Talk:Greco–Italian War/Archive 6

first success
Was this really the first allied success in the war? I can remember at least of Narvik and maybe of Dunkirk,maybe there are others. Yes, both ended ultimately in retreat, but it did it here too, soo. Uspzor (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep it is the first land Allied success, because an Axis army was totally crippled and defeated by an Allied army on land. The German intervention which happened next year, does not reduce the important symbolism of a such scale defeat of an entire Axis army by the army of another country. The Italian defeat forced Germany to intervene to save the prestige of the Axis, and due to this intervention, Hitler's plan to invade the Soviet Union, was eventually delayed. This delay gave the Soviets the needed time to prepare better and bolster their defenses which helped them repel the German invasion.
 * Hitler in fact, blamed the failure of his invasion of the Soviet Union to Mussolini's failure to conquer Greece and Greece's unexpected success against the Axis. So the defeat of Italy isn't only the first full defeat of an Axis power on land, but also what delayed Hitler's invasion of Soviet Union, giving the victory a double symbolism. The battles in Narvik and other areas were battles indeed, but not full-scaled invasions and war as is the case between Axis Italy and Allied Greece. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How big or significant was the defeat? An Italian invasion was repulsed, a Greek counter-invasion was contained and an Italian spring offensive was contained. In the wider war, the delay thesis is mostly discounted these days, in favour of a late spring determining the timing of Barbarossa (cf the start dates of the German offensives of 1942 and 1943). Hitler was there but I'd treat him as an unreliable narrator, for obvious reasons. What did the Italians do after the flop of the spring offensive, surrender or exploit the German invasion? If the Italians were in a condition of defeat, why were the Greeks still deployed in western Greece and Albania instead of in the east? All these questions lead inevitably to Inconclusive or See Aftermath because it can't be encapsulated without looking ludicrous. Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it was not significant? Are you saying that the victory of the tiny Greek nation against 1 of the 3 major Axis powers in the world, was not significant? Are you saying that Nazi Germans didn't intervene to help the Fascist Italians? If the Fascist Italians were not defeated, or that the defeat was not significant, then why did Nazi Germany ever intervene? Hitler had much more important things to do - the Soviet Union was a much bigger threat to the Axis than Greece was - and striking against it without delay, was what he wanted to do to ensure that the the Axis powers have the upper hand against their opponents. But of course, he didn't expect Mussolini to get himself into big troubles against the tiny Greeks and he had to intervene. Apparently the "insignificant Greek victory" wasn't so insignificant, given how this bought the Soviets some time for preparations, which gave the Allies the upper hand in the war.
 * The Allies owe to Greece for its bravery and for the fact that it defeated the invaders and managed to move the Greco-Italian war front from Greece's territory, deep into the territory of the neighboring Albania, then a protectorate of Fascist Italy. None doubts that. But if you disagree with that, then fine. Everyone is free to to express his opinions, but Wikipedia is not based on the personal opinions. Wikipedia is based on facts. And Hitler himself acknowledged how the "insignificant" Greek "victory" contributed to his defeat by the Soviets. The Greek victory was pivotal to the tide of the opposition in the European front of the WWII, for the fact that it proved for the first time how the Axis powers are not unstoppable and unbeatable on land. Anyone, and especially the respectful war historians out there, are well aware of a such symbolism's impact to the psychology of the participants in the war. Greece was eventually crushed by the Germans, but nevertheless this played a role in the change of the war's course. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 15:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked X and you answered Y. The only question is if this was really the first victory, what I believe it's not, the rest is totally disconnected with the subject.Uspzor (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the first war campaign victory. But a campaign victory should not be confused with a battle victory. Narvik and Dunkirk were not campaigns, were battles. The World War II had seen more than 100+ battles across the continent if my memory does not fail me. Some more significant than others. Some of these battles were victorious, some others not. But the campaign of the Greeks against the invaders, with the assistance of the British Empire, constitute the first campaign success against the Axis powers. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 15:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you'll have to start discussing where a battle ends and a campaign begin, or what defines something as "major". Your people really like contentious words don't they? And yes, Narvik was a campaign, don't believe me, search "narvik campaign" on google books and see by yourself. Uspzor (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry my friend, but if Narvik is not a Battle but a standalone Campaign as you are claiming, (which comes in contrast with the established fact that Narvik was a not a campaign but a battle and part of the Norwegian Campaign), then I am Barack Obama and I live in Planet Mars. Unless you have reliable sources backing your "Narvik was campaign" claim, I can not help you. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 02:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right or wrong, more than one source calls it such.
 * You refuse to get what I am telling you. The established fact is that Narvik is a battle and part of the Norwegian campaign. This is an established fact and you need more than just a mere source or two supporting otherwise to dispute this fact. Just that there are scholars calling it campaign, does not mean it is not a battle. Wikipedia works on consensus and reflects the opinion of the vast majority of the world's historians and the community. And so far, they say it is a set of battles, not a standalone campaign by itself. You will need solid proof that this was not a battle, and bring it to discussion at the relevant article's talk page and work there for a solid consensus with other users. Until then, don't bother trying to change other pages or bring the discussion to other Wikipedia articles, such as the Greek-Italian war, because they are not the place for it and your changes will be reverted. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 09:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Woah there, you guys are the ones having a hissy fit about this and brought it up. You have taken one position and called thr other guy wrong; right or wrong, sources support both of you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources which you have provided to me: 1) do call Narvik as a campaign, indeed, but, unless my eyes missed something, they 2) do not provide details about which criteria are met to call a battle taking place in a limited area around Narvik a full and standalone campaign by itself, and last, 3) they do not claim that Narvik was unrelated the Norwegian Campaign. I am sorry but your sources are not providing enough information to back this claim. Wikipedia maintains that Narvik was a series of battles that took place around the region of same name, as part of the larger Norwegian Campaign. The rest of Wikipedia's articles, such as the Greek-Italian article, have no option but to maintain consistency in the encyclopedia and reflect upon what was maintained in the articles Norwegian Campaign and Battle of Narvik. If you are objecting to this established consensus, and you find enough documents/scholar information supporting your claims, you are always welcomed to open a discussion in the relevant talk pages. Until then, please do not continue this discussion here, as this talk page is about the Greek-Italian war and only, not about Narvik being a campaign or not. Since I cleared this out to you there is nothing more to discuss about Narvik here. Maintaining discussions irrelevant to the Greek-Italian war, such as this, goes against Wikipedia's rules. Thank you and have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 13:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRC Wikipedia isn't a source.Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sure you are very well aware that the one Wikipedia article cannot claim that Adolf Hitler is alive but the other article claim he is dead, right? This is not about mere sourcing, this is about consistency of sourced information already present in Wikipedia. I call the editors to not play with words to prove something that is not proven, and stick to the established facts when they lack the necessary sources for otherwise. The articles in Wikipedia should present these historical events of WWII by how it was agreed on how refer them to as (majority of sources and scholars and consensus among users, and Wikipedia policies if applicable to such matters, etc) Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, I have not made any claims about Narvik and do not have a horse in this race. All I have done is point out that sources support both positions. Regardless, wiki policy is to go with what sources say; not if they meet your personal criteria.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Read what I wrote; overstating Greek success with hyperbole clouds the facts of what the Greeks really achieved. This is myth-making not history, the truth is good enough, ask the people in the cemeteries. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you believe about an war that happened 60+ years ago. Like it or not, the Greek campaign to repel the Fascist Italian invaders was a successful one and the first of its kind in WWII. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 15:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write what I believe about a 60-year-old war, I suggested that the subject is vulnerable to hyperbole and myth-making. This is why the nature of the Greek success/victory/whatever it was, is difficult to summarise according to the infobox criteria. The Italo-Greek war was unfinished when the Germans invaded so Greek battlefield victories can't have been decisive and how it ended can't easily be separated from the effect of the German invasion. By the way, what were Greek war aims? Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

