Talk:Greco-Italian War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Albanian involvement

The flag of occupied Albania is placed beside the Italian among the belligerent countries, yet no involvement of any Albanian forces is mentioned in the article... I have heard stories of Albanians being actually conscripted in the Italian divisions and deserting because they were unwilling to fight against the Greeks (who were fighting for their own freedom). It would be interesting to find some backing evidence for this.jonosphere (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania was not involved and I removed the flag. Kingdom of Italy was inclusive of the Albanian protectorate so the flag of Albania was just tendentious. --Sulmues _talk 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read this: Greco-Italian_War#Initial_Italian_Offensive_.2828_October_1940.C2.A0.E2.80.93_13_November_1940.29. There were at least 2 Albanian battalions during the first stage of the war. So, I see no reason why the Albanian flag is removed. Also see this [[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see also this disruptive edit [[2]], with the weird explanation that that this is done per most wwii articles, which is wrong: [[3]], [[4]] (also [[5]][[6]]). Hope this childish flag game will soon end since historical facts are quite clear. Since a protectorate participated in the war the flag is added in the box, as per the rest of wwii articles.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference link shows no results. Most references note that if there were Albanians in the attack they were there as volunteers not as conscripted soldiers or that they were conscripted as soldiers of the Italian army and not the Albanian one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Very kind of you removing the flag again. Let's see:

• the first argument [[7]](claiming that this happens in most wwii articles with protectorates) is virtually wrong.
• The second (lack of sources claiming participation of Albania): is also wrong. See:[[8]]... and the 49th Parma Division, with three Albanian battalions. Also [[9]] "at least two battalions of Albanian"... I bet I can find dozens of books claiming Albanian participation in the war.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Parma Division was a regiment of the Italian army, meaning that it's not part of Albanian army or the Albanian state. As long as the army of Albania didn't take part, adding Albania as a participant is a fallacy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a Military Division of country X (Italy), in which 2 battalions of country Y (Albania) participated. This means military of both countries (X, Y) participated in the war. Isn't it simple? Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the references for this claim? The source refers to the Parma Division part of the Italian army, as all of its battalions are part of the Italian army. There's nothing about troops of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See above, "the 49th Parma Division, with three Albanian battalions." Also, Albanian battalions means battalions of the Albanian army. It was not the first time in history that a Division consisted of battalions of more than one countries.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua can you answer me a simple question? Did the Kingdom of Italy include Albania in 1940 or not? Just answer me (and yourself) this question. Because if it did, than it was inclusive of Albania's puppet state in 1940. And if it was inclusive, you can't put Albania's puppet state flag in the infobox, because you are including Albania twice (first within the Kingdom of Italy, and then as a second state). Where am I losing you? And if you really are convinced that my reasoning is flawed, would you agree that I tag this article with Albania Task Force, and, in addition the article be renamed Greco-Albano-Italian war? --Sulmues _talk 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "Kingdom of Italy", did not include the Kingdom of Albania. Albania was simply in personal union with Italy, just like Hungary was in personal union with Austria in Austria-Hungary etc, and retained its own institutions. Now, of course Italy for all intents and purposes ran the country, but Albania was a belligerent, and Albanian formations did take part in the war (whether willingly or effectively is another question). Do not forget, Greece was still in a state of war with Albania until the 1980s. Why? Because Italy's declaration of war automatically ensured that Albania (as an Italian puppet) was drawn into it as well. Constantine ✍ 13:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also check this, about the political concept of Personal Union.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Constantine, your comparison between the Kaiserlich und königlich and the Italian invasion of Albania case is completely impertinent. And the personal union has nothing to do with either of them btw. Albania was an invaded country and did not have a king as Hungary had, but a ViceRe, an Italian noble (Iacomoni) who would represent Italy's crown in Albania. So there was only ONE CROWN to represent Albania and that crown lived in Turin, not in Tirana. Albania did not have a foreign ministry, had gotten out of the League of Nations in 1939 eccetera: It was NOT an independent country anymore. I don't know who told you that Albania was in personal union with Italy: Albania was INVADED by Italy. Now that Greece kept the state of war with Albania for 47 years, that was Greece's choice, not Albania's. It was Greece who kept the state of war with a country who was invaded when Italian troops went to Greece from there. If Greece wanted to be in war with Albania for so long was Greece choice. Albania never attacked Greece and did not exist as an independent country in 1939-1944 while it was invaded by first Italy and then Germany. In fundis, if you guys really think that Albania was in personal union with Italy and was in that union by choice, then do you allow me to add the Albanai TF tag here? I wasn't answered the first time. --Sulmues _talk 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, why do you read things into my statements that are not there? Did I say that the union was voluntary? I know Balkan history about as well as anyone here, thank you very much. Yes, Albania was invaded, yes, it was controlled by Italy (I think I wrote that quite clearly), but it was still regarded as a distinct country, with its own constitution (which named the King of Italy as King of Albania, i.e. personal union), flag, armed force, government, coinage and even a distinct Fascist Party. Empty formalities, yes, but present nevertheless as the trappings of a formally separate state. If you would prefer the comparison to the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia rather than Hungary inside A-H, fine, I was merely making a point about personal union above. Anyhow, as for Albania's participation in the war: [10] near the end of the page, [11] for the participation of units, etc. As for who is to "blame" for the state of war continuing until 1987, that is not the point of this article nor of this discussion. For the Albanian task force tag, since the campaign was largely carried out on Albanian soil, I would think it self-evident that it belongs here. You don't really have to ask for anyone to allow it :) Constantine ✍ 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I'll tag the page Albania and put it under the protection of the Albania Task Force. It concerns mainly the fact that Greece occupied Albania at that time. Not only but because of this war it enacted a law of war with Albania which it strangely kept till 1987. --Sulmues _talk 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I can't help but notice that you come here with a very determined and combative mentality. If you want your participation to this article to be without problems, I strongly urge you to shed that. This is not the place for nationalist tit-for-tats and grudges... Read the references above, the Albanian puppet government also declared war, and as for "occupying Albania", well, take that up with Mussolini, not Greece, please... Constantine ✍ 07:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Constantine, there are no grudges on my side here: I really thank you for your responses. Greece soldiers entered Albania during the Greco-Italian war while the Greek army was counteroffending (see here), therefore I entered Albania TF tag in the article. All your considerations on my participation to this article are purely of a personal nature and I don't think they have anything to do with the article. --Sulmues _talk 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Albanian involvement

