Talk:Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II

Sentence revision suggestion

I suggest revising the following sentence from the article:

"A massive 50-day-long aerial campaign was launched against the island of Leros defended by Italian troops commanded by Admiral Mascherpa, who resisted the German air offensive before the landing of British support troops, which was invaded by the Germans who landed by sea and air on 12 November and surrendered four days later."

It isnt' clear if British support troops arrived before the German attack and it isn't clear who surrendered - presumably it was not the Germans, but was it the British and the Italians or was it only the Italians?

Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Iran

Wouldn't Iran be considered part of this theatre as it was invaded by both the Soviet Union and Britain? Takinginterest01 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Copied from ed talk page Comment

Please explain You've reverted me twice and twice labelled me a vandal for this article Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II for a perfectly proper and one would think innocuous use of the 'redirect' template . Could you please give an actual explanation? Doprendek (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you once and the nature of the redirect is explanation enough; it's irrelevant to the article and those redirected to. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1) You reverted me twice. And twice called me a vandal, which you are very casual and unapologetic about. That is a serious charge based on no evidence whatsoever. 2) My addition has no relevance to the main article--well, no kidding. That is because it is for people who are searching for the article "African Theatre" and come to Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II by mistake. That is the whole point of the 'redirect' template. If you've got a problem with something, then it should be with the redirect to this article from "African Theater", almost an exact spelling. To reiterate: My use was exactly to the point of the 'redirect' template. Doprendek (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No, someone else reverted you the first time. I suggest that you take this to the talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

by and large, Italy was more successful than less successful

WP:DENY. It's generally best to ignore ban evaders, and especially those with a history of serious misconduct. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I altered the wording to "Italy launched various attacks around the Mediterranean, which by and large, were successful rather than "largely unsuccessful" for the following reasons: a) Italy early on had set-backs and limited successes (France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Malta, Taranto), but overall, the Italian thrusts into the Mediterranean were neither outright failures nor astounding successes. They were, atleast it seems to me and other historians, qualified successes. And as the war progressed, the Italian military competence increased rather than decreased. It's always been difficult to place Italy in either the failure or success categories before 1943. It did in the end, occupy a chunk of French territory, two-thirds of Greece, a big chunk of the former Yugoslavia, and sink a respectable amount of British warships and merchant vessels. The frogmen attack in Suez could be classed as a success. Not all of its operations in North Africa after Operation Compass can be described as failures, albeit with German assistance. Its bombing campaign of Malta did have an appreciable effect of neutralizing the island's usefulness. Its army in Russia did have its victories and was most welcomed by the hard-pressed Germans who needed every assistance they could get there. To me, as well as recent research, suggests that the Italian thrusts into the Mediterranean, not to mention East Africa, were by no means largely unsuccessful. 188.215.109.113 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Perhaps you can cite some scholars who support this view??? Better read 1) Hitler's Italian Allies: Royal Armed Forces, Fascist Regime by MacGregor Knox - 2000 who states "This book tries to understand why the Italian armed forces and Fascist regime were so remarkably ineffective at an activity - war - central to their existence." 2) Norman Polmar, ‎Thomas B. Allen - 2012 state ‎"when war came the Regia Arronautira failed to perform effectively in modern conflict. Although the Italian Air Force had been in action in the conquest of Ethiopia and the SPANISH CIVIL WAR, it was totally unprepared for combat when BENITO MUSSOLINI declared war on England and France in June 1940. At the time Italy had about 2,500 military aircraft in service. Only 11,000 more were produced during the next three years, far fewer than any of the other major belligerents." 3) Zabecki 2015: "In the spring of 1941, Germany temporarily salvaged the Italian disaster in the Balkans with a rapid campaign, which left Italy in control of Montenegro and parts of Slovenia and Dalmatia....the British overran Italian East Africa...the Italian defeat in North Africa" 4) Donald S. Detwiler, ‎et al 1979: "Italy's entrance into the war showed very early that her military strength was only a hollow shell. Italy's military failures against France, Greece, Yugoslavia and in the African Theatres of war shook Italy's new prestige mightily." Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC) As far as I am aware, the Italian campaign to expel the British out of Somalia succeeded quite well The authors you have quoted only explain in general terms that the Italians had "failed" in this or that. The Regia Aeronautica performed well in Greece, Yugoslavia and North Africa, I recall reading. Italy had more aircraft combat ready than Britain at the start of the war, and produced less than the other combatants because it had a far smaller manufacturing base (nothing to do with incompetence or failure). There was no "Balkan disaster" - Italy invaded Greece and the Greeks pushed them back. But just about every author I have read states that the Italians would have worn down the Greeks given another month of fighting. Where exactly was the failure in Yugoslavia? Where exactly was the failure in France after a few days of actual fighting? In North Africa, the Italians forces there were bolstered by extra armoured divisions and motorized divisions, and actually performed quite well in a series of battles and confrontations with British and Australian forces. Its so-called "failures" have really been overblown by some. Seen in the context of what was possible and what was do-able, the Italians actually performed quite well. The Italian Navy certainly did well against the Royal Navy and remained undefeated until Sept 1943. 188.215.109.113 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC) No Balkan disaster does not equate to a success, a possible future success in Greece accepts that it was not a success up until then, no failure in Yugoslavia does not equate to a success, no failure in France does not equate to a success. However, I think we should let the facts speak for themselves and not make any comment in the article as to the relative success or lack of concerning Italy's attacks Lyndaship (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC) A string of strategic disasters in Africa, the Balkans and Russia, culminating in the surrender of September 1943, interspersed with a few operational successes doesn't seem all that much like a victory. Keith-264 (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC) There were a lot more Operational successes than you think. Russia? Did the Germans, Hungarians and Romanians not "fail" there too? The Axis forces were actually winning in North Africa until the Americans came and had to "rescue" the British. The Greek campaign started badly but ultimately ended in triumph. The Italians defeated, scattered and captured an entire Yugoslavian army. No "failure" here? So "no failure" doesn't equate to success?????? So what does it equate to? Non-failure success or successful non-failure??? The Italians surrendered in Sept 1943 and the Germans in May 1945. So I guess the Germans ultimately "failed " too??? I'm rather confused.188.215.109.113 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC) I think that you are our resident impostor wasting everyone's time.Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC) I could point out that in North Africa the Italians had lost (an army) until Rommel bailed them out.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Oh and yes ultimately the Germans did fail.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Annales, this is getting tiresome. You show a strong, even blind, bias in favor of the Italians, and an equally strong anti-British bias. Look at the numbers for Operation Compass-- it was a military disaster of the highest order. (The Italians, with more than four times the troops, had 250 times as many troops killed, captured, and missing.) You speak of Alexandria-- how about Taranto? (Let me help you here-- each side damaged two of the other side's battleships, but in addition the British put another one out of action permanently.) And you say the Italian Navy was undefeated until 1943? Who won at Cape Matapan? The Americans rescued the British in North Africa? How many Americans fought at El Alamein? Kablammo (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Extended content {{{1}}} Lead German losses (including those captured upon final surrender) being over two million. really? Keith-264 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)