Talk:Greco-Italian War

Untitled

I have moved Miskin's evidence from Keitel to the "Military insights from the war section", which is more appropriate for a discussion of the effects of the war than the "Results" section --Mike Young 22:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(aniv of march on Roma)started the campaign in the begining of winter

Did the invasion fall on this date as a coincidence, or did Mussolini purposely pick this day to launch the war?K... 09:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't get a good image

it's a good article but i'd like to see more pictures and map at the discription of the actual war, i cant get a good image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No free material found so far... Off course there are plenty of nice pictures to show but unfortunately there are cp problems. Off course next year the cp status of most pictures taken during 1940 will be lifted...Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What Happened to this once Great Article?

A couple times a year I come and reread this article. I've noticed this time that it has been gutted of much of its' appeal. Where are all the quotes and photos? What was once an exciting, immersive article, it now feels bare bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplication in Battle of Greece

The Battle of Greece article contains some of the same material that we see here, only with fewer details, but better formatting. I would like to propose that these two articles be merged, but I don't know which name is better for the result. Jamie 02:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Following discussion on Talk:Battle of Greece it seems that these two articles should be separated at the point of German intervention. This means there is a lot of material here which should be moved to that article. Also this article's battlebox needs more information of casualties and commanders. Jamie 10:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Effect of the war on Barbarossa

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okhi Day

Responding to the request to discuss merge box in the article page: I think that Okhi Day should stay as a complete but short article, with basically only the first and last paragraphs, and a "see also Greco-Italian War" comment. The middle of the Okhi Day article describing overations should be removed, or any useful parts merged into Greco-Italin War here. And this article should have something to the effect of "— still celebrated as Okhi Day in Greece &mdash" added in. Any comments or objections? Herostratus 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Okhi day shouldn't be merged because it is a different a subject to the Greco-Italian War. --Kyriakos 02:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Between this and talk on Okhi Day I'm calling it consensus not to merge.

I believe that Okhi day should remain, but focus only on the events of Oct. 28 (i.e. remove most of the information about the ensuing operations). It can also be appended with information about how the day is celebrated TheArchon 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Campaign section

I think this section is redundant and should be deleted. I will delete it in a couple of days if noone has any objections. Periklis* 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section and restructured the article a bit. I added a "Naval Ops" section, where the - all too frequently ignored - RHN actions in the Adriatic, together with the concurrent RN-Regia Marina confrontations are to be added.
PS. Apart from needing sources and a bit fleshing out the separate stages of campaign, I feel this article is rather short on the Italian perspective. If anyone has relevant knowledge or relevant sources, please contribute! Cplakidas 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that info about naval actions should be included. Especially the raid on Taranto in Southern Italy and Volana in Albania. Maybe add some info about the submarine Papanikolis. Regarding the lack of the Italian perspective, one way of adding it would be to add eyewitness accounts to get their views in. Periklis* 04:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

An Italian war crime and boorish racism

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

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

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

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

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

Stalemate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British combatants

There weren't any British combatants in this war... or were there? 85.17.201.14 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a British participation in that several RAF squadrons operated from Greece against the Italians. More on this will be added shortly. Cplakidas 15:15, 17 October 2007

(UTC)

The "Warrior Mentality" dispute

Janissaries

Hi, Cplakidas. As you requested I have written something from the Italian perspective. I see that you erased the exact words of Mack Smith, the english considered the best scholar on Mussolini and his Fascism, about the Anatolian Greeks in the Greek Army. I have added additional sentences to explain the meaning. It is not a matter of "inferior Latins" or inferior Greeks.....It is a matter of historical evidence and Wikipedia is based on this, not on racial or nationalistic opinions, don't you believe? Anyway, feel free to do what you want on those phrases of Mack Smith: I don't want to have any edit war with you. I have plenty of work to do and it is going to be very difficult for me in the future to add something more to your article (which by the way, I believe it is worth more than a simple "B").

Allow me one final little commentary on the subject "anatolian greek janissaries": May be you in Greece don't realize this, but we Italians (I should say most of us) consider the attack on Greece one of our humiliations during the disaster that was WWII. An humiliation even because was an attack against the Greeks, with whom we have had since Roman (and Magna Grecia) times a special relationship like big and small brothers. Many Italian historians (not only Mack Smith) pinpoint the fact that the million anatolian Greeks (who moved to Greece in the 1923 "exchange") probably (of course it is impossible to demonstrate precisely this) made the Greek army a very stubborn one, full of rage because of the "exchange". The memory of the disaster of Smirne was present in many Greek prisoners of war, according to interviews (done in 1940/1) registered by the "Ufficio Storico" of the Italian Army. Those soldiers declared to be strongly motivated against the Italians, even because they were told by their superiors that Mussolini wanted to give Epirus to the Albanians (like Smirne was given to The Turks) and to make Corfu (with other Greek islands) an Italian island. Regards.--Brunodam 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Very fascinating information. Thanks for bringing it up, Brunodam. I wonder how many Anatolian Greeks joined the Greek fighting forces directly after their forced relocation? It seems to me that relocated people might want to join in higher numbers than stable people. Were the Anatolian army groups integrated or segregated? If segregated, was there a kind of intra-military competition between contrasting units? Binksternet 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be great material to add to the Treaty of Lausanne page. Binksternet 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bruno. I understand the intention of the passage you quoted, but what it actually said and implied is a different matter. True, the Greek army was very motivated, in part due to the Asia Minor disaster and the hardships involved in overcoming it. One must remember that in 1923, Greece was a country involved almost continuously at war since 1912, with an economy in ruins, with over 1.5 million refugees in addition to its "normal" population of 6+ million, internationally isolated and humiliated (e.g. the Corfu incident of 1923) and internally unstable. By 1940, a modest prosperity had been achieved again, despite the ups and downs of the inter-war years, and, despite Metaxas' dictatorship, the people certainly were willing to fight for it (somewhat like the Soviet Union in 1941). Then the Italians committed the blunder of sinking Helli on the day of one of our most holy feasts, and provided a perfect way for uniting all Greeks against them. In total, about a fourth of Greece's population in 1940 was of Anatolian origin, and certainly, they were perhaps more motivated than most (although, AFAIK, no study exists to that effect in Greek). But Mack Smith's quote, as added, implied that some mystical "Ottoman warrior spirit" was infused into them, and that is why Greeks won, and Italians lost. Aside from this being a very un-scholarly (and, to my eyes, very racially/nationally biased, like the "cowardly Italians" stuff) statement, it is quite untrue. As I mentioned, motivation was quite high amongst all strata of Greek society (Ciano's anticipated defections never occurred, and even the Communists initially supported the war). Also, Orthodox Greeks in the Ottoman Empire almost never served in its army, so where they would have got this spirit is unclear. BTW, the Janissaries stopped being recruited from among Christians already since the 18th century, and they were wiped out by the Sultan in 1826 as an impediment to reforms. Thus in WW1, there were no Janissaries in the Ottoman army, and very few Greeks (certainly not in front line units). Also, most Janissaries were actually recruited from the Balkans, not Asia Minor. Best regards, and thanks for the additions. Cplakidas 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A fourth of Greek soldiers were from the refugees from Anatolia. That is a big chunk. That means a different mentality in all the greek army. A mentality similar to the greek Janissaries of the glorious times of our Ottoman Empire. Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.105 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, Greeks and Janissaries have had very little in common for the past few centuries. And to imply that a different mentality existed because of the different place of origin, and that, in effect, this 25% is the one which made all the difference, is not only historical nonsense, but also a remarkably racist POV... The Italian generals during the war may have held such views, trying to find a scapegoat for their failure, but this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Cplakidas 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Without the turkish fighting mentality of the anatolian soldiers the greek army would have been defeated, like in Ataturk times when we liberated Izmir from the greek invasors. Only a racist Greek cannot see this fundamental difference of mentality and despise & ignore the turkish mentality of this 25%!! Wikipedia doesn't belong to Greeks!! Even Churchill hinted to the fact that the greek soldiers fought in Epirus against the Italians in a similar way to how fought the glorious Turks against his troops in Dardanelles in WWI!!!!!!!The problem is that you Greeks deny this historical evidence because hate us Turks and cannot accept that your only partial victory (the temporary reject of the Italians, who later won you) was because of the many anatolian soldiers in your army WITH TURKISH FIGHTING MENTALITY. This is historical evidence that is surfacing slowly but steadily, even if greeks racists don't like it.Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.201.42 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And attributing the success of an army of 350,000 of whom only 25% were from Anatolia, and where the vast majority of the officer corps was not from Anatolia, to this 25% is not racist and nationalist POV, I suppose. Or that some special "Turkish fighting mentality" exists, for that matter, which was somehow imparted to a population which had stopped being recruited as soldiers since the mid-17th century, and only fought in WW1 in small numbers because the Turks didn't trust them... Eteturk, if you have a problem with Greeks, take it elsewhere, not Wikipedia... Greeks from "Old Greece" and from Anatolia fought and died equally for their country in this campaign, and to insert ahistorical comments like that to prove some nationalist POV is extremely bad taste. Cplakidas 11:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They were not only 25%, but at least 1/3. Their officials were mostly not anatolian greeks, but the real fight was done in the mountanous terrain of Epirus by soldiers, not by officials (who usually stay behind the front line). This is not nationalist POV, but analysis and conclusions/references of what written by Churchill, Mack Smith and others. Your is a disgusting POV, supported by not wikipedian erase of evidence.Eteturk

THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE OTTOMANS

The Anatolian Greeks had "the warrior mentality of the Ottomans", according to the serious scholar Mack Smith. Why Cplakidas wants to erase this evidence? This is wikipedia, and every admin knows the rules of impartiality and objectivity. Those anatolian Greeks grew for centuries in the Ottoman empire and assimilated the fighting mentality of the Turks. They brought to the greek army in Epirus their "warrior mentality" -supported even by the rage for their forced exodus- and this factor caught by surprise the italian generals who had just seen the greek army defeated by our beloved Ataturk. We are NOT talking of the greek Janissaries, but of the "warrior mentality" of the anatolian greeks. It is racist and nationalistic to erase the evidences! And it NOT wikipedian to erase evidences from a serious english scholar like Mack Smith. Eteturk.

Firstly, you will see that the origin of the 25% is clearly mentioned, and even that the Italians used this as a reason for their defeat. Secondly, what irritates me is the slant you are trying to put in this argument, to the effect that a) an "Ottoman fighting mentality" existed, which b) was transmitted to the Anatolian Greeks and c) is responsible for the Greek success in repulsing the Italians. Concerning a), while I do not dispute the martial prowess of the Ottomans, I am dead against any idea of a racial or national "spirit" or "mentality" which somehow makes them superior warriors.

Why you always talk of Racism? A fighting mentality is a social characteristic developed in history by all populations under special and influential leaders.

The same nonsense is what Hitler and the Nazis claimed for the Germans, for heaven's sake... As for b), as explained over and over again, the Greeks in Anatolia were merchants, farmers and workers, not soldiers. How this mentality could have been imparted to them from the Ottoman Turks, is not clear, unless it came genetically or via the soil... c) to attribute (indirectly but quite clearly) the success of the entire Greek army to this particular 25% and to this "warrior mentality", is pushing racial prejudices to the extreme. Dennis Mack Smith may be a serious scholar, but this particular statement of opinion (and, if I may say so, prejudice), taken from the self-serving memoirs of the Italian generals, who were anxious to explain their defeat, cannot be taken for definite and indisputable proof that what he says is true.

Who are you to criticize a renowned scholar like Mack Smith?

Last week James D. Watson said that blacks were not as intelligent as whites, but noone will cite that as serious proof that these differences actually exist... But, as afar as I can see, what bothers you is my refusal to accept the existence of a "warrior mentality" transmittable through unclear means to some populations and not others.

What has to do Watson with all this discussion? Don't go out of topic with strange excuses of racism!

You (and Mack Smith) seem to forget the fact that all Greeks had lived, for several centuries, under Ottoman rule. So why did this not impart to all of them (and the Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians etc) this stupendous "warrior mentality", but limited itself only to the Anatolian Greeks (whose majority, BTW, did not even fight in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922))?

The Anatolian Greeks received the ottoman influence in their way of fighting and behaving in war for many more generations than those in the Balkans. We Turks were between them since Manzikurt.

I do not dispute that they, just as the non-Anatolian Greeks, fought valiantly, but to attribute this success to racial backgrounds has nothing to do with modern-day science or history. If you persist on this, I'll have no choice but to go through WP:RFC. Cplakidas 11:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want fights with RFC, but I request help from other forumers against your erase of evidences! Eteturk

The position that Greek military success was due to an "Ottoman mentality" is so laughable that it is almost hard to argue with it... Should I bring up the fact that the Ottomans had been trounced by every European army for the past four centuries?

You are an ignorant: what about Crete, to name only one?

Or the fact that the majority of the army was made up of mainland Greeks? That the modern officer corp of the Greek army has traditionally been Peloponnesian? Or that the Italian strategy in the campaign was quite poor? That the Greeks had a very defensible position? To attribute Greek military success to any "Ottoman mentality" is just ludicrous. I wonder why Italy was able to lick Turkey so harshy in the Italo-Turkish war in 1911, was it because of the Southern Italian's Greek heritage :-P

Again, you show ignorance. Many Italian historians accuse the southern Italians (with their Balkanized mentality, because they are full of Albanians and Greeks) of most of their defeats in the last century (from Lissa to WWII).

