This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
East African campaign (World War I) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The german high sea fleet only had one cruiser with 10 4 inch guns in the area. The cruiser SMS Koenigsberg after sinking the old HMS Pegasus retired into the Rufije delta were it was discoverd and sunk by the Royal Navy. The guns were later used by Lettow Vorbeck. The comment on German pre dreadnough or battlecruisers in the area is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.32.22 ( talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
France is listed as one of the combatants but I couldn't find a reference to French participation and there were no French territories in the region at the time (Burundi and the Congo being Belgian). I suppose it is possible that some French or Francophone troops were sent from north or west Africa, the other possibility of course is that Malagasy troops were involved or French troops or naval forces stationed in Madagascar. Does anyone know? Rexparry sydney 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know there were no French involved in this campaign. Beware Burundi was at that moment still German and Belgian-Congolese troops occupied it only after fighing with the Germans. After the war Belgium received Burundi and Rwanda as a protectorate (Everberg Belgium) H.Trappeniers 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put in something about this? P.M.Lawrence 203.221.32.204 ( talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on the lake battle had remains of an old vandalism by 69.40.112.213, who basically changed the battle direction. His/her other changes had been repaired some time ago, I covered the last ones and added a ref. Actually, I think we should exchange the whole section with the one in Lake Tanganyika. -- Cmontero ( talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the numbers in this article are all wrong, esp. regarding Allied strength. Every book I've read have different figures, but the ones in this article are especially low. Someone check. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.250.255.69 (
talk)
20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your edit in the ww1 Africa page needs work, the links did not work (poor tagging I think) and when copy and pasted did not produce a result. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the best place to have this discussion.--
189.33.12.27 (
talk)
19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. As per the sources, his strategy was diversion - he FAILED. Perhaps he should read sources instead of wikipedians opinions. And the essay of Crowe's (which I note is full of errors) is not very good. It is written more like hero-worship than an academic paper. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether Vettow-Vorbeck’s strategy was successful is one issue, but there is another issue you are avoiding. He was never defeated. Nor was he near defeat. (He was on his way to South-West Africa when he heard of the defeat!) Hostilities ceased. If Lettow-Vorbeck was never defeated, then how can you say his opposers were victorious? You are looking at post-war events. Spain ceded Puerto Rico in 1898, but it was never defeated militarily there. (See Puerto Rican Campaign infobox) German East Africa was in a similar position. There should be no argument as to whether the article should be titled ‘Allied victory’. Let us put ‘stalemate’ or ‘inconclusive’ instead now, before we continue discussing if Lettow-Vorbeck met his objectives.-- 189.33.12.27 ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is another source: "Lettow-Vorbeck waged a highly mobile hit and run guerrilla-style campaign that was still humiliating the British allied forces when the armistice was signed in 1918 ending the war in Europe. During his four-year campaign, he had tied up almost a million allied troops from the Ivory Coast, The Gambia, Nigeria, South Africa, British East Africa, Uganda, Zanzibar, the Belgian Congo and Mozambique as well India, the West Indies and Britain itself."
APA: (2008). Funny money. African Business, (343), 78-79. http://search.ebscohost.com
MLA: "Funny money." African Business 343 (2008): 78-79. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 29 Oct. 2009
-- 189.33.12.27 ( talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
An "African busniess" source? Are you kidding? "Humiliating", are you kidding? His Army was starving and he was living on borrowed time. "A million men" no chance. As I have said, IT'S THE END the matters. One does not have to beaten on the battlefield to lose a campaign, or a war. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a discrepancy here.