SilentResident, these are just you personal opinions. You didn't provide a a definition for "campaign", "major" and even the greek victory piece is debatable as anyone didn't pretending amnesia can see. I showed you that narvik is considered a campaign and if take the trouble to search narvik victory you'll see that it's considered a victory much more unanimously than the greco-italian war. Any dubius and contentius claim as this should not be made into the article but at least qualify it. Uspzor (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am surprised now. Do I have to prove that the Greek Italian war is... war and not a battle? Do I have to prove that Narvik is a battle and not full scale campaign? What kind of logic is that? Why do, I have to defend and prove what is already an established consensus among world's historians and the wiki community? I didn't create or write the articles in the first place. The others did. And you can see that their edits were accompanied by reliable sources and solid citations accepted by everyone. It wasn't my work at all. The scholars and the community said the Battle of Narvik is a battle that covered a single town and the area around it. The scholars and the community are the ones who also said that the Greek Italian War is a war that covered several Greek and Albanian towns in a large zone that spanned more or less 100 kilometers (I can't remember exactly, but don't hold me for this). They wrote these articles based on indisputable facts, And these articles existed for long time before I ever come here and join the community and contribute. It wasn't me who created and named the Battle of Narvik article a "battle", or the Greek-Italian War article a "war". Was I? No. Do you believe the articles are named inappropriately? If you do, and you hold solid evidence backing your claims, then bring it to their relevant pages and request a rename procedure. The people, including me, are not going to bother turning this into an endless forum discussion just because you don't get the point, and instead of providing sources supporting your theories, you are calling upon me to provide a definition (!) for why the majority of the scholars and the Wiki community calls the events by the most-known and established terms for them. You are asking me to prove what was already backed with solid and indisputable sources, and you are citing questionable sources for this. I think our discussion has reached a point where any further discussions are not productive, do not get somewhere, and only waste space in an irrelevant Talk Page. Do not expect me to continue this discussion. I am sorry. Have a good day. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 00:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, considering your argument of inter-wiki consistency, from the Battles of Narvik article (please note the "s"): "The Battles of Narvik were fought from 9 April to 8 June 1940 as ... a land battle in the mountains ... the two-month land campaign". and "The total number of Allied troops in the campaign—in and around Narvik—reached 24,500 men.[45]" There are additional uses of the term. Of course, as Keith pointed out, wiki is not a RS. As Google Books have pointed out, the term "campaign" is in usage albeit a limited one it would seem.
 * So, we have discussed to death if wiki is a source, if sources say if Narvik was a battle or a campaign, but have we actually provided sources for the actual point initially raised? Dr K has attempted to resolve this on the actual article, but if we are going to call sources weak then the one he has used is for sure a weak source on the subject.
 * No judgement on the sources, but the following all makes claims for the "first": source 1 says the fighting in Greece, allied land victory second world war&f=false Source 2 says Op Compass, Source 3 says its was in 1942, source 4 says Op Compass, Source 5 says Greece.
 * Again, as with other discussions lately: sources and consensus is required.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, sources and consensus are required. That the Greek campaign was the first successful allied land campaign was there for a long time, so if you want to change it, the onus is on you to obtain consensus.  And last time I checked the Narvik land battle ended with a German victory.  Nice try though. Athenean (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is beyond you to look above, where a quick google search showed that it is a contentious issue. I wasn't arguing about Narvik, but since you end your point with it...the Italians and Germans won here too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And a source was provided . There is nothing "weak" about it.  It is published by Oxford University Press, and fully meets the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.  If you feel the source is "weak", you are welcome to ask an advisory opinion at WP:RSN.  Athenean (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A footnote in a book on terrorism that is only mildly relevant to the article is pushing the boundaries of the wiki guidelines. In fact, if you had bothered to look, some of the sources cited above are much stronger sources for the point (although, as also noted there are also contenders for the title). Consensus of sources is required, ones that cover the subject (not just in passing) and especially not consensus of pride.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I expected: Narvik was NOWHERE claimed as first Allied victory. So we have 3 sources about Greek victory (Source #1 and Source #5 + professor from Oxford Source, [which for some is dusputable]), 2 sources about Operation Compass (Source #2 and Source #4) but zero sources about Narvik victory, and the source #3 takes place much much later chronologically than the Greek War and the Operation Compass - at year 1942, which makes it unlikely to be the very first victory. So it is between the Greek war and an operation in Egypt and Cyrenaica codenamed Compass. Now lets compare the Greek War and Operation Compass: The Greeks completed the repulsion of the invading Axis forces from Allied territory successfully by middle December 1940 already (the Italians then retreated to the Axis territories to the northwest and didn't manage to make any advances against the Allies anymore), while the Operation Compass recorded successes between December 1940 to February 1941, when Axis were driven out from the Eastern Sahara region by the Allied forces. The one at Greece was successful around middle December while the other, at Sahara was successful between December and January. Am I missing something? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than you appear to be angling towards declaring a victor on the grounds of date, nope. I think more sources should be consulted to establish what the consensus is among historians (since the above took like 30 seconds to compile), followed by careful wording in the article acknowledging (since I suspect the fighting in Greece will be the consensus) that some historians look to other battlefields (perhaps in a note).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All we've achieved is a demonstration that there is no consensus among historians so that rules out Indecisive and brings us inevitably back to See Aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the historians agree on these 4 facts about the Greek-Italian war: 1) Stopping Invasion, 2) Pushing Back Invaders, 3) Loss of Italian-controlled Albanian territory to the Greeks, 4) Stabilization of front line of the war far behind from where it begun.
 * More precisely the scholars agree that: 1) the war broke when Italy invaded Greece through Albania. 2) the Greeks managed to overturn the invasion and drive all the Italian troops out of the Greek soil and back into Albania. 3) The war front was moved from Greece to Albania, and the Greek troops, not only managed to keep the Axis out of Greek soil for the entire rest of this war, but also brought about 30% of the territory of Axis-controlled Albania, then an Italian protectorate, under Allied control. 4) Eventually, the Italians managed to stabilize their front on Albanian soil but this doesn't negate their defeats and losses, nor the success of the Greeks against their invaders, nor makes this as "indecisive" as you are insisting so effortlessly. The primary goal of the Greek efforts in this war was just to defend their homeland and not let anyone touch it. The goal of the Greeks wasn't to defeat the Axis powers or to invade Italy or even overthrow Mussolini from power. The Greeks were successful and you know that. The Italian side failed in its offensive goals which was to conquer Greece, and the Greek side accomplished its defensive goals which was to keep invaders out of Greek soil. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 16:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my formulation:
 * is a good compromise. Note that I changed the description from "was" to "has been described" as it clearly was in the reliable source by Oxford University Press. This passage and the reliable source supporting it should not be removed by edit-warring. If someone doubts the reliability of the source they can go to WP:RSN as suggested earlier. Further, if you want to add other interpretations please feel free to do so, but this description should not be removed as it is more complex than simply which was the first victory etc. but also talks about raising morale in occupied Europe, which is an important point and should be mentioned at the article.  Dr.   K.  16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good compromise and I voice my support for it. I don't see any problem about this from my part. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The repulse [defeat (the Italians weren't defeated, their offensive was, the war went on)] of the Italian invasion and the [ensuing (counter-offensives have to ensue)] Greek counter-offensive have been called [by (add the surnames of the 2-3 most eminent historians that write this)] the first successful Allied land campaign against the Axis powers, which helped raise morale in Allied Europe. this version avoids WP:WEASEL Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I bolded Dr.K.'s proposal and I de-bolded the notes from Keith-264's proposal. This could improve readability of the final text proposed by Dr.K. and Keith-264 for the other users. I hope this helps. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 16:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Athenean (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Silent. By naming 2-3 historians, I think report rather than assert and don't go over the top for an entry in the lead, which should be brief. Those who disagree on fact are accommodated by the wording and can put some detail why in the Analysis section if necessary. I didn't reject the principle Dr K, I questioned some of the wording. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the clarification. Your wording is very good. Dr.   K.  17:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work SR. I agree with Keith's formulation. Dr.   K.  17:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, you're not so bad yourself. Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you also Keith. Best regards. Dr.   K.  17:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the WP:WEASEL which was not very familiar to me. I think Keith-264 got a point here, and thus, I am supporting Keith's formula too. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  ( talk ) 17:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source will support the morale boast? Uspzor (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The morale "boast"?? Athenean (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dont be obtuse, it is quite clear what he means. Not to mention, I had this concern too although I was going to voice it later after looking through the article again.
 * In regards to the proposed edit to the less, it should be obvious that it should be reflected in the main body of the text. I argue that a note should be included to highlight that there is a difference of opinion per the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, or did you forget what it means too? Pls, don't make me write another topic just to remind you. Uspzor (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The only ones being "obtuse" are those asking for the source, and pretending they haven't seen it, even though I gave a link in my previous post on this thread. Who do you think you are? Athenean (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Analysis
Had a look to see if it shed any light on the "first Allied victory" question but found only references to the Italian failures. The first four lines of the section are a copy from the lead (complete with bold words too) which seems a bit odd. I would have deleted it but we're blocked for the moment. Perhaps we should revise the Analysis to add the Greek and global perspective first?Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, it largely needs to be rewritten. The repetition of the first four lines of the lede must have been an unintended consequence of the recent events. Athenean (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've just been poring over Porch but he's another discursive writer and doesn't sum up the Greek war effort against Italy in the way we need. Are there enough writers who are RS to call the Greek victory view a school of thought? Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent Analysis edits
Weinberg is a tertiary source (a textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources) and a lousy one at that. If anyone wants to contradict Enigma's edits they need to discuss it here, [not make peremptory edits]. The article is quite eloquent on the structural problems of the Italian army in the late 30s and Weinberg wrote piffle.Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "The long fight against the Italians had exhausted the Greek armies and drained the national resources. The political framework had begun to crack." Playfair, Vol II, pp. 83–84. Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stockings, Swastika over the Acropolis, p. 45 further reinforces this point. Should be available on GoogleBooks for the editors.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The analysis section in general is clearly one-sided: why the Italians were defeated? (or why they were unsuccessful, since "defeat" is a taboo word here), which the consequences of this Italian failure/disaster? etc. Needless to say that this section ignores the other side. A reader may also imagine that Italians were the only participants of this conflict, based on this section exclusively, because the entire analysis is based on them. I also wonder why a correct heading was removed about this part.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the significance of the defeats that did occur that is disputed. The Italian invasion ended in defeat since they got kicked out of Greece, the spring offensive was defeated and the Greek counter-offensive succeeded in liberating Greek territory and occupying 1/3 of Albania but didn't succeed in forcing the Italians to end the war. By the time of the German invasion, the Greeks had stripped the national defences to reinforce the Albanian front and compromised the national independence by relying on the British to fill the gap in the east. The Greek success can't be called decisive because it didn't have political consequences. This isn't to denigrate the Greek achievement but to describe it; tactically the Greeks won, operationally they won but strategically they hadn't won, when the Italo-Greek war was overtaken by events. Keith-264 (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern about the Analysis section is that the current version deals with the Italian side only: Why they were defeated, who is to blame, army leadership? the impact on Italian Fascism, on Italian foreign policy, on Italian war ambitions etc, etc. I suggest the addition of similar information for the other side too: how the Italian invasion was received by the Greek leadership/people, impact on Greek morale, British reaction for the Italian disaster.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that the Greek side was unrepresented on this section. But now that you mention it... I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned on the article. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  02:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An imbalance like this is usually due to the writer lacking sources; if we can remedy that, then sticking a name or two in the last para of the lead will be easy. Cyril Falls was one of the British official historians (he wrote the Macedonia volumes among others), a noted writer on military affairs and became the "Chichele Professor of Military History at All Souls, Oxford University from 1946 to 1953". Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased lead: 2nd paragraph
It's obvious that the 2nd lead paragraph should not be part of this article. In fact the background information about the war should provide a very brief summary about "both" Italian and Greek preparations and not about the strategic moves of Italy during World War II... in the Balkans, Mediterrennean, Italian-German policy and Italian-British conflicts. It would be a good addition for the lead in "Italy during World War II" though. On the other hand the 3rd lead paragraph should be expanded since it concerns the core events of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's obvious, since it puts Mussolini's strategy qua Greece into the context of his war strategy per se.