The flag of occupied Albania is placed beside the Italian among the belligerent countries, yet no involvement of any Albanian forces is mentioned in the article... I have heard stories of Albanians being actually conscripted in the Italian divisions and deserting because they were unwilling to fight against the Greeks (who were fighting for their own freedom). It would be interesting to find some backing evidence for this.jonosphere (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania was not involved and I removed the flag. Kingdom of Italy was inclusive of the Albanian protectorate so the flag of Albania was just tendentious. --Sulmues _talk 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read this: Greco-Italian_War#Initial_Italian_Offensive_.2828_October_1940.C2.A0.E2.80.93_13_November_1940.29. There were at least 2 Albanian battalions during the first stage of the war. So, I see no reason why the Albanian flag is removed. Also see this [[12]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see also this disruptive edit [[13]], with the weird explanation that that this is done per most wwii articles, which is wrong: [[14]], [[15]] (also [[16]][[17]]). Hope this childish flag game will soon end since historical facts are quite clear. Since a protectorate participated in the war the flag is added in the box, as per the rest of wwii articles.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference link shows no results. Most references note that if there were Albanians in the attack they were there as volunteers not as conscripted soldiers or that they were conscripted as soldiers of the Italian army and not the Albanian one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Very kind of you removing the flag again. Let's see:

• the first argument [[18]](claiming that this happens in most wwii articles with protectorates) is virtually wrong.
• The second (lack of sources claiming participation of Albania): is also wrong. See:[[19]]... and the 49th Parma Division, with three Albanian battalions. Also [[20]] "at least two battalions of Albanian"... I bet I can find dozens of books claiming Albanian participation in the war.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Parma Division was a regiment of the Italian army, meaning that it's not part of Albanian army or the Albanian state. As long as the army of Albania didn't take part, adding Albania as a participant is a fallacy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a Military Division of country X (Italy), in which 2 battalions of country Y (Albania) participated. This means military of both countries (X, Y) participated in the war. Isn't it simple? Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the references for this claim? The source refers to the Parma Division part of the Italian army, as all of its battalions are part of the Italian army. There's nothing about troops of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See above, "the 49th Parma Division, with three Albanian battalions." Also, Albanian battalions means battalions of the Albanian army. It was not the first time in history that a Division consisted of battalions of more than one countries.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua can you answer me a simple question? Did the Kingdom of Italy include Albania in 1940 or not? Just answer me (and yourself) this question. Because if it did, than it was inclusive of Albania's puppet state in 1940. And if it was inclusive, you can't put Albania's puppet state flag in the infobox, because you are including Albania twice (first within the Kingdom of Italy, and then as a second state). Where am I losing you? And if you really are convinced that my reasoning is flawed, would you agree that I tag this article with Albania Task Force, and, in addition the article be renamed Greco-Albano-Italian war? --Sulmues _talk 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "Kingdom of Italy", did not include the Kingdom of Albania. Albania was simply in personal union with Italy, just like Hungary was in personal union with Austria in Austria-Hungary etc, and retained its own institutions. Now, of course Italy for all intents and purposes ran the country, but Albania was a belligerent, and Albanian formations did take part in the war (whether willingly or effectively is another question). Do not forget, Greece was still in a state of war with Albania until the 1980s. Why? Because Italy's declaration of war automatically ensured that Albania (as an Italian puppet) was drawn into it as well. Constantine ✍ 13:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also check this, about the political concept of Personal Union.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Constantine, your comparison between the Kaiserlich und königlich and the Italian invasion of Albania case is completely impertinent. And the personal union has nothing to do with either of them btw. Albania was an invaded country and did not have a king as Hungary had, but a ViceRe, an Italian noble (Iacomoni) who would represent Italy's crown in Albania. So there was only ONE CROWN to represent Albania and that crown lived in Turin, not in Tirana. Albania did not have a foreign ministry, had gotten out of the League of Nations in 1939 eccetera: It was NOT an independent country anymore. I don't know who told you that Albania was in personal union with Italy: Albania was INVADED by Italy. Now that Greece kept the state of war with Albania for 47 years, that was Greece's choice, not Albania's. It was Greece who kept the state of war with a country who was invaded when Italian troops went to Greece from there. If Greece wanted to be in war with Albania for so long was Greece choice. Albania never attacked Greece and did not exist as an independent country in 1939-1944 while it was invaded by first Italy and then Germany. In fundis, if you guys really think that Albania was in personal union with Italy and was in that union by choice, then do you allow me to add the Albanai TF tag here? I wasn't answered the first time. --Sulmues _talk 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, why do you read things into my statements that are not there? Did I say that the union was voluntary? I know Balkan history about as well as anyone here, thank you very much. Yes, Albania was invaded, yes, it was controlled by Italy (I think I wrote that quite clearly), but it was still regarded as a distinct country, with its own constitution (which named the King of Italy as King of Albania, i.e. personal union), flag, armed force, government, coinage and even a distinct Fascist Party. Empty formalities, yes, but present nevertheless as the trappings of a formally separate state. If you would prefer the comparison to the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia rather than Hungary inside A-H, fine, I was merely making a point about personal union above. Anyhow, as for Albania's participation in the war: [21] near the end of the page, [22] for the participation of units, etc. As for who is to "blame" for the state of war continuing until 1987, that is not the point of this article nor of this discussion. For the Albanian task force tag, since the campaign was largely carried out on Albanian soil, I would think it self-evident that it belongs here. You don't really have to ask for anyone to allow it :) Constantine ✍ 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I'll tag the page Albania and put it under the protection of the Albania Task Force. It concerns mainly the fact that Greece occupied Albania at that time. Not only but because of this war it enacted a law of war with Albania which it strangely kept till 1987. --Sulmues _talk 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I can't help but notice that you come here with a very determined and combative mentality. If you want your participation to this article to be without problems, I strongly urge you to shed that. This is not the place for nationalist tit-for-tats and grudges... Read the references above, the Albanian puppet government also declared war, and as for "occupying Albania", well, take that up with Mussolini, not Greece, please... Constantine ✍ 07:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Constantine, there are no grudges on my side here: I really thank you for your responses. Greece soldiers entered Albania during the Greco-Italian war while the Greek army was counteroffending (see here), therefore I entered Albania TF tag in the article. All your considerations on my participation to this article are purely of a personal nature and I don't think they have anything to do with the article. --Sulmues _talk 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Italians for picnic?

