Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Second Italo-Ethiopian War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

I've seen several spellings of some of the words in the article.

Wel Wel, welwel, Wal Wal, Walwal, Ualual.
Maychew, May Chew, Maichew, Mei Chaw

Oberiko 14:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

what is "legge taglionis"?

and why is it left untranslated? only google references to it are this quote. and many of them are wikipedia related. --144.122.238.146 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

legge taglionis is Italian for lex talionis, which is Latin for "law of retaliation". Basically, an eye for an eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.147.57 (talk) 23:32, March 11, 2007 (UTC)

Mhm, in Italian is it:legge del taglione. --F l a n k e r 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Crimes of the Fascist Army?

So all of a sudden the use of poison gas is a crime? Last time I checked, everyone used poison gas in WWI. Does that mean that France, Britain, Canada, and the United States are all guilty of massive crimes? Should I go and edit the World War I article to say the crimes o9f the British, American, and French forces aare widly known today? How is this any sort of objectivity? - Izzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.25.52 (talk) 17:59, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

The Geneva Protocol, signed by 16 nations including Italy, outlawed chemical warfare, so using poison gas after 1928 was a war crime. GhePeU 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be explained any further Izzo. The inconvenient truth was that this use by Italy occurred in 1935 7 years after it signed the 1928 convention recognizing poison munitions as illegal to use even during war. It makes its use of poison munitions a Genocidal war crime. 71.191.21.252 (talk) 9:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Huge bias

This article seems to have a focus on condemning Italian actions rather then keep an impartial description of the war. I'm putting a NPOV tag on it and recommend that any and all Italian war crimes be cited and moved to a separate section. Oberiko 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't 'war crimes' part of the war itself? How can you have an article about this war without mentioning the things the Italian army did to the Ethiopian civilians - also a major factor in why World War II far eclipses any other war in history in terms of lives lost. There should be no separate section, and it's perfectly fair to point out the disparity between the lives lost of both sides. SempriniWalrus 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I've had a related discussion about a year ago (I don't think the other party has any recent involvement with Wikipedia). See also Special:Contributions/86.135.150.62, User_talk:Gyrofrog/2006Feb-Jun#Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War and User talk:Sezziemezzie. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So enough people have raised the issue of bias. Why hasn't wikipedia at least attached a "disputed" tag to this page ? I mean enough people have raised issues. Alberto Sbacchi's "Legacy of Bitterness" has done yeoman work on this subject. 138.88.37.107 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012

BIAS

I'm sorry for deleting a part without disscusing it first... BUT "genocide based on race"?no sources, no nothing on it. to the writer: Are you sane? What 500 000 "international black volunteers"? The Italian Fascist regime began employing racial laws much later (so it could legitimize ties with Germany which was 3-4 years AFTER the second Abyssinian-Italian war ended). This war was not a "race war", it was a war of agression based only on economical and strategical principles. If the Italians wanted to eliminate all Ethiopians than why did they employ 250.000 native Askaris as mercenaries 4 years later against the British? Hell... the East African Italian Army was composed largely of Ethiopians. Wouldn't they rebel if they were being systematically murdered (that is genocide if you do not know) since they were armed and organised in separate units?86.104.216.79 11:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, the native soldiers were not Ethiopian but Eritrean. The Italians did make use of auxilary military forces known as bande, who were raised from the various peoples who lived inside the pre-1936 borders. As for the rest of what you wrote, I agree mostly with what you wrote: the Italians were not exceptionally racist for their time. (Remember, this was during the period of Jim Crow in the US, wide-spread acceptance of Eugenics, as well as legal discrimination based on ethnic backgrounds in many other first-world countries.) I'm not defending anyone's behavior here, just trying to put one country's actions into perspective. -- llywrch 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Italians did actually recruit fairly large numbers of regular askaris from Ethiopia during their brief occupation - the 28 Eritrean infantry battalions existing in 1936 had been increased by 1940 to a total of 93, drawn from the entire territory of A.O.I. (Italian East Africa or Eritrea plus Somalia plus Ethiopia). This was in addition to the bande - a generic Italian colonial term for irregular units from any of their East African acquisitions. In military terns this rapid expansion was not a good idea - the veteran Eritrean units were diluted by a substantial intake of new recruits (many possibly conscripted) with no reason to feel any loyalty to Mussolini's new empire. During the campaign of 1941 most Ethiopians serving with the Regio Corpi di Truppe Coloniali appear to have deserted. I agree that the Italians were no more racist than other colonial powers of the period - and less so than some. The Facist invasion of Ethiopia was brutal agression but talk of deliberate genocidal policies doesn't make much sense.Buistr 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So what if the commentor is American ? Get it through your head folks, the Fascists lost the war, they had been losing since 1936, bottled up in their cities, only able to move around during the day. No reliving it here on Wikipedia. And yes we kicked them out of Ethiopia, with some British help, thanks. That makes us, Ethiopians, the authors of our own liberation, and the owners of our story. Not the rest of you folks. Enjoy all the wiki has to offer, but realize, write all you want, debate quibble whatever, another one of you will come and re-write everything sheepishly coming closer and closer to the truth we have consistently maintained. Turth is truth. It can not be bent around whatever lie or qualification each generation of fascisti cook up. 68.49.52.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, if an Italian should not be involved in writing this page, neither an Ethiopian should. I could not understand why an Italian could be considered a priori biased on this topic and an Ethiopian not, since both have interests in making this war looking genocidal or minimizing the importance of war crimes. I feel that we have to assume WP:AGF in any case, as I could not accept any limit based on nationality: good work on sources should be enough. Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

As indicated above, this article needs some serious work in general. The current "Conclusions" section seems devoid of any "conclusions." Instead, the section seems to try to take one from 1936 to today with a whole lot of "broad stroke commentary" with no dates or details. An actual "conclusion" might be better (I have actually seen a few in several books . . . which could be cited) and a few links could replace most of the "commenttary" ( . . . yes, the Dergue replaced Haile Selassie in 1974 . . . but does this need to be more than a link in an article about a war fought in the mid-30s?). I hope no one will object if I start a little rework . . . after I have pulled some books together. Mkpumphrey 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Leagues

While you are about it, the following sentence was unsourced: The Italians re-interpreted this to mean 21 nautical leagues, as opposed to 21 standard leagues, which gave them greater territory. I would expect a league to be three nautical miles, so the implication that the Italians invented their interpretation seems doubtful and POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian casualties

Do they positively include the Eritrean casualties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.118.219 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Government figures, of about 3,000 total deaths, provide a breakdown which includes Eritrean and other colonial troops. The Alberto Sbacchi figure of 10,000 appearing in the article seems inflated unless it includes losses amongst Galla and other tribal groups who collaborated with the Italian invaders against the dominant Amhara regime of Haile Selassie.210.246.16.27 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Two new "break outs"

To reduce the size (somewhat) of the "Second Italo-Abyssinian War" article, I plan to create two new articles. One will cover De Bono's initial advance in detail and the other will include the "Christmas Offensive." By doing this, I can reduce the text covering these issues within this article and expand the coverage of the the initial advance and of the Christmas Offensive. I am not sure there were enough activities in the south for a separate Article on what Graziani did initially. Any comments? Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Breakout of much of the "Aftermath" section

Again, to reduce the size of the "Second Italo-Abyssinian War" article, I plan to create a new article. The "Aftermath" section currently covers the period of Italian occupation between the initial invasion and the loss of the colony during World War II. I first need to find some material which can flesh this subject out more (Italian colonial policy, continued Ethiopian control in the countryside, Haile Selassie's exile, etc.). Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

65.95.173.249 changes

I plan to revert change made by an unidentified user (65.95.173.249). The material added by this unknown person will be re-located within the article.

Concerning "preachy" comments made by the unknown user, I think it is appropriate to provide documented quotes by both Ethiopians ("It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.") and Italians ("Will you be worthy?"). Neither of the points of view expressed by these quotes may be neutral in and of themselves. But to get a better understanding of an event and its participants it seems best to present and examine both sides ... in a neutral manner. For this reason, I think it is important to keep the "poison gas" material (unliked by some) and the material concerning Mussolini's outlook. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violation "Will you be worthy of it" section is repetitive and almost glorifying Mussolini, ignores the reaction of Ethiopians to their defeat and the Italian victory

This section called "will you be worthy of it" is repetitive and appears to be glorifying Mussolini by describing the declaration of victory by Mussolini as if it is some sort of legend. Just look at the awkward wording of this sentence which speaks of Mussolini's popularity: "The crowds would not let him go -- ten times they recalled Mussolini to the balcony and cheered and waved while the boys of various Fascist youth organizations sang the newly composed 'Hymn of the Empire' (Inno dell'impero)." Or this sentence: "This was Mussolini's hour of glory. He knew that the Italian nation was united around him as it never was before. He knew that the exultation that he witnessed was genuine." and this phrase "Fascism was never so popular and the shouts of military victory drowned out the muttered grumbles about underlying economic ills." What is the purpose of this other than to be basically repeat multiple times that Mussolini and Fascism became very popular as a result of the victory in Ethiopia. People are smart enough to get the picture if it is said in one sentence like this: "Italy's victory in conquering Ethiopia was rejoiced in Italy as a source of national pride and the victory stregthened the popularity of Benito Mussolini and the Fascist regime." This sentence describes it concisely. For if we have a long drawn out description of how Italians rejoiced the victory, it would only be fair to include another long drawn out description of the sense of defeat in Ethiopia, how Hailie Selassie responded to the defeat, and how Ethiopians' viewed Hailie Selassie after the defeat. I think it's better to be concise and to-the-point about the reaction in Italy and that probably a concise and to-the-point analysis of reaction in Ethiopia is also needed.—R-41 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you have documention for a "concise and to-the-point analysis of reaction in Ethiopia" that you can add? Are you "65.95.173.249"? If you are, could you please check the section where I attempted to fix the two years equating to one year text?

How about this? I will refrain from using clumsy if you will refrain from using awkward. Mkpumphrey (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes and added some "Ethiopian perspective" text. Please let me know if this is more to your liking. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remove note questioning neutrality of section

(Please see "NPOV violation "Will you be worthy of it" section is repetitive and almost glorifying Mussolini, ignores the reaction of Ethiopians to their defeat and the Italian victory" above.) I do not believe that there was a problem with the verifiable and historically accurate material presented from the start. But the section in question has been reworked and should be acceptable even to the "non-neutral" types who tend to claim they want neutrality. Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no response was received ... Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is plagiarised, in places word-for-word, from a historical novel by a certain Dan Ryan. I'd fix it, but this entire page is beyond saving anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.66.145 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Where to file, how to label, this painting?