[A sentence or two here about Italian imperial aspirations and Mussolini's intentions towards Greece, Greek policy of maintaining its independence] The Italian invasion of Albania had been ordered by Benito Mussolini in the spring of 1939. Mussolini declared war on the Allies on 10 June 1940 and attacked France, British Somaliland and invaded Egypt, then invaded Greece. [A sentence or two here about the importance of conquering Greece and the military effect it would have on the wider war, importance of speed, British involvement]

how about something like this? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be fine. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on the above example, I believe a balanced 2nd lead paragraph will be:

"The Italian invasion of Albania had been ordered by Benito Mussolini in the spring of 1939. Mussolini declared war on the Allies on 10 June 1940 and attacked France, British Somaliland and invaded Egypt. Then, as part of his imperial ambitions, turned his attention to Greece. The latter began making defensive preparations for an Italian attack. Moreover, Greek leader Ioannis Metaxas wisely rejected a premature dispatch of token British forces, which would precipitate a German intervention. Meanwhile, Greek-Italian tensions mounted as a result of a continued anti-Greek campaign in the Italian press, combined with provocative Italian actions which culminated with the sinking of the Greek light cruiser Elli." Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

¨✅ with the proposal. Looks good to me. Cuts down on the current bloat. Athenean (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Italian invasion of Albania had been ordered by Benito Mussolini in the spring of 1939. Mussolini then declared war on the Allies on 10 June 1940 and invaded France, British Somaliland and Egypt by September. Greece had begun defensive preparations against an Italian attack but the Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas rejected the offer of British forces, because were insufficient to defeat a German invasion but enough to provoke one. Greek-Italian relations continued to deteriorate, with an anti-Greek campaign in the Italian press and other Italian provocations, which culminated in the sinking of the Greek light cruiser Elli on 15 August 1940."

a slimmer version. Keith-264 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

✅. I feel ashamed for not seeing the problem sooner, given how frequently I was visiting this article in the past. Your proposals look good. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  10:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ;o) I bet you aren't blushing as much as me....Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... maybe, a bit... :-) . -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  18:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an agreement then.Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Analysis copyedit
The Italian campaign was poorly prepared and Mussolini's "quick and relatively easy victory" turned to defeat and stalemate, which exposed the incompetence of Fascist government and its war machine. Italian soldiers suffered great hardship in the Albanian mountains, "due to the incompetence and unforgivably bad planning of their leaders". The Italian army fought in difficult terrain, short of clothing and equipment, with units being split up as they arrived. Paoletti criticised Mussolini for "criminal improvidence", in causing the great number casualties of the Italian army. [clearly the Greeks had something to do with this too] The German invasion "went smoothly, because the Greek army was concentrated against the Italians".