The Assessments section says "one modern estimate is 100,000 dead on all sides", while the infobox says "365,000 civilian lives" on the Allied side alone. This looks wrong; as the fighting was predominantly in German East Africa, I'd have thought most of the civilian casualties would have been there, not in the Allied colonies. Or is it saying these were all killed by the German forces, regardless of location? Should this figure be in the infobox at all?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
21:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Did some additions and tidied existing work but used sfn's as they're the only ones I know. Can change the rest of the parentheticals if desired. Added books to new further reading section. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Shall we attempt to reach consensus? Keith-264 ( talk) 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I reduced this to:4 See also
5 Gallery
6 Notes
7 Footnotes and references
8 Bibliography
9 Further reading
10 External links
I did not delete anything, except the "See also" section the first time around. (The second time I put it below the gallery, but that doesn't matter.) I object to the "See also" section, but I consider that of secondary importance to the bloatedness of these appendices at the end of the article. "External links" are just a form of "Further reading". We can combine all the notes under one heading, since you do not access the notes via the TOC anyway—you get there by clicking on a number or letter. The "See also" lists 2 campaigns that are already in the campaignbox near the top of the article, where they should be, and the WWII campaign that is unrelated (it did not take place in the same part of East Africa and involved different combatants). Mimi and Toutou Go Forth: The Bizarre Battle for Lake Tanganyika should be linked in the bibliography, the logical place. That leaves Carrier Corps. Why can't that be linked in the body of the article? We don't link every formation that took part in the "See also". Srnec ( talk) 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)4 Gallery
5 See also
6 Notes
7 Bibliography
8 Further reading
Hello. It strikes me that the statement in the infobox 'German strategic success' sits rather at odds with the conclusion in the body text: '[Lettow-Vorbeck] failed to divert additional Allied manpower from the European Theatre after 1916. While some shipping was diverted to the African theater, it was not enough to inflict significant difficulties on the Allied fleets.' If Lettow-Vorbeck failed to divert Allied resources from the decisive theatre, can this be called a 'strategic' success? -- IxK85 ( talk) 10:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Shuffled the pictures about, to make room for recent addition Keith-264 ( talk) 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone got a decent source on 2.2 Naval war and 2.3 Lake Tanganyika expedition? I'm really not sure about the narrative, which might be two events or a duplication. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
South African troops were not considered for European service as a matter of policy is totally wrong. What about the 1st Infantry Brigade (South Africa) which served as part of 9th (Scottish) Division on the Western Front from May 1916? Hamish59 ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion by an IP regarding von Lettow-Vorbeck's rank. In the second paragraph of the lede:
the IP is trying to change Generalmajor to Major general. This is incorrect as, at that time (WWI), the Generalmajor rank was equivalent to a British or American Brigadier General as the Imperial German Army did not have a Brigadier General rank. It is only in the post-WWII era that Generalmajor has been upgraded to be equivalent to Major general in the German Army. See also Brigadier general#Germay or Comparative officer ranks of World War I. Hamish59 ( talk) 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is source: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q157148 What's yours?- 194.25.30.13 ( talk) 08:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also: https://translate.google.de/?oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&client=tw-ob#en/de/general%20major, http://dict.leo.org/ende/?lang=de&from=fxdesktop&search=generalmajor, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/generalmajor - 194.25.30.13 ( talk) 08:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Hamish59 ( talk) 09:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Another source that says that your claim is wrong: Major general "The German Army and Luftwaffe referred to the rank as Generalmajor (OF-7) until 1945."- 194.25.30.13 ( talk) 10:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There appears to have been a recent conflict over the 'result' in the infobox, and it would be worth discussing it here (previous discussions above are several years old). Personally I can see the merit for both an "Allied victory" and "Indecisive", but perhaps it would be worth getting some WP:RS involved here to break the deadlock? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 13:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Operations section here says that "the Congo Act was first broken by the British", and that "In response" Lettow-Vorbeck began to organize for battle. This is suggesting that if the Brits had taken no action, Lettow-Vorbeck would not have mobilized, and that therefore (presumably) the East African Campaign wouldn't have happened. Is there any evidence at all for this? Or is someone trying to manufacture some blame for the British, here? Whatever the hopes of the governors in Tanganyika and Kenya, the military men were going to fight; the Konigsberg sailed on 31 July, and the RN was hardly going to tolerate the use of German East Africa as a base for her. And Lettow-Vorbeck's plan was to tie down as many British troops as possible; he could hardly do that while sitting on his hands. Also, the Belgians were in no mood to overlook the invasion of their country, no matter what the other two governors wanted. So I suggest this be re-written to better reflect the reality of the situation. Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The Operations section also states that the RN shelled Dar es Salaam on 8 August, yet the Battle of Tanga article says An agreement was in place guaranteeing the neutrality of the capital Dar es Salaam and Tanga, but now the accord was modified and it seemed “only fair to warn the Germans that the deal was off.” So which is it? Was Dar es Salaam shelled in August, or was it's neutrality in place until November? Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East African Campaign (World War I). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Nihlus1: I'm not sure that it helps to make a bigger distinction between army and porter casualties. The British at least buried porters in military cemeteries. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum: I'll stop editing for a while as I've had three edit conflicts already ;O) Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Applodion: The infobox is for a summary Template:Infobox military conflict
casualties1/casualties2 – optional – casualties suffered, including dead, wounded, missing, captured, and civilian deaths. Terms such as "dead" (or "killed"), "wounded", or "captured" should be used in place of abbreviations such as "KIA" or "POW".