I don't know how this article is B-rated when it has unreferenced sentences like:

The unexpected Greek resistance caught the Italian High Command, which was expecting a 'military picnic,' by surprise

How a serious editor can write this sentence on Wikipedia I don't know: Did the editor ask the Italian High Command if they were expecting to go to a picnic? I removed the edit, but I was reverted by user:Athenean [23]. Please bring it to the talk page, otherwise that "picnic" term should go under Peacock. Thank you! --Sulmues _talk 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the above passage, but I don't have the patience to explain it to you. Edits such as these [24] are also a good example of how nationalist thinking can lead people to completely misunderstand things. This [25], in the meantime, is further clueless POV-based editing, again based on complete misundestanding of the English language. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since you don't have patience, I'll have to revert you. Regarding the other two edits:

• [26] I am clearly referring to the quote from Bauer: He is saying clearly that the Italian soldiers fought bravery even though the attack was ill-prepared. My edit is a very good one.
• [27]. My edit is very good because the article was claiming that Albania was effectively an Italian protectorate since 1912, when this is not true at all (see Battle of Vlora). --Sulmues _talk 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "Very good" at all, because all you did was insert weasel-wording based on your own national POV (e.g. replacing "population" with community. Please stop making disruptive edits like that. Athenean (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. You seem to think that because you "placed the article under the protection of the Albanian TF", that you can edit it however you want. I am not your tutor, I do not work for you, and I don't have to explain anything to you, especially things that are based on your poor grasp of English and that you probably wouldn't understand even if I did explain. Athenean (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

None of your above edits [28] or [29], not to mention the first response that you gave me, regard the "picnic" word in the article. This article was put into protection because you "don't have the patience" to talk in the talk page [30]. You should also consider striking these comments which would fall under wp:civilty break rules. --Sulmues _talk 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article was protected because of your revert-warring, as was Burrel (3R by you in less than 24 hours). As for civility, this [31] is not very civil (and I don't need to remind you that you are still under civility supervision). Then on top that, you ask for your Kosovo topic ban to be lifted (at the wrong place no less). I could tell you where you should post if you want the topic ban lifted, but like I said, it's not my job to explain things to you. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Athenean you have made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours while Sulmues has made 2. It takes 2 or more users to edit-war.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to go back read some more on what a revert is. Athenean (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Casualties and losses sneaky tweak

There has been a succesfull attempt to change casualties and losses contrary to the numbers the sources give (Rodogno, Cervi, Irving...) since this edit. Check the sources. 193.92.241.63 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The official numbers given in the book "L'esercito Italiano nella campagna di Grecia" edited by the historical office of the Italian Army are: "13,755 dead, 50,874 wounded, 25,067 missing, 52,108 sick and 12,368 incapacitated by frostbite", the same numbers are reported by Mario Cervi in his book "Storia della guerra di Grecia" in a 2005 edition and are used also by Giorgio Rochat in "Le Guerre Italiane 1935-1943". In this last book there is also an important clarification on the missing number: "Il problema maggiore sono i dispersi. Fino a ieri credevamo che fossero quasi tutti caduti, un recente ritrovamento archivistico ci dice invece che dopo l'armistizio vennero recuperati 21,153 prigionieri" (The biggest problem are the missing. Until yesterday we believed that they were almost all killed, a recent archival discovery tells us that after the armistice were rescued 21,153 prisoners).

Do you seriously believe that Fascist Italy reported the actual losses of the Greco-italian war? They changed their numbers after the fall of Mussolini. For example, in Russia they claimed ~3,000 dead, turned out at the end of the war the number was changed to 38,000 dead. Look at the Italian dead numbers they are a few hundred more to the Greek losses. They are absurd. These numbers are reported by the Fascist government, and have never changed unlike those numbers in every other Italian campaign in WWII that have been increased. The Italian casualties are definitely higher. I propose that before anything get changed number wise, for a serious search in the Italian casualties list by historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.182.94 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

These numbers are given by the Historical office of the army of the Italian Republic, in a 1999 book by Montanari and for me is a reliable source. For the 63,000 dead the sources are:

• Mario Cervi in a book of the 1972, but the same Mario Cervi in the same book (The Hollow Legions = Translation of Storia della guerra di Grecia) printed in 2005 use the numbers of the Historical office;
• Rodogno, but the main theme of his book are the occupations policies not the conflict, while Cervi and Montanari have as main theme the Greco-Italian war. Rochat's book have as main theme the wars of the Italian Army during the period 1935-1943; --SaturnoV (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Effect of the war on Barbarossa

The Military Insights section states: 'It has been argued that the Balkan Campaign decisively delayed the German invasion of Russia. For example, during the Nuremberg trials after WWII, Hitler's Chief of Staff Field Marshall Keitel stated that "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today". On the other hand, it may have been the Russian weather, not the contingencies of subsidiary campaigns, which determined Barbarossa’s launch date.'

Neither assertion is correct. German forces that participated in the Balkans campaigns had sufficient time to return home and refit before Barbarossa. In addition, the weather in the USSR did not delay the invasion. Neither of these factors show up in German high command documents relating to Barbarossa, despite Keitel's Nuremberg testimony after the war. Instead, the Germans embarked on a massive expansion of their armed forces in the autumn of 1941, expanding the number of divisions by half, so that they would have enough forces to simultaneously invade the USSR while occupying western Europe. It turned out that German industry was not able to produce sufficient equipment in time for these forces (even though the Germans used considerable amounts of captured weapons and vehicles), and this was the cause of the delay. Even as late as early June 1941, a number of the critically important panzer and motorized divisions had not received their equipment.

All this and more is covered in "The German attack on the USSR: the Destruction of a Legend," M. van Creveld, European Studies Review, Jan. 1972.

The assertion must be considered as correct as Germany never intended to have to deal with occupying Greece himself, the Greeks held out longer than any other nation had. The battle of Crete and the thousands of soldiers killed there as well as in mainland Greece meant that Hitler delayed his plans to invade Russia at least 3 months late. Given the history of Russia and its winter it cannot be denied that this was a vital and unanticipated campaign and is seen as many as a turning point in the war

• Not only resistance of Greece delayed German attack on USSR, but also rebel of Yugoslav freedom fighters. They did not accepted deal with Germany which was very good for Yugoslav state. That deal guaranteed that Yugoslavia will not help Germans in any way, not even letting them pass through Yugoslav territory. That led to invasion on 6. April 1941. Invasion was quick because of ultra nationalistic elements in that country that welcomed Germans. But rebel was very strong and that is only territory in Europe that is liberated by self. Also that was first free territory in WWII.

Most modern historians now accept that the Blakans campaign did not have any significant influence on the invasion of Russia, an idea that was once in vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Effect of the war on Barbarossa

The Military Insights section states: 'It has been argued that the Balkan Campaign decisively delayed the German invasion of Russia. For example, during the Nuremberg trials after WWII, Hitler's Chief of Staff Field Marshall Keitel stated that "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today". On the other hand, it may have been the Russian weather, not the contingencies of subsidiary campaigns, which determined Barbarossa’s launch date.'

Neither assertion is correct. German forces that participated in the Balkans campaigns had sufficient time to return home and refit before Barbarossa. In addition, the weather in the USSR did not delay the invasion. Neither of these factors show up in German high command documents relating to Barbarossa, despite Keitel's Nuremberg testimony after the war. Instead, the Germans embarked on a massive expansion of their armed forces in the autumn of 1941, expanding the number of divisions by half, so that they would have enough forces to simultaneously invade the USSR while occupying western Europe. It turned out that German industry was not able to produce sufficient equipment in time for these forces (even though the Germans used considerable amounts of captured weapons and vehicles), and this was the cause of the delay. Even as late as early June 1941, a number of the critically important panzer and motorized divisions had not received their equipment.

