Talk:Italian Empire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs:

Needs:

• dates sorting out
• map to show libya's contemporary borders, not current ones
• more on mussolini's view of empire
• more on italian popular view of empire
• how ended in somaliland, ethiopia, eritrea
• legacy
  • compared to british/french empire
  • use of italian, italian descendants etc
• absorb fascism stuff into the main article
• pics --Giddylake 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

might want to colour in British Somaliland (and I think French Somaliland as well) since it was (or they were) occupied in late 1940. Libya is fine, since it current boundaries were the ones established after World War I to compensate the Italians for areas that were promised to them but which they did not receive (in Dalmatia and along the Adriatic) in addition to rewarding the Italians for being with the Allies.

forget about French Somaliland since it was run by the Vichy government.

Oppose merge

While a section should be devoted to the topic, the New Roman Empire is something different than the Italian empire. The Italian empire existed pre-Mussolini and is more than just a topic about colonialism. 12.220.94.199 04:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The two concepts are inextricably related. The New Roman Empire is just the second to last phase that Italian colonisation went through. I'll be carrying out the merge, unless there is further disagreement. Picaroon9288 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Official status

I'm not to sure about this sentence from the first paragraph "It never existed formally, as the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Albania and the Ethiopian Empire were three formally different entities, united by the leadership of Vittorio Emanuele III." The King may have taken titles for some of the oversea territories but does that mean they function as seperate entities? There are a lot of examples where monarchs take, or inherit titles for what are functionally parts of the main sovereign state that such a monarch reigns. The Italian King had such titles for parts of Italy proper as I recall.Gerard von Hebel 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

-The sentance saying that the empire ended when british and commonwealth countries defeated italy in africa does not sound correct. Didn't the US at that point in the war have a big part? perhaps it should say british and allied forces instead? Or just allied forces. tpahl 02:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

American forces were involved in the defeat of Italian & German armies in Tunisia right at the end of the war in Africa. But Tunisia was never Italian territory. Before the involvement of the Americans the Brit & CWlth forces had already driven the Italians out of East Africa and Libya. So I think the para as it stands is fair and accurate. To suggest the involvement of the other allies (ie. USSR and USA) would be misleading.--Giddylake 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bry rulz

Italian colonial possession

The section needs major expansion. It doesn't even mention how they conquered Eritrea; it's like they just showed up there and it was theirs. Thanks. Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

The 1940 map (peacetime borders) is being changed to a 1941 one (wartime). I have two objections to this. Firstly, peacetime borders make more sense to show as during WW2 there were a lot of borders shifting and armies moving around. (You won't see maps of the "British Empire" including Libya - it was just militarily occupied by British forces during the latter stage of the war). Secondly, the map is a piece of original research. Although several references were provided, none of them are of maps. Words are being interpreted into shaded areas by the author of the map. This is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One map there shows the Italian occupation in Somiland(sp)and the one that has the book listed shows the occupation of France on a map. The others talk about the short advance of Italy into Kenya and Sudan. WP even has its own article on the attack on Brit Somil. Its a well known fact that the Italians occupied part of france, and the eastern balkans as the yare also shown on my references. The Italians pushed over the border into Sudan and Kenya, that is also a well known fact and is listed in those references. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Ho hum... here we go again (cf. Talk:Dutch Empire). Firstly: I am not denying that Italy invaded these areas. Once again you misunderstand. The point is: what is the source you used when you decided to shade these exact areas? Looking at your "references" in more detail:

