Talk:East African Campaign (World War II)/Archive 1

Untitled
I find this part confusing....

"The squadron made one major attempt to attack a convoy, but was roundly defeated. Following that attack, most of the squadron's surface ships were sunk, with the escaping submarines making an epic voyage around the Cape of Good Hope to return to Italy."

Shouldn't this say surface ships sunk *during* the attack? If they were sunk after the attack, who sank them? Xanous 19:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a link to a website whose content is questionable; specifically, it had a portrait of el Duce and a collection of his quotes on the front page. It claims not to support fascism but it clearly idolizes a fascist dictator. 82.24.139.22 11:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

More background information:

http://rapidttp.co.za/milhist/vol084im.html http://rapidttp.co.za/milhist/vol026dt.html http://rapidttp.co.za/milhist/vol132ga.html

on South Africa's invlovement and the air war between Italy and South Africa over Italian East Africa

Decisive/Not Decisive Victory
Ok then, to Mr. Kurt, whoever the heck you may be, your basic arguement is that it cannot be a decisive victory because the Axis could not get reinforcements or get men to East Africa after the war. This, quite frankly, is inaccurate, as The Allied High Command believed they could intercept convoys in the Red Sea, and had been proven right by some sinkings in the area throughout 1940. Furthermore, the Western Allies did not have a lot of men, and faced with a quarter-million hostiles, a breakthrough early in the campaign could have been quite possible.

Secondly, if the Axis could be resupplied or not has no real point, as the victory, achieved at minimum losses, eliminated a quarter-million Axis soldiers, secured the Red Sea (from the Germans and Italians, anyway, the Japanese would attack a few times there, but it did eliminate the raider problem from East Africa), and allowed more supplies to reach the front against Rommel & Co in North Africa.

So, how is that not decisive? And, yes, I really am looking for a debate. ELV 71.146.130.49


 * I agree it was decisive and left Wavell with one less thing to worry about. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think it's a bit rich for someone to say "Mr. Kurt, whoever the heck you may be" in a comment which is unsigned (or at least contributed from an un-logged-in source)! At least Kurt Leyman identifies himself. Please note Mr. 71.146.130.49 "whoever the heck you may be" that it is normal etiquette to log-in when contributing to Talk pages (but not necessary on main article pages).


 * OK, then Mr. Kirrages whoever the heck you may be,[:)] I must say that I DO ID myself, and not by the obscure line of numbers that is trailed my comment, for I am not a sadist, and I cannot expect anybody in the world, myself included, to remember strange, 10-numbered sequences for dozens of the items. Thus, I ID myself another way. You might have noticed the letters ELV", and THAT is my primary ID on this site, as I use multiple computers, and thus many strings of those %@%!# numbers. Ironically, I used only the ELV previously, until several people got on my butt about not "signing" my posts in the "proper format," so if you feel thus inclined, you may track them down and debate the issue with them. Me, I would prefer to debate history, like I came here to do. Under the pename ELV. OK? ELV
 * BUT you're not logged in (and you can log in from any computer). There's no User:ELV in Wikipedia so I don't know who you are. You can go to Kurt or my User and Talk pages by clicking on the links where we sign our edits and you can find out a little about us. Not so for ELV....don't be so shy!! Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 08:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos and Queries
I came to this well-written article today as a link from the main page. I had never heard of this campaign before and truly learned something new: a true Wikipedia moment.

By way of clarifications, upon reading I had the same question as Xanous poses above. Also, the article does not explain what ultimately happened in British Somaliland after the re-invasion staged from Aden. Did the British retake this area around the same time they moved into Ethiopia, or did it remain under Italian control until the end of the War? Newyorkbrad 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been doing a lot of work on the northern campaign which has addressed a number of queries above, including the fate of the Italian destroyer squadron. I don't have a lot of sources on the southern campaign or British Somaliland but understand that the same units which defended BS and evacuated to Aden in August 1940 returned in March 1941. It looks like much of the 25000 Italian troops that had invaded BS had been redeployed to the fighting north and south and BS was re-taken quite easily. Stephen Kirrage 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

THE RESISTANCE OF  GONDER
Here I see a mistake. Gondar (Gonder) didn`t fell on May 16 but on November 27, 1941 after a hard battle (see Eddy Bauer - Storia Controversa della seconda Guerra Mondiale - volume 3 -page 127. Italian Commander was General Guglielmo Nasi. Nevertheless the war in East Africa didn`t stop: about 7,000 scattered Italian soldiers fought a guerrilla warfare in the deserts of eritrea and in the rain forests of Ethiopia. This guerrilla lasted until May - Oct. 1943. The Italians hoped to get help from the Japanese or from the Italian-German forces in North Africa. See internet : La guerriglia italiana in Africa Orientale.


