Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Aspects of genocide?

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

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

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

Use it

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

Citations needed

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

Recent additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Questions on Casualties

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

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

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

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

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

16000 and 16000

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

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

1935 Italian intelligence estimate of the Ethiopian provinces and their forces

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

---

Ethiopian Imperial Army mobilization (per Italian estimate)

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

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

Merge Abyssinia Crisis?

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

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

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

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

Responding to Fascist apologetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

• Province of Ljubljana
• Italian invasion of Greece
• Italian war crimes

DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

wow! Where do I begin ? The bias in using Italian records, Italian numbers is clear. As an example is the description of the Ethiopian Christmas offensive as a "Dark Period". Really ? I though Wikipedia was supposed to just state facts. Dark period for who ? As an Ethiopian and someone whose grandfather lost his life in gas attacks on Amba Aradom the Christmas offensive was a Bright period for Ethiopia. I mean I have been in Genova and spoken on the subject at a high school and received blank stares from school children. Apparently they have little to nothing taught to them on the "second Abyssinian-Italian War". Secondly there is still tacit denial, playing around with the numbers, the types of munitions, when they were shipped to Italy although Sbachi on the Italian side and Paulos Gnogno on the Ethiopian side seem to agree pretty much on the details since they based most of their information on orders and communication. I have access to a LOT of footage, tons that will be coming out soon showing the clash at Welwel and other battles. We have collected battlefield accounts of Ethiopian patriots of the different methods of killing civilian and patriot alike including adzes, axes, throwing folks out of flying airplanes cutting heads off etc. Unless Italians come to terms with this and bring their children to terms with the disgrace of what occurred what do you think is going to happen when they find out what grandpa did 80 years later in living color ? Italians have taken steps. But I am not going to congratulate them for doing something they should not have been involved in to begin with. They need to make serious amends and try to come to terms with things. I know its an entirely different subject but an additional insult has been the Vatican crying crocodile tears of what its priests did in South America while its own complicity in blessing its soldiers and prevailing on Italian society to support Italian wanton savagery in Ethiopia( I am looking at the footage right now).

So my advice, its not a question of whether there is bias and redoing the page. An Italian should not be doing this page to begin with or basing it on records that he/she deems appropriate. You will soon have records aplenty that will put Sbachi's book of admissions to shame. Get this page right, take it off or give it to someone who has a clue.

--207.87.23.178 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very badly written, and parts are written like a Fascist propaganda piece. For instance, what they hell is this sentence doing in the article: "The crowds would not let him go—ten times they recalled Mussolini to the balcony and cheered and waved while the boys of various Fascist youth organizations sang the newly composed 'Hymn of the Empire' (Inno dell'impero)." This is a propaganda statement - sure it was popular in Italy, because the Fascist regime told them it was important and poured patriotic propaganda in the media listened to by the Italian people - saying that Italy was about to become a "New Roman Empire", some even believed that Italy's campaign in Ethiopia was about ending the slavery that Ethiopia still had and bringing "civilization" to Ethiopia. The event the sentence described was clearly staged by the Fascist regime - after all it says that Fascist youth organizations had been taught to sing the new "Hymn of the Empire". The fact is that the Italian air force used illegal mustard gas bombs that it deliberately dropped on villages - targetting civilians to create an atmosphere of terror to pressure Ethiopia to surrender. Italian forces deliberately attacked Red Cross hospitals. And upon taking over Ethiopia, Italian forces massacred Ethiopian civilians - including monks in Debre Libanos in 1937 after an assassination attempt was made against General Rodolfo Graziani. It was a war of colonial expansionism meant to boost Italy's prestige, and Italy committed many war crimes. And even aside from the war crimes, the conquest of Ethiopia was an economic disaster for Italy - the total cost to create the necessary infrastructure for Ethiopia was calculated in 1936 to cost more than the entire Italian budget of 1936-1937.--R-41 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True?

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

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

Schrecklichkeit?

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

Ending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethiopia was not an Italian colony before 1936

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

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

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

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

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

• Italian military emasculated Second Italo-Ethiopian War.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite tidy

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

Question of emphasis regarding war crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Talk:Pacification of Libya

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

Sultanate of Aussa

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

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

Image in "Casualties" section

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

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

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

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

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

Italian name for the war in the first sentence

I do not think that it is encyclopedic to have the Italian colloquial name for the war (and not the Ethiopian one) in the lead. However I have been reverted so am starting a discussion here.

The revert edit summary read Other common names of the war used in countries principly involved is a standard practice. That may be the case, but I'm not sure that should guide our practice here, when 1) there already is an alternate name listed (i.e. "Second Italo-Abyssinian War") and 2) we do not give the Ethiopian name.

