Talk:Italian invasion of British Somaliland

message: "He did this in the hope of a possible future peace agreement between Italy and Great Britain (thanks to the mediation of the Vatican)."  My issue is with the "thanks to the mediation of the Vatican" part.  The Duke of Aosta may have thought that the Vatican would intervene, but that does not mean it ever happened.  It is still not appropriate that the Vatican should be "thanked" for something that it would most likely not choose to be involved with.  Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the Vatican was never involved in a peace agreement between Italy and the UK after this invasion.  There is one big problem with this "thanks" since the Vatican is being thanked for something that probably never happened. Mkpumphrey 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have written:"He did this in the hope of a possible future peace agreement, that was being promoted through the Vatican mediation, between Italy and Great Britain". This agreement was promoted by the Pope after June 1940 and was scratched definitively in December 1940, after the beginning of the British attacks against Italy in Africa (Libya and A.O.I.). This agreement was even in the letters (between Mussolini and Churchill) disappeared at Lake Como in 1945.--Brunodam 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Vatican

message: Moved narrative items from East African Campaign (World War II) to avoid unnecessary duplication but had to re-edit this page to fit it in and harmonise citation styles.Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: To me, the current title of the article sound rather odd. "Conquest" sounds rather archaic - would we talk about the "German conquest of France" in 1940? I'd suggest that "Italian invasion of British Somaliland" would be a much more natural title.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Invasion is the process, conquest is the result; notice also that the British had no moral right to be there in the first place, they were both aggressors.Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conquest" vs "invasion" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Italian conquest of British Somaliland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807193134/http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.it/africa_orie_1.html to http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.it/africa_orie_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Revised and expanded aspects of the article to give a fuller picture of the events. Keith-264 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Re edit

message: "The Somalis supporting the British suffered about 2,000 casualties during the invasion and occupation; about 1,000 Somalis became casualties fighting on the Italian side.[50]" The sources tend to discriminate between Europeans and Africans regulars and irregulars and the sources disagree. Perhaps it would have been better in the casualties section sharper to make the distinction between Ascari (regular army "native" troops) and irregulars, which both sides used. The source refers to 2,000 Somali casualties in British service and another 1,000 in Italian service not Somali soldiers in military service per se. Pls amend your edits accordingly, Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But the listed official total includes the Somali (and Eritrean) casualties? (Unlike the British one) --Havsjö (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

text: It says "Britain suffered 260 casualties" and then "(+ 2,000 somalians)"British source then say "Italy suffered 2,052 total", Italian source say  "Italy suffered 2,029 total (161 Italian, 1,868 Colonial)" "out of which 1000 were somalis".Both British and Italian says Italian total was ~2,000. Somali casualties are a part of this total by several sources, not added on top.--Havsjö (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The details of Italian casualties are in numbers of nEuropean and non-European regulars; Somali irregulars are separate for both sides. The trouble is that the article existed before I re-edited it a while back. I didn't have the Italian language sources so wrote around the details taken from them, since I was in no position to judge their accuracy. I've accumulated a few more sources since then and it's hard to tell which ones are derivative. Bande and Illalos pop in and out of the narratives and casualties during the invasion get lumped in with the occupation so all of the casualty data is tentative. I haven't finished the spring clean of the article and I'm concentrating on the bigger things first, which is to integrate better some more detail on air operations. It might be better to query inconsistencies here before editing (apart from the fresh crop of typos I'm growing). I'll stop jumping in on your edits until I've finished what I'm working on so we have a complete article to look at. Regards. PS at least some bugger has read it. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. But I am not very convinced that the 1000 Somali irregulars are an additional number for Italy. Unlike the British casualties, where there is a very large "separation" between them in the listing of casualties, both British and Italian sources seem to be pretty clear that the Italian total was ~2000, and included Somali colonial troops as well. It looks very much that those "1000 Somali casualties" are part of the "1800 Somali and Eritrean casualties" from the "2000 total casualties". Unlike the "2000 Somali casualties" of the "260 total" for Britain --Havsjö (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

text: You might be right but it's tending towards OR. When I've finished the air operations I'll have another look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

text: IOH East Africa  p. 121 (Rovighi, 1995) shame I can't copy it and paste into a translator. It'll have to wait. Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos the purpose for   is here  Regards As for casualty data, I think we may have to do our best then maybe add an efn note to describe the inconsistencies. Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation of Rovighi 
* I think native enlisted men excludes banda. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties 

message: Nearly finished but need to read it through. Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring clean 

message: I was going to wikilink this but it says 2nd battalion and the wp page I found says 3rd; on the principle of first do no harm I am going to just note this as a slightly puzzling thing and move on. Possibly a reorganization since ww2? Elinruby (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check too, rv a lot of your wls as they were duplicates. regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: possible. I didn't specifically check for that and the material is unfamiliar so I may have lost track of some of the vocabulary. Ping me if you get and answer to this though, please. I am mildly curious for unrelated reasons  Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at work so it'll be tomorrow. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Watch