• [1] - where on this map does it support the shading that you have added to yours?
• [2] - as I have repeatedly told you, you cannot use other uploaded maps at Wikipedia/Wikicommons as references for your own maps. That would be circular.
• [3] - this (slightly dodgy looking) map does not concur with what you have drawn
• [4] - where is the map on this page?
• "Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt. Germany and the Second World War - Volume 2: Germany's Initial Conquests in Europe, pg. 311" - what are you suggesting from this is a source for the map you have drawn?
• [5] - This is a self-published website! I have told you repeatedly that these are not acceptable sources at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I listed 6 references, not 5. Wh yare you not doing this to the other maps? They are clearly not sourced as well. And if you wish to go down the road of the Dutch Empire, I losted my references, and it turned out much of what I said was accurate(Acadia, French Guiana for examples). If you look at the page that does not havea map, it says "Italian occupation of Brit Somil". How much clearer can that be? (Red4tribe (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Two wrongs do not make a right, do they? All I know is that you have a tendency of creating unreliable self-made maps, you have added one here, and I am challenging your sources for it. That is how Wikipedia stays verifiable and reliable: editors challenge other editors' contributions when necessary. It is absolutely no defence to say "hey - why can't my map stay - there are others that are worse", or "hey - some stuff I added had valid references so everything I add does". (You yourself disproved that last one: your map at the Dutch Empire was taken to pieces by the community and several things you had shaded you later agreed you should not have). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be your opinion, and even most of what I shaded was either a trading post or an area of influence, so I wouldn't exactly say it was too off track. Challenge these other maps on this page. None of them have references, in fact, I rarely see any map with references. Go challenge them all. Anyways, my references are there(not self-published website btw)and they support what I have shaded. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I have taken the time to look at each one of your references in detail, asking you questions, and again you have not responded point by point (also misreading - if you look, I listed all six of your references). Instead, and as per usual, you have just replied with a vague statement regurgitating your previous reply and answering none of my questions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And you wonder why I don't like to discuss things with you? (Red4tribe (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Please keep to the subject matter at hand: ie, the map and your references supporting the way you have drawn it. It is not acceptable to say that you don't like the editor so you don't need to answer their questions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where above did I not answer your questions? Where above did I say I do not like the editor? Please show me this, or maybe this is OR. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I have reverted the map. The change can be seen here [6]. Awaiting input from other editors on the new map. Quite apart from the dodgy references/synthesis/OR issue (see above) I believe that the map should show the pre-WW2 boundaries of the empire, or at the very least, WW2 "conquests" in a different colour. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest all you did according to that edit was remove the references and change the date without giving a reason. I was about to revert it myself until someone else did --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 05:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say I gave no reason - did you read the conversation above? Please take a careful look at the edits: they are two different maps.

• Original Version
• New Version

Please also take a careful look at my analysis of the references above. I was not simply "removing" them, I have taken a look at every single one and found that, of the valid ones, none of them justify the shading of the map that was drawn. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I don't know what happened to me yesterday. I swear I spent lots of time comparing the two maps looking for differences but they looked the same. Also, the map you restored (the one without half Egypt) looks "more right" if I may say. I never heard of Italy having control all Dalmatia and territories in the west of Ethopia, such as those Sudan areas. Could be that there were temporary changes during the war...:S --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I've put back the original map. R-41 had changed it to yet another map, this time in 1942 which fails to show what really constituted the pre-war "Italian Colonial Empire". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Major Rejig

I have taken a bit of an axe to this article. It was a mess and had a lot of duplicate information. I have attempted to restructure in more of a chronological order. Several problems remain with the article:

• there is too much emphasis on military conquests during WW2
• there is not enough info on the colonies themselves
• there are no sources provided

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Move Mess

I screwed up the move of this article, but believe I have rectified things and a history merge is not required. What was "Italian Empire" has been moved (in the normal manner) to Evolution of the Italian Empire, thereby preserving its edit history [7]. The new article at Italian Colonial Empire also has its full edit history. [8] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Histmerge

• These was a cut-and-paste move, between these two versions, and I have corrected it. User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's 4 edits to Evolution of the Italian Empire since the cut-and-paste move are still at Evolution of the Italian Empire. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was fairly confused at the line "the Italians in Libya were 108.419" as in America, that indicates a decimal point. I was under the impression that Wikipedia articles on en.wiki used the American convention of , as a thousands separator and . as a decimal separator. I'm not editing it because this is an article about European history and probably of more interest to Euros than Americans and I don't know the exact policy. 128.61.42.59 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right; and the thousands separator is also a comma in British English. I’ll change it. —Ian Spackman (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I provide the following from the article:

"Italy's search for colonies continued until February 1885, when by secret agreement with Britain it annexed the port of Massawa on the Red Sea from the crumbling Egyptian Empire, denying the Emperor Yohannes an outlet to the sea for his Abyssinian Empire,[6] and preventing any expansion of French Somaliland.[7] At the same time, Italy occupied territory in the south of the horn of Africa, forming what would become Italian Somaliland.[8] However, Italy coveted Ethiopia itself, and in 1887, Italian Prime Minister Agostino Depretis ordered an invasion, which was halted after the loss of five hundred Italian troops at the Battle of Dogali.[9] Depretis's successor, Francesco Crispi signed the Treaty of Wuchale in 1889 with Menelik II, the new emporer, which ceded Ethiopian territory around Massawa to Italy to form the colony of Eritrea, and - at least, according to the Italian version of the treaty - made Ethiopia an Italian protectorate.[10]

Relations between Italy and Menelik deteriorated over the next few years until the First Italo-Abyssinian War broke out in 1895 after Crispi ordered Italian troops into the country. Outnumbered and poorly equipped[11], the result was a humiliating defeat for Italy at the hands of Ethiopian forces at the Battle of Adwa in 1896, the first defeat by an indigenous people of a colonial power[12], and a major blow to the Italian empire in East Africa, as well as to Italian prestige."