Rather embarassed that I don't know enough about the Abyssinian Wars to make this more useful, but I snapped a pic (no flash) of this in the British Museum, and thought it might be helpful. Any idea how this painting could be best employed as an illustration?

Painting depicting the Italo-Abyssinian war.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the placement of the picture in the "Christmas Offensive" section works well.Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopian Declaration of War

Note 22 claims that on page 11 of Nicolle's book, there's evidence that Ethiopia declared war on Italy. But page 11 of that book is just pictures. So first, can someone provide a credible source? And two, in particular, I'm looking for the original text of the declaration itself. Any aid would be appreciated. Llamabr (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian casualties confusion

according to this page, the italians suffered more casualties in ogaden than they actually did in the war. can we get a doublecheck on the italian casualties? going through the individual battle pages it seems they're quite higher than listed here. or am i missing something? if i am please clarify.Capt Jim (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They're wrong. People have been changing the numbers in the casualty box and notes without changing the source. The original source which I added two years ago put casualties at about 10,000 for the first year, and about that many for the next 4 years. I'm fixing the figures now. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sbacchi figures are contentious ones which do not reflect other published figures. Let's put aside the contemporary Facist Government number of 3,000 deaths for 1936 as possibly suspect (although this does include a detailed breakdown for Italian troops, labour corps, colonial levies etc). We are still left with modern authorities such as Christopher Duggan, Professor of Italian History at the University of Reading who cites total Italian deaths of 4,500 in his recently published "The Force of Destiny - A History of Italy Since 1796" (ISBN 978-0-713-99709-5 ; Penguin Books 2007). This is very different from the Sbacchi estimate, even if losses amongst Galla and other allies of the Italians are included in the latter. We should aim for accuracy in this article - unfortunately the issue of Italian deaths seems to be a POV one, resulting in the wildly varying figures of 500 to 16,000 that have been edited into the text over the past two years. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The galla were not allies with ITaly... Ethiopia is not like Italy were the people from venice and sardina hate Italy its because they are not from there. Italy was controlled by at least three other countries before gaining independance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.185.188 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Too much attention to the years of occupation?

Although some attention should be given too the aftermath of the War (&, perhaps determining just when it did end: i.e., when should the Ethiopian enmity be considered part of the actions of the Arbognach?), I feel this article spends too much space on "what happened next" -- especially the "Duke of Aosta" & "End of Italian East Africa" sections. I'd like to prune those parts back, as well as create a separate article on the assassination attempt on Graziani -- which was perhaps the most notorious atrocity of the Italians during their occupation. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Italian Casualties

Christopher Duggan, Professor of Italian History at the University of Reading cites Italian deaths of 4,500 in his just published "The Force of Destiny - A History of Italy Since 1796" (ISBN 978-0-713-99709-5 ; Penguin Books 2007). This would suggest that the Sbacchi figure of 10,000 inserted in the article may be an inflated one. 210.246.16.207 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No the Italiens took a few pictures with some ethiopians with spears and bows and told there people that the ethiopians had no guns. Also in 2001 italy finally let out state secrets of the us of posion gas in ethiopia that was in 2001 they used about 500 000 and that is what this whole deflated thing is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.185.188 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Tone?

This article needs to have some working done on encyclopedic tone. I should not be seeing transitions like "anyway" in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yandereboat (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are also missing capitals, sentences clearly based on Italian word order ("after the beginning of 1937 was growing the number of Ethiopians who were enrolling in the colonial Italian forces") and even some words left in Italian tout court ("iprite": that's mustard gas in English).Mb 3r7864 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreigners Fighting In The Service of The Emperor

Numerous foreign military officers, ex-officers and generals offered their services to the Ethiopians and fought against the invaders. This seems to be totally missing form the article. I am sure there those who are more knowledgeable than I am who can fill in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.40 (talk) 21:24, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

The tone of sections of this article is very unusual, controversial, and almost pushing POV violation

The tone of sections on the "perspectives" of Italy and Ethiopia is very controversial. The Italian section is almost if not glorifying the Italian victory - speaking of the patriotic immediate response to the victory - focusing on Mussolini's speeches and emphasizing that Victor Emmanuel III was the first "emperor" in Rome in over 1,000 years - essentially comparing Victor Emmanuel III to the powerful Caesars of Rome - a very unusual exaggeration, considering that he was NOT named "Emperor of Italy", and that his position of "Emperor of Ethiopia" was a mere figurehead title that could have been called anything from "King" to "Prince" to "Caliph" and it would have been the same thing, a figurehead head of state over Italian East Africa that would have become an Italian colony under the Fascist government even if he refused to accept the crown. If he was named "Caliph of Somalia" would the article say "Victor Emmanuel III was the first Caliph to rule over an Italian territory since the era of Arab colonization of Southern Italy" - that would be an exaggeration as well. The section seems to overemphasize the immediate emotional grandeur of the victory of Italian armed forces in Ethiopia while neglecting the consequences. The capture of Ethiopia was an economic catastrophe for Italy - Italian East Africa required a budget from 1936-37 for required infrastructure development that was more than the entire budget of Italy of the same year.--R-41 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Image of painting removed

I removed the image because it refers to the battle of Adwa (first Italo-Abyssinian war). I will try to put in the relevant article. See the site of the British Museum (Search the collection database / Battle of Adwa). AlfredoM (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Names

Why is this war called the Second Italo-Abyssinian War when the first one is called the First Italo-Ethiopian War?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm proposing that this page be moved to Second Italo-Ethiopian War. From google hits, the term seems to be more common with 1360 hits vs. 720 with "Abyssinian," many of which are from Wikipedia (some from related pages) and its mirrors. This is parallel to the First Italo-Ethiopian War, which I moved from First Italo-Abyssinian War, as the former was more common. The general term (without "First" or "Second") is also more common with "Ethiopian" (23,700) compared to with "Abyssinian" (9,490). Ethiopia was known as "Ethiopia" officially by the English-speaking world at this time (Haile Selassie insisted on the differentiation between "Abyssinia" and "Ethiopia" in 1930), so there's no reason the page should be at the current location. Note that the current page uses a regular dash ("-"), while the First war uses an ndash (–). Which do we want to use? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Haile Selassie insisted on the differentiation between "Abyssinia" and "Ethiopia" in 1930" -- if this is true, please add some details to Ethiopia#Name or elsewhere as relevant. Arlright 02:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Google is a funny thing. Performing the same searches, but excluding "Wikipedia" gives entirely different search results: Second Italo-Abyssinian War: 2460; Second Italo-Ethiopian War: 578. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Forces Numbers

"In a few months, eight regular, mountain, and blackshirt infantry divisions arrived in Eritrea and four regular infantry divisions arrived in Italian Somaliland. These units alone represented 680,000 soldiers."

Something seems wrong here. If I recall, the regular Italian "binary" infantry divisions of the time only contained about 7000 men each. I don't know numbers for the other types but I can see no way for the units quoted above to come close to 680,000 men. Even if one takes the statement to mean eight divisions of Each type, a figure of 28 divisions is arrived at. Even after accounting for various corps/army level commands plus transport, this number seems highly inflated. Russ3Z (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The withered hand and the broken toe

"The first Emperor in Rome in hundreds of years raised his withered hand to the visor of his cap and said nothing." is (apart from being an embarrassing shade of purple) almost a direct lift from the fiction novel Dorneywood. Now perhaps it was previously published in Time magazine and lifted from there. I trust that someone who cares more about this page than me will check carefully.--Thepm (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second Italo-Ethiopian War. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100608012801/http://users.ju.edu:80/jclarke/wizzd.html to http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzd.html
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65gfcjMKT to http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/impu/itaimp1.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Cant none of this happened for real this is just documentation from pro italien authurs.So Its completely bias and misleading and much too long. It is blatently obvious that the King was pressured to tally up the dead to get more money from Italy which Ethiopia well deserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahyayeh2011 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of ethiopian books in amharic and tigrina that talk about the ITaliens who by the way were military occupied by at least 3 countries so they know what it feels like to be occupied. Even though if we compare the recent advace of ISIS or Dash in Syria and Iraq and the mass excecutions we can see the same type of war being played out. Hence the kurds ousted the islamist and Baghdad was not conquered. This page the second italy ethiopia war has been flagged for bias since 1997 and finally its being modified for the better. Ethiopia had one of the strongest land armies in the world at one time so if you dont understadnd how a far away land could defend its self so well thats one of the main raison. The majority of people historians and ethiopians know that ethiopia was never colonized and if you ethiopian iam sure you have heard that in fact our country has never lost a war before. SO i have edited this page for every one and will continue editing even if i am being threatend by false fake amateur historians who have been mislead by a old facist goverment who killed its own people.The Ethiopians destroyed more than double the number of enemy soilders that the viet kong did during the vietnam war. SO how if ethiopia did that in only five years and it took the viet kong 20 years is it logical that ethiopia was colonized. Thats just like ISIS saying that the territory they just happened to be in really belongs to them. Does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.185.188 (talk) 00:39, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

NOpe this is not the real history of the ethiopian italy war not at all it makes it look like ethiopia was conalised by italy . Everyone knows this is not true who ever wrote this contridicts himself way to many times and its way to long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahyayeh2011 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry guys i have decided that re editing this is not the right thing to do but if i ever get the chance to make a completly other ethiopian italy war i will definitly show the war through the ethiopian and very likely the world view of this war. In reality the war is completly different from what this article blatlely states. My proof is that the source of this article are all Italien facist that wrote their book between 1940 45. Italiens couldnt possible write a none biased view of this war because their country was being run by a dictator that completly controlled the media in Italy this is a humiliating article for Italiens. Who I am sure many have heard that Ethiopians had always been the bain of the Italien people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.185.188 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It wont be edited agains some body just write a better one showing the Ethiopian point of view! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.185.188 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation problem?

In the section titled: "Italian perspective: "Will you be worthy of it?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.44.89 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Emperor! Emperor! Salute the Emperor!" ("Imperatore! Imperatore! Salute Imperatore!")

I'm no expert in Italian, but I do not believe that "Salute Imperatore!" means "Salute the Emperor!"

(Isn't it more like "Hail, Emperor!" or "Bless you, Emperor!"? It is a direct address to the emperor, not a command to some other people that they should salute the emperor.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.44.89 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Indy beetle The photos I added are from wikipedia--Tahurus (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes but some of these are blatantly wrong for the time period and/or their rights restrictions are unknown. Ethiopian army Valorous Patriots in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War 1935.jpg for example, was taken from Getty Images here, where it is noted that the photo dates from 1900 during the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Aside from this, there is no proof that the photo was published before 1 January 1923 in the United States, so the licensing is probably wrong. And taking photos from a commercial photo agency without definitive proof that the work is in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. This photo should probably be deleted. The same dubious copyright info also applies to the following photos (taken from Getty's website): File:Ethiopian army Patriots Second Italo-Ethiopian Warr 1935.jpg, File:Ethiopian Patriots during the 1935 Second Italo-Ethiopian War.jpg, and File:The valorous Ethiopian army during the 1935 Second Italo-Ethiopian War.jpg.