Elaboration of the details should be in a casualties section in the article. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is this listed as an Allied Victory? Having read both this article, the talkpage, and the article on Lettow-Vorbeck, all the text seems to indicate that this was a German Victory. They achieved their goals and the Allies failed at theirs. In the article, it states that "The strategy of the German colonial forces... was to divert Allied forces from the Western Front." Based on the troop numbers in the info box it seems they did that. The reasoning on this talkpage for why it's an Allied victory seems to be that since the Germans lost the war and the colony via the Treaty of Versailles, they also lost the East African campaign. That, to me, seems to be faulty reasoning, as by that logic, the Germans lost the Battle of France in World War II, or the Austrians lost the Battles of the Izonso because they lost the war. In my mind, it seems clear that the Germans won for the following reasons: 1) They achieved their goals of tying down Allied forces. 2) The Allies failed to destroy Lettow-Vorbeck's forces. 3) The end of the campaign came after the end of the war, on November 25 rather than November 11. And 4) Lettow-Vorbeck's forces were fighting in Zambia at the end of the war. Wandavianempire ( talk) 17:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Staberinde: You'll need to relate that change to RS. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I suppose we could placate Stab' by making the views of the RS explicit in the aftermath. The German defeats in Togo, Kamerun and SW Africa were so complete and the occupation of Tanganyka and the chasing of Lettow-Vorbeck all over the place seem to be self-evidently a victory and that the war was decided in Europe, that the authors might not have thought that they would need to point it out. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the narrative of the German unconditional surrender has been expanded (Paice 2007) and can hardly be ambiguous. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I see it has been changed to "Allied victory" again, I guess the only solution is to set up a RfC.-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello - I wanted to alert those editing this page to valuable source information published in the book "On Call in Africa in War and Peace 1910 - 1932" by N.P. Jewell (ISBN 978-0-9931382-0-1 , published 2016). Based on the diaries of Dr Jewell (medical officer) who was active throughout the East Africa campaign and brings photographic and direct medical data to the historical record. The book is in print and also available electronically, and has a website www.oncallinafrica.com . It would surely improve the record to reference both Dr Norman Parsons Jewell and his published account of events he witnessed during WW1 in East Africa. I trust this is useful. Please feel free to contact gillyflowerpublishing@gmail.com for any additional information. Richard Jewell 62.235.122.107 13:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
East African campaign (World War I) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The german high sea fleet only had one cruiser with 10 4 inch guns in the area. The cruiser SMS Koenigsberg after sinking the old HMS Pegasus retired into the Rufije delta were it was discoverd and sunk by the Royal Navy. The guns were later used by Lettow Vorbeck. The comment on German pre dreadnough or battlecruisers in the area is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.32.22 ( talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
