Talk:Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

What about Malta. That Island was under siege for a very long time, with heavy casualties inflicted on the Allies for succeeding in keeping it in Allied hands. Tourskin 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The malta section is inaccurate; it states malta was a stronghold of the british since the early 18th century when in fact it was taken from napoleon in 1800. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.68.193 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing map

The map is very confusing. Perhaps someone would like to add a key for the colours. It is tough luck on a person who is colour blind though! --PBS (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 80#WW2 Mediterranean, African and Middle East articles proposal

This proposal should have been discussed on this talk page, and the other articles involved, or failing that there should have been a notice posted on this page that the discussion was taking place. --PBS (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am against this idea. It is like combining the five Allied campaigns in Asia into one, or throwing the Italian campaign and the North West European campaign into a Western Europe campaign article. --PBS (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 80#WW2_Mediterranean, African and Middle East articles proposal

The entire thing was advertised iirc earlier this year [ see See 1st Discussion See 2nd Discussion ] when it all took place. It was met with overall support.

If you look through the archives i believe you will find the information.

As for "It is like combining the five Allied Campaigns in Asia, into one, or throwing the Italian Campaign and the North West European Campaign into a Western Europe Campaign." thats just nonsence.

If that is nonsense then why is this any different? --PBS (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Imo it does make sence to have the African, Middle East and Med fighting combinded in one top tier article as they all had the same basic goal - the defeat of the axis forces in Africa (and then the Middle East) to be followed up by a strike agaisnt the "soft under belly of Europe".

On top of that the original proposal also included the fact when writing about these three geograhical areas the British Official History lumped them all together into one series (althought split into 6 volumes).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was advertised why is there no mention of it on this talk page?

Seems to me that you are looking at it post the US entry into the war. Before that the British had no serious intention of invading Italy. Where do you get that idea from? The Middle East theatre also includes a relationship between the Middle East and British India Command, a relationship that is missing from this article, as is the campaigns in the Middle East itself. --PBS (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, there was several overlapping articles all covering the same stuff a decission had to be made - it was talked about on the task force talk page and links iirc were placed in the approbriate articles. After several days of discussion there was enough support to do so.

You are mistaken, I have not checked them all but there was no mention on this talk page, or Talk:Middle East Theatre of World War II, and in Talk:African campaigns of World War II#Merge with Western Africa you float the boat without mentioning discussions else where and the only person who replied was Grant who did not express his agreement with the merger. --PBS (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter if the British wanted to or not invade Italy, what is the releveance of the India command to the Middle East command to this article? This a single, instead of 3-4, upper tier article covering all the approbriate articles underneath it.

If anything am looking at this from a British perspective, as seen in the original discussion. The Official Campaign History, is called the 'Mediterranean and Middle East series', this covers the fighting in North (western desert and torch) and East Africa, the Middle East (Palestine, Iraq, Persia and Vichy terrotrys), the actual Med itself, Crete, Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Gibralter, the Red Sea, West Africa etc etc Not to mention the politics and information regarding Turkey.

So it made sence to have one article called after a series of books which treats it all as one theater of war - as you will note the discussion called for a slightly modified version which is what we have now.

What the US entry into the war, India or Middle East Command have to do with the naming of an article i dont know?

As i said, look at the original discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) August 14, 2008

I agree with Philip. What a mess. I will de-merge when I get a chance. Grant | Talk 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Grant but what right do you have to do that? As noted above this proposal was discussed on the task force page, the following people were involved in the discussion and all of them agreed to the proposal (bar one as noted):

Nick Dowling

Buckshot06

mrg3105 (initially opposed it but then agreed)

Oberiko

Woody (posted during the discussion but did not oppose the propossal)

To note all i have done here so far is post the original idea behind the proposal that was posted. If memory serves i do believe someone also posted links within the talkpages of the articles which were to be merged into this one. Also am pretty sure that it was mentioned on the frontpage of the task force page as well.

Just to add a few things, the article here is now to give a single overview of the entire fighting around the Med whereas perviously there was several overlapping articles (now thats a mess!).

The fact the relationship between British India and Middle East Command as not been discussed cannot be blamed upon the mergeing of several articles - this is the wiki after all either link to them or add information on it. At the same standard as the relationship between OKW and the Italian high command been discussed?

The British strategy at the time of the origins of the fighting in North and East Africa was to boot the Italians out and aid the Turks and Greeks so there is automactically a overarching relationship between North Africa-Greece-Turkey-East Africa and the Middle East (being where a large chunk of the British and CW forces under Wavells command were deployed and later a thorn in his side) and the Red Sea.

As the fighting esculated, Crete, the Med itself and Malata all came under the same overarching theater. Followed up by fighting in West Africa and its use as a supply route.

A year later in the same theater of war a new front is opened up in French North Africa and the final defeat of the axis forces takes place in Tunisia. This defeat is followed up by a strike on Sciliy and then Italy proper. One could also argue that Dragoon would also deserve a mention in all of this too.

Now just to mention yet again, the British Official Historians must have considered all this as when they wrote the campaign historys for all of the above they put under one series called the Med and Middle East series.

So there is historical evidence which ties them all together and there is a historian team who seem to think its all tied together.

So all in all Grant i think you are in no position to revert anything until this as been discussed further on the task force discussion page in more depth and there is some congruence.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Three points:

• if the present title is used, the Mediterranean or Africa should come first, because actions in the Mediterranean Sea and East Africa preceded (i.e. chronologically) any in the Middle East proper
• in any case, the entire Middle East is part of the Mediterranean Basin, so "Middle East" is redundant in the title of this article, except in proper names like the (British) Middle East Command; "Mediterranean and African Campaigns" will suffice
• the Allied Madagascan Campaign (at least) was directed from London and not controlled by the Middle East Command. That is why we had an African campaigns dab page. We are lumping together apples and oranges for the sake of convenience.

Grant | Talk 06:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about commands? Just because an operation was controlled from a different command should not distract from the fact that essentially the entire Mediterranean Basin was one theater. For example mrg31 made the point of naval forces at each end of the Med and the enterances to the Med were all under different Naval commands - but they were all still fighting in the same theater (you could say the same for AG South, Centre and North during Barabarossa, all were under there own command and had seperate goals expect there is only one article on Barbarossa) not to mention India command iirc took charge over the Iraq situation splitting commands further.

But again that is not the point. The Italians and Germans (again with a command system just as funky as the British) seemed to view the entire area as one theater.

The only points i was ever unsure on when i put the original proposal in was regarding Madagascar and Dragoon. The Mediterranean and Middle East series appears to not mention the former and i do not have the last two volumes (covering the fighting in Italy etc) to know if they also cover the latter.

So i dont know what to do over the Madagascar, does it belong with this theater or a Pacific/Asia related one - should be mentioned in both, am not in a position to give a qualified answer.

However having an entire article (overlapping and not linking to others) for just the African campaigns just to include it would seem reduntant, especially when there was a fictious "West African Campaign" also included.

Please see WP:MOS#First sentences "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface.". It is no more a fictitious name than the "Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II".