 * Quite right re Gondar and I have changed the text to reflect your points. Hope it's OK Stephen Kirrage 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see other shaky points in this article: 100 Italian tanks in Massawa is a number lived on air. Moreover I don`t see any sentence about the sea battle of the Dahlak Archipel of Oct. 1940, when the british sunk the Italian destroyer "Francesco Nullo". The captain and a sailor decided to sink with the ship.


 * the 100 tank figure came from p66 of "Eastern Epic" cited in the "Sources" section. Clearly this book was written using mainly British sources so if you have other sources giving different figures I would be very interested to know. I don't have any information on the 1940 sea engagement and would be very happy if you could provide more info re the circumstances and background (forces involved on each side, how they came to meet etc) Stephen Kirrage 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Italy had in East Africa: 24 tanks "M 11" and 35 tanks "L3". Moreover 126 old armoured cars. On Oct. 20, 1940 the most important sea battle of the Red Sea took place: 4 Italian destroyers attacked 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, and 5 gunboats of the Royal Navy close to the Dahlak Islands (which were Italian). The "Francesco Nullo" was sunk by the British.

THE NUMEROUS BATTLES  IN  EAST  AFRICA
The "official" war in East Africa lasted 17 months. For the list of the numerous battles see internet: Abyssinia, 1940-1941, second World War. East Africa wasn`t a minor front but very important to cut the British communications with India.


 * Absolutely. The informed British literature on the campaign points out that 4 and 5 Indian Divisions experienced some of the hardest fighting they saw in the the whole of WWII (bear in mind that these two divisions ended WWII with reputations second to none) and it was political consideration which saw the Allies subsequently downplaying the fighting prowess of the Italian armies and relegating the campaign to minor status. Stephen Kirrage 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you. This is just what I guess. Politically reasons have destroyed the image of Italy in WWII particularly and in history generally (wars of the past). This is the reason because this week I wrote so many things in wikipedia. So people in the world can get a better idea. Tell your positive opinion to your collegue (Mr. Folks 137) who said the East African Campaign was a "joke"!

Bad Photo
The current photo here is of the Middle East and is one which actually cuts off the bottom of Ethiopia, a better photo would be much appreciated