This next photo was posted on a blog and there is no proof that it was published in a country where the where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less. There is also no verification for the author or when they died, which makes the copyright impossible to ascertain. And it certainly wasn't published before 1923: File:Fascisti nella guerra d'Etiopia mutilati dalla popolazione civile Africana dopo bombardamenti con gas Iprite Fascists in the mutilated Ethiopian war of the African civilian population after bombings with Iprite gas.jpg.

This photo was taken from an Italian government website and is quite blatantly copyrighted (hence the watermarks): File:Cadavere di militare italiano evirato Italian military cadaver emasculated.jpg There is also no proof that this photo matches its copyright info: File:"Eccidio Gondrand" or "Gondrand Massacre".jpg. These photos are taken from Flickr where it says the photos are copyrighted: File:Italian soldiers during the breaks of the Ethiopian War were party, dressed as women 1935-36.jpg, File:Italian soldiers dressed as women during the breaks of the Ethiopian War were party 1935-36.jpg, and File:Women's dresses for the Italian soldiers during the breaks of the Ethiopian War were a party 1935-36.jpg.

These photos have proper licensing but are not from the proper time period:File:Seyoum Mengesha addressing his troops.jpg (dated 1941, still might be useful though).

So you see, most of the photos you added are not supposed to be on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons in the first place.-Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Indy beetle This photograph is in the public domain in Italy--Tahurus (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tahurus: There is no evidence that photo was ever published in Italy. The fact that it was produced by Åhlen & Åkerlund, a Scandinavian press agency from what I've found, would also suggest we should be looking farther north for its origin. Even IMS Vintage Photos is based in Sweden (though it might not own the rights). And even if it still were in the public domain in Italy, it probably wouldn't be in the United States, because Italy is obviously not the country of origin (wherever Åhlen & Åkerlund first published it, probably). -Indy beetle (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tahurus, you are aware that everything remains in the page history, so deleting comments you don't like is not going to fool anyone? I'll restate: it's very unimpressive that you spent yesterday in what is basically low-level vandalism to get to auto-confirmed status. Please don't try to game the system like that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Indy beetleBut you can use this photo yes or not

Has been published on wikimedia

If not, why not cancel it, Give me a full answer with sources if not I'm forced to report--Tahurus (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tahurus: I'm not sure what else there is to explain. While something that's published on Wikimedia Commons should be able to be used on Wikipedia, this doesn't work when something is uploaded in violation of Wikimedia policies and standards. I think I've adequately explained that the photo cannot be proven to be in the public domain. I've nominated the file for deletion accordingly. As for you wanting "a full answer with sources if not I'm forced to report" I'm confident that my rationale will hold up under scrutiny from other editors or admins. So I'll welcome other opinions if that's what you really want. Perhaps @Elmidae:, seeing as they've been lingering, has an opinion on my actions? Also please don't delete your comments or anyone else's comments on this talk page—it doesn't give a good impression. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright, especially image copyright, being one of the few areas where Wikipedia really hews to a bright line, I agree that there is insufficient evidence that these images are of a type we could use. The burden of proof is on the side of the provider here. If Tahurus wishes further opinions on the issue, they are welcome to go looking for these at the help desk, or maybe better the media copyright help desk. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Indy beetle The image is regular, what is the problem--Tahurus (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tahurus: First of all, do not just readd the photo if you disagree with me. This discussion has not been resolved. Second of all, the photo is not "regular". I had nominated it for deletion but the uploader removed the deletion tag, which they are not supposed to do. I have renominated it for deletion. You can see my reasoning for deletion on the file's commons page. Unless you can successfully contend that nomination for deletion and get the Commons to retain the photo, then do not readd it, because as it stands it looks like a copyright violation. (Also pinging @Howicus: so they understand this conversation.) Lastly, I removed the text about the comparison between the Abyssinia Crisis and the Mukden Incident because I found the mentioning and explaining of the Mukden Incident to be WP:UNDUE for the lead. I think the lead should stick more to the stuff surrounding Ethiopia and Italy. Do you disagree my edit in regards to the text? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Indy beetle, thanks for pinging me. When I saw en:File:Abyssinian-soldiers-1936-142348340618.jpg, I only scrolled down far enough to see the license; I did not see your nomination. Sorry about that. Also, Indy beetle, the nomination didn't go through properly; you didn't create the subpage Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abyssinian-soldiers-1936-142348340618.jpg. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: How long it will take before the photo is fine--Tahurus (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tahurus: The deletion nomination process on commons might take a week or so to be resolved. I've had some of this uploader's files nominated for deletion before and they usually haven't opposed, so it might be sooner. At any rate, I assume the photo will never be "fine" because I think it should be deleted. If you have solid reasoning for disagreeing, you can leave a comment at the deletion discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

CE

Did a cheeky little ce, rm dupe wikilinks, tidied some citations, added trans titles and ISBN/OCLC.

8 Ferenghi
9 Other personalities of the war

I suggest that these sections approximate to trivia and that 9 should have the names removed and 10 be deleted. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Thanks for the copy edit. As for these names, to which ones are you referring to? Those listed under the "Foreign Support" subsection? I note that the "Foreign Support" subsection and the "Ferenghi" section both mention Ferenghi that served Ethiopia. This duality should probably be resolved. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! 8 and 9 I meant.... If foreign involvement was significant do we really need a list of names? If we do, do they have to go in the article rather than a note? If anyone is really attached to them remaining in the article, what about reducing the number of 2nd level headers? Just thoughts as I scanned the article.Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Homogenised the citations to sfn, moved references to separate section, rm unused references to further reading, dug out isbns and a few pdfs.Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

CE

Did what turned out to be a pretty drastic re-edit to remove duplication and overlaps, put analysis into the aftermath and revised some of the headers. This is strictly speculative and suggestive, only to evoke opinion from other editors. I'm unable to add citations as I have very little on the war. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Apropos layout, shouldn't the Hoare-Laval Pact go in the background/prelude section? Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It occurs that the background section is a little thin.Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Could probably use some more background about Italian colonisation in the area and the first war. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

casualties

Added a casualties section to the text but didn't alter the infobox for Italian casualties as Sbacchi is a later source. Will add more later. Keith-264 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

CE

Added more citations, bits of detail; left with the uneasy feeling that some parts of the text are pro-Italian apologetics.Keith-264 (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the contributions and cleanup you've done. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I'd also note that the first portion of the "Public and international reaction" is nothing short of an endorsement for the return of the Roman Empire. I think we best stay away from Time magazine reporting at all costs for this article...quite frankly their Africa reporting from the past is rather disappointing. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks: it's why I wondered if the Italian chauvinist has been fiddling with the record, like someone tampered with Hank's memories. I added the casualties section late last night so I'll finish it off and then add what Barker has to say in an analysis section (he also edges close to an essentialist view of Ethiopians at times). Keith-264 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Finished the casualty section and revised the infobox to suit. Are there any other discussions of Italian casualties in the literature?Keith-264 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I think it's important that you specify that those are Contemporary Italian figures so as to avoid confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Determining the end of the war

I've moved some text from a draft article I have on User:Indy beetle/Ethiopian Patriots. The sources I've found there write about the transition of the War from a regular conflict to an irregular one. This makes determining the "end" of the war difficult. As the article now stands, it says that the conflict concluded with the fall of Addis Ababa on 5 May 1936. According to the information I've found, at least 10,000 Ethiopian troops were still operating at that time, and fighting persisted. Furthermore, the Ethiopians had a government in Gore. Perhaps the date when that city fell will serve as a better bookmark to the conflict. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Barker also describes military operations after the fall of the capital. My understanding is that the Italians never had undisputed control over Ethiopia. I just trampled on that section because I didn't realise it was new until I began to wonder who the citees were. ;o) RV as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Germany in the infobox

@Grant65:@GraemeLeggett: I support including Germany under the belligerents section under the subheader "Materiel Support". It is not forbidden by Template:Infobox military conflict, and it doesn't go against any other Wiki standards far as I know (I got this article through GA, WikiProject Military History A class review, and through FA with such a scheme). Also, Grant55 has said that because Germany was "not at war with Italy" their flag shouldn't go in the infobox. Well, they may not have been at war with Italy (though not being officially at war with a country has never stopped one from fighting with another), but the reason they sent 10,000 Mauser rifles, ammo, and planes to Ethiopia was purposefully to upset Italy's military adventures in retaliation for opposition to an Anschluss in Austria. So their goals were pretty anti-Italian anyway (I can't say for Sweden though). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.

I think that's a fair comment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Italo-Ethiopian War. 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/20040314102707/http://www.needham.k12.ma.us/High_School/cur/Baker_00/03/baker-mc-03/ethiopia.htm to http://www.needham.k12.ma.us/High_School/cur/Baker_00/03/baker-mc-03/ethiopia.htm

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) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

This edit request to Second Italo-Ethiopian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Canon de 75 CA modèle 1940 Schneider" in Prelude, Ethiopian army, paragraph 2, line 6 should read "Canon de 75 CA modèle 1917 Schneider" as per Canon de 75 antiaérien mle 1913-1917. 68.149.12.34 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

@Nihlus1: can you cite your recent edits pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

They're in the footnote of the infobox I edited... but I can just add another one I guess. They're fully detailed in the "Casualties" section of the same page which lists 275,000 men killed in action, 78,500 Patriots killed in hostilities during the occupation from 1936–1941, and 24,000 Patriots executed, for a total of 377,500 combatant deaths.--Nihlus1 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Ooh-er mister. Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that's probably better. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Aspects of genocide?