France is listed as one of the combatants but I couldn't find a reference to French participation and there were no French territories in the region at the time (Burundi and the Congo being Belgian). I suppose it is possible that some French or Francophone troops were sent from north or west Africa, the other possibility of course is that Malagasy troops were involved or French troops or naval forces stationed in Madagascar. Does anyone know? Rexparry sydney 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know there were no French involved in this campaign. Beware Burundi was at that moment still German and Belgian-Congolese troops occupied it only after fighing with the Germans. After the war Belgium received Burundi and Rwanda as a protectorate (Everberg Belgium) H.Trappeniers 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put in something about this? P.M.Lawrence 203.221.32.204 ( talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on the lake battle had remains of an old vandalism by 69.40.112.213, who basically changed the battle direction. His/her other changes had been repaired some time ago, I covered the last ones and added a ref. Actually, I think we should exchange the whole section with the one in Lake Tanganyika. -- Cmontero ( talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the numbers in this article are all wrong, esp. regarding Allied strength. Every book I've read have different figures, but the ones in this article are especially low. Someone check. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.250.255.69 (
talk)
20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your edit in the ww1 Africa page needs work, the links did not work (poor tagging I think) and when copy and pasted did not produce a result. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the best place to have this discussion.--
189.33.12.27 (
talk)
19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. As per the sources, his strategy was diversion - he FAILED. Perhaps he should read sources instead of wikipedians opinions. And the essay of Crowe's (which I note is full of errors) is not very good. It is written more like hero-worship than an academic paper. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether Vettow-Vorbeck’s strategy was successful is one issue, but there is another issue you are avoiding. He was never defeated. Nor was he near defeat. (He was on his way to South-West Africa when he heard of the defeat!) Hostilities ceased. If Lettow-Vorbeck was never defeated, then how can you say his opposers were victorious? You are looking at post-war events. Spain ceded Puerto Rico in 1898, but it was never defeated militarily there. (See Puerto Rican Campaign infobox) German East Africa was in a similar position. There should be no argument as to whether the article should be titled ‘Allied victory’. Let us put ‘stalemate’ or ‘inconclusive’ instead now, before we continue discussing if Lettow-Vorbeck met his objectives.-- 189.33.12.27 ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is another source: "Lettow-Vorbeck waged a highly mobile hit and run guerrilla-style campaign that was still humiliating the British allied forces when the armistice was signed in 1918 ending the war in Europe. During his four-year campaign, he had tied up almost a million allied troops from the Ivory Coast, The Gambia, Nigeria, South Africa, British East Africa, Uganda, Zanzibar, the Belgian Congo and Mozambique as well India, the West Indies and Britain itself."
APA: (2008). Funny money. African Business, (343), 78-79. http://search.ebscohost.com
MLA: "Funny money." African Business 343 (2008): 78-79. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 29 Oct. 2009
-- 189.33.12.27 ( talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
An "African busniess" source? Are you kidding? "Humiliating", are you kidding? His Army was starving and he was living on borrowed time. "A million men" no chance. As I have said, IT'S THE END the matters. One does not have to beaten on the battlefield to lose a campaign, or a war. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a discrepancy here.