Please don't bring up ridiculous racist ideas when we are talking about serious military matters.

So what if one British historian made one statement-- historians are not infallible. For example, I could quote a racist remark by a newspaper, it does not make it the gospel truth. The New York Tribune told its readers in the year 1919:

the Turks have always been a parasite and a stench in the nostrils of civilization

The fact that something was published does not make it the truth, please use common sense.

But the historian statement is an opinion and MUST be taken in consideration in Wikipedia. Who are you to criticize a scholar like Mack Smith AND ERASE HIS OPINION from Wikipedian articles? This is real lack of common sense!!

AlexiusComnenus 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, but it is exactly for those reasons that the Greeks of Anatolia cannot possibly have had anything to do with an Ottoman fighting mentality, since they were entirely uninvolved with the Ottoman military system, or any military system, for that matter, for at least 2 and a half centuries.

This is ridiculous. For two centuries and half no Anatolian Greek has ever been involved with the ottoman military system? You are going to make laugh every serious scholar of this world!

How much clearer can I say this? Unless you try to say that this mentality is transmitted via genes or other ways, which is ludicrous, there is no basis for Mack Smith's argument. To argue anything else is to try to belittle the achievement of the Greek army by attributing it to some fantastical notion of an "imported mentality", and indirectly imply that otherwise Greeks wouldn't have fought successfully. If that isn't nationalistic anti-Greek bias, then what is?

No it is not "nationalistic anti-Greek bias". It is the reality. Look at what has happened with the Germans: Napoleon considered the German soldiers the WORST fighters, he refused to accept Bavarian farmers in his Army; but after one century of Prussian influence in the mentality of the German people, look how the German soldiers behaved in the two world wars!

As to who I am, I am someone who uses reason, and that comment that Mack Smith made certainly does not stand up to any objective evaluation.

Who are you to do an "objective evaluation" of a scholar like Mack Smith?

As for bringing up Watson, my point is that respected scholars are also humans, and that sometimes they say and write nonsense (Watson and his work on DNA helped disprove the supposed genetic differences between races, and yet he made racist comments), and that it is up to our critical ability to distinguish what is what. Cplakidas 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, what has to do Watson with this topic? You are so racist that write of racism everywhere!Etetur

WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.

THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.

IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS AS MINE.

WARNING:IT IS A LOSS OF TIME TO TRY TO CONVINCE FANATICS

Warning:It is a loss of time to try to convince fanatics like Plakidas. They will erase even the evidences brought by serious scholars!

A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, admits Cplakidas. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon and judged terrible warriors in WWII) under the Prussian mentality during the nineteenth century. But I am sure that nationalists like Cplakidas (and friends) will deny all this forever.

Without the turkish fighting mentality of the anatolian soldiers the greek army would have been defeated, like in Ataturk times when we liberated Izmir from the greek invasors. Only a nationalist Greek cannot see this fundamental difference of mentality and despise & ignore the turkish mentality of this 25/30%!! Wikipedia doesn't belong to Greeks!! Even Churchill hinted to the fact that the greek soldiers fought in Epirus against the Italians in a similar way to how fought the glorious Turks against his troops in Dardanelles in WWI!!!!!!!The problem is that you Greeks deny this historical evidence because hate us Turks and cannot accept that your only partial victory in modern history (the temporary reject of the Italians, who later won you) was because of the many anatolian soldiers (in your army) WITH TURKISH FIGHTING MENTALITY. This is historical evidence that is surfacing slowly but steadily, even if greeks fanatics don't like it.

My complain is a last WARNING to the admins and all the not partialized forumers. Eteturk.

First, please stop entering your comments in between our replies. It is messing up the text. For the n-th time, Anatolian Greeks were not recruited in the Ottoman Army, from the mid-17th century to the early 1900s, and then, they were almost never sent to actual front line units. That is a fact, accepted by historians. So how on Earth could they be affected by these social factors that constitute a "fighting mentality" if they never served in an army? You can take a million Prussians, Cossacks or even Huns, if you do not give them any military training for 2 centuries, what sort of "fighting mentality" will they have? And what is this nonsense you write about Napoleon and the Germans being considered bad warriors? Do the names Frederick the Great or Aspern-Essling ring a bell? Napoleon included a whole Bavarian Corps in his Grande Armee, and tens of thousands of troops from the other German states... And the Prussian mentality served them oh, so well, during WW1 and WW2, so that, of course, they prevailed against the feeble, un-warrior like Western democracies... Hah! Talk about outdated stereotypes... If you are accusing me of being a nationalist fanatic, what should one make of your comments about Greeks? When Churchill wrote "like Gallipoli", he was using a well-known illustration of bravery, but did not have any meaning beyond that. It is just like saying that "X fought like the Spartans at Thermopylae". No one would then go on and argue that a "inherited Spartan spirit" guided them. You are not presenting any arguments, but have merely found a statement by one scholar which suits your POV and just won't listen to reason. Anyway, I am passing this on to RfC below... Cplakidas 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the Ottoman mentality dispute

There are a host of reasons why eteturk's comments are totally ridiculous... we could mention the fact that Christians including Anatolian Greeks were not allowed to serve in the Ottoman military, or the fact that mainland Greeks beat the pants off of the Ottomans in 1912, as did the Italians in 1911, and as did the Russians, English, Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins and a host of other European powers.

Attributing racial/national characteristics as reasons for military success are just examples of the fascist ideologies of Nazism, Mussolinism and Kemalism, and have no impact on serious scholarly discourse. AlexiusComnenus 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not the Wikipedian's job to decide weather such a "fighting mentality" (or whatever...) exists or not but to improve articles. And I really do not see how the inclusion of such a small phrase improves this article. But, for the shake of argument, let's accept for the moment that weather or not the Greek soldiers had a certain "ottoman fighting mentality" was a decisive factor that influenced the course of the war. If so, it would be desirable to have more than one source to confirm that. After all, I do suspect that Mack Smith's phrase has been isolated, misused and out of context (bad faith yes, but this talk page isn't that encouraging). So, to put it bluntly: if more scholarly work on the effect of the "ottoman fighting mentality" on the Greco-Italian war can be found by the concerned user, then let's have it. Otherwise, all we have here is a lame case of WP:POINT. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Put it more bluntly: bring you and your greek friends evidence from a scholar that the opinion of Mack Smith is wrong about the ottoman mentality of the anatolian Greeks. Otherwise let's accept it, because the racist accusations of some nationalist Greeks are not based on any serious argument supported by scholars. --Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an insignificant, inappropriate, POVish piece of information. Contributions of User:209.215.160.102 suggest that it's no worth dealing with it. Remove Odysses (☜) 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought that "national fighting mentality" theories was popular with certain types of late victorian chauvinists, not in 2007 wikipedia articles?--victor falk 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Every human present on Earth is descended from successful fighters or they wouldn't be here. That said, maybe the Anatolian soldiers battled more fiercely than the Greeks fighting alongside. I believe that it's possible for an army to be strengthened or stiffened by the inclusion of a small proportion of fanatic fighters; that's not the issue. What I wonder is who was the more motivated soldier: recently dispossessed Anatolians or the long-time Greeks who were fighting to hold the soil they'd been born on? I haven't yet seen solid evidence that either was more effective. Binksternet 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Only in GREEK WIKIPEDIA we can see a refusal of what write scholars, because not accepted by greek opinions. T.Y.