I'd like to see some information here – or perhaps under Italian East Africa – about allegations of Italian atrocities against Ethiopians, including civilians. From what I've found so far, these include:

Gassing of civilians during the invasion itself (1935-6).[1]
An indiscriminate massacre in Addis Ababa in 1936 in retaliation for an assassination attempt against the Viceroy, Grazziani.[2]

No doubt there are more allegations – does anybody more expert than I have any information? QuartierLatin1968 19:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use it

http://www.archive.org/stream/1960-09-22_25_years_ago/1960-09-22_25_years_ago_256kb.mp4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk) 01:20, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

Citations needed

Please cite (preferably easy-to-access) evidence of support from Pope Pius XI and Winston Churchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.112.68 (talk) 23:02, January 16, 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

An IP recently increased the troop number under Haile Selassie from 100k to 500k and added some generals for commanders (I don't think Haile Selassie would properly be a commander, though; Imeru or other generals would be more appropriate). I think the new figure is probably more accurate (the army at the Battle of Adwa was 100k alone), but it's not cited. If anyone can verify or deny it, that would be helpful. Meanwhile, I'm going to look for my book "The Lion by the Tail" and hope that I actually own it and it wasn't just borrowed. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The casualty numbers need to be changed to a more realistic number. There is no evidence that only 16,000 Ethiopians were killed compared to 15,000 Italians. On the other hand there is a ton of evidence suggesting that 275,000 Ethiopians were killed on the battlefield. This site is supposed to depict what actually happened in the second Italo-Abyssinian war so lets make it accurate! Here is at least four links showing evidence of much different casualty numbers. This site actually mentions several books which clearly state that 275,000 Ethiopians were killed on the battlefield. And the Italian casualties were less then 15,000 killed: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Eth35 A Ethiopian site mentions similiar casualties. Again they say 275,000 Ethiopian killed. And again the Italian casualties were far less then 15,000. http://www.nazret.com/history/ More evidence: http://www.waukesha.k12.wi.us/west/Dept/Grunske/WHAP%20Powerpoints/37_files/frame.htm#slide0009.htm This link has a article mentioning a much lower Italian casualty number: http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/03/baker-mc-03/ethiopia.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.164.192 (talk) 04:22, September 22, 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the first two references. Both state 275,000 Ethiopians killed - the first says "Battle Deaths", the second implies total casualties, most probably civilian. I can't read the third. I think the first site is counting civilian deaths during the invasion. So the question becomes, which does the generic box label "casualties" refer to? (and it seems to specify Italian casualties without Eritrean casualties, which may have been roughly equal). Maybe the wording should be changed? Or we could specify 16,000 military casualties and 275,000 total? Brucemoko 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The forces of the Ethiopian army according to Mockler's book discribing their strengths I have compiled in this: Ethiopian orbat Second Italo-Abyssinian War The known strengths come to 242,500 men and it is probably about 300,000 men in total. The 250,000 men casualties would mean nearly the total manpower of Ethiopia was slaughtered. From what I have read this does not seem at all likely. This has to be an overstatement of losses.Asiaticus 00:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So why is there lots of sources saying that 275,000 Ethiopian soldiers were killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historymatters (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 September 2006

While I agree that the figure of 16,000 is surprisingly low, Asiaticus has added a source for this figure to the article, which is at least as reliable as the ones someone added above -- so it remains part of the preferred version for the moment. If there are "lots of sources" for the higher figure, why don't you take a moment & add some better references to the text for your number instead of simply reverting his edit? PS -- Please sign your comments with four tildes (that is ~~~~) so we know who is writing what. - llywrch 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck wrote this article on the second Italo-Abyssinian war? Whoever did needs to study a little harder and be less sympathetic towards Ethioipia. Stop being biased! This site is supposed to be as accurate as possible! It's reality after all! Someone added a link up above to a site that mentioned several different books depicting a much different casualty number (275,000 Ethiopians killed vs. 2,000-5-000 Italians killed). He/She also showed a link to a Ethiopian site which also mentioned the same casualty numbers! Showing he/she is unbiased! There is NO evidence that 16,000 Ethiopians were killed compared to 15,000 Italian troops! So why isn't the page edited to a much more realistic number. Those links above under "Recent Additions" gives enough proof to edit the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.37.108 (talk) 16:40, September 29, 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The casualty number still has not been edited and needs to be asap - the numbers ar obviously incorrect. Subotai 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The FACT is that 275,000 Ethiopian soldiers were killed compared to 2,000 Italian troops. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this! This site is supposed to be based on FACTS!!!!!!!!!! Yet it is clear that some uneducated individual keeps changing the casuality count to a UNSUPPORTED number of 16,000 Ethiopians killed compared to 15,000 Italians killed! Even Pro-Ethiopian sites agree with what I am writing! Here is one of the links: http://www.nazret.com/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.179.153 (talk) January 29, 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any edits but you are wrong by saying that the 275,000 were soldiers. Most of them were civilians killed by Italian gas attacks. It is possible that the 16,000 Ethiopians killed stands for the regulars of the Ethiopian army. 82.128.170.111 12:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope this war was a propoganda tool and fabricated by facist Italy... The Italiens were annhilated even by there own accounts. If according to them they send over 100 000 troops and 30 000 died in the second italy ethiopia war that means they only had 70 000 troops left!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.185.188 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Questions on Casualties

If the Ethiopians had 16,000 casualties and the Italians had 15,000, then the POV of this article should be debated, because the article does not mention how the Ethiopians inflicted 15,000 casualties on the Italians; the article only reflects how the Italians basically marched into Ethiopia, slaughtered the massess and took control (except for the mention of the battle of Tembien, which proved inconclusive), this article is possessing a gaping whole on how Ethiopia inflicted nearly as many casualties on the Italians as the Italians had on the Ethiopians (they almost equal). Subotai 08 Sep 2006

I agree the casualty count is way off! I can pull up many articles stating that at least 275,000 Ethiopian's were killed on the battle field. And the Italian military lost between 1,500-5,000 soldiers, but no more then that. As a matter of fact I have never ever seen proof that the casualty count of 16,000 Ethiopians killed compared to 15,000 Italians killed is a accurate number! The casualty count needs to be changed to a more realistic number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historymatters (talk • contribs) 02:10, September 15, 2006 (UTC)

The figure I've seen for Italian casualties are 1500 - 1600. It may be an off-by-ten typo. See http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/baker_00/03/baker-mc-03/ethiopia.htm, http://www.inithebabeandsuckling.com/Mistake.html. I don't know where you've seen 275,000 battlefield casualties for the Ethiopians, though. There could easily have been that many total Ethiopian casualties throughout the war, but if the estimates I've seen 0f Ethiopia's armed forces are correct, at 100,000 men, you'd have to kill each of them 2.75 times. This seems improbable. Brucemoko 07:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So it is now 275,000 killed AND another 500,000 wounded ! Eregli bob (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well there is no proof that the Italiens could inflict that many casulties on Ethiopia. What is blatently obvious is that having switch hands between three powerful European nations the Italiens do know what it is like being occupied and this practice has been unleased on a people that have never lost a war within there boarders in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahyayeh2011 (talk • contribs) 19:57, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

16000 and 16000

Pardon me, but 16000 and 16000 casualties on both sides is total nonsense, especially as there us no way the Italian could have suffered 16000 dead. Perhaps the persons who always changed the figure to 16000 would be kind enough to explain me how Ethiopians caused 16000 dead to Italians. --Kurt Leyman 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added sources now. The casualties (killed) for the 1935-36 fighting seem to be around 10,000, with an equal number of killed in the next 4 years, but with many more wounded. We still need some sources for Ethiopian casualties, but why do you regard such a figure as "nonsense"? There were plenty successful Ethiopian counter offenses and defensive maneuvers in the war. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1935 Italian intelligence estimate of the Ethiopian provinces and their forces

I have been given a 1935 Italian intelligence estimate of the Ethiopian forces from an Italian source who has a long standing interest in this war and has accumulated a lot of period info on the war. This may also be of use to those making up a list of the provincial organization of the Ethiopian Empire at the time. Asiaticus (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Here it is:
About the available forces, at the beginning of the war the Abyssinians were divided as follows (according to Italian sources). Note that the term "province" is used in a generic way, in some cases it's just a loose geographical reference to the recruiting area : the effective "political" subdivision of the Abyssinian Empire were the following "Kingdoms":
Western Tigrai Kingdom (Adua : Ras Seium Mangascià)
Easterm Tigrai Kingdom (Macallè : Degiac Haileselassiè Gugsa)
Beghemeder Kingdom (Debra Tabor : Ras Casa Hailù)
Goggiam Kingdom (Debra Marcos : Ras Immirù)
Uollo Kingdom (Dessiè : Hereditary Prince Asfauossen)
Scioa Kingdom (Addis Abeba : Negus Hailè Sellasiè own fiefdom)
- Cellia, Nonno, Uolisò, Gabbo, Amoia, Soddo, Guagliè, Marequò and Gamma (I add this list of Scioa provinces providing troops to the Army of the Center from Regio Esercito website based on a contemporary article on the war. "La preparazione abissina", Articoli tratti da Cronache illustrate dell'azione italiana in A.O., Tuminelli e C. Editori, Roma, 1936. }Asiaticus (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Caffa Kingdom (Sciarrada - Ras Ghetacciou)
Sidamo Kingdom (Aberà - Ras Destà Damton)
Harar Emirate (Harrar - Prince Makonnen)
Gimma Sultanate (Giren - Abba Gifar Sultan)
Aussa Sultanate (Sardò - Mohamed Jaio Sultan)
and a quite large number of independent provinces (mainly in the Western and South-Western parts of the Empire).

Ethiopian Imperial Army mobilization (per Italian estimate)