Sadkovich wrote in 1993 that the effect of the Italo-Greek war had been exaggerated by other authors, because Axis victories in the spring of 1941 cancelled the Italian defeats of the previous winter. During the war against Greece, the quantity of soldiers, merchant ships, escort vessels and weapons which Italy allocated to the Greek front was much greater than those for the invasion of Egypt. In 1995, Gann and Duignan wrote that the fighting in France, Yugoslavia and Greece reduced Italy to the status of a [German] satellite. According to Kershaw in 2007, Italian aspirations to great power status were ended by the Greek failure, the Battle of Taranto (11–12 November 1940) and the loss of Cyrenaica (9 December 1940 – 9 February 1941).

Did this to prune the existing text, clearly the Greek side is missing and needs to be represented. Thoughts? Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good pruning, and yes, the current analysis section is exclusively focused on the Italians, with almost nothing on the Greek side. Also missing are evaluations of the impact of the Greco-Italian war on WW 2 as a whole.  For example I distinctly remember reading in Keegan that the German intervention delayed the start of Operation Barbarossa (and I believe there are others that dispute this). Athenean (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the first para contains tactical detail and strategic consequences are in the second but they are only half what's needed because the Greeks are missing. It used to be a commonplace in Anglo-centric writing but these days, I think there is consensus that it was the late spring in Poland that determined the start of Barbarossa. I don't think it would be wrong to mention that in the past the delay was considered to be caused by Greek-British resistance and I have seen recent writing which doesn't discount entirely the delay thesis, particularly on the preparations of Army Group South. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead: First Allied Victory

 * Proposed lead edit from Dr K

The defeat [repulse] of the Italians and the [ensuing] Greek counter-offensive have been called [by (add the surnames of the 2-3 most eminent historians that write this)] the first successful Allied land campaign against the Axis powers and that it helped raise morale in Allied Europe. I'm not sure about the source though, are there more eminent ones? The British OH describes the Greek war effort as being in decline. Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse with one caveat. This is a WP:BLUESKY type situation.  The repulsion of the Italian invasion and ensuing counter-offensive are the first successful Allied land campaign by virtue of the fact that there were no other successful Allied land campaigns prior to that (please don't mention Narvik, the Germans won on land in Narvik).  Prestigious historian, as such scholars do not spend their time writing the obvious, so asking for surnames of eminent historians is a non-starter.  It's like asking for the names of 2-3 eminent astronomers that the Earth is spherical or revolves around the sun.Athenean (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A Keith's proposal that takes in account Athenean's notes, can be a very good ground for an everlasting solution to this issue. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  16:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

On 12 April, the Greek army retreated from Albania to avoid being cut off by the rapid German advance and on 20 April, the Greek Epirus Army Section surrendered to the Germans. On 23 April, the armistice with Germany was repeated with the Italians, ending the Greco-Italian war. By the end of April, the Axis occupation of Greece had been completed by Italian, German and Bulgarian forces, with Italy occupying nearly two thirds of the country. The repulse of the Italian invasion and the Greek counter-offensive [in 1940] have been called [by (add the surnames of the 2-3 (or 1-2) most eminent historians that write this)] the first Allied land [victory] against the Axis powers and helped to raise morale in Allied Europe.
 * Last para of lead

How about this? Does the article have this [the bold bit] and appropriate citations? Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No but it can be added. Which 2-3 historians though? Athenean (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, If you could only mention one, who would you choose? Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware off, it is not only 2-3 historians. it is more than 2 or 3 historians calling it the first allied victory. The problem for me is the following: under which criteria we choose the historians? Why the X historian's name is there but not the Y historian's one as well? Just, I can't help but have a bad feeling this is going to turn into a competition over which historian is more prominent or reliable than the others or whatever. A debate like that can be counter-productive to the article. We will have to find a better solution than this. How about: we cite the sources in which these historians describe the event? For example, sources instead of names, allows us to cite more than 2-3 historians at a time, without cluttering the lead with lists of names. What do you think? Isn't that a better solution for the lead? I mean, this way, the phrase retains its meaning, and at same time it is cited with all the necessary sources from the historians, and all this is accomplished without cluttering the lead with names, without distracting the readers more than needed, and this solution helps keeping the lead compact. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  01:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of the sources that you know, which closest fits the criterion of a Secondary source? If we lead it bald, we'll get added to it under WP:Weasel. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, among the authors/historians that claimed this first victory, the first one appears to be Cyril Falls, (7 December 1940):

"Whatever this war may set on our country we must never forget the new debt which we owe to Greece. She is the first nation to inflict a defeat upon the ground forces of an Axis Power, and the very fact of her resistance to an attack has afforded us new opportunities at sea and in the air.[]Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)"


 * I also noticed that some British politicians made similar statements during December 1940, such as H. Morisson.Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the earlier comment in regards to adding a note to the main text, I believe the source Athenean recently added to the article should help to explain to readers why there are additional competitors. A small note that paraphrases or quotes the below, followed by a short comment that some look to Compass or el Alamein would help to ensure complete coverage (i.e. B2 on the review list). Comments? Objections?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Peter Ewer. Forgotten ANZACS: the campaign in Greece, 1941. Royal United Services Institute of New South Wales. p. 2: "Within weeks, the Italian army was in tatters, and the Greeks gave the Allied cause its first substantial victory on land in World War II, an achievement that has never received the recognition it deserves."