I DON'T SEE A RACIAL OFFENSE ON THE "OTTOMAN FIGHTING MENTALITY" SENTENCE. I SEE ONLY A CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF VIEW OF A SCHOLAR, LIKE MANY WE CAN READ IN MANY TOPICS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. WHAT I SEE -CLEARLY- IS THAT A GROUP OF GREEKS WANT TO ERASE THE OPINION OF A SCHOLAR. THEY SHOULD WRITE THEIR POV NEXT TO THE OPINION OF THE SCHOLAR MACK SMITH: THAT IS THE WAY WIKIPEDIA WORKS. EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE SCHOLAR, THE GREEK CPLAKIDAS-ALEXIUS COMNENUS-MIKALIS FAMELIS-ODYSSES SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS OPEN TO ALL OPINIONS AND POINTS OF VIEW AND THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO DECIDES WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE WRITTEN! I PERSONALLY AGREE TO PLACE BOTH POINTS OF VIEW: THE GREEK AND THE SCHOLAR TOGETHER IN THE ARTICLE. THEN WE WIKIPEDIA READERS WILL JUDGE. FRANK R.

Racial oriented, unsupported ,profoundly unfounded bitter comments driven by the famous colonial arrogance which seeks answers into stupid unscientific idealistic theories even expressed by God himself doesn't make them worth mentioning.Eagle of Pontus 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to follow the opinions of Smith & Churchill instead of that of greek nationalists that write childish Lol and rant about supposed racism. --Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(responding to RfC) I have some familiarity with the history of this era, and would be happy to review sources. Are there any which actually use the term "Ottoman fighting mentality"? If not, the phrase should probably be avoided. --Elonka 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, why don't you read the references by yourself and investigate what is in the indicated page? --Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.23.98 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol

That's unbelievably funny.I myself am a Pontic-Greek but i can't stop laughing since seeing those comments.I can't believe that there is anyone above the age of 5 and with a minimum 60IQ level who can seriously believe what our "Ottoman mentality" friend supports.Hahaha.Still can't stop laughing.Eagle of Pontus 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment is too much childish for wikipedia: be serious, kid. --Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

After all this discussion on a single phrase by "serious scholar" Mack Smith, we do not have an article on the scholar, any idea of his/her ideological views, the context of the phrase or the sources used for it. Should not Kemal expand on this before treating Smith as an authority on the subject?

Was this phrase included in "Italy: A Modern History" by Denis Mack Smith? Questia has the complete text of the book but gives its publication date as 1959. Which might account for the racist terminology used but might still give us a view on the subject from this period.

Could the name-calling cease and some research commence? User:Dimadick —Preceding comment was added at 08:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Could someone with access to the book copy and paste an excerpt of the cite where "ottoman fighting mentality" appears here so we might judge it?--victor falk 08:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• what if he said so.Is it based on what grounds?Even if God himself expressed an opinion that doesn't make it more than an opinion!First of all what Ottoman mentality means, how is defined ,what makes it different from another mentality and in which way has demonstrated itself in history (defeat by a handful of Greeks in 1821 ,Balkan wars, Russo-Turkish wars World War 1 etc etc) secondly how this can be transferred to other people and by whom thirdly how it can be measured, forth is it absolute? (everyone single one had it?) sixth if so what was the proportion of refugees off springs battling in WW2 and in Italian front in particular and last but not least GET A LIFE YOU RETARDED TURK.(My best wishes to all fellow Greeks today the 67th anniversary of the "OXI" day )Eagle of Pontus 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please be civil. Not being never helps your arguments, no matter how right they are.--victor falk 13:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments made by Italian officers should be rejected as pure conjecture, not based on statistical, sociological or even military facts. Since the population exchange took place in 1923-24, Greek refugees fighting in 1940 would have to be 34 years or older to have received training in the Turkish military. Since the vast majority of recruited men would have been younger than this age, it is simply silly to claim that these men had any relation to the tactics or morale of Turkish soldiers of World War I, any more than they bare resemblance to any other fighter fighting for his country. As such, the comments add no value to this article and should be removed. --Ferengi 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What else the Greeks want erased and removed? They behave like the owners of the English Wikipedia.--Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Christians typically did not serve in combat in the Ottoman army. Only after the Hat-i Sherif of Gulhane in the 1850s were Christians allowed to serve, and typically they went in labor battalions rather than combat battalions. 212.201.82.183 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe the Greeks from Anatolia knew better what it means to live under occupation so they might have fought more bravely not "because" of Ottomans, but actually in spite of them, but again those speculations even if done by people at that time should not be included into an Encyclopedia. -- AdrianTM 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with that, if nothing else because the Anatolians Greeks, having more to lose, had a reason to fight harder. I also agree that is speculative (no offense to Dennis Mack), and should not be included in the article.--victor falk 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I totally disagree with that. I can start erasing all the greek speculations in the article, for example. There are many. --Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Read WP:POINT, but feel free to remove speculations. -- AdrianTM 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I read WP:POINT, but you too, AdrianTM, should read it. These are not speculations of wikipedians, since are referenced:<<After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I, and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army (about one fourth of the recruits were from Anatolia) after the population exchange of 1923-24.[9] Furthermore, the English scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece. He added even that the Anatolian Greeks had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans.[10]>>. The first paragraph was written by the greek Plakidas and the references 9 and 10 can be found at the bottom of the article. Sincerely I don't see any racism in the above paragraphs, but I see a reality fact that can irritate only the most fanatic Greeks. And this irritated behaviour is NOT wikipedian. Many articles in Wikipedia irritate someone, but the admins defend the objectivity and the different opinions of all of us: of course, this is different if we are in the Greek Wikipedia, but I believe we are in the English Wikipedia. Aren't we?--Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.106 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm Italian and I think I will chip in with some info about Generale Prasca: Prasca is considered to be the worst Italian general of WWII - some statements from Italian books about him: "vain and excessively self-confident", "Visconti-Prasca and Soddu were both the sort of commanders who perpetuated negative comic-opera stereotypes of Italian generals. In the case of Visconti-Prasca, it was braggadocio and a flair for ridiculous statements" or "He assured Mussolini personally that his plans for the invasion of Greece were "as perfect as humanly possible," when in fact they were woefully inadequate". I think, that statements by Prasca should not be used anywhere in wikipedia, as he is nothing more than a braggart and a propagandist for himself. The Italian Army was defeated by both: the stiff Greek resistance and the Italian Armys lack of adequate material, ridiculous planning, low morale and its astoundingly incompetent leadership. To attribute the defeat of the Italian Army to "typical turkish fighting mentality" is a far fetched idea and clearly designed to propagandize Turkish nationalistic feelings; therefore I am against including this or similar statements in the article. --noclador 12:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What has to do Prasca shameful braggadocio with the opinion of renowned scholars about the "fighting mentality" of the Anatolian Greeks inside the Greek Army in Epirus? You are Italian, Noclador, so you should know how has changed the "fighting mentality" of the Italians from the Roman Empire to world war two! A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, admits Cplakidas. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon and judged good warriors in WWII) under the Prussian mentality during the nineteenth century. --Kemal2 (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Article disputed