Imperial Guard (approx 5000 men)
Zebangà (approx 3000 men)
Army of the Left (Ras Immirù)
- Goggiam Safari (Goggiam, Damot and Gubà provinces, under Ras Immirù himself ) 20.000 men
- Semien Safari (Semien, Caffa, Birecutn, Uolacit, Tzeghedè, Uogherà, Uoldebbà and Belesà provinces, under Ras Aialeu Burrù) 20.000 men
Army of the Center (Ras Muluguetà),Shoa region, 50000 men
- (Cellia, Nonno, Uolisò, Gabbo, Amoia, Soddo, Guagliè, Marequò and Gamma provinces)
Army of the Right (Ras Cassa Hailù Darghiè)
- Beghemeder Safari (Beghemeder, Salalè Derrà, Bugnà, Dembià, Ermacioccò, Quarà, Tacossà and Alefà provinces, under Ras Cassa himself ) 50000 men
- Calim Gurà province (Degiac Aberrà Tellà) 1000 men
- Nudlà province (Deciac Ambaccion) 1000 men
- Tigrai Safari (Adua, Axum, Scirè, Adi Abò, Gheraltà, Tembien, Aterghallè, Sceloà, Agamè, Aulalò, Endertà, Uoggerat and Enda Meconni provinces, under Ras Seium Mangascià) 20000 men
- Uagh Safari (Lasta, Uagh and Uoffa provinces, under Uaghscium Chebbedè) 5000 men
Army of the South (Ras Destà Dentou)
- Sidamo Safari (Sidamo, Giam Giam and Borama povinces, under Ras Destà Dentou himself) 13000 men
- Ogaden Safari (Grasma Afework) 16000 men
- Bale Safari (Degiac Beienè Merid) 4000 men
- Herranghiè Safari (Degiac Nasibù) 8000 men
- Ilu Bador Safari (Degiac Maconnen Endalaccion) 15000 men
- Arussi province (Degiac Amdè Micael) 5000 men, mostly irregulars
Uollo Safari (Uollo, Borana, Amhara and Saint provinces, Crown Prince Merdazmac Asfauossen)
- Zabul and Yeggiù Safari (Degiac Admasù Burrù)
- Aussa Safari (Deciac Mohamed Iahi)
- A combined total of 45000 men, all under overall command of the Crown Prince)
Lecachellon and Saio provinces (Fitutari Mesteniè) 10000 men
Effrem, Efata and Antoccià provinces (Ras Cheddebè Menghescià) ???? men, mostly irregulars
Uolleggà and Lechenti Sibu provinces (Bituodde Manconne Demsou) 15000 men
- Gudrù and Liceca provinces (under overall command of Bituodde Manconne Demsou) 8000 men
Beni Sciangul tribes (Dagiac Mohamed Schek Ogialle) 500 men, mostly irregulars
Nono, Nuoliso, Guraghè, Maroccò provinces (Ras Menghietà) 28000 men
Gardulla, Gamu, Comso provinces (Degiac Abebr Damtou) 3000 men, mostly irregulars
Limmu and Ennaria provinces (Bituodded Uoldetzadech) 3000 men
Gambatta province (Degiac Mascescià Uoldiè) 600 men
Gherà province (Degiac Menghascià Ibma) 500 men
Uolamo Safari (Degiac Makonnen Uoseniè) 6000 men
Caffa, Contà and Cullò provinces (Ras Ghetacciou) 9000 men
Gimma and Giangerò provinces (Degiac Uoldamanuel) 10500 men
Magi province (Fiturari Zeudù) ??? men
Ghimirrà and Guardafà provinces (Degiac Taiè Gulelaitè) 6000 men

The above Ethiopian OOB comes from Italian SIM (Military Intelligence Service) reports, that were included in information material handed out to all officers in Italian East Africa (Comando Superiore AO. Stato Maggiore. Uff.Inf.ni - Etiopia. Guida pratica per l'ufficiale destinato in AO. Asmara 1935 pages 103-106). It is a photocopy from the Italian Army General Staff Historical Office (USSME) archives. - Asiaticus (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Abyssinia Crisis?

This article seems to contain pretty well everything in Abyssinia Crisis. Is there really any need to have both? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, do NOT merge the two articles. IMHO, the "Abyssinia Crisis" article should retain a 'political' flavor. This article works better as a 'military history' or just 'history' article. Yes, this article is incomplete. But it is better as a separate article. I have attempted to make it a little less incomplete. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mkpumphrey the Abyssinia Crisis should be a seperate article as it referes to the diplomatic activities outside the war and is refered to in this article. It would be useful in its seperate state for discussions on the League of Nations or other topics. Asiaticus (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the last two. If anything, I believe the article "Abyssinia Crisis" ought to be moved to Welwel incident, which I believe is the term that this episode is best known by. (If I am wrong, well, let's move it to the right name. ;) This episode is of diplomatic interest, showing how Haile Selassie made serious & reasonable attempts to placate Italy -- only for Mussolini to cynically disregard them. Further, if my knowledge of the League of Nations is correct, this event was the beginning of the end for the League. -- llywrch (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Fascist apologetics

First, I am disgusted that anyone would think defending the acts of unprovoked aggression by a Fascist power would be tolerated on Wikipedia, let alone encouraged.

please remember that this is wikipedia, not a website dedicated to "erase/change" the historical truth according to political POVs (of antifascists or communists or whatever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

But to my point: the sources quoted in the section "Atrocities" that make the Ethiopians appear to be vicious & uncivilized opponents & white-wash the crimes against humanity that the Italians committed are garbage or misrepresent what the sources say.

globalsecurity.com cited as a source that Ethiopians castrated Italians: the webpage linked to not only does not say that, it is about the First Italo-Abyssinian war.

please, read well. It clearly says that Abyssinians used to castrate their POWs up to the beginning of XX century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

The second source -- by one Filippo Giannini -- is not only in Italian, but from the title appears to be nothing more than a memo written either to or by Mussolini. Hardly a reliable source.

why an Italian source is not reliable? Giannini did the 1935-36 war and is a testimony (what are your testimonies?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

The testimony of Frère about Ethiopian use of dum-dum bullets is suspicious. First, while he was giving this testimony (July 1936), Ras Desta was still fighting the Italians in Ethiopia; why wasn't he still at the side of the Ras? Second, having left the Ethiopian service, he was obviously at loose ends. I can't help but suspect his testimony was compromised.

Why don't consider compromised the other testimonies against the Italians. This looks onesided criticism..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

The statement of Egyptian paramedic Abdel Mohsein El Uisci to the League of Nations; his name is obviously the Italian transliteration of his actual Arabic one, which suggests he was cherry-picked as a witness. Suspiciously, nothing is said about why El Uisci happened to be present at Tito Minniti's death.

this in unberlievable! We have a witness, who dared to testify with plenty of details and was even attacked for this by his own boss and lost his job...and even the League of Nations admitted his honesty, but Llywrch decides that he is a cherry-picked witness! WOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

And even if Minniti's death can somehow be used to justify the use of mustard gas, he died 26 December 1935. According to Anthony Mockler, mustard gas was first used against Ethiopian soldiers three days earlier, 23 December, against Ras Imru's successful advance during the Ethiopian Christmas Offensive. (Mockler, Haile Selassie's War, p. 81). BTW, Mockler points out on p. 409 that the Italians worked hard to discredit Ethiopian reports of the use of mustard gas. "These efforts were so successful that even today many Italians quote, perhaps without realizing the source, LESSONA'S Memoirs, and his claim that only three bombs were used and on only one occasion".

We don't know for sure if 3 days before mustard gas was used...or if it was a mixture of other gasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

The passage quoted on books.google.com -- Rainer Baudendistel, Between bombs and good intentions: the Red Cross and the Italo-Ethiopian War (2006) -- provides a far different quotation by Graziani than the one cited. In fact, that page provides an example of an Italian use of mustard gas against noncombatants.

This shows how different are the versions and how unreliable the accusations of the use of mustard gas. BTW: why the Italians should have used the mustard gas? to damage their own reputation? They don't even have antigas mask for their troops!And we all know that mustard gas can hit everybody, as has happened in WWI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

James Strachey Barnes' opinion about justified use of mustard gas would be creditable if his own writing was used as a source -- not a quotation in an Italian source. (And we were given more about his credentials as an expert, beyond that he is a "historian".)

What has to do this with the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

While it is germane to include an account of the Italian excuses for why they resorted to mustard gas & other reprisals, when I found the text it thoroughly white-washed what they did. As if the Ethiopians deserved everything that was done to them; all that was missing was to label them "sub-human", & it is a racist diatribe. And that is why I find the section offensive & it needs to be thoroughly rewritten. -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

please Llywrch, be more honest and impartial....don't get out with the ridiculous accusations of sub-human and racism. Remember that the Allies had mustard gas in the port of Bari in 1943, that exploded and killed many civilians, but nobody has ever accused the Allies of ethnic racism because of this "accident". B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.204 (talk) 22:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

B.D., it was not very helpful that you responded to my comments point-by-point. For me to respond in kind would only make the discussion much harder to follow -- yet unless I were to do the same, it would appear that I have failed to respond to some of your points. In any case, I'll do my best here.

To your first point, I must comment you display an amazing amount of naivete: we all come to articles in Wikipedia with some kind of bias. I would be writing dishonestly were I not to reveal my own feelings on this topic. I trust you are also writing honestly about this incident.

The Globalsecurity.com cite was mispresented as describing something that happened in this conflict -- not in a previous conflict, as that source states. Please read well what I wrote.

The link to Filippo Giannini contained nothing but a title. And the title was of a memo written by Mussolini, who would not be considered a reliable source about the incident.

If you were familiar with the events of this war, you would know that the Italians were engaged in a very systematic propaganda campaign to justify their war against Ethiopia. They had the desire & the means to be choosy about the evidence they wanted to present about this incident -- & other atrocities -- in order to justify their use of poison gas against the Ethiopians. (Alberto Sbacchi, "Legacy of Bitterness: Poison gas and atrocities in the Italo-Ethiopian War 1935-1936" Geneva-Africa 13 (1974) 1-24 goes into great detail about how the Italians prepared to use mustard & other poison gases long before Minotti even set foot in Africa. And a lot of other things relevant to this article.) BTW, at least one other witness of Italian atrocities is known to have recanted his testimony for political reasons -- even though he knew his original statement was the truth.

The primary reason I am suspicious of the accusation of "dum-dum" bullets is that Ethiopia had been subjected to a very comprehensive arms blockade in the years before the war started; the authorities couldn't have authorized the use of these bullets even if they wanted to. If the Italian reports were to be believed, the bullets in question likely came into Ethiopia on an individual basis, through the black market from adjacent British colonies. (This is what Sbacchi writes.)

No one believes Abdel Mohsein El Uisci's testimony -- then or now. His supervisor gave sufficient proof that the man was lying. If anything, it was proven that Abdul Mohsen was nowhere near where Minotti crash-landed, & was not an eye-witness.

"We don't know for sure if 3 days before mustard gas was used...or if it was a mixture of other gasses." -- I don't know how to respond to this. Should I say, "So would it have been OK had the Italians used another kind of poison gas, as long as it was not mustard gas?" Or should I point out that there is reliable sources to show what kind of poison gas the Italians shipped to Africa before the War began? I find it hard to read your comment without shaking my head.

The section I removed quoted Rainer Baudendiste to say what he actually didn't say. Why don't you check the text against the source cited, & see?