All this and more is covered in "The German attack on the USSR: the Destruction of a Legend," M. van Creveld, European Studies Review, Jan. 1972.

The assertion must be considered as correct as Germany never intended to have to deal with occupying Greece himself, the Greeks held out longer than any other nation had. The battle of Crete and the thousands of soldiers killed there as well as in mainland Greece meant that Hitler delayed his plans to invade Russia at least 3 months late. Given the history of Russia and its winter it cannot be denied that this was a vital and unanticipated campaign and is seen as many as a turning point in the war

• Not only resistance of Greece delayed German attack on USSR, but also rebel of Yugoslav freedom fighters. They did not accepted deal with Germany which was very good for Yugoslav state. That deal guaranteed that Yugoslavia will not help Germans in any way, not even letting them pass through Yugoslav territory. That led to invasion on 6. April 1941. Invasion was quick because of ultra nationalistic elements in that country that welcomed Germans. But rebel was very strong and that is only territory in Europe that is liberated by self. Also that was first free territory in WWII.

Most modern historians now accept that the Blakans campaign did not have any significant influence on the invasion of Russia, an idea that was once in vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Italian casualties

Noclador, please stop removing sourced facts. Both Irving and Cervi quote Mussolini.

Irving:

"Mussolini was livid. Italy, blustered the Duce, had been fighting with 500,000 men and lost 63,000 dead in her six months of war with Greece."

Cervi:

"Five hundred thousand men have been engaged, and 63000 casualties have been suffered." 62.103.147.54 (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cervi speaks of casualties - which are dead, wounded & missing - as said on your talkpage Cervi gives the follwoing figures in his book as overall campaign losses: "Secondo i dati ufficiali del Ministero della difesa la campagna di Grecia è costata all'Italia 13.755 morti, 50.874 feriti, 12.368 congelati, 25.067 dispersi, 52.108 ricoverati in luoghi di cura" ("According to the official numbers of the Ministry of Defense Italy has lost in the Greek campaign: 13,755 dead, 50,874 wounded, 12,368 frostbitten, 25,067 missing and 52,108 wounded and returned to duty.") As you see, Irving uses the number from Cervis book, but Irving declares all casualties to be dead, which is wrong as Cervi by casualties (in Italian "perdite") means wounded (feriti) and the dead (morti). Therefore Irvings number is still wrong and Cervis English book has a wrong translation of the Italian word perdite (correct translation would be losses). --noclador (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

~Why all notes about Italian losses came from Montanari or Rochat,the ones about Greeks is a reference about a missknown author -Rodogno?- Greeks losed 10'000 POW,13,500 KIA,1'200 MIA and 10'000 neutralized by frostbite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.237.135 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian casualties

Noclador, please stop removing sourced facts. Both Irving and Cervi quote Mussolini.

Irving:

"Mussolini was livid. Italy, blustered the Duce, had been fighting with 500,000 men and lost 63,000 dead in her six months of war with Greece."

Cervi:

"Five hundred thousand men have been engaged, and 63000 casualties have been suffered." 62.103.147.54 (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cervi speaks of casualties - which are dead, wounded & missing - as said on your talkpage Cervi gives the follwoing figures in his book as overall campaign losses: "Secondo i dati ufficiali del Ministero della difesa la campagna di Grecia è costata all'Italia 13.755 morti, 50.874 feriti, 12.368 congelati, 25.067 dispersi, 52.108 ricoverati in luoghi di cura" ("According to the official numbers of the Ministry of Defense Italy has lost in the Greek campaign: 13,755 dead, 50,874 wounded, 12,368 frostbitten, 25,067 missing and 52,108 wounded and returned to duty.") As you see, Irving uses the number from Cervis book, but Irving declares all casualties to be dead, which is wrong as Cervi by casualties (in Italian "perdite") means wounded (feriti) and the dead (morti). Therefore Irvings number is still wrong and Cervis English book has a wrong translation of the Italian word perdite (correct translation would be losses). --noclador (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

~Why all notes about Italian losses came from Montanari or Rochat,the ones about Greeks is a reference about a missknown author -Rodogno?- Greeks losed 10'000 POW,13,500 KIA,1'200 MIA and 10'000 neutralized by frostbite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.237.135 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I have begun to edit this article. This includes fixing punctuation and grammatical errors. Here is a sandbox link with the proposed amendments: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Sue91/sandbox/greco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue91 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

MUSSO'S KIDNEYS

Some of the page is oddly written. I just want to point to the following passage: "I said that we would crush the Negus' kidneys. Now, with the same, absolute certainty, I repeat, absolute, I tell you that we will crush Greece's kidneys." Mussolini's speech in Palazzo Venezia, 18 November 1940[31][32] The reader probably wonders why Mussolini went on about kidneys like this. Well the answer is he didn't: he didn't threaten to break anyone's kidneys. He threatened to break Greece's back. If he had wanted to say he was going to break Greece's kidneys he would have said "spezzare i reni", using the masculine plurale of "rene". Instead he said "spezzare le reni", using the feminine plurale ("le reni"), which simply means the small of the back or lumbar region. In short he just said he wanted to break Greece's back. Musso often talked bollocks, but he wasn't fixated on Greece's kidneys. If you doubt my word, check with the Accademia della Crusca: http://www.accademiadellacrusca.it/it/lingua-italiana/consulenza-linguistica/domande-risposte/r-due-plurali I know this is pedantry, but it makes the man sound even more foolish than he undoubtedly was. I will correct the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Image Caption

In the section titled, "Stages of campaign", there is an image of a soldier with a mule (?) but the caption describes a picture of a boy and a general. 198.151.201.9 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was obviously someone's idea of a joke, equating an Italian general with a mule. A timeless classic, no doubt... Constantine ✍ 09:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concern

This article might have problems relating to copyright. Part of this book http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hrigci1NEusC&pg=RA1-PT250&dq=a+junior+partner,+was+meant+to+wrest+back+the&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w00XUsDfG4eJkwXH1oGYBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=a%20junior%20partner%2C%20was%20meant%20to%20wrest%20back%20the&f=false] is duplicated exactly in this article in the Peace section. eg. this article says "a junior partner, was meant to wrest back the pride of independent action. Instead, it dragged Italy far deeper into humiliating subservience to Hitler’s Germany. The fact that Hitler, as a sop to Mussolini’s prestige, allowed the Italians to be a party to the Greek surrender, on 23 April 1941, that German arms had forced, could not hide the scale of Italy’s degradation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.69.150 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the Italians didn't need the Germans at all, and didn't want them. The Italians were on the verge of defeating the Greek army anyway. Mussolini never asked the Germans to intervene in Greece. They just invited themselves.AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'm wasting a day dealing with copyvio by a sock farm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis. This was by one of them. Deleted Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Turgeis' sock Moagim has also inserted material copypasted from Kershaw 2007. More reverts are necessary. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Stalemate