I have added the tag "Disputed" because of the continuous cancellation by a group of Greeks of some paragraphs from renowned scholars.

The following paragraphs are not speculations of wikipedians, since are referenced:<<After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I, and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army (about one fourth of the recruits were from Anatolia) after the population exchange of 1923-24.[9] Furthermore, the English scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece. He added even that the Anatolian Greeks had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans.[10]>>. The first paragraph was written by the greek Plakidas and the references 9 and 10 can be found at the bottom of the article. Sincerely I don't see any racism in the above paragraphs, but I see a reality fact that can irritate only the most fanatic Greeks. And this irritated behaviour is NOT wikipedian. Many articles in Wikipedia irritate someone, but the admins defend the objectivity and the different opinions of all of us.--Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Greek (I'm actually English-heritage 5th-generation American) but I reverted most of the paragraph because I don't think it encyclopedic nor important. It's enough that we say "After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I." That's a fine statement and is worthy of inclusion. More than that is putting unneeded nationalist or racial opinion into an otherwise fact-filled article. Binksternet 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, we aren't here to put every single world leader's or history expert's opinion into the article. We are here to make the article read smoothly and perform its education function while remaining historically accurate. Your Mack Smith reference would be more appropriate in a Wikipedia article about nationalistic beliefs and opinions. Binksternet 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why this erase of scholar references happens only in this greek article? Why in other articles -and I can cite many as examples- all the references from scholars are accepted without accusations of "unneeded nationalist or racial opinion"? There is it a greek lobby inside wikipedia? Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.113 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn!! You found us out!! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.10.145 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but to the Greek lobby and to the admins related to those Greek nationalists your opinion doesn't matter at all.--Kemal2 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am really impressed by the fanaticism that some people employ to attribute a victory of one nation to the influence of their own. The Greek victory over the italians is attribute to the ottomans?? I remain utterly impressed by that notion and the fact that some people have managed to transform a wikipedia article over greek-italian war to an ottoman matter!! I ask all of you with historic nicknames to take your fight somewhere else. The huge advantage of the web is that you can simply change page by pressing a button and this discussion is really not historical nor scientific. so it simply does not worth our precious time. Everyone with real historical interest please avoid reading this. I for once do not think in writing again. Nico Madrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.12.235 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Greek Lobby?

Why are cancelled the scholar references (about the Anatolian Greeks)? Why this happens only in this greek article? Why in other articles -and I can cite many as examples- all the references from scholars are accepted without accusations of "unneeded nationalist or racial opinion"? There is it a greek lobby inside wikipedia? --Kemal2 (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

first of all, the answer is no, there is no "greek lobby" inside wikipedia. Please read WP:CABAL before you continue.  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If there it is no Greek lobby, then why no admin pays attention to comments like this appeared on "Article Disputed":That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience  ?. --Kemal2 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, can anyone point me to an article about the many years of fighting against Turks? As for this issue at hand, most of the editors expressed the opinion to not include that paragraph in the article, please accept that, there is many stuff that can be added, not everything gets to make it in the Wikipedia articles. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again the same repetition about most of the editors, but the problem is that ALL the editors are Greeks and friends of Greeks. If someone disagrees, the greek lobby will erase his writings and block him in a NOT democratic way, like has been done to me. Your comments, AdrianTM, are the proof of the existence of this lobby!--Kemal2 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read Nat's link, did you? I suggest you read it. But, I guess there is a Greek Cabal after all....

Seriously though, have you considered that perhaps you may be in the wrong? You do understand that Wikipedia is about consensus, right? --Kimon^talk 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kimon, seriously though, have you considered that perhaps this comment is not wrong: <....That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience ......>? and don't forget that wikipedia is based on consensus , but the consensus of all of us and NOT the consensus of a single group or lobby!--Kemal2 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kemal2, the consensus is to NOT include the statement. You are the only one who wants to see it included, therefore I removed it. --

noclador (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are others, just look at the former discussions on the talk page. I was not the first to write about the anatolian greeks in the article.--Kemal2 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what's your purpose on Wikipedia, is this the sole purpose to include a sentence about Anatolian Greeks, I'm sure Turkey has many subjects that needs to be developed, including the ones about the "fighting spirit" of the Turks, I'm puzzled why are you so obsessed with the fighting spirit of Greeks... -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My one and only purpose is to defend the opinion of renowned scholars from POV of nationalistic groups (that influence, with their partiality, the historical truth).--Kemal2 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on the Ottoman "warrior mentality"

The dispute concerns the following language:

1)Main original excerpt:

Furthermore, the english scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece (and had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans). He was referring to the excuse done by the Italian officers (like General Prasca) who wrongly influenced Mussolini to attack Greece. These officers used to say that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army in the Dardanelles during WWI", and that their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited) after the 1923 exodus of one million Greeks from Anatolia

2)secundary & successive excerpt:

After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army after the population exchange of 1923-24.One fourth of the Greek army soldiers in 1940 were from Anatolia and they fought in Epirus with a typical turkish fighting mentality (like the Turks did in the Dardanelles during WWI)

--Stlemur (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I have added the main original excerpt from which has started all the problem. The secundary excerpt (added by Stlemur) is the result of modifications done successively and that don't give the right idea of the causes of the discussions about the writings of the scholar Mack Smith.--Kemal2 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will chip in my thoughts about this: I served in the Italian Army - first with the 18 Alpini Regiments "Edolo" battalion and than with the Alpini COMALP. The Edolo Btn. fought in the Greece campaign and distinguished itself there (lonely unit that did...)

