification, and one which seeks to put the blame for the outbreak of hostilities in east Africa on the Brits: And if that is all the source says about it I'd question its reliability.

@Slatersteven: That's more or less what I'd thought, that the civil authorities wanted to avoid conflict, whilst the military wanted to get started. Was that all civil authorities, btw, or just the ones on the spot? What did the governments in London, Berlin and Brussels think? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The British Official History has it that the Belgians in Congo had hoped for neutrality under the Berlin Act 1885. "The Belgian hopes of neutrality were destined to be of short duration. On the night of the 14th/15th August the first violation of the Congo territory took place near Uvira, at the head of Lake Tanganyka, where a party landed by the small German armed steamer Hedwig von Wissmann destroyed the telephone line. The vessel then, after sinking a number of native (sic) canoes on the pretext of their being "intended for the conveyance of troops" cruised along the Belgian shore in search of the small Belgian steamer Alexandre Delcommune.... pp. 27–28. (Hordern, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles; Stacke, Captain Henry FitzMaurice (1941). Military Operations: East Africa, August 1914 – September 1916. History of the Great War based on Official Documents by Direction of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I. Founded on a draft by the late Major H. FitzM. Stacke, M.C., P.S.C. The Worcestershire Regiment (1st ed.). London: HMSO. Repr. IWM & Battery Press 1990 978-0-89839-158-9).

• "The British began on 5 August with the formation of a sub-committee for combined operations in foreign territory and that day the committee recommended an expedition from India against Dar-es-Salaam." p. 30. Germans "....and from 31st July onwards certain precautionary measures were taken. Officers going on leave were stopped at Dar-es-Salaam; arms and ammunition were collected and arrangements made for a watch along the coast. The cruiser Konigsberg put to sea on the evening of the 31st July for an unknown destination." ....Lettow was of the opinion that his forces in German East Africa, though small, might "prevent considerable numbers of the enemy from intervening in Europe.... This....could only be accomplished if the Germans "attacked or at least threatened, the enemy at some sensitive point." [Lettow] Scarecely had the companies at Pugu begun their training when, on the 8th August, HMS Astraea made her raid on Dar-es-Salaam....To secure command of the lake [Tanganynka] a detachment of 30 men....was sent by rail to Kigoma to man the Hedwig von Wissmann...."It took considerable time before we were able to set the force in motion. Many people believed that on the strength of the Congo Act we were bound to remain neutral." . 53–56.

• There's quite a bit about the differences between Lettow and Schnee who had forbidden the defence of seaports but not lake Tanganyka. (p. 55) and that on 7 August that Captain von Prince at Moshi had been telegraphed that the Congo Treaty was not in force and that the Uganda railway and telegraph line was to be attacked. p. 56.
• Hope this helps. Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for those, but it only underlines the fact that the comment in the text currently is an oversimplification, and one with a particular POV at that.

The issue isn't who broke a neutrality agreement, or fired the first shot (both of which had already happened in Europe days before) but whether a neutrality agreement existed at all (it didn't in any other theatre, like the Pacific, or Togoland and Kamerun). What is clear from this discussion, and what isn't clear in the article, is that if the civil authorities in East Africa were willing to have such an agreement, their militaries weren't, nor was this supported by the governments at home.

So I suggest that bit needs re-writing to present a more rounded (and more neutral) view. Are there any objections if I do that? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the chance to refer to it. ;o) The response to the July Crisis seems lacking and I'm inclined to agree that the status quo is untenable. Fill yer boots. Keith-264 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: OK, done (finally!); boots filled and self knocked out. I've put a cite request on the item about skirmishes on the Ugandan border, as I couldn't find any mention of it in the books I looked at. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, given the situation, though I expect they were told to lay off by Belfeld when he found out. Anyway, I'll keep looking: Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Good lad! ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Operations section also states that the RN shelled Dar es Salaam on 8 August, yet the Battle of Tanga article says An agreement was in place guaranteeing the neutrality of the capital Dar es Salaam and Tanga, but now the accord was modified and it seemed “only fair to warn the Germans that the deal was off.” So which is it? Was Dar es Salaam shelled in August, or was it's neutrality in place until November? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The great war in Africa page 122 says Dar es Slaam was shelled by the cruiser Astrea on 8th August. After this event an informal truce was agreed that by Schee and the captain of the Astrea neither Von Lettow Vorkbek nor the Admiralty agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahh! That explains it. Thanks. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East African Campaign (World War I). 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/20150402142714/http://www.arbr03694.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KaputalaSecondEdition.html to http://www.arbr03694.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KaputalaSecondEdition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Casualty records