It states several times that just prior to the German invasion, both sides lacked the strength to attack one and other, which resulted in a stalemate. It also states that the entire Greek army was sent to face the Italians, leaving all other borders stripped. It stands to reason then that this was a stalemate, not a victory by either side. Also, had the war continued without the intervention by the Germans or the Allies, Italy could have used it's full strength against Greece, and conquered it from the South upward, as it was left basically defenseless. This is attested to by the rapid conquest of Greek held islands that Italy conquered. They had no defenses, because all of the defenses were on the Albanian front. It is resonable to assume that this could and would have been case with most of mainland Greece as well. - Izzo

Well, up to the final surrender to the Axis, on April 1941, the Greeks were certainly winning over the Italians. Even after the surrender to the Germans, on April 20-21, the Italian attacks on the Greek front were beaten back. The situation is correctly summed up as a Greek tactical victory, but a strategic stalemate. Italy was already deploying 35 divisions against 16 Greek ones in Albania by the end of March, and still unable to make headway. How many more divisions did they have to send? The Italians also failed in carrying out what you say, and what the Greek High Command feared - attacks on Greek islands, especially the Ionian islands or Crete. For whatever reason, they did not carry these operations out in November 1940, when they had the forces available for it, and it is doubtful they would attempt it later, with their surface fleet unable to support them after Cape MAtapan and the RN's Taranto raid. The islands they "conquered" they did so only after the Germans had already overrun the Greek mainland. As for what would have happened without intervention, it's anyone's guess, but it belongs to the realm of alternate history, not in Wikipedia. Regards, Cplakidas 12:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read what was written here on the later stages of the war, no one was winng the war. Certainly, the Greeks had insurged into Albania, but lacked the strength to move foreward by any means. Also, the Italians found themselves dug in not able to attack the Greeks, but not in danger of losing any more territory to the Greeks either. This situation is remenescent of World War I France, where the Germans were dug in in French held territory, while the French were dug in as well. Neither side was able to successfully break the others lines at that point. That is a stalemate. Therefore, the Italian Campaign in Greece would also be a stalemate. Also, when you consider that the Germans were able to just walk into Greece and face no opposition, the Axis campagin in Greece was a great success. With the whole Greek Army tied up on the Albanian border, the Germans, and other allies, face to resistance. I am making no argument about the war itself, I am merely stating that from a historical point of view, it's true that it was a stalemate. If it were a "tatical Greek victory" Greece would have beaten the Italians, not stalemated them, as well as having their army free to fight invading Germans and Bulgarians. With both sides dug in, neither attacking the other successfully, then it is a stalemate situation, no matter which nation has more territory from the other. As for supposition, your right, it is not meant for wikipedia, I only offered it as my personal oppinion. - Izzo

You are quite right in what you are saying. However, the campaign was certainly a tactical victory for the Greeks, for the simple reason that they repulsed the Italian invasion, staged a successful counterattack, and moved the battle into Italian "home territory" (if that can be said of Albania), remaining unbeaten by the Italians until final surrender to the Germans. The fact that they ultimately lacked the strength to achieve a decisive outcome does not mean that it was not a victory. If on April 6, instead of a German invasion, an agreement had been brokered (most likely of return to "status quo ante"), the war would have gone down as a definite Greek victory. I am however adding the "strategic stalemate" to the article's infobox, to correctly reflect the historical outcome. BTW, it would be nice if we had more of the Italian perspective in the article. If you can help, please do so. Regards, Cplakidas 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both titles (Tactical victory, stalemate) correctly sum up the situation of this war. I believe it was unique because of the fact it had no real winner. I'll try to put more perspective from Italian people into to the article. Thanks for your help on the issue. Best wishes. - Izzo

Someone has reverted the edits once again, so I will have to reset them. - Izzo

I may nominate this page for protection, as people keep vandalizing the "result" section, and refuse to join the debate here or stop the reversions. I am not about to get into an edit war, so if this continues I'll request protection for this page and a ban for the reverter. - Izzo

It was a stalemate for sure, but with time, there is little doubt the Italian Army would have defeated the Greeks. It wasn't even a tactical win for the Greeks, because ultimately, the Greeks were defeated by both Italy and Germany and Bulgaria. The Axis powers defeated Greece and then divided it up like a chicken. The British were hopeless. In fact one could say that rather than an Italian "fiasco" in Greece, it was really a British "fiasco" instead. The Brits could retreat out of Greece fast enough!AnnalesSchool (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalemate

It states several times that just prior to the German invasion, both sides lacked the strength to attack one and other, which resulted in a stalemate. It also states that the entire Greek army was sent to face the Italians, leaving all other borders stripped. It stands to reason then that this was a stalemate, not a victory by either side. Also, had the war continued without the intervention by the Germans or the Allies, Italy could have used it's full strength against Greece, and conquered it from the South upward, as it was left basically defenseless. This is attested to by the rapid conquest of Greek held islands that Italy conquered. They had no defenses, because all of the defenses were on the Albanian front. It is resonable to assume that this could and would have been case with most of mainland Greece as well. - Izzo

Well, up to the final surrender to the Axis, on April 1941, the Greeks were certainly winning over the Italians. Even after the surrender to the Germans, on April 20-21, the Italian attacks on the Greek front were beaten back. The situation is correctly summed up as a Greek tactical victory, but a strategic stalemate. Italy was already deploying 35 divisions against 16 Greek ones in Albania by the end of March, and still unable to make headway. How many more divisions did they have to send? The Italians also failed in carrying out what you say, and what the Greek High Command feared - attacks on Greek islands, especially the Ionian islands or Crete. For whatever reason, they did not carry these operations out in November 1940, when they had the forces available for it, and it is doubtful they would attempt it later, with their surface fleet unable to support them after Cape MAtapan and the RN's Taranto raid. The islands they "conquered" they did so only after the Germans had already overrun the Greek mainland. As for what would have happened without intervention, it's anyone's guess, but it belongs to the realm of alternate history, not in Wikipedia. Regards, Cplakidas 12:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read what was written here on the later stages of the war, no one was winng the war. Certainly, the Greeks had insurged into Albania, but lacked the strength to move foreward by any means. Also, the Italians found themselves dug in not able to attack the Greeks, but not in danger of losing any more territory to the Greeks either. This situation is remenescent of World War I France, where the Germans were dug in in French held territory, while the French were dug in as well. Neither side was able to successfully break the others lines at that point. That is a stalemate. Therefore, the Italian Campaign in Greece would also be a stalemate. Also, when you consider that the Germans were able to just walk into Greece and face no opposition, the Axis campagin in Greece was a great success. With the whole Greek Army tied up on the Albanian border, the Germans, and other allies, face to resistance. I am making no argument about the war itself, I am merely stating that from a historical point of view, it's true that it was a stalemate. If it were a "tatical Greek victory" Greece would have beaten the Italians, not stalemated them, as well as having their army free to fight invading Germans and Bulgarians. With both sides dug in, neither attacking the other successfully, then it is a stalemate situation, no matter which nation has more territory from the other. As for supposition, your right, it is not meant for wikipedia, I only offered it as my personal oppinion. - Izzo