First Italian units of WWII were quite capable and fought stubbornly if led well (i.e. Tridentina division under Gen. Reverberi in Russia or Folgore division under Gen. Frattini in El Alamein) however the Italian attack on Greece was planned and led by Gen. Prasca, who is considered to be the most incompetent general in a long line of really incompetent generals in Italian military history. He didn't even last two weeks in command, after which he was sent home and never commanded anything again. After the war he maintained that his attack plan and preparation were "as perfect as humanly possible" and the only reason he did not achieve his "in 2 weeks in Athens" promise, was the weather, the cowardice of his soldiers, the stubborn Greek resistance, and so on and on... So whatever he said is in no way a sincere assessment of the conditions on the ground, but all a vain justification of his miserable conduct.

The real reasons that the Italian campaign failed so miserably are:

• lack of adequate equipment, material and supplies
• ridiculous planning,
• overoptimistic assumptions,
• extremely low troop morale,
• way to few troops,
• astoundingly incompetent leadership (the replacement for Prasca, panic-stricken Gen. Ubaldo Soddu needed hours of "relaxation" every day, while the front crumbled)
• stiff Greek resistance.

To attribute the successful defense of Greece to the "turkish fighting mentality" is in no way a true statement. If the "turkish fighting mentality" was the deciding factor in the defense of Greece, than why did the Wehrmacht overrun all of Greece in just 24 days? Would you attribute this to the "Gothic fighting mentality" - probably not.

Let me summarize: the Italians failed for the reasons above, the Greeks fought bravely and emboldened by the disastrous showing of the Italians went on the offensive, but at the same time the Greek Army was no match to the massive, well organized, well planned and brutally executed attack of the Wehrmacht. The attempt to push a clear Turkish POV ("The Turkish spirit did it.") into a well balanced article about a war in which no Turks fought is a distortion of historic facts. Only Prasca does approve. I do not and the Italian Army definitively does not approve too. --noclador (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, Noclador, but what has to do the history of your Alpini in Greece with the discussion? If you do not approve what I and others write about the Anatolian Greeks in the Epirus campaign, it is OK for me, but why even the Italian Army? All the discussion is about the fighting mentality of the Anatolian Greeks, who were 1/3 of the recruits in the Greek Army in Epirus. As I wrote before: you should be the first to know that the fighting mentality in a population changes (remember the warrior mentality of the majority of the Romans and compare them to the majority of the Italian soldiers in WWII). Of course there were many factors in the Italian disaster in Epirus (I agree with you on this), but one certainly is related to what writes the scholar Mack Smith in the above main excerpt.

A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, as a Greek wikipedian admitted in a former section of the talkpage. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon as soldiers but successively judged good warriors in WWI & WWII, thanks to the infusion of Prussian "fighting & warrior mentality" after the German unification) under the Prussian rule during the nineteenth century.

In the original excerpt Mack Smith clearly states that Prasca (with others) did an "excuse" to defend his mistakes: nobody doubts about his incompetency.

About the reference to the Janissaries: the officers declared as an excuse that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army". What is wrong with this declaration? There were Greek Janissaries for many generations until the XIX century.

About the reference to the excuse of those officers (like Prasca) that: "their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited)". Again, what is wrong here? They are free to find an excuse and believe that those Anatolian Greeks made the difference in the Greek Army. And historically (until the XIX century) those Anatolian Greeks (converted to moslem religion in many cases) proved to be good warriors as Janissaries. Let's remember that most of the actual population of western Anatolia is Turkish today, but is mainly (ar least 60%) made of Greeks converted through five centuries of assimilation (even their DNA confirms this reality). And they assimilated not only the religion and language, but even the "warrior mentality of the Ottomans", as Mack Smith writes (and this assimilation/change has happened -for example- with the Prussian military education with the Germans in just one century).

Finally I want to remember what a wikipedian wrote in a preceding section of the talkpage: "That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience". I agree with him: those Italian officers knew very well the army of fascist Metaxas. They trained many Greek officers to fight on their side, but they did not know the mentality of those Anatolian Greeks and their stubborness, similar to that of the Ataturk troops in the Dardanelles in WWI and that was appreciated even by Churchill.

This is going to be my last edit (in the article & the talkpage). I am satisfied to see that a lot of wikipedians are paying attention to the discussion (THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!) and I respect the contrary opinions of many of them. With these "requested comments", the truth about the importance of the Anatolian Greeks' mentality in the Epirus campaign will come out soon or later, even if the Greek lobby keeps erasing and erasing. --Kemal2 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving for a moment aside the fact that this is not encyclopedic material, I think that the idea of "fighting mentality" of a group of people is borderline racist (or ethnicist/nationalist whatever you want to call it), maybe this kind of remarks were in vogue at the time the guy said that... however I don't see any reason to include something like this because "fighting mentality" is not something measurable and seems highly unscientific, I have no idea how that guy reached the conclusion, but I don't think he was a psychologist, so that fails a basic reliable source requirement. And yes this might be your last post, I already reported you for WP:3RR infringment (again on the same article) -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Spare us at last.That Turk guy doesn't know the most basic facts about his own country.The Greeks who emigrated after 1922 war were son of merchants and craftsmen.Christians couldn't serve in the Ottoman army unless they changed their religion and subsequently their national identity as they considered and was considered by others as Turks and not Greeks.People who identified as Greeks were the descendants of those you refused to change religion and weren't allowed to Ottoman army.Secondly as Adrian stated above the Ottoman mentality is a ridiculous racist concept.Ottoman empire was routed several times by Russians English French etc and by a handful of Greeks who were outnumbered and outgunned by the Ottomans in 1821. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Churchill did appreciate the stubborn Turkish defense as he got the Allies into the Gallipoli disaster much like Prasca did get the Italian Army into its Greek disaster. The "truth about the importance of the Anatolian Greeks' mentality in the Epirus campaign" is that there is no truth to this statement. Kemal2 your real agenda seems to get a paragraph about the "Turkish fighting" mentality into the article, by using a statement about the Anatolian Greeks. This is - as AdrianTM - stated above a ethnicist/nationalist statement and as such a clear POV violation. This is as scientific as stating, that the Wehrmacht beat the French, because the Germans ate more red meat than the French and in turn the Americans beat the Germans as the ate blood soaked raw Hamburgers all the time... in short the statement is a nationalist POV pushing, that does not belong to here.