As for your last point, James Strachey Barnes was cited in the section I removed as justifying the use of mustard gas against the Geneva Convention. Quoting someone like this, as sloppy as that was done, should not be done. Either cite him directly & provide the reasons he is considered an authority -- or don't mention him at all. -- llywrch (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article should have a balance. If the Italians used certain events to justify using mustard gas, that's notable and should be mentioned. The best way to strike the right balance is to look in encyclopedias and textbooks for how they cover the topic. Give atrocities the sort of coverage that you find there. Certainly don't just pile up a bunch of individual references for one side. Leadwind (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This article needs changes, the section called "Italian perspective: "Will you be worthy of it?"" is the most bizarre section I have seen on Wikipedia. It is written in a very abstract manner, like that of a newspaper article of the time, focusing on trivial items, like king of Italy's posturing, and presents the Italian victory in euphoric, grandeur-filled, and hyperbole terms like saying that the Italian regime was "never so popular in the world as it was then" (approximately). This article should focus on the war itself, and the details of what happened, not on the emotions supposedly collectively held by Italians. It should be noted that the war and the subsequent occupation of Ethiopia was an economic catastrophe for Italy, there is referenced material on the Italian East Africa article that states that in 1936, the projected costs for the Italians to build the neccessary infrastructure to make Ethiopia a viable, interconnected colony were more than the entire Italian annual budget of 1936-1937.--R-41 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: BD is Brunodam, long-term sockpuppeteer and pov-pusher, globally locked/blocked on a bunch of wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is more than a bias, it is the Italian war crimes denial, caused by the British Cold war policy

wow! Where do I begin? Since when is an Italian the best person to write on this subject? I mean I have been in Genova and spoken on the subject at a high school and received blank stares from school children. Apparently they have little to nothing on the "second Abyssinian-Italian War". Secondly there is still tacit denial, playing around with the numbers, the types of munitions, when they were shipped to Italy although Sbachi on the Italian side and Paulos Gnogno on the Ethiopian side seem to agree pretty much on the details since they based most of their information on orders and communication. I have access to a LOT of footage, tons that will be coming out soon showing the clash at Welwel and other battles. We have collected battlefield accounts of Ethiopian patriots of the different methods of killing civilian and patriot alike including adzes, axes, throwing folks out of flying airplanes cutting heads off etc. Unless Italians come to terms with this and bring their children to terms with the disgrace of what occurred what do you think is going to happen when they find out what grandpa did 80 years later in living color? Italians have taken steps. But I am not going to congratulate them for doing something they should not have been involved in to begin with. They need to make serious amends and try to come to terms with things. I know its an entirely different subject but an additional insult has been the Vatican crying crocodile tears of what its priests did in South America while its own complicity in blessing its soldiers and prevailing on Italian society to support Italian wanton savagery in Ethiopia (I am looking at the footage right now). So my advice, its not a question of whether there is bias and redoing the page. An Italian should not be doing this page to begin with or basing it on records that he/she deems appropriate. You will soon have records aplenty that will put Sbachi's book of admissions to shame. Get this page right, take it off or give it to someone who has a clue. --141.156.161.149 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The most recent posts should be added at the bottom, so I moved it here and gave it a title based on the content of your writing. Thank you for writing about the tacit denial of Italian war crimes after a long period characterized by the repression of the collective memory that was caused by the Cold war British policy^[1]

^ Effie G. H. Pedaliu (2004) Britain and the 'Hand-over' of Italian War Criminals to Yugoslavia, 1945-48. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Collective Memory, pp. 503-529 (JStor.org preview)

The section titled "The end" with the "Italian perspective" and "Ethiopian perspective" is written with a POV tone

This section has a lot of POV and propaganda in it, especially on the Italian side, presenting the victory as a grandeurous event, and describing orchestrated events staged by the Fascist regime as if they were spontaneous. The events in Italy were clearly orchestrated by the Fascist regime, it is true that there probably was immense public enthusiasm for the victory, but the section itself describes how the victory was celebrated in Italy with Fascist youth singing a newly created song "Hymn of the Empire" - that was obviously taught to them to sing. It shows perspective at the time perhaps, but also the ignorance at that time of the realities very soon discovered - such as that the total cost required for Italy to create the necessary infrastructure in Ethiopia was projected in 1936-1937 to cost more than the entire Italian budget of 1936-1937. The war gave Italy a sense of self-prestige but at a tremendous cost of having an expensive and economically-detrimental colony.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The pro-Fascist POV needs to be replaced by NPOV as this article needed it. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Second Italo-Ethiopian War Mike Cline (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Second Italo-Abyssinian War → Second Italo-Ethiopian War –. It is consistent with the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC). DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Ethiopia was almost invariably referred to as Abyssinia in the English-speaking world at the time and generally still is when referring to that period. In actual fact, First Italo-Ethiopian War should be renamed First Italo-Abyssinian War and consistency gained that way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Weak support See this Ngram. The proposed form always seems to have been more prevalent. Further evidence could change my mind, however, and my primary concern is consistency. For now, I think it would be best to move this article for consistency and discuss future moves bundled for both wars. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The ngram makes no distinction between the two events. It may be that one form is more commonly used for the one event and a different for the other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Granted, but unless scholarly sources refer to the two wars exclusively with different names, I think it behooves us to standardize. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment. If "Abyssinia" is coterminous with "Ethiopian Empire", then name the wars accordingly? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak, weak support. A search of the NYTimes from 1935-37 seems to reveal both terms used ( http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/Italo-Abyssinian+War/from19350101to19370101/ , http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/Italo-Ethiopian+War/from19350101to19370101/ ). Wikipedia is probably correct no matter which one is picked. The ngram usage gives a weak preference to Italo-Ethiopian War, but if someone knows the scholarly sources better and which term (if any) they prefer, that should take precedence of course. SnowFire (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Support - Abyssinia is an antiquated term of reference to Ethiopia. Modern-day books on the subject of this war almost always refer to the country as "Ethiopia", not "Abyssinia". Abyssinia is an old reference term that was already decreasing in usage at the time of the war. It is a similar issue to the fact that the country of Serbia used to be called "Servia" in the past. Using antiquated terms of reference will be confusing to readers if the names keep switching back and forth from "Abyssinian" to "Ethiopian", I prefer that only "Ethiopian" be used.--R-41 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

I've replaced the SFNs and would prefer it if they aren't tampered with again. Perhaps interested editors could discuss alterations to the infobox here first? Given the detail and references in it, there ought to be a separate Casualties section in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to Del Boca, can anyone help?Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Would you put the sfns back please? Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Done. Thank you for the reformatting. The sfn cites will help with any future overhaul of this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I found cheap copies of Barker and Mockler so I'm hoping to do a bit more next week.Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Barker (1968) arrived today so I've made a start.Keith-264 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This book [3] has a fairly long discussion of German aide to Ethiopia during the war and may prove useful for future edits. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

True?

All men and boys able to carry a spear go to Addis Ababa. Every married man will bring his wife to cook and wash for him. Every unmarried man will bring any unmarried woman he can find to cook and wash for him. Women with babies, the blind, and those too aged and infirm to carry a spear are excused. Anyone found at home after receiving this order will be hanged.[16][17]

Is the threat true? Barker has a longer but elided passage making no mention of threats to kill anyone....Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Schrecklichkeit?

It seems very odd that Mussolini would have used the German term "Schrecklichkeit" to tell Badoglio to use poison gas against Eithiopia. I can't check the original source on line - the only citation appears to be to Mack Smith's Mussolini. The Schrecklichkeit wiki page says nothing about the policy ever being adopted by Italy, and in fact refers to it being used only by Germany in World War I (although I know Brigadier Peter Young used it to describe German World War II policy in Poland also). What's the evidence that Mussolini or anyone else at the time of the Italo-Ethiopian War called the gassings "Schrecklichkeit?" --98.169.180.46 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Ending

Why it end in 1939? Just for some guerilla? The war was won. Smith is a biased historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.202.246 (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Biased how? And according to Abbink, De Bruijn & Van Walraven, there were 10,000 troops under the command of Aberra Kassa were still marching around after the fall of the capital. Doesn't sound like "some guerilla" to me, and it should be noted that that number doesn't account for any other active Ethiopian soldiers, though the line between soldier and resistance member does start to blur. Much of the country was also unoccupied at the time of the fall, including Gore, where a rump government was present. We have no reason to doubt Mack Smith's info. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

He was born in 1920,he was young when WWII happened,he CAN'T BE impartial. Beside,he's prone to indulge over British history aberration,he doesn't act the same way on italian history. He was heavily criticized by De Felice and Rosario Romero,for good reason:he's not that great historian people make him to be. Beside,10000 in indeed guerilla. You should check East Africa war:it's written it ended in 1941,but there were Italians fighting until 1942-1943. This differences are unacceptable if Wikipedia want to be taken at least a bit seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.202.246 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a rump government still present in Ethiopia at the time of the fall of the capital. You may notice that the Battle of France did not conclude with the fall of Paris on 14 June, but with the surrender of French forces and the government a week or two later, a government which had moved to Bordeaux. Taking an enemy's capital does not mean you've ended the war. Having a minimum of 10,000 troops (equivalent to a division) marching around under one commander is not some trivial guerrilla force. Also, pointing to what may very well be a mistake on one Wikipedia article, East African Campaign (World War II), is not going to change how things are here. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

On the Medri Bahri apparently occupying a kingdom or countries capital even with resistance is considered succession of state [4] If it is good enough to consider Medri Bahri which has a parallel history to the Italian conquest of the Ethiopian Empire. Local resistance is futile by some editors' logic. Uknowofwiki (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of the record, Ill just put here that the Italian Angelo Del Boca pushes the war "end" even further. In his The Ethipoian War : 1935–1941 (1969) he writes (p. 185): "As they reached the gates of Addis Abbeba, the Italians were delirious with joy; not a single man among them...foresaw that, far from coming to an end, the war would continue for five years." -Indy beetle (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, consensus reaching the date given for the end of the war was made here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 148#Second Italo-Ethiopian War. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopia was not an Italian colony before 1936