See the key thing here is, there was NO West African Campaign however historians have called the fighting around the Med, in the Balkans and Middle East a theater of war. There is documented backing for the latter but none for the former - the title of the article may need slight tuning but it is backed up. Whereas creating an entire fictious article, with no historical or documented backing, for two battles is justified because it was "merely descriptive"? Please.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Am not opposed to renaming the article just reverting everything which has been done since the proposal was passed months ago without some sort of discussion or vote on the task force page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

the "Mediterranean Basin was one theater"? Since when were Iraq, Iran, and the Horn of Africa in the "Mediterranean Basin"? I think it makes much more sense to keep the three articles separate with emphasis on the land campaigns, pre US involvement in the Middle East and post US involvement in the Mediterranean (with the ending of the Middle East Article when the 8th Army moved from Middle East Command to AFHQ. Would you EnigmaMcmxc suggest that we combine the 5 Far East theatres into one article if not what is the difference between those theatres and these 3/4 theatres? --PBS (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So your just going to repeat yourself? The different allied commands and different nations involved have nothing to do with the fact that this is essentially one interconnected theater. The fighting in Tunisia was no way a different theater to the fighting in the Western Desert so it would make little sence to state so as you are.

As stated yet again the British Official History for the fighting (air, land and sea by all allies and axis forces) all over Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Italy etc refer to it all as one theater. When the original proposal was made in the WW2 Task Force Discussion page it based based on the fact there was several articles all overlapping (should i also mentioned a completly fictious "west african campaign article") when there did not have to be one. The merge was carried out based on this since everyone at that time agreed with it (all listed above).

I have little intrest in the fighting in Burma and bringing it up as fuck all to do with this. Take this to the WW2 Task Force Discussion page as originally discussed...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL and also there is not need for profanity. The reason for bringing up the Asian conflict was to emphasis by way of a similar set of articles the reason why I do not think this merger is a mistake. I could just as easily have done the same by pointing out that the Italian Campaign is not usually considered part of the West European theatre, yet geographically it was fought in West Europe and towards the end of the campaign (not to mention Dragoon) was closely related to the rest of the fighting in Western Europe. Even if you do not accept that proposition surly you would agree that the fighting in Southern France put the campaigns closer than that of the Italian Campaign and the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran--PBS (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And what might these relations between the drives north in Italy have to do with the drive across Northern France into the low countries and Germany? Ideally the Army and Army Group commander wanted to strike into the Balkans and head for the Danube.

Why Dragoon is mentioned is because it was launched from this theater, the actual operation yes is part of a different campaign and theater of war but it deserves a passing mention.

However you dont quite seem to understand what a theater of war is, hence why you keep bring up Iraq and Iran - they are in the same theater of war as the fighting in the Western Desert and East Africa ... they are different fronts and campaigns of the same theater (hence why Madagasscar most likely shoudnt be here and i proposed it since it doesnt appear to get a mention elsewhere).

American and British historians support that these were all interconnected campaigns and fronts of the one theater. You bringing up Asia has no relevence to this discussion - as historians have already stated this was a theater. The little talked about Battle of the Atlantic was fought over thousands of miles but no one attempts to split that up by when nations entered or left or by fronts like you are suggesting. Distance has no relevance!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To sort this out for once and for all, see new discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself again. Alterations to pages should be discussed on the talk pages that are involved not in a on a different page. --PBS (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Am fed up of having this round about discussion - the task force page it is until a co-orditor says otherwise. Now the entire task force will have there oppotunity to get invovled and reach a solid conclusion on what should happen other than the two of you decide what should happen on a whim.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the history of the article i dont even see what you have a problem with, especially Grant, as the two of you started this off. The original started with:

"The Mediterranean Theatre of World War II

The Mediterranean Theatre can be considered to include the naval Battle of the Mediterranean, the North African Campaign, the Greek campaign, the Yugoslavian campaign, the Middle East Campaign, and the Italian campaign. Conflict in the theatre concluded with the surrender of German forces in the Alps, in 1945.

The theatre encompasses the United States military's Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO), the US term for operations in North Africa and Italy during World War II. The US originally termed this the North African Theater of Operations (NATO), when US forces entered the region, during 1942."

And now you all dont agree that this basic idea is correct and you are arguing that it wasnt one theatre at all .... :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Middle East theatre should concentrate on the pre US involvement in the war and the Mediterranean theatre the naval and the campaigns in North Africa and Italy From Operation Torch. But there should also be a summary of the conflict in the nations and colonies that have Mediterranean coast line before Operation Torch as well. Yes there will be some duplication but to me the chronological sequence allows one to follow the other without too much overlap.

There was NO "Middle East theater". If you were referring to this article, how can you go agaisnt two reliable historical documents which calls this entire area one theater of war and split up based on national involvement?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual in such an overlap and in the case of the Balkans/Greece we have the campaign mentioned in three articles: the Middle East theatre article, the Mediterranean theatre and European Theatre of World War II, because if had effects on both the German invasion of Russia, the fighting in North Africa and it was fought in part on the Mediterranean. If one is concentrating on the European article the the perspective is how it delayed Operation Barbarossa, and possibly cost the Germans the war in the East, but if one is looking at it from the Middle East perspective it was the diversion of resources from an early British victory in North Africa. --PBS (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen a wound, but I've just become aware of this summary article. The definition of "theatre" seems to be based solely upon land masses.

However one will note that the American and British, and i would assume the Italians at least - possibly the Germans, regard the fighting in North Africa and then in Italy as one theater disregarding the lack of a physical land connection between the two.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In a world wide war, the separation of theatres can't help but be arbitrary, but to treat Africa as part of a single theatre seems a nonsense. The actions in west Africa were more to do with the Battle of the Atlantic and the need to establish protective basis and deny facilities to the enemy. On the other hand, Madagascar was invaded through fears of Japanese threat to the Indian Ocean sea routes and could be argued to have been effectively part of the same campaign as Burma.

Regarding Madagascar you will note i was unsure on having referance to that here and mentioned that as early as the task force discussion page before anything happened. I should note that mention of this action is not in the British Med and Middle East OH - and probably is in the one regarding the war agaisnt Japan.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

North and north east Africa do have a commonality, IMO. Iraq/ Iran are tricky since Iraq could be argued to be a Mediterranean issue, but not so Iran, yet they are neighbours. The argument that these areas were interconnected is true, but every theatre affected its neighbour - Burma affected China, western front and eastern front, North Africa and the invasions of Europe also. The inclusion of these various actions into one single Official History probably reflects the administrative need to group widely dispersed actions into one volume. In short, I think that the scope is far too broad and yet excludes issues that are highly relevant to the peripheral operations. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The administration reason is why West African is at the moment here. Although having something like 18+ volumes on the military side of things split into 3 series and 3 single volume series i dont think administration is the reason for the inclusion of things such as Iran into one series when they could have just split it up i.e. Norway has its own volume.

What i do not agree with is the idea of splitting one theater (calling it which because at least 2 particpants call it so) up based on the idea of when certain nations became involved or based upon different headquarters.

To sum up the facts as i currently see them is that this is one theater but i will support the removal of certain bits and bobs which we dont believe fits within that crietiea i.e. Madagascar etc

the Middle East theatre article

"What Middle East Theater...do you have any referance material which support this?"

"but if one is looking at it from the Middle East perspective it was the diversion of resources from an early British victory in North Africa."