I added the link to the 1896 "Battle of Adwa" and noticed the oft cited "the FIRST defeat by an indigenous people of a colonial power." HOWEVER, in the paragraph above that paragraph, the "Battle of Dogali" descibes a "defeat by an indigenous people of a colonial power" which happened in 1887 . . . NINE YEARS EARLIER. What gives? Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. As the culprit, I knew I had done this, but wasn't entirely sure how to word it without resorting to "original research", because both statements are referenced, yet when put together they are a kind of contradiction. Basically the problem is that there was a rather minor skirmish in 1887 which Italy lost, then there was a major concerted attempt to take it in the First Italo-Abyssinian War which was a full-on "war" if you will, and which is really recognised as Italy's proper attempt to conquer Abyssinia. I guess the difference is battle vs war: undoubtedly, Europeans lost battles against indigenous people prior to this (ie they didn't win every single encounter), but no serious, sustained attempt to conquer by Europeans had been stopped. I don't know how best to make the text reflect this without resorting to OR though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest adding the word "major" as in: " . . . the first MAJOR defeat by an indigenous people of a colonial power." But any change will be up to you.

I was going to add some items from Barker's "The Rape of Ethiopia" about the colonial administration of Italian East Africa between 1935 and 1941, but this seems to be an article that you prefer to write your own way. So I will leave you to it. Enjoy. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "up to me", I am sorry if I give you the impression that I think it is. "Major" could work. Or "significant"? As for Ethiopia, that's exactly what this article needs - stuff about the colonies themselves, so please go right ahead, and cite refs as you go. Yes, I was bold and removed some of the stuff you added - that was either because (1) this article is not the right place to discuss the minutiae of battles or wars: military history is not colonial history, and there are enough articles floating around on WW2 battles already or (2) you had added unsourced material. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian Concession in Tientsin

According to this source [9] the Italians lost their concession at the end of WW1. So I removed (unsourced) contradictory info that was added to this article, until this can be resolved. [10] This is, incidentally, an example of why copying and pasting unsourced information from other WP articles without verifying the info is a bad idea. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look: See Italian flag near middle of screen for Italian Concession in Tientsin [11] Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that is not an acceptable source. It is a personal website uploaded by an unknown individual to the internet, which will not have been peer reviewed. He has provided a "partial" bibliography - if you are willing to find the source he used which corroborates this, fine, but the webpage iself is not an acceptable source. (WP:RS) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the Google site where you found your source which indicates that Italy lost its concession along with Germany after World War I. I looked at some of the other material Google found. How about [12]? This source has a case being settled in the Italian consession at Tientsin in the 1920s. Who knew World War I lasted so long? Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant to reply: in the wording of the peace treaty with Italy after World War II, Italy renounced its claim to its concession. [13] So clearly the source I found was wrong. However, I struggled to find any source that backed up what the website said. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Greater Italy

Having just read through- and modified- Greater Italy, I wonder if there would be a benefit connecting sections here to that article? It seems there is huge overlap with the fascist and Second World War sections of this article. On the other hand, Greater Italy is more about aspirations than realizations.Dionix (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

Considering there is only one person here I see very little reason to go through this whole process, but anyways this is a map from Atlas of WWII by John Keegan. It is nearly identical to my old map, which makes this a complete waste of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Italian_empire_1941.png Red4tribe (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can just rephrase the issue in a slightly more constructive manner, I asked Red4tribe to post on this talk page instead of reverting to the map that he prefers, in the hope that others can chime in. I had two issues with his 1941 map (1) that it was unsourced (which he has now fixed) and (2) that borders during WW2 are a little misleading because they were in flux so much. The 1940 map represents the borders of the peacetime colonial empire that was internationally recognised, and which is the norm for these Empire maps (cf British Empire)

• 1940 map
• 1941 map

At the very least, the 1941 map should show temporarily held WW2 territory in a different colour, clearly labelled.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but that Yugoslavian territory was from WWII in the 1940 map. Red4tribe (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New-New Map Red4tribe (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Did the Italians really ever control that much of Greece and France? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this map it says so. This was just occupation, I don't think they conquered all of this area. Red4tribe (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put the new map up, with the appropriate legend, I wouldn't object. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I Think the map is over Optimistic, i would add along with Greece and France, it has a slice of Egypt, surely this can`t be the same Italian Empire, whose soldiers surrendered in their thousands to a handful of British Empire soldiers ?? Obviously this is highlighting the initial attacks by Italy and the grand designs of an empire, which were a complete disaster.