King's African Rifles
Mkpumphrey: Some nice info there which I've reflected in the KAR article as well. However, I wonder Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there not too much detail re officer numbers etc - we don't have that for any of the other units, Allied or Italian and it doesn't really add much value to the article? I think this should be cut back (the detail is now in the linked KAR article).
 * I may be wrong but I don't believe any battalion anywhere in the world had 10,000 men in it - that's nearly the size of an average division! Could you check your source?
 * I will re-check my source concerning the EXTRA-large battalion (the source is now added) and I agree about the level of detail. I planned to ultimately move it to the KAR article (but it looks like you got the jump on me  . . . thanks!).  I am momemtarily distracted with "work" of all things.  Mkpumphrey 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was me and not Mollo. The size was "1,050" and not the "10,050" I originally typed.  It is corrected now.  By the way, I am looking for detailed information on ALL of the units which should ultimately be found in linked articles.  There is an odd group of Germans who supposedly volunteered with the Italians.  There are many sources . . . near zero consistency.  Also, thanks for the clarification and fix noted below too.  Mkpumphrey 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction with Alfred Reade Godwin-Austen
There is a slight contradiction between East African Campaign (World War II) and Alfred Reade Godwin-Austen. The first one states : In mid-August, the British and Commonwealth forces in British Somoliland received minor reinforcements and a new commander, Major-General Alfred Godwin-Austen while the second one During the East African Campaign, Godwin-Austen commanded the British forces in British Somaliland when the Italians invaded the colony from mid-August 1940.. So, the first one assumes that he went into command after the invasion while the second one, that he was in command at the beginning of the invasion. Poppypetty 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the biblio is clear that he arrived after hostilities commenced. I have adjusted the wording in both entries accordingly. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr. Kirage. If anybody wants to work on a contradiction, try Klaus Bonhoeffer.  Bonhoeffer and his brother were both implicated in the July 20 Plot to kill Adolf Hitler and sentenced to death.  According to his own article (Klaus Bonhoeffer), Klaus was shot in the head.  On the other hand, according to his brother's article (Dietrich Bonhoeffer), Klaus was hung.  Now THAT is a problem.  Mkpumphrey 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian medium tanks and tanks in general
This article initially indicated that 64 medium tanks were available to the Italians in East Africa (Commando Supremo?). This number is high. I changed the number to 24 medium tanks based on personal memory and a book in a box in the attic of my garage. The only Italian medium tank which could have been in East Africa at this time is the M11/39. Only about 90 M11/39 tanks were ever made. About 60 M11/39 tanks were in Libya in 1940. There was also an indication that the Italians had 39 light tanks in East Africa. This is probably low. The Italians had hundreds of L3 tanks (tankettes really). In the 30s these tankettes were cheap and easy to produce. Unfortunatelt they were only two-man, turretless machine gun carriers (6.5 mm). Great for parades. . . not so good for military applications. The Italians probably made over two-thousand of these useless things. During the early stages of World War II, the Italians used them in France, North Africa, East Africa, the Balkans, and even Russia. Against Soviet tanks with cannons, the L3 was a total disaster during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). . where, like the German PZ I, experiments with mounting a 20 mm gun were attempted. But, even before SCW, the L3 had problems during the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935-36). There are indications that the Ethiopians were able to take out a few isolated L3s with nothing more than massed infantry assaults. Long story short, the Italians probably had plenty of the L3 tanks in East Africa. . . how many were still "operational" in 1940 is another story. I have found very little on the British and Commonwealth armor in East Africa. But I am looking. One of the more "interesting" stories at the Commando Supremo site has the northern army using Matildas at Keren. Mkpumphrey 00:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mkpumphrey 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Compton Mackenzie records the arrival in the Sudan of 7 Royal Tank Regiment equipped with Infantry tanks (I tanks) at the same time as 4th Indian Div. I guess 7RTR would have had a compliment of 40-50 units? There is no other mention of British tanks as far as I can see for the whole of the campaign!!Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regimental naming conventions
I see that a whole load of parentheses have been put round regimental names eg 1st Battalion (2nd Punjab Regiment). This is not common usage either in books or the army itself. Any reason for it? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 08:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just trying to keep relationships between the battalions/regiments/brigades/divisions clear in my head. I admit the parentheses is non-standard.  I have seen both commas,  slashes (/), and nothing  used as dividers.  I think that I have even seen (but only on Wikipedia) colons  and semi-colons  used.  Is one of these correct?  I am all for standards.  Thanks for the question. Mkpumphrey 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Book
Hello,