Likewise, any referance material which support this position? 7th Armoured Division was unable to carry on fighting - its tanks in dire need to repair. 2nd Armoured Division completly green. One Aussie infantry division with combat exp the other again green and one partially arrived and equipped NZ division. The logistic side of things when one looks at other offensives such as Crusader was not in place to carry the advance and massive Italian and German reinforcements were already arriving in North Africa.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made my opinion clear I think it is better to have two sperate articles to cover the land war, the first the Middle East concentrating of the eastern Mediterranean up to Operation torch and the Mediterranean covering the fighting from Operation Torch and the transfer of command from the Middle East command to a Joint Allied command. The Naval campaigns should remain in the Mediterranean article. As to your insistence User:EnigmaMcmxc that there is no such thing as a Middle East Theatre, a Google Books search shows it is quite a common term [1], among the historians and authors who use the term is Winston Churchill. --PBS (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point yet again. The different command structures have nothing to do with the overall picture. By that same logic, of looking at it as simply as pre and post American ground forces entering the war, the article should be split between pre and post German entry too!

As for the google book search, you will also note that "Mediterranean theatre" is also a common term and there is also at least one mention of the term "Mediterranean-Middle East Theatre" most of which are dealing with the same issue - one which the Americans dubbed the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, which the article states covers the fighting in Africa, Italy etc - while the British dub it the Mediterranean and Middle East - which covers the Middle East, Africa, Italy etc.

To put simply, what is the point in having muliplte articles covering the same basic subject when there is no need.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The merging of all these articles was ridiclulous and no excuse listed here is sufficient justification, they should be merged back to their origional form.—Preceding unsigned comment added by $1LENCE D00600D (talk • contribs)

Iran

How is Iran involved? I searched everywhere, could find nothing!!!!!!!!!!!

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Persia: see Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran; Allied forces based in Iraq rolled over the border in conjunction with Soviet forces to hsecure the raw materials and vital supply line from the pro-axis government.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for moving Iran/Anglo Soviet Invasion of Iran to Eastern Front article rather than this one

The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran is actually related to the Eastern Front theatre of World War II and as such I think it should be moved there - geographically and stratigically, Iran is not really in the Mediterranean region but rather in West asia - the Invasion of Iran by Britain and the Soviets (which is the event that brought Iran into WW II) was to help support the Eastern front and it has no relation to the African and "Middle East" campaigns whatsoever.Zenbb (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Although I take your argument that geographically it's peripheral to the middle east, it's certainly not part of the Eastern Front. The reason why Commonwealth forces invaded Iran was because the Iranian government was sympathetic to Germany and Teheran was full of German "advisors". This posed a potential threat to British oil interest in Iraq and the strategic route from Britain to India. From that point of view, as far as the British were concerned, it was more to do with strategic concerns in the Middle East, and indeed the area came under Middle East Command HQ in Cairo. After the invasion, the build up of Commonwealth forces in Iraq and Iran anticipated the German advance reaching the area (and it becoming part of the Eastern Front) - and indeed the area was spun off into its own theatre command, Persia and Iraq Command. However, the German advance was blunted at Stalingrad and so it never did become part of the Eastern Front. As far as the official British history is concerned it was part of the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre. I've no idea what the Russian view is (probably none at all since it was a pimple compared with what was going on on the Eastern Front!). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That may have been the given reason for invasion, but there was a clear intent both before and after the invasion to use Iran as a conduit for supplying Russia/the Soviets with resources to support their war effort on the Eastern Front - It is obvious that Iran wasn't in the action on the Eastern front but that is what the invasion of Iran was all about, and the given reason of Iranian being "sympathetic" to Germany was not really valid as (a) there was no German military prescence in Iran and (b) Reza Shah had clearly declared neutrality and *refused* to allow Iran to be used as a conduit for resource and arms shipments to the Soviets - which is what let to the invasion. Furthermore, Iran became a training center for Polish and other East European recruits in preparation for increasing the manpower on the Eastern Front of WW II during the said invasion.Zenbb (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All theatres are to some extent interlinked - it was a global war with strategy in one area having consequential impact on others. So for instance a) part of the reason for the Allied persistence in Italy was to engage Axis forces and prevent their involvement in the Eastern Front (and later the invasion in Normandy) but you couldn't argue on this basis that Italy was part of the Eastern Front. b) part of the reason for Allies wishing to clear North Africa was to open the short sea route through the Med. to the Far East via Suez but that would not justify making the North African Campaign part of some Far East campaign or indeed any other theatre which benefited from the freeing up of shipping no longer having to take the long route round the Cape c) the U.S. was also sending ships across the Atlantic with tanks and aircraft to supply Eighth Army via the Red Sea but this doesn't make the Battle of the Atlantic part of the Western Desert Campaign etc. etc.. So still oppose. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cunningham

I am somewhat baffled that Andrew Cunningham, Commander of the Mediterranian Fleet and Naval commander of the Tourch landings is not amongst the commanders listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.128.1 (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with scope of this article

Article just crap. Most probably because it tries to cover everything from Yugoslavia to Dakar, from Morocco to Iran, and from South France to Madagascar. With current incoherent scope it will probably never become anything more than some sort of "List of campaigns" like it is at the moment. In my opinion some core should be picked (like North Africa+Mediterranean) and everything that can reasonably be separated (Mid-East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Balkans) should be split away.--Staberinde (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, practically everything that happened (although I can conceded their are a few exceptions) was related and linked.

• Italian perspective: want to create an empire around the Mediterranean hence their invasions of southern France, Greece, and Egypt (which also links with East Africa), take control of the sea (hence so much fighting above Malta), keep Italy safe.
• German perspective: prop up Italians (i.e. North Africa), keep the British out of the Balkans (their involvement in Greece and Crete), grandiose ideas of march through the Middle East into the Soviet Union, protect the "soft underbelly of Europe".
• British perspective: want to hold onto their empire, keep Suez safe (links to fighting in the Middle East, and attempts to bring Turkey into the war), and defeat Italian threat and aggression (which links to East Africa, and the fighting in the Balkans). Following on the defeat of Axis forces in Africa, the want to attack the "soft underbelly" of Europe, knock el Duce and Italy out of the war, and march north into Germany.
• American perspective: to an extent dragged into the whole affair by the British while they the US was still the junior partner resulting in the invasion of Vichy territory, the German invasion of southern France, and the fighting in Tunisia. They then pulled out most of their forces to launch Dragoon.
• Then there is the Axis medaling in the Middle East (British puppets, protectorates, part of the empire etc), which resulted in the various fighting to essentially protect Egypt from further axis threats.

In my opinion, to delink all of this removes the context of why they were fought. I concede that the likes of Dakar and Madagascar do not really belong here. Iirc, from the conversations that resulted in this article, it was a temporary idea that kinda stuck.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Different campaigns have different level of relation. Like in WW I both Western and Eastern fronts were clearly related, still they can be reasonably handled separately. I don't say everything needs to be delinked. I guess North-Africa/Mediterranean->Italy->South France could work okay. Greece/Dodecanese is sort of borderline. I would definitely leave out Yugoslavia, Middle-East(Iraq, Syria, Iraq) and everything Sub-Saharan Africa(East-Africa, Gabon, Dacar, Madagascar).--Staberinde (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you may have misunderstood. I agree that individual campaigns deserve separate articles, however those separate campaigns (Greece, N.A, Italy etc) were all related and part of, imo and several various works, a single theatre of operations. While this article may not be perfect, that is the scope of this article and what it is attempting to describe: the theatre. Per your own analogy, this article would be the Western or Eastern Front article providing an overview of what happened from start to end.