As for the Italian Army's opinion - every year there is a Greek/Italian Army get-together to commemorate the fighting and I participated twice as a translator (English/Italian). There was never ever any kind of statement or mention of any kind of Anatolian Greek/Turkish fighting mentality, but much laughing at Prascas lunacy ("No Artillery ammunition left? Fascist will, will overcome that") and a continuous marvel at Greek military Engineering capabilities. --noclador (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a few more comments, since Kemal apparently uses my arguments in a very selective and distorting way to support his own position. I did say that a "fighting mentality" is a social characteristic, meaning that it is imposed by external factors (by the ideals of each nation/society, the traditions and training methods of its military, etc) as opposed to some obscure inherent genetic/racial or national provenance. The reason I said this was to refute any possible connection of any such "Ottoman mentality" with the Anatolian Greeks, since for several centuries they were not recruited in the Ottoman army at all. "Greek Janissaries" had ceased to exist since the mid-17th century, when the corps became semi-hereditary (either way the concept is ridiculous, since no Janissary ever viewed himself as Greek, for they were converted into Islam and their descendants remained Muslim), and Greeks were not conscripted again en masse until the 1900s, and then served in second-line units for security reasons. Hence, there were no "Greek Janissaries" at Gallipoli, or anywhere else, just Turks (and Kurds, Arabs, Circassians etc), who did indeed fight bravely in defence of their country. Furthermore, one should consider the fact that in 1940, those Greeks of Anatolian origin who were drafted into the Greek Army would have been infants, or, at best, teenagers, in 1922 (just before the population exchange). Whatever military training or they got, it was certainly not an Ottoman/Turkish one. Furthermore, Mack Smith may be a good scholar, but his area of expertise is Fascist Italy, not Greece or Turkey. So the statement (leaving aside the whole issue of the existence or not of a "fighting mentality") coming from Prasca, who had good reasons to excuse his own failings, can certainly not be NPOV and factual. Cplakidas (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I agree with Kemal2. It seems a battle of one or two against an Army. But the Army always repeats the same things over and over without any scholar and/or professional proofs. I stick with Mack Smith. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.23.98 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• What is professional or scholar in your Ottoman mentality theory;What scientific proof is bigger than the recruiting system of christians in Ottoman empire which proves your theory totally wrong. Eagle of Pontus

After carefully reviewing all the discussions between the David "Kemal2" and the Goliath "Greek Group", I believe Mack Smith is right. For me MACK SMITH IS RIGHT even because the statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true. They <had fought against the Turks for so many years, so they might have a little more experience>. Sincerely, I do not see any racial offence in all these commentaries. I believe that Mack Smith <was referring to the excuse done by the Italian officers (like General Prasca) who wrongly influenced Mussolini to attack Greece> and there is nothing wrong for an author if he writes about that excuse AND CLEARLY EXPLAIN THAT IT IS AN EXCUSE. The poor (punished, banned and practically alone) Kemal2 reminds me Galilei with his "eppur si muove" ("but the earth moves around the sun") against the common opinion of his contemporaries: but at the end all humanity was forced to admit that he was right! Of course between Turks and Greeks there it is a lot of hate, but I am sure that time will allow a more calm approach to the matter. Even the statement of the author Richard Lamb seems OK to me. He wrote that <their (Prasca and others) mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited) after the 1923 exodus of one million Greeks from Anatolia>. What is wrong here? Lamb explain the reasons of the mistake -according to those Italians- in a normal way, without offences and "racism". I believe all this mess in this discussion is a "bubble" that can be solved with a more calm approach to the matter. --Cherso 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that Greeks from Anatolia could not serve as Christians in Ottoman army, nevermind that Greeks that participated in the war were mostly children when they left Anatolia, let's use a silly sentence because it mentions "Turkish fighting spirit" (which is of course a scientific fact) that presumable rubbed somehow (nobody knows how) on Greeks (probably by osmosis), what a great idea! Galileo would be proud of this scientific method. -- AdrianTM 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.

THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.

IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently overlooked or ignored some major etymological phases there mate, thereby making yourself sound beyond ridiculous.Romaioi (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Italian casualties

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

Irving:

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

Cervi:

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Southern-europe-1940.JPG

Image:Southern-europe-1940.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia had no territorial claims against Greece

Background > Greco-Italian relations in the early 20th century: "...Kingdom of Yugoslavia did not seriously press its claims on southern Macedonia..."

That is not true! In fact, Kingdom of Yugoslavia NEVER had any claims on (southern) Macedonia. In addition, Kingdom of Yugoslavia never used name Macedonia for the territory of modern FYR of Macedonia. Greece and Yugoslavia were allies (Balkan Pact) and had no territorial claims against each other. (After WW2 communist Yugoslavia created “Republic of Macedonia”!)--N Jordan (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

During the 1920s and 1930s, there were certain Yugoslav ambitions (which had nothing to do with the "Macedonian" issue as it is understood today) in the direction of Greek Macedonia, Thessaloniki in particular. Mostly they amounted to demands for the cession of control over the Thessaloniki-Belgrade railway line and a separate, Yugoslav-administered zone in its harbour. The dictator Pangalos had agreed to this, which was one of the reasons he was toppled in 1926. These claims never became an essential part of Yugoslav foreign policy (hence "did not seriously press"), nor did they exactly amount to territorial revisionism, but they existed nevertheless, and were an important issue in Yugoslav-Greek relations. If they were mostly laid aside, it was in view of Bulgaria's revisionism (a threat to both Yugoslavia and Greece), and because Yugoslavia was preoccupied with its own internal troubles most of the time. In fact, in 1941, Germany offered to cede Central Macedonia with Thessaloniki in order to get them on their side. I rewrote the section to clarify the issue. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explanation. I must admit it is new for me. As far I know, a free commercial and industrial zone in the harbor of Thessaloniki was established by Greek government in 1914. I also know about Free Yugoslav Zone that was established inside of that zone and lasted until 1976. However, it is my understanding that was pure business interest – not a territorial claim or questioning Greek sovereignty over Thessaloniki. (http://thpa.gr/en/plirofories/istoriko/istoriko.htm) I would appreciate if you can help me to find more info about this. Regards, --N Jordan (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greeks New Year 1941.jpg

Image:Greeks New Year 1941.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of World War II?

Was the Greco-Italian War really part of World War II? Being that it didn't involve the Germans (Greece was weary of provoking them) and only limited air-support from the British, it would seem to me that it was a contemperous war, almost exactly like the Anglo-Iraqi War (British against Iraqi forces with limited air-support from the Germans).

Can someone provide sources one way or the other? Oberiko (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the war was part of WW2. Italy, after all, had entered the war in June 1940, and Greece was attacked and occupied later on by Germany as a direct result of the Italian invasion. The Second World War was not fought only between the British and the Germans, after all... Anyway, the date when "Greece entered WW2" is generally accepted (without any exception, AFAIK) as 28 October 1940. Cplakidas (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also Iraq was definitely part of WWII - the Brits invaded because of the German threat to Britain's supplies of oil from there. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also.