you can find online this book that might help : Ball of fire - The Fifth Indian Division in the Second World War by Antony Brett-James :. Poppypetty 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I hadn't found this online version before. I've included the link in the title in the sources section. (Yeah the two gap thing drives me crazy too - is there a bot that will sort it out automatically?) Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself a bot, but I did it :p. Is there any chance that a contributor send me scans of the pages of Comptom McKenzie's book on Battle of Keren ? I am trying to improve the French article on Battle of Keren to the featured level. Poppypetty 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Only one space after dots
There is only one space after dots ending a sentence. Please stop putting two spaces :). Poppypetty 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What style guide are you using? Is one space a personal preference or something Wikipedia dictates?  Most English style guides use two spaces after a period ("dots" to you). Mkpumphrey 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orde Wingate
I've removed him from the commanders section of the infobox (again!). He was a major at the start of these events and was promoted Colonel before the end (I think). His role was colourful and politically important but really had no more impact than say Briggsforce or Gazelleforce. All the other names in the infobox are 3 star generals or more. If Wingate goes in the box then so does every other battalion and brigade commander- the list is endless. He should be left out. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But EVERYBODY has heard of ORDE WINDGATE. You are correct.  But he makes even the brief encyclodia-type write-ups on the East African Campaign.  Briggsforce and Gazelleforce are never mentioned unless more detail is sought.  Orde Windgate IS the East African Campaign to many.  But please feel free to remove it again if you must . . .  Mkpumphrey 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect...(oops that sounds ominous)...Wingate was a talented, colourful and contoversial anti-establishment character pulling off extraordinary tricks with his 1500 men and this should certainly be reflected in the text. BUT having him in the infobox inplies a greater role in the overall campaign than he actually had. He was a Major (appointed acting Colonel in Feb) with a relatively small role in the overall campaign. The main reason for his fame (yes everyone has heard of him) is more because of his exploits in Burma with his Chindits and the history of the events in Ethiopia is always written with his later career and death in mind. Bear in mind he had no authority over the partisans - their commanders reported to Haile Selasie and relations with the British were through the attached so-called Mission 101 groups - which Colonel Sandford commanded (whom Wingate was always trying to undermine - the feeling was apparently mutual!). Did you know that of his two battalions the 2nd Ethiopians actually mutinied in April '41? Anyway, enough of this...I'm taking him out again! If there's time and opportunity it might be worth writing a more detailed account of the events in Gojjam. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem with the Windgate removal. I FINALLY got some of my Italian books out of the garage attic and I am toying with the idea of an "Order of Battle - 10 June 1940" link for both sides.  You mentioned previously that some of the unit details were a bit too detailed and IO am thinking I can off-load them into the order of battle.  But that all assumes that I actually get to it. Mkpumphrey 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find OOBs be very useful. I initiated them for Gothic Line, Anzio, 2nd Alamein and Iraqforce. I've steered away from doing this one because none of my sources have a basic oob for the Italian forces and building one from mentions in the text is just too difficult (and random). Go for it! Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Troop numbers at Amba Alagi
Hi Brunodam. I've looked at the German and Italian articles (I'm not fluent but I get the sense!). They just have not done their research. Both articles say that Cunningham had 25,000 soldiers and 16,000 abbyssinians with no specific reference / page number as to where this came from, so I am not in a position to verify their assertion (you will see that whenever I give references I give specific details of the book and page number). It is quite credible that Cunningham's total force advancing from Kenya had totalled 25,000 (i.e 3 divisions: 1st South African, 11th and 12th African divisions).

However, Cunningham was not involved at Amba Alagi - he merely detached 1 SA Brigade to go north from Addis with Campbell's Scouts (Abyssinian irregulars led by a British officer) - Platt was in overall charge of Amba Alagi with Mayne commanding the battle.

Platt at the start of the Eritrean campaign had had two divisions (4th and 5th Indian) plus two french battalions. The 4th division had been recalled to the Western Desert in March after Keren. For Amba Alagi, because of troop committments to defend the supply line to Kassala, Mayne could not employ his full 5th division. He had one brigade (29th Brigade made up of 3 battalions), Skinners Horse (5th division's recce battalion), 3rd bn 18 Royal Garwhalis (a battalion detached from 9 Brigade) and 51st Commando battalion. So six battalions in all, say 5,000 men in total. When Pienaar arrived, his brigade would have totalled maybe 3-4,000. So at the start of the offensive there would have been about 5,000 trained troops attacking and by the end maybe 9,000 plus Abyssinian irregulars.

The Abyssinians I have no numbers for. However, my main source (the official history of Indian forces in WWII by Compton Mackenzie) states that the Abyssinian forces were out of control and not an effective part of the force (even Campbell's scouts which were nominally under British control were "exhilarated by the prospect of loot and massacre, [so Mayne} gave orders that they should be kept out of the battle if possible, but they were all over the place, no more under control than wasps in wall-fruit"). In fact the only significant reference to their activity at Amba Alagi was after Amadeo called a truce to discuss surrender terms, his envoy General Volpini was murdered by the Abbyssinian irregulars on the way to the meeting so Mayne had to send Colonel Russell to the castle of Amba Alagi: "Russell with a strong escort got safely through the Abyssinians who continued to attack the Italian posts for the next 24 hours despite the armistice".