You are quite right in what you are saying. However, the campaign was certainly a tactical victory for the Greeks, for the simple reason that they repulsed the Italian invasion, staged a successful counterattack, and moved the battle into Italian "home territory" (if that can be said of Albania), remaining unbeaten by the Italians until final surrender to the Germans. The fact that they ultimately lacked the strength to achieve a decisive outcome does not mean that it was not a victory. If on April 6, instead of a German invasion, an agreement had been brokered (most likely of return to "status quo ante"), the war would have gone down as a definite Greek victory. I am however adding the "strategic stalemate" to the article's infobox, to correctly reflect the historical outcome. BTW, it would be nice if we had more of the Italian perspective in the article. If you can help, please do so. Regards, Cplakidas 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both titles (Tactical victory, stalemate) correctly sum up the situation of this war. I believe it was unique because of the fact it had no real winner. I'll try to put more perspective from Italian people into to the article. Thanks for your help on the issue. Best wishes. - Izzo

Someone has reverted the edits once again, so I will have to reset them. - Izzo

I may nominate this page for protection, as people keep vandalizing the "result" section, and refuse to join the debate here or stop the reversions. I am not about to get into an edit war, so if this continues I'll request protection for this page and a ban for the reverter. - Izzo

It was a stalemate for sure, but with time, there is little doubt the Italian Army would have defeated the Greeks. It wasn't even a tactical win for the Greeks, because ultimately, the Greeks were defeated by both Italy and Germany and Bulgaria. The Axis powers defeated Greece and then divided it up like a chicken. The British were hopeless. In fact one could say that rather than an Italian "fiasco" in Greece, it was really a British "fiasco" instead. The Brits could retreat out of Greece fast enough!AnnalesSchool (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Greek victory?

How this could be a greek victory? The italians just won because of the german intervention, but this doesn't matter in the resulted outcome. Moagim (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, repelling an invasion on your own territory and driving into the enemy's territory counts as a victory to most people. Of course ultimately the German intervention changed things, but in the purely Greek-Italian show, there was a clear winner. We used to have "Greek tactical victory" there to differentiated with the strategic stalemate, but it got changed by someone along the way. I'll restore it. Constantine ✍ 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

but the war didn't end with the german intervention, it continues until the eventually greek surrender. I don't know why the greek nationalism should feel bad about that. Moagim (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That is because the war on the Albanian front became a sideshow the moment the Germans intervened, and because the Greek withdrawal from Albania was due to the German advance, not to Italian offensive action. I remind you that the original surrender protocol was to the Germans and the Germans alone, and was signed at a time when Italian troops had still to re-cross the Greco-Albanian frontier. The Greco-Italian War was a separate campaign, that effectively ended on 6 April, when the Germans invaded, which is also why we have two different articles. Greece fought two wars, against the Italians and against the Germans. It certainly won the first one on the tactical level, despite the ensuing stalemate in Albania, and lost the second one. If you want to call that nationalism, well, that's your opinion... Constantine ✍ 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Moagim, it actually was an Italian victory. The Italians went on to occupy most of the country. And Greece did formally surrender to the Italians. The bulk of the Greek army was worn down fighting the Italians, which allowed the German to come in almost unopposed because the Greeks had exhausted themselves. Silly Greeks. They would have been far better off surrendering to the Italians sooner than allow the Germans in, because the Germans were brutal masters who bankrupted and starved the entire country. Under Italian occupation instead, they would have been far better treated, which they were in the zones controlled by the Italians. AnnalesSchool (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of Italian occupation in Greece or are you speaking off your head and repeating the age-old "good Italian" trope that has been discredited everywhere but in Italy itself? Let me assure you that the Italian army could be brutal enough when it wanted to, as evidenced in cases like the Domenikon Massacre or the mass reprisal executions, especially in places like the Larissa concentration camp. The fact that this is a neglected topic in international historiography doesn't mean it didn't happen. Next time you come to Greece, go to any village square in Thessaly or Central Greece to see the names of the people executed in reprisals by the "friendly Italians". Yes, they were in general far less capable and disciplined than the Germans, and also more relaxed in attitudes top to bottom, which meant that the rank and file mostly wanted to get over the war in one piece and their generals simply liked to have a good time in the cities, so they did not go out of their way to fight guerrillas in sweeping operations with mass reprisals like the Germans did. But then the Italians did not face the huge rise of the Greek guerrilla movement, which occurred after mid-1943 in part precisely because the Italian army in Greece disintegrated and their weapons and ammunition were looted by the guerrillas. From there to suggest that the Greeks would have been "better off" to have simply surrendered is pure nonsense, aside from being offensive. Hell yes, let's have Mussolini strutting around in Athens, and carving up our country right and left, just in order to avoid the Germans. You are obviously a model of NPOV behaviour. Constantine ✍ 09:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Constantine, it is a matter of record that the Italians massacred far less Greeks, than did the more "capable and disciplined" Germans. Certainly the Greek Jewish population was better off. Sounds like you actually admire the Germans a lot more because they were more brutal and efficient. No one likes to be taken over, but if I had a choice (and many Greeks I know have agreed), the lesser of the two evils would have been an Italian occupation. Certainly the Italian military tradition was more humane and honorable than the German one.AnnalesSchool (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize Constantine for any unintentional remark. But I really do believe the Greeks under the Italian zone of occupation were better off. Certainly if I were Jewish, I'd now which zone I would like my family to be in. But tell me, why were the Bulgarians so brutal towards the Greeks?AnnalesSchool (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Fascist Italy collapsed in Sep. 1943, so it wouldn't make a serious difference. Off course the concept that Greece souhld have accepted Italian occupation immidiattely is an extreme point and is completely rejected by serious historians.Alexikoua (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This "Sounds like you actually admire the Germans a lot more because they were more brutal and efficient" is a completely unacceptable remark, and it is not made better by apologizing for any unintentional remark right after, because you clearly know and mean full well what you are writing. So let's not play silly buggers: effectively stating that it was somehow the Greeks' fault that they suffered because they did not surrender right away to the lesser evil is despicable. No sir, it would not have been "better" to have surrendered to Italy, it would have been better if Italy had left Greece, and Albania, and Yugoslavia, and Ethiopia, and Libya in peace. Or was it "humane" when the Italian military gassed the Ethiopians, or gathered the population of Cyrenaica behind barbed wire? The "good Italian" is a convenient and widespread myth, even among Greeks, but that doesn't make it true as such. My grandparents who lived through the war told me stories about good Italians and about good Germans too, you know... And both groups were good people, right until they had to execute civilians for reprisals or requisition the livestock of an entire village, evacuate the population and burn it down... Constantine ✍ 13:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And just now I noticed this little nugget. Wow, just... wow... Constantine ✍ 13:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Eureka!!!! You found it. Well done.AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Nasty personal attacks followed by sarcasm. Can you get any closer to trolling? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy. The war was nasty for everyone, including Italians and Germans. Everyone suffered, not just the Greeks. My observation was merely ironic that while the Greeks put so much effort into preventing the Italians from invading, they forgot about the Germans! It's like bolting the front door and forgetting to lock the back. As I said, and I continue to maintain: the Italians were not as brutal as the Germans. This is a fact. You Greeks were successful in stopping one enemy, but you forgot the other, who was much worse. The Germans really stripped your country. The Italians would not have to that extent.AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