Maybe we should re-design the French Empire map, with their grand designs for total world domination, which as we know were totally checked. --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Map should be placed near World War II section of article. The areas of the Sudan and Kenya indicated to have been "invaded" during WWII are a bit huge. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, the Italians were briefly in charge of Tunisia and Corsica. And that is not indicated at all. If votes are worth anything, I vote for the original map sans the WWII-era orange add-ons. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the original too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The unknown fact of WWII is that even under Rommel, there were many, many, many, more Italian soldiers than Germans. Thus, the shaded region in Egypt is by no means innacurate. Even if this map were removed, the original map would need to be fixed. It has part of Yugoslavia shaded, which would be during WWII, and it has Ethiopia shaded, which was not international recognized. Red4tribe (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the current map is that it shows temporary borders that were moving back and forth during the war as soliders moved back and forth. Just because Italian soldiers were present in an area of Egyptian desert for a few months does not make that part of Egypt a "colony" of Italy. The green areas show places that were actually colonies for substantial periods of time - which includes Ethiopia. One needs to be sensible with these maps - claiming that Ethiopia was not an Italian colony because it was not internationally recognised is just silly - it lost its independence, it was administered by Italy for several years, what else does one need to call it a colony? And I'd be interested to find a source that says it was never an Italian colony because it was not internationally recognised. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1940 map represents the borders of the peacetime colonial empire that was internationally recognised, and which is the norm for these Empire maps

If that is so, the Yugoslavian strip of land should be taken off, it was administrated for only a few years. Red4tribe (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I created this page 3 years ago. The text is much, much better now than my early efforts. But the map should show the pre-war borders - that would be the encyclopedic convention --Giddylake (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose we show the state of affairs immediately after the Italian conquest of Albania, prior to the outbreak of WW2. Therefore, the map would show Italy's 1939 borders, Albania, the Dodecanese, Libya and Italian East Africa. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, I just think the WWII map should be shown lower on the page. Red4tribe (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943). Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

date of the italian empire

shoulnt the empire start in the late 1800s?/ why 1936? Albania was not all of the empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The empire was declared in 1936 after the annexation of Ethiopia.84.222.238.78 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

We have Italian Colonial Empire and Danish Colonial Empire all caps, but French colonial empire, German colonial empire, and Belgian colonial empire without caps. Which is preferred? Goustien (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Successor to the Roman Empire?

--206.188.102.110 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Henaghan, August 12 2011.

shouldn't the Articles say Successor to the Roman Empire

Move article to new name "Italian Empire": reason: more search hits than "Italian Colonial Empire"

The name "Italian Empire" has 136,000 search hits while "Italian colonial empire" has less than 20,000. I propose that the article be moved to the title "Italian Empire".--R-41 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Albania, an Italian colony? Certainly not

• Albania has never been an Italian colony. --Deguef (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but many historians consider Albania ruled by fascist Italy in a colonial way.--Old1980s (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, accepting this view, Ireland could had been considered a British colony in XIX century. Italian fascist rule in Albania was perhaps better and certaily not worse than British rule in Ireland.We could also mention the Austrian rule in Northern Italy (Milan and Venice) that, accordingly, should be defined as colonial. I conclude: it is wrong to consider Italian rule in Albania as colonial. --Deguef (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Albania was set to be Italianized and turned into Italian territory after it was occupied in 1939. Upon occupation, schools in Albania tought students the Italian language and the use of Italian in public conversation was officially preferred over Albanian by Italian authorities in Albania.--R-41 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also in Corsica French language was compulsory in schools and in the offices, but it would be wrong to consider Corsica as a French colony.--Deguef (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tientsin

Previous link went to "Tianjin" the city; redirected it to "Concessions in Tianjin". Makes sense to keep the old spelling in this article. Kortoso (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Imperial designs

Italy's designs on Nice, Corsica, Ticino and part of Dalmatia were not imperial designs as for Albania, Lybia, Tunisia, etc, but just nationalist designs related to the unification process of the nation. These claims could be considered similar to claims of Greece for Cyprus or of claims of Spain for Gibraltar.--Deguef (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you. Alex2006 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please STOP adding maps that show Italy possessing East Africa in 1942, it lost East Africa in 1941

This is a map posted on this page by Nick Mon that is historically inaccurate.