I hope this convinces you why I am removing the numbers. In the end, numbers were irrelevent because Amadeo did not surrender because of overwhelming odds but because he had no drinking water. Regards. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 10:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kirrage, probably the german & italian wikipedia use a global number of troops in the full area (in many italian books the number is around 23000 to 25000 British troops and 7000 Italians, reduced to 5000 at the moment of the surrender). I agree that the British troops in the fighting "line of fire" (of Amba Alagi) were 9000, as you wrote. Allow me to write that I appreciate your detailed information.    Regarding the ethiopian irregulars, I can translate this from the book of Del Boca "Italiani in Africa Orientale: La caduta dell'Impero" : .......Del Boca, "Italians in Eastern Africa:the fall of the Empire"....Around twenty thousand ethiopian patriots attacked the last Italians defending the Amba Alagi, with the english troops. Their number were growing with the news of the victories over their hated colonial masters. It is very difficult to know how many they were, but at the hour of the Amedeo Duca d'Aosta surrender they could have grown to nearly thirty thousand.....
 * I have corrected the numbers and I hope you'll agree. Regards--Brunodam 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Italian rifle "91"
Hi, Kurt Leyman.

The italian rifle "91", called "novantuno" by the italian soldiers, was the only rifle they had during the war in Ethiopia. There were many models (as you can read in italian at www.il91.it), but the one used by the italian colonial troops was the model "Moschetto 91/TS" of the year 1900. Only the "carabinieri" (special forces) had the model 91/28, produced in 1928. But the model Moschetto 91/TS was easily clogged and in 1916 the Italian Minister of Defense declared that "per evitare le frequenti spaccature che si determinano, per effetto del tiro, nell'attuale copricanna per Moschetto 91 per T.S. viene adottato un nuovo tipo di bocchino provvisto di apposita appendice che, sovrapponendosi al copricanna, lo tiene unito all'arma. Il Ministro Zuppelli", that I translate aproximately for you: "...In order to avoid the frequent damages that happen to the Moschetto 91/TS during the shooting, we adopt a special device to reinforce the armament structure...". I write this to pinpoint the low level of this model of the rifle "91", that often during the battle did not worked well (as many soldiers complained). The model 91/TS was a model inferior to the other rifles "bolt action" (Arisaka, Enfield, Mauser, Mosin-Nagant etc.) used at the beginning of WWII. And it was totally inferior to the German K98k and to the US M1 Garand rifle (used even by the British). That is the reason why I write "old", in order to explain one of the reasons of the italian defeat: the low level armament, like the Moschetto 91/TS.

I hope you agree with me and accept my mostly old "91" rifles, designed in 1891. Finally, I want to write that I appreciate your contribs to wikipedia and I don't want to do any Edit War with 3RR fights. I believe we can agree on the subject in a clever way. Regards.--Brunodam 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have desire to go warring, but, as I have I have noted, the fact stands that the design is not specially old when compared to rifles such as Kar09 or Mosin Nagant used by other countries. They all date back 40 to 50 years. "That is the reason why I write "old", in order to explain one of the reasons of the italian defeat: the low level armament, like the Moschetto 91/TS." This is a PoV. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 03:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let's cancel the word "old". I am going to do my last tentative to avoid an Edit War. But the fact is that the model 91/TS was easily clogged in battle (mainly because even easily "rusted" after some dozen years of use), while this was not a problem with other "bolt action" rifles. And this is recognized by books of french, english and german authors, as you probably know. The same authors declare that one of the reasons of the italian defeat was the low level of the italian armament .....so it is not my POV.