@Nihlus1: I'm not sure that it helps to make a bigger distinction between army and porter casualties. The British at least buried porters in military cemeteries.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Porters are often referred to as non-combatants in various books on the subject, and they didn't bare weapons nor were they considered full members of the armed forces with all the benefits that entails, to my knowledge. Distinguishing between them and actual soldiers seems fair. They were more like (often forced) civilian laborers.--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that what the RS say? If campaigns needed humans as beasts of burden, they were as essential as bullets and shells. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

While that is generally true, it should be noted that at least the Germans partially armed their porters during the later stages of the campaign and recruited new askari from their ranks; among the German forces, there also appears to have been a distinction between ad-hoc porters, who were recruited when and wherever they were needed, constantly tried to desert and died en masse; and porters recruited from the Wamanyema and Wasukuma peoples. The latter appear to have been more or less "professional" and loyal, receiving better rations and were also armed when manpower shortages became a problem for the Schutztruppe. Applodion (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Rccent edits

@Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum: I'll stop editing for a while as I've had three edit conflicts already ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Applodion: The infobox is for a summary Template:Infobox military conflict

casualties1/casualties2 – optional – casualties suffered, including dead, wounded, missing, captured, and civilian deaths. Terms such as "dead" (or "killed"), "wounded", or "captured" should be used in place of abbreviations such as "KIA" or "POW".

Elaboration of the details should be in a casualties section in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No offense Keith, but the version you restored is broken (look at it on a mobile device). That was the reason for my edits, not the abbreviations. Applodion (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Apols I didn't notice, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Victor

Why is this listed as an Allied Victory? Having read both this article, the talkpage, and the article on Lettow-Vorbeck, all the text seems to indicate that this was a German Victory. They achieved their goals and the Allies failed at theirs. In the article, it states that "The strategy of the German colonial forces... was to divert Allied forces from the Western Front." Based on the troop numbers in the info box it seems they did that. The reasoning on this talkpage for why it's an Allied victory seems to be that since the Germans lost the war and the colony via the Treaty of Versailles, they also lost the East African campaign. That, to me, seems to be faulty reasoning, as by that logic, the Germans lost the Battle of France in World War II, or the Austrians lost the Battles of the Izonso because they lost the war. In my mind, it seems clear that the Germans won for the following reasons: 1) They achieved their goals of tying down Allied forces. 2) The Allies failed to destroy Lettow-Vorbeck's forces. 3) The end of the campaign came after the end of the war, on November 25 rather than November 11. And 4) Lettow-Vorbeck's forces were fighting in Zambia at the end of the war. Wandavianempire (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The campaign could only be counted as German victory if you exclusively focus on Lettow-Vorbeck and his aims. However, Lettow-Vorbeck was not the sole German commander, let alone all the regular German troops and the population of German East Africa. For bascically everyone on the German side except Lettow-Vorbeck, this was a defeat, as they lost basically their entire army, all territory, and suffered massive civilian losses (there were German officials and soldiers who cared about that). Besides Lettow-Vorbeck, the other high-ranking commanders such as Heinrich Schnee and Kurt Wahle were also captured. Just because Lettow-Vorbeck remained in the field does not mean that the German colonial force defeated the allies. The Germans also surrendered in the end, regardless of where they were at the time, making this a defeat either way - if Lettow-Vorbeck had tried to keep fighting after the German surrender, like some German askari in Mozambique did (albeit as warlords/rebels, not under the German flag), it might be judged dfferently, but surrender he did in the end. Applodion (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Result

@Staberinde: You'll need to relate that change to RS. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264: No, as the article text does not clearly establish the "winner", it is appropriate to follow guidelines Template:Infobox military conflict "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")." You need to provide RS that unambiguously describes it as Allied victory.--Staberinde (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you made the change, the onus is on you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced information may be altered or removed at any time. Also my edit did not any new claims which would need separate sourcing, it merely linked to Aftermath section which is mostly sourced.--Staberinde (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The text does clearly state that the Germans surrendered in the end. This makes it an Allied victory. Applodion (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Text states that Germans surrendered only after the war itself had ended. This doesn't unambiguously meant that East African campaign itself should be counted as Allied victory. You will need a RS that actually backs up that specific claim.--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Its a thought one, but as the allies won WW1 they must have won a campaign that ended with the German surrender. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Our opinions are OR, it's the sources that matter. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Allies winning WW 1 does not mean that they specifically won this side campaign, where Germans held out until end of the war. It can be very well argued that this campaign should be considered "inconclusive" as it didn't conclude until the end of war. So claim that allies won here needs unambiguous backing by RS.--Staberinde (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