 * Mentioning Compass or El Alamein in the lede is too much detail. We can include that in the Aftermath section. For the lede how about we mention Cyril Falls and Peter Ewer? 06:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like the wider Italian strategy given a cursory mention for context.

On 12 April, the Greek army retreated from Albania to avoid being cut off by the rapid German advance and on 20 April, the Greek Epirus Army Section surrendered to the Germans. On 23 April, an armistice [does this have a name?] with Germany was duplicated with the Italians, ending the Greco-Italian war. By the end of the month, all of Greece had been occupied by Italian, German and Bulgarian forces, with Italy taking over nearly two thirds of the country. The repulse of the Italian invasion and the Greek counter-offensive in 1940 helped to raise morale in Allied Europe and have been called by historians like Cyril Falls and Peter Ewer, the first Allied land victory against the Axis powers of World War II.

OK? Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am not suggesting it should go in the lede, father this note would in the main body were this info would be duplicated and referenced.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would, to avoid Weasel.Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Two considerations: 1st I would drop the "like" cause it's too much of a generalization. 2nd that source speaked of "occupied" europe, not "allied". Uspzor (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's due to mention the tripartite Italian-German-Bulgarian in this article, let alone the lead. That is clearly beyond the scope of the article.  In fact the whole "Triple occupation" paragraph in the "Aftermath" section" should go (it was added by AnnalesSchool in the first place). Athenean (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's room for it as part of the aftermath; didn't we prune it extensively a while back when Annales's interpolations were being removed from lots of articles? That the Italians took over most of the country as an occupation army seems valid to me. I've nicked the section from Greece as it's more descriptive, see what you think. Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, something of these lines could go in the analysis plus the map, once it's been revised to put the Greeks back in, it's far too parochial about Italy as it stands. Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In the "Aftermath" perhaps, but not the lede. Athenean (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the current lede can be removed entirely. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I made an integrated proposal for the lede at the bottom of the talkpage. I removed the last paragraph since there is next to nothing in the article about that, and added the sentence we seem to have agreed on regarding the "first Allied victory". Athenean (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Headers
Why is there
 * 4.3 End of the Greek offensive and the Italian Spring Offensive (6 January – 6 April 1941) and
 * 4.3.2 Italian Spring Offensive?

wouldn't it be better to separate them to
 * 4.3 End of the Greek offensive
 * 4.3.2 Italian Spring Offensive? Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is strange it is repeated. This needs to be corrected. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  03:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Outcome of the war
I attempted assuming good faith, but as has accused of me of pretty much lying and disruptive editing here on the talkpage, allow me to spell it out for him:


 * Stalemate


 * Some form of Greek victory


 * Strictly talking about the Italian invasion, the Greek counterattacks, but not the overall war so not relevant in sourcing the outcome of the war

Unless someone has a better way of displaying this info in a table, this will have to do for now. I will also add additional sources, brought up here and found elsewhere, as they crop up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets pick up your quotes, one by one:

This does not mention of the Greek advances that occurred in Albania BEFORE a statement has been reached. Again this was after the Greek advances in Albania. Same as above. Same as above. This source conflicts with the other sources which confirmed the Greeks taking over 25% of Ablania's territory before frontline of the war was stabilized. So, the source claiming the front line to be on the Greek-Albanian border when the Greeks have gained territories inside Albania, makes no sense. This does not say that the Greeks didn't make advances in Albania. This again does not say that the Greeks didn't had any advances on Albanian soil. Same as above. Note how this sources confirm that the Italian line is NOT on Greek-Albanian borders, but into Albania, due to the Greek advances.
 * '"...the fall and subsequent occupation of most of Greece ended a costly and embarrassing statement in Albania...".''
 * "By mid-December, both sides had reached a stalemate..."
 * "... on 29 January 1941 the Greek government agreed to accept British land forces in an effort to the break the stalemate in Albania."
 * "The New Year of 1941 found a situation of stalemate fast developing along the front line. ... The Greeks were practically exhausted by the tremendous exertions of their autumn counter-attacks ..."
 * "The Greek Army had managed to hold off the Italian offensive into the country ... . A stalemate had been created along the Greek border ... and it remained as such until the German intervention..."
 * "Heavy winter and exhaustion produce a stalemate"
 * "After modest initial Italian successes, however, the Greek Army forced the Italians back onto Albanian soil, until by December the fighting had degenerated into a stalemate."
 * "There a stalemate ensued throughout the winter."
 * "The invasion ... ended in the Italians' humiliating defeat ... the Greeks had pushed the Italian line back into Albania ... The Italians at this point were able to stablize their line ... reached a stalemate."


 * Like how I have explained but you are refusing to see, the Greeks have made advances in the war (note: these advances were achieved after the repulsion of the invasion - the stalemate did not happen outright at the Greek-Albanian border as you got the impression here) Turning a deaf ear to the facts, does not help your arguments, no matter how many sources you cite with the word stalemate. The Greeks took over 30% of the italian protectorate and that that was before the Italian line was stabilized. So with simple words, according to the sources:


 * 1) The stalemate didn't happen outright after the repulsion the invasion. Otherwise it could be a true stalemate (No Greek gains or losses, and no Italian gains or losses).
 * 2) The stalemate was reached the moment the Italian line was stabilized, but AFTER the Italians endured one defeat after another and the Greeks taking over 30% of Albania's total territory under their control, but couldn't get more than this.
 * 3) The stalemate was not due the Italians regaining what the lost in the war. The Greek gains in the war were not recovered by the Italians at no point during the war. The Italians were unable to restore their control over the entirety of Albania since then.
 * 4) The stalemate is about the frontline not moving towards or backwards each side. The stalemate is not about the gains and losses each side endured/achieved during the war.