Commanders

I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.248 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Albanian involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inconsistency in naming of towns and places

I'm not very familiar with what the Wikipedia naming conventions are, but I don't feel comfortable with the fact that some of the cities in this arcticle are referred to by their Italian or Greek denominations. I understand Albania was occupied at the time, but did this mean that the cities kept changing their names back and forth as they changed hands? jonosphere (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start changing those names into what the Albanian names are. --Sulmues _talk 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metaxas.jpg

The image Image:Metaxas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Metaxas.jpg
• File:Tsolakoglou-jodl-ferrero-1941-04-23.jpeg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing question

The "Greco-Italian relations..." section, in discussing the Greek army, contains this:

"it was technologically upgraded, regained some land, largely re-equipped and as a whole dramatically improved..."

I cannot make any sense of the fragment "regained some land". It might mean that the army was given some land (for exercises?) but it doesn't make grammatical sense in the context of the sentence.

What is the intended meaning? Molinari (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why very few pictures?

The Greco-Italian war has produced thousands of pictures on both sides. When I was small I remember an encyclopedia on the war with thousands of pictures in the library. Yet on this encyclopedia there are very rare to find, not the mention a simple google image search. I believe that at the end at least of this article there should be alot of pictures from this war. Perhaps I can provide the editors with pitcures if you wish to add historical "color" to this article, or better upload them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantineix (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

anatolian mentality

i just read this funny converstation abt the mentality of greek warriors who came from anatolia. If some persons support that many anatolian greeks were influenced by the barbarian methods of turkish army and they transfered it to the greco-italian war in Albania,i think they are completely ignorant abt the social structure in Greece before the WW2

These refugees were not professional soldiers but mainly farmers or traders.Also in Greece the first years when they came their situation was very difficult and many of them i guess they hated the Greek State for its mistakes abt their situation.They were not "barbarian ottoman monsters" fighting all the time ,but simple people;it is strange that many of them they didnt even purticipated in the greco-turkish war in minor asia!i can say that they were more peaceful and less nationalists than traditional local greeks

if someone is wondered abt the reasons of greek victory,the better that has to do is to take a look at the terrible italian mistakes during the war and the perfect preparation of Greece and greek army during the pre-WW2 years

Greco22 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

References

References include Papagos(who was the leader of the Greek army), official Greek textbooks, Hadjipateras who uses personal experiences as told by Greek soldiers of the war, the Army General Staff of Greece and David Irving, a Holocaust denier. Due to the amount of such references, I'll add the pov template.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) The memories of Leni Riefenstahl are being used as a source for this:

• The Greek victory over the initial Italian offensive of October 1940 was the first Allied land victory of the Second World War, and helped raise morale in occupied Europe. Some historians[who?]argue that it may have influenced the course of the entire war by forcing Germany to postpone the invasion of the Soviet Union in order to assist Italy against Greece. This led to a delayed attack and subjected the German forces to the conditions of the harsh Russian winter, leading to their defeat at the Battle of Moscow.[9]

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

After reading more I found out that official Italian texbooks and Sebastiano Visconti Prasca are used as sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, just because some sources are Greek doesn't make the article POV. This obsession with slapping POV tags on articles that dare to use Greek or Serbian sources has to stop. Second, if you see a highly questionable source, like David Irving, it is best to remove rather than ruin the whole article. And maybe you should read the article some more: Most sources it uses are perfectly reliable. Athenean (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look a little closer, you would have seen that Irving was used to source Italian casualty figures, which is a) real bizarre, since that is not his "area of expertise" so to speak, and b) completely unnecessary since another two sources are used to source the figure. And that was the reason to slap a POV-tag on the article? Like I said, going on around slapping POV tags on articles that use Greek or Serbian sources has got to stop. Athenean (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, since this article deals with a war between Greece and Italy, using Greek and Italian military sources makes perfect sense. Anything else? Athenean (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Papagos a reference also happens to be the commander of Greece and Prasca also a reference was the Italian troops commander during that war and also the general staff of Greek army isn't a reliable source for the subject as well as Italian and Greek texbooks.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because??? I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. Athenean (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get some more input about the issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good. You could also try an RfC, although I doubt you will get what you want either way. Like I said earlier, using Greek and Italian military sources for an article on a military conflict between Greece and Italy makes perfect sense, and is certainly not grounds for a POV tag. Athenean (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Greek Army General Staff is a pov source, because it represents the Greek views on the subject
• The Italian and Greek state textbooks are pov, because the represent the Italian and Greek view respectively
• Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir is a personal book with no academic value representing the views of Riefenstahl who lived at that era and can't be npov.
• Alexander Papagos and Sebastiano Visconti Prasca are pov because they were the commanders of the two armies and their books are their personal views.
• Hadjipateras, C.N., Greece 1940-41 Eyewitnessed is pov because it describes the views of people who lived during the war.

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The mere use of biased sources does not necessarily make the article itself POV. In fact sources with opposite biases may well cancel each other out. It's the editor's job to ensure that the article is NPOV, regardless of the biases of its references. ZjarriRrethues is too strict on judging POV, IMO, otherwise any and all official histories of every war ever published would be unusable as being POV, which is nonsense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Sturmvogel. The guidelines on POV makes clear that simply citing a biased source does not make an article POV; an article such as this certainly should use both Greek and Italian sources, whilst understanding that they will each have their own particular biases. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Italians for picnic?

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

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

How a serious editor can write this sentence on Wikipedia I don't know: Did the editor ask the Italian High Command if they were expecting to go to a picnic? I removed the edit, but I was reverted by user:Athenean [12]. Please bring it to the talk page, otherwise that "picnic" term should go under Peacock. Thank you! --Sulmues _talk 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the above passage, but I don't have the patience to explain it to you. Edits such as these [13] are also a good example of how nationalist thinking can lead people to completely misunderstand things. This [14], in the meantime, is further clueless POV-based editing, again based on complete misundestanding of the English language. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

None of your above edits [17] or [18], not to mention the first response that you gave me, regard the "picnic" word in the article. This article was put into protection because you "don't have the patience" to talk in the talk page [19]. You should also consider striking these comments which would fall under wp:civilty break rules. --Sulmues _talk 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article was protected because of your revert-warring, as was Burrel (3R by you in less than 24 hours). As for civility, this [20] is not very civil (and I don't need to remind you that you are still under civility supervision). Then on top that, you ask for your Kosovo topic ban to be lifted (at the wrong place no less). I could tell you where you should post if you want the topic ban lifted, but like I said, it's not my job to explain things to you. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Casualties and losses sneaky tweak

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

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

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

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

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

Greek victory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright concern

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

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

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

Copy-editing

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

MUSSO'S KIDNEYS

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

Incorrect Image Caption

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

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