I agree with your comments on everything sub-Saharan should probably be excluded, but the fighting in Greece, the Balkans, and the Middle East were directly linked in most cases and extremely interrelated (more so, I would argue - returning to your analogy, than for example the Battle of the Somme being part of an overarching war plan that also included massive Russian attacks on the Eastern Front, and Italian attacks from the south).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am pretty confident that there wont be some properly readable article here as long as it tries to put campaigns about Gibraltar, Yugoslavia and Iran into same article, but let it be then. Questions how strongly campaign A is related to campaign B can be argued forever. Just my belief is that if you have too many campaigns A, B, C, D etc. from very different areas in same article, then its unrealistic to hope that it will ever become proper article. Therefore using some more or less arbitrary separation would be justified to keep topic manageable, but obviously I may be wrong.--Staberinde (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. The scope of the article, is largely, supported by various historical works. Although I agree we need to chop out the bits that are not (i.e. the fighting in west Africa, the fighting for Madagascar) and make the article more than just a list of campaigns and show their connection more clearly. I look forward to further feedback, and later when I have a bit more time i think I shall look at how the article can be transformed from just a list. Below are two excerpts from the British and American official histories that note the connections between the various campaigns, and ones that were proposed.

The British official campaign historian I.S.O. Playfair puts it, perhaps better, than I explain earlier. In the introduction to the first volume of the ‘The Mediterranean and Middle East’ series, he makes the following comments:

‘The War in the Mediterranean and Middle East’ includes the struggle for control of the communications in the Mediterranean and Red Sea; the ebb and flow of the enemy’s attempts to invade Egypt; the campaigns in Greece, Crete, Iraq, and Syria; the destruction of Italy’s East African Empire; the defeat of the German and Italian forces in North Africa; the capture of Sicily; the campaign on the mainland of Italy; and the operations in the Aegean, the Adriatic, and the Balkans. …

The term ‘Middle East’ is not used in its geographical sense of a region lying between the Near East and India, but as meaning the area included in the army and air commands. These areas were not identical, nor did they remain constant, but expanded and contracted with the progress of the war. In November 1942, a separate (Allied) high command created for the landings in French North Africa comes upon the scene, and thereafter has a large share in the ‘Mediterranean and Middle East’ story. …
The vast size of the Mediterranean and Middle East theater [creates a number of editorial problems] but it must be remembered that the whole theatre did not appear to the Commanders-in-Chief as a number of neatly separated areas of operations; in spite of the distances it was all one. …

Fighting in the Mediterranean and Middle East began in June 1940 when Italy decided to enter the war. It went on for five years – which was longer than in any other theater.

The American Official Historian, George F Howe, dubs the ‘Mediterranean and Middle East’ the Mediterranean Theatre of War. In the introduction of the first Green Book in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations series, he notes:

[the arrival of American forces’ transformed the Mediterranean from a British to an Allied theatre of war. …

One undertaking was to lead to the next, each based upon reasons deemed compelling at the time, until at the end of hostilities Allied forces dominated the Mediterranean Sea and controlled most of its costal region. After liberating French North Africa and clearing the enemy from the Italian colonies, the Allies sought to bring the entire French empire effectively into the war against the Axis powers. They reopened the Mediterranean route to the Middle East. They went on from Africa to liberate Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. … helped the Yugoslavs to pin down … thousands of Axis troops. Eventually, the Allies delivered a solid blow from southern France … occupied northern Italy and Greece … thus [making] the Mediterranean a major theatre in World War II …

Italian forces were assembled in eastern Cyrenaica for an eventual attack on Egypt in conjunction with an attack from the south to be launched from Ethiopia …

[Hitler] proposed … to inflict a vital injury by seizing Gibraltar in co-operation with Spain and Italy and by support the Italians in their drive toward Egypt and the Suez Canal.

Italy attacked Greece from Albania. … The German Africa Corps prepared for its eastward thrust toward Egypt while other German troops extended their hold over the Balkans and prepared to subjugate Greece. Some of the limited British forces in northern Africa were diverted to Greece to aids its defenders but not enough …

Hitler would presumably have undertaken in November [1941] an elaborate attack upon the Near East… Concentric drives by Rommel through Egypt, by a second force from Bulgaria through Turkey, and if necessary, by a third element from Transcaucasia through Iran were also contemplated. Success in these operations would have broken the British hold on the Middle East.

[the loss of Crete was] offset shortly afterward by the British and Gaullist-French seizure of Syria and by the British military occupation of Iraq.

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

New name

New article name: Either the Mediterranean Theatre or the Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre

Lede

The Mediterranean Theatre of War/ Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre was a major theater of operations during World War II/Second World War. The vast size of the Mediterranean and Middle East theater saw interconnected naval, land, and air campaigns fought for control of the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East/Near East, Italy and Southeast Europe. The fighting in this theatre lasted from 10 June 1940, when Italy entered the war on the side of Germany, until 2 May 1945 when all Axis forces in Italy surrendered. However, fighting would continue in Greece – where British troops had been dispatched to aid the Greek government – during the early stages of the Greek Civil War.

The British referred to this theatre as the Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre (so called due to the location of the fighting and the name of the headquarters that controlled the initial fighting: Middle East Command) while the Americans called the theatre of operations the Mediterranean Theatre of War. The German official history of the fighting is dubbed 'The Mediterranean, South-East Europe, and North Africa 1939-1942'. Regardless of the size of the theatre, the various campaigns were not seen as neatly separated areas of operations but part of one vast theatre of war.

Fascist Italy aimed to carve out a new Roman Empire, while British forces aimed initially to retain the status quo. Italy launched various attacks around the Mediterranean, which were largely unsuccessful. With the introduction of German forces, Yugoslavia and Greece were overrun. Allied and Axis forces engaged in back and forth fighting across North Africa, with Axis interference in the Middle East causing fighting to spread their. With confidence high from early gains, German forces planned elaborate attacks to be launched to capture the Middle East and possible attack the southern border of the USSR. However, following three years of fighting, Axis forces were defeated in North Africa and their interference in the Middle East halted. Allied forces then commenced an invasion of Southern Europe, resulting in the Italians switching sides and deposing Mussolini. A prolonged battle for Italy took place, and as the strategic situation changed in southeast Europe, British troops returned to Greece.

The theatre of war, the longest during the Second World War, resulted in the destruction of the Italian Empire and altered the strategic position of Germany resulting in numerous German divisions being deployed to Africa and Italy and total losses (including those captured upon final surrender) being over half a million. Italian losses, in the theatre, amount to around to 177,000 men with a further several hundred thousand captured during the process of the various campaigns. British losses amount to over 300,000 men killed, wounded, or captured, and total American losses in the region of 130,000.

Background

Further information: Italian Empire

Ambitions of Fascist Italy in Europe in 1936 (dark blue represents Italy; mid-blue represents territories to be annexed or colonized; light blue represents territories to be client states).