 * Again you are seeing a word but you are losing the full picture of the war. You are googling or CTRL+F the word stalemate, but you are turning a blind eye on what occurred BEFORE this stalemate was reached. This is not the way to go. Be careful, because you are WP:Cherrypicking the sources to misrepresent what happened in the war, using a certain word as excuse.

My conclusion: 1) You do not have concrete and solid proof that the Greeks didn't make any advances against the Italians on Albanian soil during the war. 2) You do not have any concrete and solid proof that the stalemate occured outright on the Greek-Albanian border to be declared a true stalemate for both sides. If you think you can pass this for a consensus, or change the established facts using these sources, then you are wrong. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No SilentResident, I am not cherrypicking (I wish I had not mentioned "Ctrl+F" now, as if you had read it in context it was to help you find the sources that had already been posted on this page prior to this table). I have been searching sources for what they describe the outcome of the fighting prior to the German intervention. The same accusation of cherrypicking can be said of you (and others), since you appear to only be accepting sources that define the fighting as a victory for the Greeks and drawing your own conclusions.
 * I note you have set up several straw man arguments: 1) the lack of mention of the Greek advances nullifying the information. This is kind of the point, overly focusing on the failed Italian invasion and the success of the Greek counterattack overlooks that the overall campaign had bogged down - per the sources - in a stalemate before the end. A stalemate that was only broken by the German intervention, resulting in the overall Greek defeat (the latter being outside the main scope of this article). 2) The repeated assertion that the front lines were not on the Greek-Albanian border, and therefore do not qualify as a stalemate. I would note, for example, that the term "stalemate" is used quite liberally in discussing the Western Front of the First World War, where the lines were deep inside French territory. A stalemate does not have to be on the border nor does the term have to meet the definition you subscribe to (which is irrelevant, as your definition is not a RS). It could have been on the gates of Rome, and have still been a stalemate as long as the sources say so.
 * Your conclusions, your summaries of events, etc, are meaningless. The majority of sources thus far, on the outcome of the war (not the invasion, nor the Greek counterattacks) prior to German intervention is that the fighting had reached a stalemate (with some sources expanding on this theme into economic, material, and political arenas). Thus far, the consensus of sources (and I will continue my search on a non-bias basis) is that stalemate had been reached. Just because you do not like it ("If you think you can pass this for a consensus, or change the established facts using these sources, then you are wrong"), does not change the simple fact that we have to follow wiki guidelines, and thus far, the historical consensus is against your entrenched position. I would like to note that, tomorrow if I manage to find a treasure trove of sources that state the Greeks won a decisive victory, or the Italians conducted a skillful strategic withdrawal to lure in the Greeks to sneakily wipe them out, or that aliens won the whole thing; they you will see my position shift with what the sources say - per wiki policy not my personal opinion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With simple words, you are insisting that the events that preceded a stalemate, are insignificant and do not count for the war's aftermath because of a stalemate? Are you saying that even if the Greeks took over the entire Italian peninsula except capital Rome, somehow negates this success in the war? And baptises their successful campaign a stalemate despite anything else in that war? Seriously, how do you expect this to make any sense? It worries me how, under this logic, a big chunk of world's war history, from ancient times to modern times, will possibly have to be re-considered. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  02:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What is worrying is that you further employ misrepresentation and straw man arguments as a counter, rather than follow wiki guidelines.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus among the sources that it was a stalemate. Sadkovich is extremely POV, and two of the stalemate sources are very weak (McGrew and Marder).  Ditto Swanston.  The mere fact that he says the stalemate was along the Greek border disqualifies him, as that is way off the mark.  So dismissing weak and dubious sources, we're at 6-12 in favor of a Greek victory (you forgot to include Kassimeris, and your distinction between the conclusion of the war in totality and the Greek counterattack is meaningless - the war consisted of an Italian attack and a Greek counterattack, and nothing more).  Athenean (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If there was nothing other than the Greek counter, I suggest you issue a request to delete the whole section of the article that states otherwise.
 * Focusing on sources that detail just components of the whole, and presenting them as the gospel is not history; it is deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. The consensus, thus far, of sources is that the greater context of the war was a stalemate. If you think differently, you should be able to find sources that state so; not sources, as you have provided thus far, which fo us on the failed Italian invasion or just the counterattack. A source that does not fall in general terms, but provides context and analysis on how the war was won (since that was the jist of your editing to the article).
 * To note, I will add missed sources (and more sources) to the table when I have access to a laptop again. As for ignoring sour es you don't like (sadkovich) also flies against policy. His work is focused on the conflict, and as long as it is treated with care and no undue weight if is a perfectly RS.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of my sources are Anglocentric so tend to describe events in Greece and Albania as peripheral matters but Playfair I has some detail on the effect of the war in Albania dragging on, that both sides made sacrifices elsewhere and both were finding that the strain was undermining their armies and economies. The Greeks had stripped the defences in the east to send 13 divisions to the Albanian front and the Italians had given the front priority over North Africa. I don't think that anyone disputes the achievement of the Greek army in occupying 1/3 of Albania, only what was going to come next. The British and German interventions made the Italo-Greek war part of a bigger conflict so it's obviously difficult to come to a conclusion. Playfair writes that the Italian invasion was based on the assumption that there would be little resistance and that the speed by which the Greeks turned to the counter-offensive was another nasty surprise.pp.228-235 The counter-offensive failed to capture Tepelene and by January 1941, the possibility of a German invasion increased and this would make the Greek position "desperate", the weather caused great hardship and there were many frostbite casualties, clothes and boots were short as were vehicles and pack animals and there was only two months' artillery ammunition left. (Playfair stresses that the Greek army was equipped with French and German arms, for which the British had little ammunition and such French ammunition available in the US had already been sent or was en route. All the British could do was pass on captured Italian stocks from Libya.) pp.333-335 To release troops for the eastern front, the Greeks tried to capture Valona in mid-February but the weather deteriorated again and Tepelene was not captured and signs of an Italian attack in the centre, ended the prospect of a return to the offensive. p.337 Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the translation of Cervi but he's such a discursive writer that it's difficult to find statements but on p.258 he wrote "It had been clear both to the Greeks and to the British in February that only minor movements were going to take place on the Albanian front.... To the Greeks it was a matter of understandable pride to have fought unaided in Albania but they had denuded their other frontiers. The German threat was faced by a void."Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stalemate 1. A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock.