The user Nick Mon repeatedly keeps re-adding inaccurate maps that show Italy possessing East Africa in 1942. It lost East Africa by spring 1941, as the British fully occupied the territory by then, only sporadic resistance by some few remaining diehard Fascist guerilla forces continued afterwards. It did not possess Tunisia until late 1942 after it lost East Africa. That is completely false and ridiculous, and this user has had these additions removed several times upon being told of the falsehood of it, yet they repeatedly re-add this material. This is the LAST TIME that this should be tolerated here. If Nick Mon yet again rejects this obvious fact and re-posts a map showing Italy possessing East Africa in 1942, this should be considered deliberate disregard for fact-checking and historical accuracy, and Nick Mon should be reported should this happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.113.85 (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an old issue. The contested map applies the same concept as the main map shown in British Empire. The problem is the caption, which should say something like: "All areas of the world that have ever been under Italian control". Anyway, also so the map is imprecise, because for example S-W Anatolia (occupied after WWI) is missing. Moreover, I don`t see the utility of such a representation, since the article deals with the Italian colonial empire (BTW, for the fascists "L`Impero" was only east Africa). This means that we should only show the Italian possessions which had a juridic status of colony or similar. A map showing the status at the outbreak of WWII would suffice. Alex2006 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Italian ambitions of Spain becoming a client state of theirs

I had never heard that before and it sounds really strange to me. Maybe the source wasn't understood correctly/taken out of context or something like that by whoever made the map? --Schweinchen (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it was used the usual Wikipedia WP:FRINGE source, ignoring (because of ignorance) the mainstream...Alex2006 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The map.

The map doesn't show Italian possesions in Istria and Dalmatia around Zara and Ragusa. Since this is 1940, it should show these areas coloured in green.

http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics/81736.jpg

(Addition) Italy gained Albania in April 1939 that should be labeled green to show Italian possessions BEFORE they entered in WWII, of which Albania was a part of the empire before they joined WWII. I suggest Albania turn green to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace score (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Colonization vs Occupation

Ethiopia was occupied by Fascist Italy for five years. We in Ethiopia recognize those periods as a time of occupation. We don't consider that as colonization. France was occupied by Nazi Germany for four years. Was that colonization? The other story you touched very lightly was the first Ethio-Italian war. The Italians were totally humiliated and it is recorded as the first defeat a European colonial power was forced to taste at the hands of Africans. Ethiopia has been independent throughout its time. It has never been a colony. If you consider occupation to be the same as colonialization, then write that France was a colony of Germany during the WWII. In short, the whole article seems too inaccurate. Better consider to write it down based on facts, free of bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.126.9 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It is true that Italy's colonial venture in Ethiopia was short-lived and was in many ways more like a long military occupation than the colonial regime in neighbouring Eritrea. It is also true, though, that there are some big differences between the Ethiopian case and the French case. Italy claimed Ethiopia as a colony, and in the tense international situation of the late 1930s, this claim was widely recognized. Germany did not claim more than a small part of France. It left the French government in control of most of the country and all of the colonies. The Ethiopian government disappeared or went into exile. German policies in France were never colonialist. The true military occupation of France lasted only from November 1942 through the summer of 1944, less than two years. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say Italian-occupied Ethiopia was not considered a legitimate Italian possession in international law and in the eyes of a number of countries. The League of Nations, to which the independent Empire of Ethiopia belonged, never recognized the legitimacy of Italian rule in Ethiopia and many League members followed suit. Britain continued to recognized the exiled Haile Selassie as the legitimate ruler of Ethiopia and in 1942 Haile Selassie progressively resumed rule over Ethiopia as soon the Italian army retreated before the invading British forces (which remained in control over the main cities for a while). Italian property was seized and Italian nationals were summarily expulsed from Ethiopia, not being protected by international law as they were considered illegal occupants and not residents of a recognized Italian possession. Ethiopia was also one of the original signatories of the United Nations Charter. On the other hand, allied-occupied Libya, Eritrea and Somalia remained Italian colonies in international law until the peace treaty with Italy in 1947.

Britain initially recognized Haile Selassie as the legal government of Ethiopia, but it switched its recognition to the King of Italy in 1938. Many states followed this path, initially refusing recognition (like the League) and then gradually extending de facto and finally de jure recognition to Italy. The United States and the Soviet Union never did recognise Italy's claim, and Ethiopia never had its League membership revoked (so far as I can tell). I agree that its international status was unclear compared to Italy's other colonies, but Italian activity in Ethiopia and the international attitude towards it make the situation much more like that of a colonisation than a military occupation. Is there a specific part of the article that is problematic? Srnec (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)