During the late 1920s, imperial expansion became an increasingly favored theme in Benito Mussolini's speeches. He argued that Italy needed an outlet for its "surplus population", and that it would therefore be in other countries' best interests to aid in this expansion. The aspiration of the regime was "for hegemony in the Mediterranean-Danubian-Balkan region" and the gaining of world power status by the conquest "of an empire stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Strait of Hormuz". There was imperial designs on Albania, Dalmatia, large parts of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Greece based on the precedent of previous Roman dominance in these regions. The regime also sought to establish protective patron-client relationships with Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Among Mussolini's (not-publicly proclaimed) aims were that Italy had to become the dominant power in the Mediterranean which would be able to challenge France or Britain, as well as attain access to the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. On 30 November 1938, Mussolini addressed the Fascist Grand Council "on the subject of what he called the immediate goals of 'Fascist dynamism'", these were Albania, Tunisia, Corsica, the Ticino canton of Switzerland, and "French territory east of the River Var (to include Nice, but not Savoy)". Italy's position in the Mediterranean became an increasing vocal concern of Mussolini between 1939 and 1940. Mussolini alleged that Italy required uncontested access to the world's oceans and shipping lanes to ensure its national sovereignty. He elaborated that Italy was a "prisoner in the Mediterranean" and had to break the chains of Britain and France's control. To do so Corsica, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, and Tunisia would need to be taken and Egypt, France, Greece,Turkey, and the United Kingdom would need to be faced. Following the destruction of this 'prison', Italy would be able to march "either to the Indian Ocean through the Sudan and Abyssinia, or to the Atlantic by way of French North Africa".

On 2 October 1935, Italian forces invaded Abyssinia. Historian P.M.H. Bell comments that the campaign "was in many ways a nineteenth-century colonial campaign waged out of due time". The main objective of the invasion being "political" and to demonstrate Italian power. Mussolini lauded the conquest as a new source of raw materials, being a location for emigration, and speculated how a native army could be raised their to "help conquer the Sudan. "Almost as soon as the Abyssinian campaign ended, Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War" began. Anthony Beevor comments that the intervention in Spain was to gain an ally in Francisco Franco's regime, thus further securing Italian control of the Mediterranean. On 7 April 1939, Italian troops landed in Albania and within two days had occupied the country. In May 1939, Italy formally allied herself with Nazi Germany.

Historian P.M.H. Bell comments that Italian foreign policy, under Mussolini, went through two stages. The first, up until 1934-35, was "modest ... and responsible" and following that date there was "ceaseless activity and aggression" Brian Sullivan notes that "prior to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, Mussolini had made military agreements with the French and formed a collation with the British and French to prevent German aggression in Europe." The Ethiopian War "exposed vulnerabilities and created opportunities that [Mussolini] seized to realize his imperial vision"

Initial fighting

On 10 June 1940, Italy declared war on France and the United Kingdom. The following day the British Commonwealth declared war on Italy. Italian forces launched a small scale invasion of France as part of the larger Battle of France. The following day, fighting started in North Africa along the Libyan-Egyptian border with British and Italian forces launching a series of raids upon each other. These raids saw the start of the Western Desert Campaign. During June, Italian attacks were mounted in East Africa, although ground combat did not start until July.

The fighting in Southern France resulted in Italy gaining only a modest 50 km (31 mi) demilitarized zone, although – with German blessing - Italy occupied Corsica and the Alpes-Maritimes, plus some areas of French territory along the Franco-Italian border further north. On 9 September, the Italians commenced an invasion of Egypt. Originally intended to coincide with a German invasion of the United Kingdom, it was launched underprepared and with no objectives. Italian troops advanced as far as Sidi Barrani before digging in, 80 miles west of the main British position at Mersa Matruh. On 18 October, Italian forces crossed the Albanian border and invaded Greece. The Greek military were able to repulse the Italian attack, and eventually invaded Albania.

During late 1940, after assembling enough forces the British launched a counterattack upon the Italians in Egypt. Operation Compass drove the Italians out of Egypt and resulted in the destruction of the Italian Tenth Army. Following this success, British and Commonwealth forces were dispatched to Greece to support the Greeks.

Axis forces gain the upper hand

Info on the further fighting in Greece, the Germans being pulled into the fighting in the Balkans and Greece, the fall of Greece and Crete. Note the lack of British troops to halt the Italian-German offensive in North Africa. Note the fighting over Malta

Fighting spreads to the Middle Eeast

Brief overview of why, and what happpened

Back and forth fighting in North Africa

Briefly describe Operations Brevity, Battleaxe, Crusader, and the Battle of Gazala

Allied forces gain the upper hand

Battles of el Alamein, the driving of Axis forces into Tunisia. Briefly note the German occupation of southern France. Describe Operation Torch and the end of fighting in Africa.

Fighting in southern Europe

Brief overview of Allied politics, quick description of the Allied invasions of Sicily, downfall of el Duce, the invasion of Italy, the British attacks in the Dodecanese. Return to Greece.

temp storage of info off main article

In an effort to forge an Italian Empire – or as supporters called it, the New Roman Empire - Benito Mussolini ordered his forces to invade Ethiopia during October 1935. Within seven months, the country had been overrun and an empire founded. Mussolini’s next target was Albania. In April 1939, Italian forces invaded the country and secured victory within five days. Wanting to further expand his empire and to emulate the success of Germany, Italy entered the Second World War intending to capture territories in southern France, the Balkans, east and north Africa including the Suez Canal. The armistice signed between France and Germany resulted in little gains being made in southern France, while after much fighting, Greece was occupied. The Italian forces in east Africa, isolated, were eventually defeated by British forces while the Italian advance into Egypt was repulsed by the British during Operation Compass. German and Italian reinforcements were dispatched to reinforce the Italian African army and to halt any further losses; however, after Erwin Rommell disobeyed orders and attacked, resulting in a series of victories, much of Italy’s lost territory in north Africa was returned. The back-and-forth fighting during the Western Desert Campaign would lead some German commanders to have grandiose dreams of the capture of the Suez canal and a march through the Middle East striking into southern Russia. In an effort to strike at British lines of communication, threaten the Suez Canal, and hinder support being given to the Soviet Union, Axis forces supported an uprising that occurred in Iraq, from Vichy French bases in the Middle East. This axis involvement would also lead to the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and the Syria-Lebanon campaign.

Mediterranean Theater of World War II

I suggest that this article is further reduced. That the land campaigns before Operation Torch is placed in the article Middle East Theatre of World War II and those from Torch onwards are placed in this article. -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While I am working on reducing the article, the historiography notes that Italian imperial ambitions were vast and covered the entire Med and Middle East region. Both the British and American official histories recognize the theatre to be one and the same, although by different names, and various sources note the possible German plans of attacks through the Balkans and/or North Africa into the Middle East and possible into the Soviet Union.