 * Furthermore, there are many books that state that the only victory of Italy in WWII (without the german troops) was the conquest of British Somaliland. Every admin of the english wikipedia can verify this fact. If you say the contrary.....that would be a POV, don't you believe? Regards--Brunodam 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to get involved in this debate. But I would make this observation: i)my military friends tell me that rifles that are fired regularly do not rust - rust cannot build up because of the regular passage of a bullet. ii) Soldiers are trained from basic that they clean and oil their rifles every day they are not fired (and especially after they have finished a battle) so that they don't rust iii) the Italian troops by all the accounts I read were well-trained and fought well. It seems that the '91' may not have been a great weapon but nobody ever lost a war because they had a slightly less efficient rifle. It just does not seem to have been a significant factor.
 * 1)All rifles get rust in the weather of Africa after "many dozen" of years, even if well oiled, believe me. And it can be even worst, if there it is not enough oil and the colonial troops are not well disciplined and don't pay attention to the rules of mantenance.2)Thank you for the commentary about the italian troops, but most of the troops in the Italian Eastern Africa were local people and they were not well trained (with the exception of the Eritrean Ascari). The 91 is considered one of the best rifles of the first half of the twentieth century (Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy with a modern model of "91" from a great distance), but the first models (like the 91/TS) were plagued by problems. And in battle the italian colonial troops were complaining a lot of these problems (according to many reports of italian officials in Abissinia). Of course, I am not saying that the war in africa was lost by the Italians because of the 91/TS, but that the "low level of the italian armaments" was one of the many reasons. That is why I am adding the reference in the photo. A photo in the main initial section of the article, that seems to be the usual propaganda against the Italians "only good to be ready to surrender and drop their arms".Brunodam
 * More significant seems to be that the Italian forces were out-generalled - the British generals were much more aggressive, particularly in manouvering. Italian defensive tactics appeared to be very static and therefore predictable. Most of the senior British officers were very experienced having spent significant periods of time in the inter-war years in action on the northwest frontier of India. Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Brunodam
 * (PS Who really cares that 25,000 troops occupying British Somalia against 4,000 defenders (or whatever) was the only "solo" Italian victory in WWII? It's a very obscure "Trivial Pursuits" sort of fact isn't it?)
 * We Italians, who were forced to do an "impossible to win" war in the horn of Africa by the mistakes of Mussolini; and even so we were able to get some small victories and receive some military honors. Regards--Brunodam 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"only victory of Italy in WWII (without the german troops) was the conquest of British Somaliland." There is a difference between campaign and BATTLE. The lines which I removed clearly claim that Italy won only one BATTLE in World War II without support from allied forces, which is obvious nonsense. Take the First Battle of Sirte for one, or battles during the Invasion of Yugoslavia (the keyword is battle, not campaign, as the campaign itself was commenced with support of most European Axis Powers armies attacking from all sides), during which Italian forces took 30000 prisoners. "If you say the contrary.....that would be a POV, don't you believe?" No, not at all, as campaign and battle are two seperate matters, and the fact that the invasion of British Somaliland was the only campaign which Italy won alone is made clear in "Insights" section of this article. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kurt Leyman. When I write "only victory" I mean the campaign, of course. So, I have inserted the word "campaign" to be clearly understood. And I have even corrected (in order to avoid the repetition that you correctly stated) the related paragraph of the "Insight", so that there it is a reference to the fact that the campaign in British Somaliland was the first italian campaign victory in WWII (followed by the Yugoslavian and Balkan campaign, as you wrote). I even wrote under the first photo the full name of the "91": Carcano 1891. I hope with this agreement to have no further "difficulties" and have a future good "wikipedian relationship" with you. Regards,--Brunodam 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign or theatre?
Should this really be the East African Campaign? The article looks like it describes three quite distinct campaigns that happened in the same theatre. From what I've read, the East African Campaign typically refers to the actions in 1941 until the surrender of Duke Aosta.

I recommend renaming this page to East African theatre of World War II for an overview of all three actions, keeping the Italian conquest of British Somaliland as is, making "East African Campaign (World War II)" refer to Jan 1941 - May 1941 only, and have a third article for Operation Chronometer. Oberiko 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in two minds about this. I'm on the record as strongly opposing the "lumping together" of disparate battles/campaigns for the sake of convenience. There was a British East Africa Command, from 15/9/41, which covered Ethiopia, Eritrea, Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland, Kenya, Zanzibar, Tanganyika, Uganda, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia). However, the fighting in those countries was controlled by the Middle East Command, which also controlled the so-called "Western Desert Campaign" (prior to the formation of AFHQ).


 * In addition, some might consider that an "East African Theatre", should include Battle of Madagascar, even though that was planned in London and initially involved only UK land forces on route to India. It was also unique in that involved the only Japanese forces to see action outside of Asia and the Pacific. While Madagascar later fell under the jurisdiction of the East Africa Command, the campaign did not relate to countering the stratetgic imperatives of Italy/Germany, so much as those of Japan.


 * Still pondering this, but on balance I tend to favour the present arrangements in regard to Africa. Grant  |  Talk  05:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, why not use Italian East Africa itself as the page covering the overall situation? I'm not an expert at the East African conflict, but do we have any sources which call all the fighting in the region to be one "campaign"?  Otherwise, what prevents that additional lumping in of the Italo-Abyssinian War? Oberiko 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, then it was all over in 1936, except for a guerrilla/resistance campaign. Even if we consider that it and the events of 1940-41 were one conflict, that would make them like the Sino-Japanese War, a conflict that began before WW2 proper and was merged into it.