Including both the Italian and the Ethiopian would be preferable to including only one or the other, but would of course clutter the initial sentence tremendously. As it stands, with the addition of just the Italian name, the sentence is already quite cluttered as it is. And it of course unduly favors one side's historical memory of the other's.

For these reasons I think we should just stick to the two English-language names. Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the Ethiopian name. I just don’t know what it is but please add it. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. Pinging User:Jnyssen who can perhaps inform us (and direct us to a source?) if they have the time and inclination. Generalrelative (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've also posted to WikiProject Ethiopia and WikiProject Africa in hopes that someone can help us out with this. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the Amharic Wikipedia with the aid of Google Translate seems to indicate that the conflict is referred to as the "Italian Invasion" (ጣልያን ወረራ). Googling this term yields many results, including uses of the term to describe the conflict from the Ethiopian government ([9]) and the BBC ([10]). I'll add that now and will be happy to be corrected if someone more knowledgeable cares to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing of NPOV text regarding obelisk removal from Aksum

I edited some of the text in this article because it was both inaccurate and deliberately misleading and biased. First of all, the Italian army did not "seize" Aksum, they walked into the city unopposed. The city was completely undefended and the few people living there made no effort whatsoever to opposed the Italian entry in any way. This is not surprising because the city had little or no strategic value and was only of symbolic importance. Secondly, the obelisk in question did not "adorn" the city. It was found completely ruined, broken in three pieces and half buried. It had been abandoned and neglected by the Ethiopians. So, writing that the obelisk "adorned" the city was a deliberate lie designed to create a false impression of the events. Also, the previous text seems to try to create the impression that this was some kind of special obelisk or the only obelisk in the city by using the definite article "THE obelisk which adorned the city", which of course is another lie. In fact, there are many ruined obelisks in Aksum, seven of which are quite large (see https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aksu_2/hd_aksu_2.htm), and this was just one of them. Also, I should point out that the obelisks of Aksum are not in the city. They are in a sepulchral field outside of the city.

You make a number of claims here for which you haven't provided sources. Maybe you're right, but you will need to WP:PROVEIT in order to institute lasting changes to the text –– other than changing the definite to the indefinite article when we refer to the obelisk which was taken.

You also make an allegation of bad faith when you write writing that the obelisk "adorned" the city was a deliberate lie designed to create a false impression of the events. You may be unaware, but this is a violation of a behavioral guideline (WP:AGF). Please remember to assume good faith in your future work here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I linked the relevant web pages or wiki pages that provide evidence for my points. I will enumerate these:

• The obelisk did not "adorn" the city. (see the linked Wikipedia article on the Obelisk of Aksum). As this Wiki article clearly states, the obelisk was broken in three pieces and half buried.
• The obelisk is not "THE" obelisk, it is one of many. The evidence for this was provided in my talk section where I clearly linked an extensive article on the monuments of Aksum. This article clearly states that there are many monuments including 7 major ones of which 2 are still standing. I notice that when you reverted my edits you changed "the obelisk" to "an obelisk" thereby tacitly recognizing the correctness of that aspect of my edit.
• The obelisk is not located in the city (stated in the talk article). The evidence for this is in the linked web article which describes the location of the monuments as being in a sepulchral field outside of the city.

Please undo your reversion. I clearly evidenced my statements with links as outlined explicitly in the 3 bullet points above and furthermore the original statement in the Wiki page as written was false by its own evidence. In other words, the original page text linked the Wiki page on the obelisk which clearly stated it was in a ruined condition. So, the writer of the original text falsely characterized the obelisk as "adorning" the city, when his own link described it as being ruined. Furthermore, as my linked article describes, the obelisk in question was not even in the city, so it did not "adorn" it. So, by reverting my changes you are publishing demonstrably false statements in this article.

Also, I would point out that this whole article is loaded with non-NPOV adjectives and subjective characterizations all in favor of Aethiopia and tending to diminish or reflect poorly on the Italians. For example, the author repeatedly refers to the Italian forces as belonging to the "Fascist regime", not as the "forces of the Kingdom of Italy" as the Italians would described themselves. The use of the word "regime" to describe a foreign state implies that the government is illegitimate and is generally a term used only by the enemies of that goverment. For example, enemies of the State of Israel refer to not as the State of Israel, but as the "Zionist regime". So, using this term, "the Fascist regime" to describe the state of the Kingdom of Italy is non-NPOV to begin with and the whole article is written in that tone. By reverting edits you are essentially publishing false facts, such as the false fact that the obelisk "adorned" the city and perpetrating the non-NPOV and counter-factual nature of this article. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)