I believe that separating the article at the American involvement in the war, i.e. Operation Torch, is introducing artificial break in what happened and why. The downfall of Mussolini is linked to his imperial ambitions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As I.S.O. Playfair notes: Regardless of the size of the theatre, the various campaigns were not seen as neatly separated areas of operations but part of one vast theatre of war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By the time the Americas had land forces in the Mediterranean, the Italian no longer imperial ambitions that covered the entire Mediterranean and Middle East region. Such a break as I am proposing is useful because El-Alaminan can be seen as the last Hurrah of the British Empire, as after that the Empire was eclipsed by the growing strength of the two post war superpowers. Dividing the conflict into two articles based on when command shifted from the British to the Americans, is a useful way to delineate the theatres, as there is little in common between those before the Americans entered the Mediterranean and those that preceded it. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article, as it is, is not based on commands (it has just used a term of one command to simplify what the article is describing). An American may have been in command for Torch, Tunisia, and Sicily, and the early stages of Italy, but then Brits took over the Allied command structure so that argument is false, and I believe mostly irrelevant. At any rate, the American official history quite clearly points out that the Americans were entering and fighting in the same theatre as the British (just using different terms to describe it).

How can it be argued that the push across Libya, following el Alamein, the torch landings, and the fighting in Tunisia had nothing in common with the preceding fighting?

Just because goals change does not mark a difference in theatre. The Germans failed to knock the Soviet Union out of the war, after repeated attempts. That does not mean the Eastern Front article is split in two between pre-late 1943 and post-late 1943. The Italians, led by Mussolini, had Imperial ambitions and those were crushed when Italy was knocked out of the war and he was ousted. How can A be divorced from B, because of the name of Allied commands or on the superpower status of various parties?

Given a chance, this article can reflect that this was one interconnected theatre (as described by the sources) and do so in a concise way that is not just merely a list of campaigns.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice job, article looks a lot better now. Also I don't think that dividing article by date is good idea. I do think East-Africa should have been excluded but I guess its okay as long as its not used for dragging Madagascar and stuff in. Also maybe remove Mussolini from infobox? Usually then you have one politician there, people will rapidly start adding more and more.--Staberinde (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also shouldn't Dodecanese campaign section be after Italian section? In my opinion would be more logical that way, because Dodecanese campaign was directly caused by earlier Italian surrender.--Staberinde (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Playfair177":

• From Italian conquest of British Somaliland: Playfair (1954), p. 177
• From Anglo-Iraqi War: Playfair (1956), p. 177

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What about Free France?

I have just noticed that Free France has been removed from the Allies table, while Vichy France has remained in Axis table (even if Vichy France was not actively helping the Axis, rather defending its Empire against so-believed British attempt to seize French colonies after Mers-el-Kébir attack). I believe that Free France should be present as an allied power for they fought in Gabon, Ethiopia, Syria-Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, Operation Torch, and then the French army of Africa under Giraud in Italy, Corsica, Elba and Southern France. We could also take into account the Free French Naval forces and the little Free French Airforce. Despite their limited size, they are probably relevant into this section.

Yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.122.128 (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The removal was mainly an editorial decision when general improvements were being made to the article. The list at one point was huge and had, iirc, every nation who had even the smallest role in the theatre. To try and made the article look a little but more swanky the list was vastly cut down. I have just recut down the list after a user, a few months ago, expanded the list. If you feel strongly enough that the Free French should be added to the list, please go ahead.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Readding World War II template

In recent discussion I was informed that the template is not necessary per discussion on the MLH talk page and that using a portal was the preferred method. I was unable to find this discussion and believe that adding a well established template for World War II is in fact the current precedence and easier for navigation. The portal does not reflect the information researchers are looking for. The WWII template make navigation easier and has been established on all other pages linked on the WWII template. Please discuss reasons for removal of the template before removing. Valoem ^talk 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The brief discussion on the MILHIST talk page: link. As an admin stated "At one point, there was a push to replace the bulk of these with a link to Portal:World War II, which is much more compact; but that effort seems to have never been completed. Kirill (prof) 18:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)", which was enough for me to replace the template with the links to the portal. I don't recall if there was further discussions, but up until present I have yet to see anything to the contrary of that advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Italian military contribution needs more emphasis and less Anglo-American bias.

Hi Another clown, Please try to understand that the bulk of the Axis forces in North Africa were Italian, not German. Most of the bombing of Malta was done by the Italian air-force, not the German. I urge you to read trained historians like Sadkovich. Understanding Defeat: Reappraising Italy's Role in World War II Author(s): James J. Sadkovich Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 27-61Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260699. For too long now, Italian involvement in the Mediterranean has been over-shadowed by biased reporting by pseudo-historians. I can only repeat what I have said: that the bulk of the Axis forces in the Mediterranean were Italian, and NOT German. For example, Sadkovich writes: "Although the Italians failed to break through the Greek lines in Albania, they helped to assure victory for the twenty-nine German divisions deployed against Greece and Yugoslavia in April 1941 by pinning down fourteen Greek divisions and diverting a number of Yugoslav divisions. The Greek refusal to shorten their lines by 'retreating' on the Italian front allowed the Germans to outflank the three garrison divisions in the Metaxas Line and then scatter the three Greek and two ANZAC divisions deployed along the Aliakhmon River. In effect, the Italians had served as the anvil for the German hammer.47 It is thus simplistic to consider the Greek campaign as an Italian debacle and a brilliant German success." The Italian Army pinned down the bulk of the Greek Army, allowing the Germans an easy victory!!! But as it stands, this Wiki article needs revision. The Italian contribution in the Mediterranean should be acknowledged and portrayed realistically and fairly. AnnalesSchool (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Italian contribution to the Mediterranean has been much maligned and unfairly portrayed. It needs a review and some open thinking here. I suspect there has been an element of ingrained prejudice towards the Italians that needs to be rectified as well. Many of the authors quoted have tended to dismiss the Italian armed forces too quickly and too readily because they have largely swallowed British wartime propaganda hook, line and sinker. I'll get back to you with my proposals and then see what we can do to make this article more balanced.AnnalesSchool (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC) AnnalesSchool (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a lot in regards to why your edits keep getting reverted. Lets go through your adjustments one by one:

1. you changed a sentence to state "Italy launched various attacks around the Mediterranean, which were mostly successful". Please provide a source that shows the Italian attacks into France, Greece, and Egypt were successful. The Italian attack into France was limited and achieved little. The Italian attack into Greece stalled and was countered by the Greeks. The Italian attack into Egypt had no objectives and stopped well short of the British positions without actually having achieved anything or engaging anything other than skirmish lines.
2. You continually change the context of a quote. Quotes cannot be reworded to your own liking.
3. You change another sentence to refer to the "successful" Italian invasion of France. Please provide evidence.
4. "In March–April 1941, with a force mainly consisting of Italian men and arms, he managed to destroyed the British and Commonwealth forces facing him into retreat" - thus far, this is about the only change I partially agree with. Very little of the allied force was in fact destroyed or captured. However, it appears to be significantly overplaying the Italian role. I do not have the majority of sources I use to have on the Desert War, however the one I does presents a map showing the German 5th Light Division with corps assets along side the two Italian divisions.
5. "a smaller Italo-German force continued to press eastward retaking all territory lost to Operation Compass, and advanced into Egypt". - Agreed.
6. "The German and Italian forces easily brushed aside British Commonwealth and Greek resistance on the Greek mainland. " - I agree with the other editors, you appear to be increasing Italy's role in the fall of Greece and I would like to see more evidence than just a single source that supports such a position considering - as far as I am aware - the conventional view is that the Germans were the ones who played the primarily role in the battle.
7. "The bulk of the fighting in North Africa against the Allies was actually done by Italian men and materials, with the Germans as the secondary party." - despite being accurate in one sense and more than likely worthy of being mentioned in the article (just, as for example, how the Eighth Army was primarily comprised of non-British soldiers), it is completely twisting the truth in another.
8. To note, I have not ignored your other edits nor support or condone them, they are just small changes that - to me - seems beyond the scope of this debate for now.