I dislike edit warring, so I'm going to discuss this first. The phrase Palazzo Chigi is a common metonym for the Italian Foreign Ministry, just in the same way that people use White House to describe the U.S presidency and 10 Downing Street to describe the British prime ministership. I decided to use the phrase Palazzo Chigi partly because the book by Aristotle Kallis uses it and partly because using Italian Foreign Ministry over and over again makes for cumbersome reading. Since Ethiopia was not an Italian colony prior to this war, every book I have read on the subject including the one that I cited, stated Italy's relations with Ethiopia until 1935 were conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, commonly known as the Palazzo Chigi after its location. Italo-Ethiopian relations were not conducted by the Ministry of Colonial Affairs, which assumed control of Ethiopia after the country was made an Italian colony in 1936. Replacing Palazzo Chigi with the Ministry of Colonial Affairs gives a rather distorted picture of Italo-Ethiopian relations. I'm going to change back it to Palazzo Chigi for the moment. I'm assuming that this is a misunderstanding made in good faith, so please do not take this as any sort of personal attack. If anyone objects, please discuss it here first.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@A.S. Brown: I was under the impressions that place metonymy was discouraged on Wikipedia, as it's less specific and more journalistic than academic. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Indy beetle, thank you, I was not aware of that. But there are number of articles that do use "the Kremlin" instead of the Russian government, "the Pentagon" instead of the U.S. Department of Defense, "Foggy Bottom" instead of the U.S State Department, "Whitehall" instead of the British government, "10 Downing Street" rather the British prime ministership, "Versailles" instead of the French Crown, "the White House" instead of U.S. presidency, "Capital Hill" instead of the U.S. Congress, "Élysée Palace" instead of the French presidency, the "Quai d'Orsay" instead of the French foreign ministry, and so on and on. Likewise, the word "London" is used rather than the British government, "Washington" rather than the U.S government, "Berlin" rather the German government, "Beijing" rather than the Chinese government, and so and so on. Personally, using the widely used phrase "the Pentagon" instead of writing U.S. Department of Defense over and over again is a bit easier on the reader. Academics use the phrase "the Pentagon" because writing the United States Department of Defense countless times in the same book, journal or essay is tiresome. In the same way, academics are often use the names of a capital city as a metonym for a country's government. The book by Kallis that I used was originally his PhD dissertation at the University of Edinburgh before he had published it as a book; one cannot get more academic than that. Maybe one should get hung up on one phrase, but I hoping in my own modest way to add to the article, including aspects of the diplomacy, as I am hoped that I already have. The problem with writing diplomatic history is that there are number of foreign ministries involved, which perhaps explain why diplomatic historians often use metonyms. Using the phrases French Foreign Ministry, Italian Foreign Ministry and British Foreign Office is more specific, but it is tiresome for the reader. As a matter of style, I like to use different words and phrases to describe the same things because it makes for easier reading. For an example, sometimes I will write Italian Army and sometimes I will write Regio Esercito. I don't intend to engage in edit-warring and if the majority here would prefer clunky phrases like the French Foreign Ministry and Italian Foreign Ministry being used over and over again rather than the Quai d'Orsay and the Palazzo Chigi, I will of course respect the consensus. These are some my thoughts on the matter and thank you again, Indy beetle, for your advice and encouragement. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Italian military emasculated Second Italo-Ethiopian War.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

there is no neutral point of view the article "Italian imperialism in the Horn of Africa"

A voice must never contain expressions such as: "that political faction is criminal", not even when the author of the voice is firmly convinced of the correctness of what he says. A good author will rather present the different opinions in contrast or the more shared and verifiable vision, loyally signaling the reasons of the supporters and those of the opponents in a non-evasive way.--62.12.114.214 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you quoting? That does not appear to be in the article. El_C 21:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please specify what your problems are with the section "Italian imperialism in the Horn of Africa". You leave that completely unclear. The Banner talk 22:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation of a part of the Spanish wikipedia page Segunda ítalo-etíope war at wikipedia in English Second Italo-Ethiopian War

I admit that I'm partial towards my own work, but it seems to me that the way in the section about Italian imperialism on the Horn of Africa, which has recently been deleted was in some ways a bit better than we have now. As it is written now, one gets the impression that the invasion of Ethiopia was all Mussolini's project, which is a bit misleading. Mussolini was the dictator, but his power was not absolute. Mussolini had to share power with various vested interests such as the Catholic Church and the Crown. The power to declare war rested with King Victor Emmanuel III, who could and did veto Mussolini's decisions if they displeased him. The previous section did note that the king gave his approval to invading Ethiopia. If the king did not give his approval, then this war would have never had happened. As things stand now, one gets the impression that Mussolini decided on war with Ethiopia and that was that, with the king being a mere passive by-stander. That is not only untrue, but it is very POV-pushing as it perhaps follows the Italian monarchist line that the supposed situation of Victor Emmanuel was like the supposed situation of the Showa Emperor in Japan; an alleged liberal-minded monarch committed to democracy who was opposed to the radical right, but unable to control them. In both cases, supporters of the Houses of Yamato and Savoy are engaging in apologias for their respective monarchs.

A troubling aspect here is that the previous version stated correctly that the Italians after 1896 followed a policy of "peaceful penetration", of trying to bring Ethiopia into the Italian sphere of influence. In other words, the imperialistic policies of Italy did not really change, with differences being those of a kind rather than of degree. It is true that after 1896, the Italians were trying to peacefully bring Ethiopia into their sphere of influence instead of outright conquest, but the point is that they were still seeking to control Ethiopia, only indirectly instead of directly. The Spanish version here has that the "liberal Italy" as it phrased here was not following any sort of imperialistic policies towards Ethiopia. I assume that this was done in good faith, but I'm concerned that the only part of the Spanish article that was translated here is following a very subtle form of POV-pushing.

One of the main issues in Italian historiography, just like in German and Japanese historiography, are the degrees of national continuity between the fascist eras and what came before. There is a tendency among certain historians to assert that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were just "freakish aberrations" from the norm of the otherwise admirable histories of Germany, Italy and Japan. The German and Japanese cases will not be discussed here, but in case of the Spanish version here, one gets the impression that the war was entirely Mussolini's pet project and there are no lines of continuity between the policies of Francesco Crispi and Benito Mussolini towards Ethiopia. In other words, this brutal war was all due to one especially evil individual, a "freakish aberration" from the norms of Italian history. I know that the article does not say that explicitly, but that is the implied conclusion the article at present steers the reader towards. And that conclusion is wrong. Mussolini himself often praised Crispi as a proto-fascist, indeed Crispi was the only Italian prime minister of the entire Liberal era who was glorified in Fascist Italy. Crispi pursued a policy of conquest in the Horn of Africa and wanted to pursue a policy of conquest in the Balkans-both areas that Mussolini was later interested in conquering. And anyone has ever read of any of the Fascist propaganda about "avenging Adowa" will be well aware of the line of continuity that is being evoked. And note also how Mussolini spoke of the "mutilated victory" of 1918, saying Italy should have ended World War I with far more territory than what it actually got. In other words, Mussolini by his own admission was continuing the same foreign policy that Italian governments had pursued during the First World War, only that he was billing himself as being more competent than the leaders of the Liberal era had been. It is true that he attacked with the exception of his hero Crispi the prime ministers of the Liberal era, but it was over means, not ends, for failing to be effective imperialists. Mussolini himself often said that his turn towards Fascism began after starting out in politics as the leader of the extreme left wing of the Italian Socialist Party was due to his involvement in the "intervention" movement of 1915. More importantly, the way in which traditional elites in Italy from King Victor Emmanuel III on down supported the war makes it rather hard to accept the thesis that this war was an "aberration" from the norms of Italian history. It is true that the king was a more cautious man than the reckless and impulsive Mussolini, but his differences with Mussolini were over the means, not the ends of foreign policy. The king shared with Mussolini the grandiose foreign policy goals of a "second Roman empire" covering the area from the Atlantic to the Indian oceans. The king was quite willing to support Mussolini's foreign policy provided that Italy was not placed in a situation where it would fight a losing war. Note the way in the king vetoed Mussolini's attempts to have Italy enter World War II from September 1939 to May 1940, but gave his approval in early June 1940 when he become convinced that Britain and France were going to lose the war. The same thing was true with Ethiopia as the king was worried that attacking Ethiopia might cause problems with Britain and France, but he came around to supporting the war when Mussolini convinced him that it would not.

A common aspect of the "freakish aberration" type of histories is that they tend to portray one especially evil person as having caused everything that went wrong while more or less excusing everybody else. Hence, there is a tendency to claim that everything went wrong in Germany was Hitler's work, everything that went wrong in Italy was Mussolini's work and everything that went wrong in Japan was Tojo's work while at the same time downplaying the role of traditional elites in all three nations in fascist aggression and crimes. The fact that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg, Mussolini appointed Prime Minister by Victor Emmanuel and General Tojo appointed prime minister by the Showa emperor might seem to suggest that traditional elites in all three nations were not as opposed to fascism as some people are trying to make out. And in the last of the last two, both the king and emperor dismissed Mussolini and Tojo respectively when they thought they were mismanaging the war without causing any major problems, which gives one a good clue as to where the real power in Italy and Japan rested. In the German case, right up to June-July 1934 Hitler had very real fears that Hindenburg might dismiss him and that the Reichswehr would side with the president against him. It is true that Hitler got more powerful later on, but he didn't start out in 1933 with the sort of power that he got in 1938. The idea of one "great man" who can bend history to his will by his force of personality is bunk. Had Victor Emmanuel taken the advice of his cabinet to proclaim martial law in 1922 when confronted with the March on Rome, Mussolini would not be the subject of quite so many biographies today. Victor Emmanuel III was a very small man both literally and metaphorically; being the most petty, selfish, egoistical man imaginable that it is difficult to put into words just how truly small he was, but it was his decision to appoint Mussolini prime minister that sealed Italy's fate, not the alleged "greatness" of Il Duce. Often history is made by dim-witted and boring men like Victor Emmanuel whom might have been a failure in life had not been so lucky to have been born into royalty. It is understandable that some people don't like the idea of national continuities when it comes to fascism, but that doesn't make it right. The historian has to confront the truth, now matter how painful it may be. The general consensus with historians is just as there are continuities between Japan's imperialistic policies towards Korea and Manchuria in the Meiji era and the later imperialistic policies of the Showa era towards all of Asia; between the brutal imperialism of the Second Reich with the even more brutal imperialism of the Third Reich, that so too are there are continuities between the imperialism of Liberal Italy and Fascist Italy. The previous version noted that fact while the present version denies that. Of course, it is not all straight lines of continuity as there are twists and turns to history, but doesn't mean that these lines do not exist.

The previous and now deleted situation related how the traditional elites in Italy supported war with Ethiopia for their own reasons; in the case of the professional diplomats of the Palazzo Chigi, supporting aggression against Ethiopia was an attempt to "moderate" Mussolini's more reckless impulses such as his periodic plans to invade Yugoslavia, which have caused a Franco-Italian war that Italy would have certainly lost. Baron Raffaele Guariglia was an Italian aristocrat and professional diplomat who like most Italian professional diplomats was primarily loyal to the House of Savoy, not the Fascist regime, but he certainly saw merit to attacking Ethiopia and did his best from 1931 onward to promote that thesis to Mussolini. And in the case of Marshal Badoglio, it was to gratify his massive ego. Finally, the previous section stated correctly that there was an important domestic reasons for Mussolini to invade Ethiopia, not just to to distract people from the Great Depression, but also as a power play to assert his control over the decision-making process, which he never entirely controlled. The way in which Mussolini went out of his way to present the war as a Fascist triumph, which is why he had De Bono rather Badoglio command the invasion much to the latter's frustration, does support that viewpoint as was backed by a very good RS, namely the book Fascist Ideology by the Greek historian Aristotle Kallis. I suppose the Spanish version, which is more detailed about the some of the policy discussions, does have some advantages over what was just deleted, but with all due respects, I feel that the deleted version does a better job of placing the decision to invade Ethiopia in the context of both international and domestic Italian politics. And there are some errors here, like calling the Tigray region the "Tiger" region and saying how the "repression of Cesare Maria De Vecchi which led to the occupation of the fertile Jubaland". Jubaland was part of the British colony of Kenya which was ceded to Italy in 1925 as part of an attempt by Britain to improve relations (it was promised to Italy under the 1915 Treaty of London-another aspect of the "mutilated victory" that Mussolini was always banging on about) while getting rid of an especially backward and poor region of Africa that was costing them money. De Vecchi's brutal campaign against the Somalis was not why Jubaland was ceded to Italy. And through I have nothing against using non-English sources in principle, it must also be admitted it is more easy to verify what a source is saying in English than in Spanish. Mussolini would have launched an invasion of Ethiopia at some point along the line, but I feel the deleted version did a much better job at explaining why that decision was taken on the 30th of December 1934 to invade Ethiopia the following year.