How was this inconclusive? First of all, Germany lost all of its territory in East Africa. Secondly, the Germans surrendered at the end, all sources in this article confirm this. Surrender=defeat. Lettow-Vorbeck could have chosen to keep fighting (while such a decision would have been unlikely to succeed, there have been many cases where something like this happened), but he opted to surrender, admitting defeat. Applodion (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose we could placate Stab' by making the views of the RS explicit in the aftermath. The German defeats in Togo, Kamerun and SW Africa were so complete and the occupation of Tanganyka and the chasing of Lettow-Vorbeck all over the place seem to be self-evidently a victory and that the war was decided in Europe, that the authors might not have thought that they would need to point it out. Keith-264 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is amusing how this "Surrender=defeat" and stuff made it so self-evident "victory", that I was quickly able to find two sources explicitly describing Germans as "undefeated". Truly gotta wonder how that could have happened, maybe it actually wasn't so self-evident as some wikipedia editors thought?--Staberinde (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No idea about these sources of yours (one is also an art journal, so they are probably not colonial warfare experts), but they are horribly wrong. Lettow-Vorbeck lost several major battles, such as the Mahenge offensive. Even several battles in which the Germans claimed victory or with complicated outcomes, such as the Battle of Lioma, were strictly speaking Allied victories. Even logically, how can someone be "undefeated" and yet lose all territory, most of his armed forces, and almost all military equipment (to the degree that the Germans raided the Portugese for ammo and guns)? Lettow-Vorbeck was a very capable commander, but he was not "undefeated", lol. Once I have time in a few days, I will collect all the sources confirming this as a German defeat. Applodion (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Preserving army and keeping up the fight can be far more important than simply holding on to some territory. Anyway, I added two more "horribly wrong" sources, and could probably keep adding but at this point it would get into excessive citation stacking.--Staberinde (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Staberinde: First of all, I should have previously thanked you for adding the sources to support your position - in the heat of the moment, I directly criticized them - that was not the right move on my part.
Secondly, I have evidently not realized the presisting differences in English and German historiography; in essence, a growing number of German historians have greatly criticized (since the 1990s) the idea about Lettow-Vorbeck being undefeated, tracing it back to right-wing/Nazi era propaganda. Having read several German-language-books on the matter a few years ago, I just accepted that the Allied victory in East Africa was generally accepted. However, Lettow-Vorbeck biographer Schulte-Varendorff himself admits that the concept of Germany being undefeated in East Africa was still very prominent in respected circles by 2006. Considering that English historians have probably not paid the greatest attention to this dispute, they keep using the old narrative, dominated by pro-Lettow-Vorbeck sources. After diving into this issue a bit, it seems to me that this matter may be a much larger issue - possibly even large enough for its own article in the future. Anyway, I will keep seeking out more soures and details. Applodion (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, narrative really depends on viewpoint one uses. If one thinks Lettow-Vorbeck's responsibility was keeping Allies out from German East Africa, then he obviously failed in that. On other hand, if one looks at it from perspective of smaller force keeping up guerrilla warfare, and even carrying it to the enemy territory, then it was a solid success considering circumstances. Neither view is necessarily wrong. Btw, his importance in post-war right-wing propaganda may be more relevant to Stab-in-the-back myth.--Staberinde (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the narrative of the German unconditional surrender has been expanded (Paice 2007) and can hardly be ambiguous. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we can list the infobox result as "German surrender; for details see aftermath". In this way we include the surrender - which is not disputed - but also leave the door open for all the different interpretations of the campaign. Applodion (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Afraid not, it isn't a standard term. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has disputed Lettow-Vorbeck surrendering after the armistice. Simply as numerous sources show, many historians don't regard it as a defeat in this context. As standard terms don't explain intricacies of the situation well, "See the Aftermath section" is the appropriate solution as per Template:Infobox military conflict guidelines.--Staberinde (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can unconditional surrender be a success? Keith-264 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I see it has been changed to "Allied victory" again, I guess the only solution is to set up a RfC.--Staberinde (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Source information

Hello - I wanted to alert those editing this page to valuable source information published in the book "On Call in Africa in War and Peace 1910 - 1932" by N.P. Jewell (ISBN 978-0-9931382-0-1 , published 2016). Based on the diaries of Dr Jewell (medical officer) who was active throughout the East Africa campaign and brings photographic and direct medical data to the historical record. The book is in print and also available electronically, and has a website www.oncallinafrica.com . It would surely improve the record to reference both Dr Norman Parsons Jewell and his published account of events he witnessed during WW1 in East Africa. I trust this is useful. Please feel free to contact gillyflowerpublishing@gmail.com for any additional information. Richard Jewell 62.235.122.107 13:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)