 * a contest, dispute, competition, etc., in which neither side can gain an advantage or win.
 * 1.1 A situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible: the war had again reached stalemate.

How about a brief description of the success of the Greek counter-offensive/counter-invasion, that a strategic stalemate followed and was then overtaken by the British-German interventions? This formulation can accommodate a desire to emphasis Greek success and the effect it had on world opinion without implying that the war with Italy had been won? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith, your proposal is a very balanced one. It takes in account the vast majority of the sources and gives a brief mention of the success and the stalemate that has followed it. This is a fair and nice compromise between the "victory" or "link to aftermath" proposals. You have my support on this. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  16:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a reasonable summary of the situation. I appreciate Alexikoua comments, he is quite right that the fighting did not end with the winter, although I feel that some (clearly not all) of the sources support the notion in your position Keith.
 * Not to mention, i feel that this heavy debate clearly reinforces the point that the infobox should just link to the aftermath/Anyalsis section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith's proposal is a very good idea here. I ✅ with it since it takes in account all the sources, regardless, both the victory ones and the stalemate ones, and I believe a consensus can be reached on this. A brief mention of the success and the stalemate that has followed it, is a nice proposal and I don't have any problem with this from my part. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  16:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I also ✅ with Keith's proposal. Athenean (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * So are we good with something along these lines for the infobox then: "Defeat of Italian invasion; Greek counterattack; Stalemate; German invasion of Greece"? Athenean (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is a description of events, not a result. The only things I think will go are 'inconclusive' or 'see Aftermath section'.Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith, I am sorry but I looked extensively these days on other WWII articles and guess what? NONE of them ever had the "See Aftermath" in their infoboxes. None! I have not seen even a single World War II article avoiding to mention the result of an ongoing conflict. If you look at any other WWII articles, you won't see any of them using the phrase "See Aftermath".
 * In WWII, we had many battles and war fronts in Europe that resulted in very complicated results that were not followed by treaties, but by more wars and more battles. We have all kinds of results - from defeats and failures to retreats and occupations, and yet, NONE of them uses a "See Aftermath" instead of key results, no matter how complicated they were...
 * Keith, it is true that the Greek-Italian war had some complications. None ever disputes this. Indeed, the particular war was followed by another war. But still, this does not negate by itself the results this war has brought to the rivaling parties and the rest of the region. The results of the wars have to be mentioned, regardless if you see them as simple or complicated, as ongoing or end with treaties. The infoboxes in every other article about WWII's battles, campaigns, operations and wars, always includes a brief summary of key results, regardless of how simple or complicated the war aftermaths were, and the Greek-Italian war can not be exception to this. If an war is complicated, as is the case of the Greek-Italian war, then. still, we pick up the most important of the results (Stalemate and German invasion) and have them mentioned on the infobox. If you are disputing this, then open up a new section and discuss about this. But until then, the Infobox's Results will have to be restored to the previous stable version or to an improved mention of the results. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  19:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's all ready stable and consistent with the infobox result criteria.


 * Siege of Lille (1940), Operation Retribution (1941), Operation Epsom, Battle of Villers-Bocage, Operation Pedestal, Battle of Bir Hakeim, Operation Goodwood, Italian invasion of France. That other articles are not written according to wikicriteria is no reason to copy their mistakes. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. A question. Could someone please point me to the Wikipedia article dedicated to Infobox Result rules? I checked the Manual of Style Infobox but it has no clear answer to this. I could really need to check this, as it is now troubling how some articles have results mentioned while some other articles do not. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "Defeat of Italian invasion; Greek counterattack; Stalemate; German invasion of Greece"? It informs the reader of the result in succinct fashion which is the point of the infobox in the first place.  What's the point of having an infobox if all you're going to have is "see aftermath"? Athenean (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2016


 * It isn't a result, its a description of events; Template:Infobox military conflict see here.


 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, not every infobox has to have "X Victory", Decisive X Victory", or "inconclusive" as a result. Many infoboxes have Results fields exactly as I am proposing. Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700), [Caucasus Campaign], [Roman–Parthian War of 58–63], [Byzantine–Sasanian War of 572–591], and many others. The purpose of infoboxes is to inform. Athenean (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then they aren't coherent with WP criteria. In all fairness I didn't know that the criterion existed until a couple of years ago and I'm still finding articles where I made this mistake.Keith-264 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The current proposal does not provide the "outcome" of the war, it details the outcome of each section. Big difference, which has been discussed to death.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The outcome was the tripartite occupation of Greece, but I don't think you are willing to added it, are you? Uspzor (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That came after the German invasion. The Italo-Greek war became a prelude to this.Keith-264 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)