Also note the way in which the article says that only "single colonial circles and scout societies" were interested in conquering Ethiopia. Besides for being badly phrased (perhaps something went wrong with the translation?), that's not true. It is by no means true that all Italians wanted to conquer Ethiopia, indeed the evidence seems to have suggest that the majority of Italian public opinion was against the first attempt at conquest in 1895-96. But it is also true that there was a loud and noisy section of Italian public opinion that agitated to "avenge Adowa", which was all the more painful to Italian nationalists because Italy was the only European nation to have been defeated by an African nation as the deleted version noted. More generally, there is much evidence that a great many middle class Italians had chauvinistic tendencies in the first half of 20th century, and longed for Italy to be a militaristic, imperialistic power. Everything seems to suggest that the second attempt at conquering Ethiopia was extremely popular with the Italian people at the time. One cannot say as the Spanish version has it that this was just the result of propaganda. Propaganda is only effective if it is tapping something that is already there. The deleted version noted that the battle of Adowa was a "deep national trauma" as it definitely hurt the self-esteem of many an Italian nationalist that theirs was the only nation be have been defeated by an African nation during the "scramble for Africa", which explains why so Italians went mad with joy in 1935-36 when Adowa was finally "avenged". Renzo De Felice was a Fascist apologist whose work has some serious scholarly problems, but at least when wrote in his characteristic admiring style that the war was "Mussolini's masterpiece" as he created a something very close to national consensus for the Fascist regime, he was right (please note that I do not share De Felice's opinion that this was a good thing). The idea of allying Italy with Nazi Germany was unpopular, even many of the Fascist gerarchi were opposed with the gerarca Italo Balbo accusing Mussolini to his face at one memorable meeting of the Fascist Grand Council in March 1939 "of licking Hitler's boots". The sort of free-wheeling debate that occurred at meetings of the Fascist Grand Council with the gerarchi openly insulting Mussolini and disagreeing with his decisions shows as a good number of historians will tell you that Mussolini's power even over the Fascist Party was limited. The image of the all-powerful Il Duce was a mask to disguise just how weak Mussolini's power really was. It is very hard to imagine that how Mussolini got away with allying Italy to the Third Reich except by understanding how big of a boost his image got in 1936 by conquering Ethiopia. This of course brings us back what the deleted version had noted, namely that aggression against Ethiopia was a power play by Mussolini to push the Fascist system in a more radical direction. There are matters of style as well; fascist means generic fascism while Fascism means the Italian version, so using fascist here without capital F violates generally accepted scholarly conventions. Rather than engage in edit-warring, does anyone object if restore the deleted section? Best wishes and cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Cite tidy

Can't find long footnotes for Zuber 1975, Labanca 2005, Dominioni 2008. Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Question of emphasis regarding war crimes

I am starting this section to invite comment from the community on the question of whether Italian or Ethiopian war crimes should be listed first in both the lead and in the "War crimes" section. This is not meant to replace previous (apparent) consensus in the above Talk sections Fascist apologetics and Italian war crimes denial but rather to move the conversation forward in light of recent back-and-forth editing between myself and DavideVeloria88 –– as well as, most recently, an Italian IP (5.169.103.232).

On my user Talk page, DavideVeloria88 writes: "Hi. In my opinion, in the lead section of Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Ethiopian crimes should be mentioned first since they started in the first weeks of war (1935) and before the Italian ones and the killing of civilians (1937). Written in this way the page does not seem neutral. In any case, I am willing to discuss it, I don't want to start any edit war. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)"

I very much welcome the opening to dialogue, and only suggest that it take place here so that it is visible to –– and invites comment from –– the community. My reasons for thinking that a neutral point of view calls for Italian war crimes to be listed first are (in order of importance):

The vastly greater scale of civilian deaths caused by Italian policies of targeting Ethiopian civilians. Though casualty figures remain inexact (see #Casualties), it is clear that we are comparing dozens of Italian civilians killed, along with hundreds of Eritrean workmen, with hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians.
The fact that the war was one of aggression and conquest on the part of the Italian state. Though this doesn't have direct bearing on the question of whether acts such as castration or gassing of civilians constitute war crimes, it does, I believe, have bearing on the question of which crimes it makes sense to emphasize for the reader by placing them first.
The fact that there have been numerous attempts to alter content in a manner flattering to Italian chauvinism across a number of WP articles in recent months. Not all of these attempts are as overt as this one: [[5]] Consider also [[6]], [[7]], and [[8]] for a representative sample of the tactics used. As a community, we must not overreact, but we must likewise resist efforts to move the Overton window in the direction of normalizing or excusing Fascist aggression.

I hope that this is helpful! Generalrelative (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Generalrelative that some users have undertaken efforts to emphasize the same claims made by Italian fascist propaganda at the time; namely that the war was over with the fall of Addis Ababa (it wasn't) by minimizing Italian war crimes and highlighting dum-dum bullets and mutilation of Italian prisoners by Ethiopian forces. This is not to say that these are "fascist" edits, but I do suspect some underlying sort Italian nationalism behind these changes. I'd have to double check the sources, but I do believe it's also important to note that Italian use of gas and other war crimes (attacking hospitals) were not "in response" to Ethiopian violations, but were undertaken because they had a military impact. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. I left a similar message on the Gondrand massacre talk page. That article is also written like Italian war propaganda.Jnyssen (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I partially disagree, as the Ethiopian crimes started since the first weeks of war and before the Italian ones; the insertion of three sentences about Italian atrocities seems non-neutral and almost a propaganda to add infamy. Also, in my opinion, the sentence about the deaths of Ethiopian civilians should be put after that of the Ethiopian crimes, since it does not only concern the Italian war crimes but also the invasion in general, so it is a correct conclusive sentence. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@DavideVeloria88: Thanks for your response. And I think you've touched on the heart of the matter –– the fact of infamy. I can image how it might seem non-neutral or even propagandistic to see someone or something you may have been raised to admire cast in an extremely negative light. But here's the thing: to the vast majority of the world, Fascism and Mussolini are rightly considered infamous. Efforts to normalize (or, God forbid, glorify) them are seen as threats to the peace and security of the world broadly, but also, and more immediately, as targeted threats to those whose communities have been victimized by Fascist atrocities in recent history. By way of comparison, as an American myself, I would never seek to downplay the shame and infamy of our genocide against Native American peoples and enslavement of African peoples. Doing so would be grotesque, and –– crucially –– contrary to true patriotism, since patriotism requires the strength to learn from one's country's mistakes in order to help it choose a better path in the future. If you're interested in further reflecting on this definition of patriotism, consider checking out the book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the 20th Century by Timothy Snyder. Generalrelative (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pacification of Libya

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacification of Libya. Note that, as the thread goes on, the conversation switches from discussing "Genocide of Libya" as a possible title to discussing whether to change it to "Second Italo-Senussi War". Generalrelative (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sultanate of Aussa

according to the page "Sultanate of Aussa" and its sources, the Sultanate of Aussa colaborated with the italian invaders during the war, so i think it should be added in the campaignbox in the italian side. Arandomitalo-japaneseamerican (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was not the sultanate that collaborated, but the grandson of the last sultan. By 1935 the sultanate had long ceased to exist.Jnyssen (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Image in "Casualties" section

I'm unsure that the image of a medal commemorating the role of the Italian Eritrean colonial troops in the war adds to the "Casualties" section. Rather, it seems to me it distracts from the very grim figures that comprise this section. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that:

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative . . . and too many can be distracting.

@Pigsonthewing: Would you mind explaining your rationale for adding it? Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The image not merely decorative;, but is indisputably relevant to the topic "Second Italo-Ethiopian War". The image is not in the "Casualties" section, but the section "Aftermath" (which BTW had no images before my edit), to which it also undoubtedly relates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Technically you are correct that "Casualties" is a subsection, and that "Aftermath" is the section. However your statement that "Aftermath" had no images before your recent edit is mistaken: it had two. I'm really not interested in quibbling about this further though. If no consensus for removing the image emerges here I'll be happy to move on. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

[1] Effie G. H. Pedaliu (2004) Britain and the 'Hand-over' of Italian War Criminals to Yugoslavia, 1945-48. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Collective Memory, pp. 503-529 (JStor.org preview)

[1]

Untitled

what is "legge taglionis"?

Crimes of the Fascist Army?

Huge bias

BIAS

Tags

Conclusion

Leagues

Italian casualties

Two new "break outs"

Breakout of much of the "Aftermath" section

65.95.173.249 changes

NPOV violation "Will you be worthy of it" section is repetitive and almost glorifying Mussolini, ignores the reaction of Ethiopians to their defeat and the Italian victory

Please remove note questioning neutrality of section

Where to file, how to label, this painting?

Ethiopian Declaration of War

Italian casualties confusion

Too much attention to the years of occupation?

Italian Casualties

Tone?

Foreigners Fighting In The Service of The Emperor

The tone of sections of this article is very unusual, controversial, and almost pushing POV violation

Image of painting removed

Names

Move

Opposing Forces Numbers

The withered hand and the broken toe

External links modified

September 2016

Translation problem?

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

CE

CE

casualties

CE

Determining the end of the war

Germany in the infobox

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

Casualties

Aspects of genocide?

Use it

Citations needed

Recent additions

Questions on Casualties

16000 and 16000

1935 Italian intelligence estimate of the Ethiopian provinces and their forces

Merge Abyssinia Crisis?

Responding to Fascist apologetics

It is more than a bias, it is the Italian war crimes denial, caused by the British Cold war policy

The section titled "The end" with the "Italian perspective" and "Ethiopian perspective" is written with a POV tone

Requested move

Recent edits

True?

Schrecklichkeit?

Ending

Ethiopia was not an Italian colony before 1936

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

there is no neutral point of view the article "Italian imperialism in the Horn of Africa"

Translation of a part of the Spanish wikipedia page Segunda ítalo-etíope war at wikipedia in English Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Cite tidy

Question of emphasis regarding war crimes

Discussion at Talk:Pacification of Libya

Sultanate of Aussa

Image in "Casualties" section