I would be interested to see who you are calling "pseudo-historians". The section that covers the Italian ambitions is made up from a mixture of well known and respected historians and those who have wrote works on the subject. If you are suggesting Playfair is one, from what I have read he is one of the more respected British official historians. Not to mention, the official histories time and again mention the bravery of the Italian soldiers despite the various problems facing them. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with terminology, word choice, style and perspective

As Enigma has reverted my edits dated June 12 yet again, this issue needs further discussion and clarification.

I changed "largely unsuccessful" to "moderately successful" when talking about Italy's Mediterranean war because my problem is this: Italy's attack of France was described as a failure, and yet, Italy won important concessions. It is true Mussolini did not achieve all that he wanted, and the gains were modest compared to what he initially wanted to achieve. However, be that as it may, in the end, Italy gained a sliver of France and several other advantages from its invasion of France when the armistice was signed.

Your opinion, not supported by what historians state. Historians state that on the military side of things the Italian adventure into France was not successful. Twisting the fact that Italy had to downplay their armistice demands in face of French resistance and German opposition, does not magically change the Italian attack into some success. The Italian adventure into Greece, as supported by historians, turned sour and had to be bailed out. The Italian attack into Egypt was launched with no objectives, little logistical support, and stopped well short of the British main positions and failed to achieve Mussolini's imperial designs.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, the Italian invasion of Greece was described as a "fiasco". And yet, the reader would be puzzled, because the reader, the lay-person reading the article would be wondering this: If the Italian invasion of Greece was a "failure" and a "fiasco", then how did Italy end up occupying two thirds of Greece? This is a "fiasco" and a "failure"?

While it is acknowledged that the article needs work, your argument is basically a straw man. Your argument leaves out how the Germans won the campaign. It leaves out how the Germans occupied the most important locations. It also makes the false assumption that level of competency equals level of responsibility post-war. It leaves out geopolitics. Basically you have boiled down a complex situation into something very basic in an effort to further your personal agenda.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, how did Italy's navy fail against the British navy when for 3 years, the Italian navy dominated the central Mediterranean and was able to ensure 90% of supplies to Libya, successfully?

Again, it is acknowledged that the article is need of improvement. It is easier to roll back your continued and repeated efforts to implant your personal agenda, than scrutinize every minor edit you make. As noted in the above section to your earlier edits.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise in North Africa, rather than Italians having "failed miserably", they fought the British hard for three years in the Libyan desert, along with their ally, Germany. And please remember, the Germans were the junior partner in this conflict, just as the British and the Australians were the juniorItalic text partner in Europe and Asia to the Americans and the Russians.

"failed miserably" does not appear in the article.

It is very nice for you to take a swipe at the Anglo-Australians, but that straw man is not the point of this discussion. Also, considering your claims to be a "history teacher", the country you are attempting to refer to is the Soviet Union and its citizens: Soviets. Russia made up only one republic within the union. Although, its a very basic mistake to make!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So, a reader reading these Wikipedian articles about Italy's wartime involvement must be scratching his head because on the one hand, Italy "failed miserably" in just about everything it tried to do, and yet, at the end of the day, Italy appears to have ended up with French soil and concessions, two thirds of Greece, not to mention Albania and large junks of Yugoslavia, its navy was able to ward off the British navy relatively successfully for 3 years, and far from knocking out Italy early in the war, as Churchill thought, the Italians managed to hang on and fight for three grueling years.

They must be really scratching their head, because "failed miserably" does not appear in the article. If you are going to use quotes, at least attempt to quote something from the article being discussed. Again, you simplify a complex situation into a simple argument to further your position. Not to mention, how does this paragraph relate to your edit being rolled back?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is why I believe and continue to maintain that the manner and choice of words used to portray the Italian involvement in the war, is biased and unfair. I am simply trying to weed out biased and non-neutral words and phrases and bring back a bit of neutrality and fairness to articles dealing with Italy. For example, instead of writing the "Italians switching sides" I revised it to "deposing of Benito Mussolini" in a coup. Instead of "Mussolini alleged" I revised it to "Mussolini maintained" and so on. My choice of words is more neutral and academically acceptable to avoid giving the reader an unnecessarily denigrating, derogatory view of either Mussolini or his generals who were in the main, capable and intelligent men, and far from the buffoons some Wiki editors seem bent on portraying them.AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You argue that you are tying to weed out bias and non-neutral words, yet you have a nasty habit of replacing them ones that are - generally - neither neutral or academically supported. This article, and others, need improvement. That is acknowledged. Yet, for the most part, you are making them worse by inserting spin, fringe theories, and your personal opinion into them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with EnigmaMcmxc. Your most recent edit [2] where you claimed that the Taranto raid was a " moderate though temporary setback" for the Italian Navy is another attempt to add blatant distortions of history in Wikipedia articles. Taranto cost the Italian Navy half of its battleships, and all the histories I've read of the conflict agree that it was a severe blow to the Italian Navy's combat power and performance for the rest of the conflict. Removing the statement that Italy switched sides in 1943 as part of the same edit is also a falsification of history. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are both wrong. For example, when you state confidently that Italy "switched sides", what Italy are you referring to? There were two Italys - two governments; one in the north and one in the south. As far as I know, the government led by Mussolini and his cronies in the north, did not "switch sides". This is just a small example of how simplistic and generalized many of these articles are like. Either they go into a lot of minute details or they gloss over and generalize so much.

The Taranto attack was not a great disaster for the Italian navy and conversely it wasn't a great success for the British partly because the British did not capitalize on it. I believe that two of the three battleships were repaired.

Articles like this one give readers the wrong impression. It is true the Italian military made things hard for itself. When invading France, they had to cross over freezing mountain peaks, as they likewise did in Greece, so that it appears the generals lacked either imagination or simply they lacked the mobility and speed of the German army.

Be that as it may, the Italians did end up with two thirds of Greece, large chunks of Yugoslavia, and made the British navy sweat and very nervous in the Med, as well as North Africa. It reminds me of the world cup played between Italy and France in 2006. France was the better side; but Italy ended up winning in a penalty shoot out. Even in defeat, the Italians often seem to pull the rabbit out of the hat and turn defeat into success.

At least provide more balance in your articles dealing with the Italian involvement in the war. For example, in the "Invasion of France" article, I was the one who included the Aftermath section in describing the Italian-French armistice and the concessions given to Italy. Otherwise, a reader would have read the article and having read how it was a "fiasco" and a "failure" would have thought that Italy achieved nothing, which is not true.

So carry on writing about the Italian battles and invasions, etc,. and how they were "largely unsuccessful" and provide lots of loving detail about how incompetent their leaders were, how inadequate their equipment was, how hopelessly they fought, etc. And then, I will simply inform the reader in the "Aftermath" section, in just a few sentences, the actual gains made by the Italians.

So yes, I would like you to continue to write about how the Italian invasion of Greece was a "disaster", a "fiasco", and explain all its pitfalls and failings,every single one of them, etc, and then just state in the end, how "miserably" Italy failed in occupying two-thirds of the country! Italy had "failed" to occupy all of Greece. Less than 100% must therefore be portrayed to the Wiki reader as a dismal failure!