 * I don't think a political-geography article (on the Italian colony) is a suitable place for an military history overview. Grant  |  Talk  12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you got me...what was Operation Chronometer?! But I agree the current arrangements make sense. The Italian incursions into Sudan & Kemya, Invasion of Somaliland and the British advances into Eritrea and Ethiopia fit together well as being a single conflict between the Italian East African Empire and the British Commonwealth; I always think a campaign should be a series of engagements between the same opponents in a particular area. Madagascar had no Italian dimension and as stated above was not controlled by the British East African forces or Middle East Command and the Italo-Abyssinian War had no British involvement, so neither qualify on this basis to be lumped with the current article. British East Africa Command which did cover the whole area was not formed until after the scope of the current article. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops. I've found Chronometer. Sorry. By the way. The article now describes the "Parvati" as an Indian trawler in one place and a British auxiliary cruiser in another. Which was it? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will check on the "Parvati". In the meantime, I would like to add another vote to leave article titled as is.  Totally agree with NOT moving this all to Italian East Africa (AOI).  In fact I am currently looking at the conflict fought "between" the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and this campaign.  It should help to explain why Haile Sellassi's rebel army was ready for the most part before he left London and why large portions of AOI were never controlled by the Italians.  I should also confess to having added "Operation Chronometer" (June 1941 landings at Assab) and "Operation Appearance" (March landings to take back British Somaliland).  Worse, there are additional "operations" related to this campaign on the way. Mkpumphrey 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling it a theatre makes sense, IMO, but moving it to Italian East Africa definitely does not. Grant65, The Second Italo-Ethiopian War was indeed considered part of WWII, and would therefore be part of the theatre if we make such a/move this page. This was recognized by the Paris Conference:


 * ''In this situation the Paris Conference found no difficulty in accepting the Council of Ministers' provision that World War II had started, for Ethiopia, on 3 October 1935. Article 38 of the final treaty, adopted at the conference's closing session, on 15 October, thus stated:


 * "The date from which the provisions of the present Treaty shall become applicable as regards all measures and acts of any kind whatsoever entailing the responsibility of Italy or Italian nationals towards Ethiopia, shall be held to be October 3rd,1935.''


 * (Richard Pankhurst, "Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia: A History of Their Discussion, from the League of Nations to the United Nations (1936-1949)" in Northeast African Studies 6.1-2 (1999). p. 116). &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What the?!! Just because the Council of Ministers decided that it was convenient for the purposes of placing blame and liability on Italy in respect of Ethiopia to decide that World War II "for Ethiopia" started in 1935 doesn't mean it did! It was clearly a diplomatic device to include Italian liability for war reparations incurred in respect of the colonial period with all the other reparations arising as a result of WWII proper. Certainly no one else thinks WWII started in 1935! The fact is, the Second Italo-Abyssinian War was a colonial war and had nothing to do with WWII. The East African Campaign was definitely part of WWII being a conflict between Britain and her Allies on the one hand and Italy on the other although it sucked in the ongoing Italian / Ethiopian colonial conflict on the way. Ask yourself what the reply would have been if you had asked anyone in 1936 anywhere in the world if they thought a new global conflict had started......! Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism by 75.90.30.111
The above editor is repeatedly vandalising this article, putting in nonsense numbers and statements. No doubt the Wiki police will catch him (it is always an adolescent male) eventually but in the meantime I don't want to risk blocking for 3RR. Could someone else take a turn at reverting duty?210.246.8.167 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not just simple number changes but whole paragraph deletions and changing of sentence meaning in cited, referenced sections. The edits have been large in scale but none have been referenced themselves. It appears to be pro-Italian revisionism; every edit makes the Italian war effort larger or more effective. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A section in this article is titled "The Empire Strikes Back", pop-culture references should not be in an a encyclopedic article
A section in this article is titled "The Empire Strikes Back" a pop-culture reference alluding to the Star Wars movie series that has nothing to do with the war and the pop-culture reference was never used at the time to describe the conflict because it happened from 1935 to 1936 and "The Empire Strikes Back" movie came out in 1980. This is perhaps the worst example of poor writing that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I am removing it immediately, but mentioning it, in the hope that the editor who added this will remember that pop-culture references should not be used to describe historical events outside of pop-culture.--R-41 (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Archived 3 Sep 15Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)