From my own research, the Italian invasion army on the Albanian front actually didn't need or want the Germans in Greece anyway. In fact, Mussolini never invited them into Greece. The Germans invited themselves it appears, taking the spoils and easy victory, after the hard work done by the Italians to wear down the Greek army.AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Too much editorializing and POV.

The "Consequences" section really needs a good clean-up. Too long winded, too much editorializing, POV, off topic, incoherent, lack of citations, cherry picking, misleading and undue weight. I propose we delete it and start again. It could be beyond repair.

The "Aftermath" could do with a bit more attention too.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I still think this article relies far too much on editorializing, dubious and gratuitous citations, and a heavy bias against the Italians. It seems like an article that is partisan towards the Greek POV. The inclusion of Hitler's rant against the Italians for causing Germany to lose the war (which is by the way, erroneous), seems gratuitous to me. What has it got to do with the Italo-Greek war. The source for it, the Bormann papers, are unreliable sources, and discredited in the eyes of historians.AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

An Italian war crime and boorish racism

On August 15, 1940 -more than two months before the Italian attack to Greece (Oct. 28, 1940)- the Italian submarine "Delfino" (Cap. Aicardi)sunk the coastal Greek cruiser "Helli" in front of the Tinos island during a Greek religious ceremony. Just to provoke Greece! The true reason of the Italian defeat in November 1940 was boorish racism: Italy considered Greece "a little, poor, inferior Nation" and a few of Italian divisions were "enough to defeat it". Badoglio said: "Those Greeks`ll get the lesson what they deserve!"

Boorish racism is a term excessive and out of reality. To have considered Greece "a little, poor, inferior Nation" is nationalism, not racism.--Brunodam 06:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "inferior nation" is definitely racism, not nationalism. 16:22, 08 26 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.54.236.151 (talk)

"a little, poor, inferior Nation" phrase can be divided into two parts. "a little, poor Nation" isn't racism imho. On the other part, "inferior nation" is not nationalism, it is definitely racism. ĶŞĶ-ŴĀŘ (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And "racism" is definitely not an encyclopedic let alone scientific term. --41.150.55.114 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And you Greeks aren't racist??? Mussolini did not invade Greece for racist reasons. He invaded Greece for strategic reasons. Invading a country isn't nice and is wrong, but try to separate the hyperbolic rhetoric from cold, calculating reasoning. AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Kershaw, Ian (2007). Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940–1941. Allen Lane. pp. 178–183. ISBN 978-0-7139-9712-5. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Content from Kershaw was added here, here, here, and here. The citations are Kershaw's, inserted into the content presumably to hide the extent of the copyright violation. There might be some usable material in this revision, which is the last good version before users Moagim and Turgeis edited the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I will begin deleting un-referenced statements that have been tagged as [citation needed] in the next few days.AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole article reads like a harangue and arraignment of Mussolini and the Italians

Having read this article carefully, I have come to the sad conclusion it reads more like a shrill denunciation and castigation of Mussolini in particular and an unfair and very partisan lambaste against the Italian military in general. It takes every opportunity to downplay the Italians as foolish and Mussolini as the archetype fool. In no way can this article be treated as scholarly or balanced. The cherry-picking of sources and quotes is obvious and even at times, outrageous. It breaks nearly all the rules of weight, balance, neutrality, objectivity, impartial tone, bias in sources, dubious sources, assumptions, editorializing and probably several other Wiki editing rules. It gives a very wrong impression upon the reader and so I would urge readers to take this article with a large pinch of salt and to question and doubt what they read here.The editors of this article are clearly biased in favor of the Greek point of view. AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to be a little more precise on the above issues? As I see, the descriptions about the failed Italian invasion tend to have a pro-Italian pov, i.e. the Italians did this.. and did that, while on the other hand there is nothing to say about the successful Greek planning (the strategic retreat and the counteroffensive).Alexikoua (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In reality, the Italian offensive was carried out without conviction and without the advantage of surprise.[citation needed] Even air action was rendered ineffective by poor weather.[49] Under an uncertain leadership and divided by personal rivalries, the troops were already becoming exhausted.[citation needed] Adverse conditions at sea made it impossible to carry out a projected landing at Corfu.

World War II historian John Keegan writes that Tsolakoglou "was so determined, however, to deny the Italians the satisfaction of a victory they had not earned that,he original surrender document did not include the Italians and "came as an unwelcome and most humiliating blow" to the Italians.

Only after a personal request from Mussolini to Hitler, the German dictator agreed to help Mussolini yet again, albeit very reluctantly, and Italy was allowed as a party in the armistice agreement on April 23.[69][68] In recognition of the valour displayed by Greek forces,

Hitler blamed Mussolini’s "Greek fiasco" for his failed campaign in Russia. ‘But for the difficulties created for us by the Italians and their idiotic campaign in Greece, I should have attacked Russia a few weeks earlier,’ he later said.[71] Hitler noted that Germany was not notified in advance of the impending attack, which ‘compelled us, contrary to all our plans, to intervene in the Balkans, and that in its turn led to a catastrophic delay in the launching of our attack on Russia. We were compelled to expend some of our best divisions there. And as a net result we were then forced to occupy vast territories in which, but for this stupid show, the presence of our troops would have been quite unnecessary.