By all means, mention the Germans. Their intervention was decisive in France, Greece and North Africa, just as American intervention was decisive for the British and Commonwealth forces in North Africa and... pretty much elsewhere. And I haven't even mentioned the Russians! In fact, I would maintain that British and certainly, Commonwealth forces were significant, but not decisiveItalic text in defeating the Axis powers. Even if the UK was knocked out of the war, it hardly would have mattered in the long run because the Russians were already pushing the Germans back, as the Americans were doing with the Japanese in the Pacific.

Lastly, you mention that the authors quoted all agree. My reply is simply that the authors quoted are either out of date, are not reputable scholars or if they are, are unnecessarily prejudiced against the Italians. I could say even racist, but I don't want to go that far- but I suspect there is also a tinge of racism there too.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That was a nice little rant, which for the most did not engage any of the arguments made against your position and continued the utilization of straw man and irrelevant material (not to mention the fact that you still display a complete lack of understanding to what the difference between a Russian and Soviet is). Not to mention, you played the race card, bravo! It is funny how some of the authors - not necessary in this article - are Italians, so I guess their the self-loathing kind of Italians?

"And then, I will simply inform the reader in the "Aftermath" section, in just a few sentences, the actual gains made by the Italians." I really hope that will be better than your ill balanced and fringe theory attempt, like you did to the France article, that leaves out the vast majority of English-speaking, French, and Italian historians who all disagree with you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If you were editing in good faith I'd have some sympathy for you. But you are not. You are inserting blatantly false claims into Wikipedia articles in an obvious attempt to distort their coverage of Italy's role in World War II. When cornered on this you play the victim and throw vile insults around. If this occurs again I will ask an uninvolved admin to block you from editing. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not insulting anyone and an acting in very good faith. Many of the authors that are quoted are from the 50s and 60s and 70s and are out of date. The articles dealing with the Italian involvement in the war, are biased and unbalanced. Also remember that after the war, there was a decided swing to the left in Italy. Many of the Italian writers and academics were politically on the left and were quite happy to disparage Mussolini and his fascist regime, which meant overkill in a lot of their descriptions.

Oh please, I do know the difference between the Russians and the Soviets. Your comment Enigma was so facile, I simply ignored it.

In many ways, the British were in the same position to the Americans as the Italians were to the Germans. Both were junior partners to their much bigger and stronger allies. And certainly the British committed just as many "fiascos" as the Italians - ie. Norway, Greece, Singapore, to mention just a few. Perhaps I should start showing an interest in articles dealing with British and Commonwealth battles. The surrender of 70,000 well armed and well-fed troops to a much smaller Japanese force showed an embarrassing lack of fighting grit at Singapore.

I hope in future we can work together to improve these articles and bring them up to date with better information, less bias, more neutrality and scholarship.AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Facile, perhaps. Yet a massive glaring error from a supposed history teacher, and you keep on doing it. Not to mention it was followed by yet more straw man arguments.

The most sourced section of this article (the one dealing with Italian background information), is comprised of works from scholars from largely the last twenty years. Granted that the article needs work and, perhaps, the oldest work (Playfair) is heavily used. However, Playfair is a widely quoted and respected author and his work has largely been confined to backing up simple facts and providing detailed information on the background of British forces in the theater. The only other article, that I am aware you have edited that involves Italians forces during the war, has been the Invasion of France article. Likewise, that is largely sourced from modern works. Your wide swinging criticism appears very subject. Who are these outdated scholars who are being heavily used here and elsewhere?

As for the quip about the Italians, I have read several comments from Italian historians from the last few years (not post-war commie sympathizers who had it in for Mussolini) and they are not all that praising on the Italian forces during the war. You cannot have it both ways: call for the use of Italian sources, then disparage the ones you don't like as having an anti-fascist agenda and therefore not impartial or able to their job as you have heavily hinted above.

As for your threat to vandalize other articles, go right ahead. I am sure there are active editors out there who will stop you from throwing in ill-balanced and unsupported commentary, not to mention the admin staff.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Italian bias notable in several locations in this article.

I would like to make a few changes because I've noticed several examples of lack of neutrality in the wording that appear biased against the Italy. Wiki policy is to maintain the tradition of neutrality and NPOV, as well as fairness and balance and to avoid cherry-picking authors who are biased as well.

If I do not hear of any objections in seven days, I will proceed to clean up this article to improve its NPOV, balance, etc, in line with Wiki policy.AnnalesSchool (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I have already objected haven't I? There is no detail in this proposal at all and it is hardly sufficient to justify making changes. As I said in my edit summary when I reverted your last change [3] which was misleadingly labeled as "minor" you have provided no references. What exactly do you propose to change, what wording do you propose to adopt, and what references do you have to support these changes? Anotherclown (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal to improve the integrity, balance and neutrality of the article. Many are to do with word choice, substituting colloquial English words with connotations, with academic, neutral words that reduce unnecessary and unwanted connotations with perceived bias.

1. Fascist Italy aimed to carve out a new Roman Empire, while British forces aimed initially to retain the status quo. Italy launched various attacks around the Mediterranean, which were largely unsuccessful. I propose to change this phrase to limited success or moderate success or short-lived success. Or just delete the phrase altogether. This will enhance the articles neutrality.

2.Allied forces then commenced an invasion of Southern Europe, resulting in the Italians switching sides and deposing Mussolini. For the sake of accuracy and neutrality, we change this phrase to something like deposing/arresting Mussolini and joining the Allies making clear that there were two governments at the time, one allied with the Allies and one that continued to stay loyal to the German partnership. Switching sides makes it sound like the Italians are in the habit of switching sides and perfunctory.

3.They reopened the Mediterranean route to the Middle East. They went on from Africa to liberate Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. They caused Mussolini to topple from power, and they brought his successors to abject surrender. Substitute with the more neutral surrender. AnnalesSchool (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Two and three seem fine and improve the accuracy of the article. One is just twisting the truth out of proportion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree to 2 and 3 but not 1 for the same reasons. As there seems to be agreement on 2 and 3 I have made these changes now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2 is factually incorrect: the Italian government deposed Mussolini, stuck with the Germans (at least nominally) for a few weeks while they tried to figure out how to best get out of the war, and then very sensibly switched their allegiance to the Allied side of the war but unfortunately failed to anticipate or fend off the German response. The Germans then set up a new puppet government which was headed by Mussolini to run the part of the country they controlled, while (as I understand it) the government which could more clearly trace its lineage back to the pre-September 1943 government ran the Allied occupied part of the country. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Gday Nick. Fair point - I guess I was more comparing the text of the versions for neutrality rather than the overall lack of detail. Certainly what we have so far is a fairly broad summary that is lacking in the specifics. Happy for that information to be added and will see what I can find in the way of sources myself (although my library is fairly limited). Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Keegan The Second World War pp 285-293 has a bit on this. Anotherclown (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Weinberg A World At Arms pp 597-598. Are there any objections to either of these sources? Anotherclown (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Only speaking for myself, no objections here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a bit on this now, although didn't change the lead as it seemed like this would be too much detail. Do others think this is necessary? Anotherclown (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)