Mussolini never requested help from the Germans. In fact, he requested that they stay out of Greece. The Germans invited themselves, like jackals over the Greek carcass.AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I have read, the Italians did deserve their "victory" much more than the Germans because they did the bulk of the fighting and suffered the most casualties. The fact that they underestimated Greek resistance and were pushed back into Albania is neither here nor there. I've lost count of the number of times the British were pushed back during the war. The Italians eventually stabilized the front with reinforcements and were preparing for another big offensive. Of course, German help was appreciated (they were "allies" after all), but like everything the Germans did, it came at a cost.AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

POW

The number of 1,531 Greeks taken prisoner reported by Rodogno is at the date of December 31, 1942 (after the liberation of a good number of prisoners) and detained only on the national metropolitan territory. The Italian relations reports approximately 10,000 prisoners taken.--SaturnoV (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I add also that the number reported is meaningless and perhaps not neutral:

November 30, 1942 -> 1653;

December 31, 1942 -> 1531;

March 31, 1943 -> 1686;

April 30, 1943 -> 1690;

The table by Rodogno shows four numbers and was selected the smallest--SaturnoV (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Greek Army History Directorate's "An Abridged History of the Greek-Italian and Greek-German War 1940-1941", page 298, mentions 87 officers and 2,305 soldiers captured "on the battlefield" by Italian forces. Apparently it includes only prisoners interned away, as the exact expressions are "in Italy" and "in Germany", with the German figure being extremely low (14 and 59), understandable as the Germans held Greek prisoners only briefly and then released them.--Xristar (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary reason why Mussolini invaded Greece - German encroachment in Italy's sphere of influence.

Why was my referenced insert below deleted on the grounds that it is "too simplistic"? Then if it is too simplistic, can anyone offer a valid and logical reason why Mussolini invaded Greece when he did, apart from the reason that it was just an "impulse" he had?

In fact, Mussolini's decision to invade Greece was precipitated by Germany's continual interference and encroachment in the Balkans, long considered by the Italian fascist leadership as its own sphere of influence. It was thus Hitler's decision, made in his characteristically impulsive and unilateral manner, to invade Poland without informing his Axis partner, as well as his interference in Romania and Croatia, that forced Mussolini's hand to attack Greece as a preemptive measure against "a predatory German ally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to formulate a new paragraph on this subject which will be less lopsided in terms of favouring the simplistic POV position that "Hitler made me do it". But I need some time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Withdrawal and Surrender of the Greek First Army AND German Intervention sections are much too biased, POV and partisan

This section has been issued with a Neutrality Disputed warning tag. I urge readers to be aware that certain editors are heavily pro-Greek and what they have written should be taken with a great deal of skepticism as it represents only one side of the story and is a poor reflection of the principles of Wikipedia. Wiki administrators have been notified and the appropriate action will be taken to prevent further biased editorializing. AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to note that this section should be trimmed at least 70%: It concerns another war that followed the Greco-Italian one.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Italy and Greece didn't made peace when the Germans invaded, the war continued until the eventual Greek surrender. Uspzor (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Off course they didn't made peace but the specific section still concerns the Greek-German conflict.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just inserted a "failed verification" inline tag as I have access to the said pages online but can't find what has been cited.

But the deeper question I have for the editor who quoted extensively from Mark Mazower's trashy and poorly researched book, Inside Hitler's Greece is why? (Personal attack removed) But what is perhaps more difficult to understand, is this need to portray the Germans as worthy (and honorable) victors while it was they who principally looted the country and starved its inhabitants. AnnalesSchool (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Trashy and poorly researched book Inside Hitler's Greece? Suppose you are not serious, Mazower and his works are on of the best we have in WWII-Greece subject. In general you need to be more precise about your arguments, needless to say you need to explain every editorializing tag you placed.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the tendentious tagging based on the nonsense arguments above. Also there was no "failed verification", the material is clearly there on page 16. But I added a direct quote to prevent any other false claims of failed verification. I also warn AnnalesSchool any more of this type of edits and the personal attacks and next step will be Arbitration enforcement. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr K, as far as I know, you cannot write a whole paragraph and then put a citation at the end of it. As a general rule, every two or three sentences must be cited to an author, the year and the page number. In the section, German Intervention, there is only one reference or footnote to Felice (64); and then in the next section - Withdrawal and surrender of the Greek First Army - there are whole paragraphs with only one footnote at the end!!!

From an academic point of view, this would be unacceptable. No undergraduate student would even dare to present a paper to his tutor where whole paragraphs just have one author or footnote attribution. For example, how as a reader do we know, whether the whole paragraph is actually what the author wrote and his ideas, or simply just poorly and very loosely paraphrased by a mischievous wiki editor who has editorialised the section in order to put his own "spin" for the purpose of putting the Italians in a bad light.

I am sorry, but unless this section of this article is improved drastically, then I will have no choice but to delete or alter as much as 70% of it.AnnalesSchool (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You will do no such thing to this exceptionally well-cited section. As far as your patronising claptrap about university students, etc. this is not a class assignment and it is standard practice to add citations at the end of paragraphs. Regardless, I have added citations every other sentence to prevent any justification for future disruption on your part. While you are at it, please don't spam discussions I have already replied to on your talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr K, I have partially replied to your accusations on my talk page. I still maintain that it is important that there is a citation/reference/footnote every two to three lines. A simple footnote at the end of a paragraph simply won't do because it means that the reader has no way of knowing if the footnote refers to the entire paragraph, or the last sentence or two. Secondly, including a footnote every two or three lines will prevent the wiki editor from veering off course and actually put into the mouth of the author, more than he intended. Or simply skew and subvert either the author's words or meaning by a very loose paraphrase, or else a quote taken out of context, either intentionally or unintentionally. Indeed, there was an example recently of this, where in the section we are dealing with - Withdrawal and surrender of the Greek army in Epirus - the 3rd paragraph goes into a long (and loving?) preamble into how Sepp Dietrich wanted to sign a surrender with the Greeks alone, List agreed with Tsolakoglou that the Italians should not be allowed to enter Greece; how "List agreed with Tsolakoglou that the Italians should not be allowed to enter Greece"; how undeserving the Italians were because the Germans were so impressed with the fighting spirit and bravery of the Greeks; and you even have the Germans guarding a bridge to prevent the Italians from crossing into Greece, and all this blarney quoted from Mazower. However, if you read Mazower further, even he admits that whatever the local German commanders like List and Dietrich or a Tsolakoglou or Pagagos thought about leaving the Italians out in the cold, Hitler wasn't having a bar of it. To him, the Italian-German Alliance was paramount.He was not about to alienate his most important ally Mussolini for Greece or even 10 Greeces!!! Greece was simply not that important in his grand scheme. Indeed for most of the war, Greece was a bit of a backwater, quite unimportant to the big battles and events then raging on the eastern front and the Normandy and Sicily landings. AnnalesSchool (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)