The Assessments section says "one modern estimate is 100,000 dead on all sides", while the infobox says "365,000 civilian lives" on the Allied side alone. This looks wrong; as the fighting was predominantly in German East Africa, I'd have thought most of the civilian casualties would have been there, not in the Allied colonies. Or is it saying these were all killed by the German forces, regardless of location? Should this figure be in the infobox at all?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
21:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Did some additions and tidied existing work but used sfn's as they're the only ones I know. Can change the rest of the parentheticals if desired. Added books to new further reading section. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Shall we attempt to reach consensus? Keith-264 ( talk) 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I reduced this to:4 See also
5 Gallery
6 Notes
7 Footnotes and references
8 Bibliography
9 Further reading
10 External links
I did not delete anything, except the "See also" section the first time around. (The second time I put it below the gallery, but that doesn't matter.) I object to the "See also" section, but I consider that of secondary importance to the bloatedness of these appendices at the end of the article. "External links" are just a form of "Further reading". We can combine all the notes under one heading, since you do not access the notes via the TOC anyway—you get there by clicking on a number or letter. The "See also" lists 2 campaigns that are already in the campaignbox near the top of the article, where they should be, and the WWII campaign that is unrelated (it did not take place in the same part of East Africa and involved different combatants). Mimi and Toutou Go Forth: The Bizarre Battle for Lake Tanganyika should be linked in the bibliography, the logical place. That leaves Carrier Corps. Why can't that be linked in the body of the article? We don't link every formation that took part in the "See also". Srnec ( talk) 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)4 Gallery
5 See also
6 Notes
7 Bibliography
8 Further reading
Hello. It strikes me that the statement in the infobox 'German strategic success' sits rather at odds with the conclusion in the body text: '[Lettow-Vorbeck] failed to divert additional Allied manpower from the European Theatre after 1916. While some shipping was diverted to the African theater, it was not enough to inflict significant difficulties on the Allied fleets.' If Lettow-Vorbeck failed to divert Allied resources from the decisive theatre, can this be called a 'strategic' success? -- IxK85 ( talk) 10:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Shuffled the pictures about, to make room for recent addition Keith-264 ( talk) 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone got a decent source on 2.2 Naval war and 2.3 Lake Tanganyika expedition? I'm really not sure about the narrative, which might be two events or a duplication. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
South African troops were not considered for European service as a matter of policy is totally wrong. What about the 1st Infantry Brigade (South Africa) which served as part of 9th (Scottish) Division on the Western Front from May 1916? Hamish59 ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion by an IP regarding von Lettow-Vorbeck's rank. In the second paragraph of the lede:
the IP is trying to change Generalmajor to Major general. This is incorrect as, at that time (WWI), the Generalmajor rank was equivalent to a British or American Brigadier General as the Imperial German Army did not have a Brigadier General rank. It is only in the post-WWII era that Generalmajor has been upgraded to be equivalent to Major general in the German Army. See also Brigadier general#Germay or Comparative officer ranks of World War I. Hamish59 ( talk) 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is source: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q157148 What's yours?- 194.25.30.13 ( talk) 08:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also: https://translate.google.de/?oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&client=tw-ob#en/de/general%20major, http://dict.leo.org/ende/?lang=de&from=fxdesktop&search=generalmajor, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/generalmajor - 194.25.30.13 ( talk) 08:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Hamish59 ( talk) 09:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Another source that says that your claim is wrong: Major general "The German Army and Luftwaffe referred to the rank as Generalmajor (OF-7) until 1945."- 194.25.30.13 ( talk) 10:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There appears to have been a recent conflict over the 'result' in the infobox, and it would be worth discussing it here (previous discussions above are several years old). Personally I can see the merit for both an "Allied victory" and "Indecisive", but perhaps it would be worth getting some WP:RS involved here to break the deadlock? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 13:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Operations section here says that "the Congo Act was first broken by the British", and that "In response" Lettow-Vorbeck began to organize for battle. This is suggesting that if the Brits had taken no action, Lettow-Vorbeck would not have mobilized, and that therefore (presumably) the East African Campaign wouldn't have happened. Is there any evidence at all for this? Or is someone trying to manufacture some blame for the British, here? Whatever the hopes of the governors in Tanganyika and Kenya, the military men were going to fight; the Konigsberg sailed on 31 July, and the RN was hardly going to tolerate the use of German East Africa as a base for her. And Lettow-Vorbeck's plan was to tie down as many British troops as possible; he could hardly do that while sitting on his hands. Also, the Belgians were in no mood to overlook the invasion of their country, no matter what the other two governors wanted. So I suggest this be re-written to better reflect the reality of the situation. Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The Operations section also states that the RN shelled Dar es Salaam on 8 August, yet the Battle of Tanga article says An agreement was in place guaranteeing the neutrality of the capital Dar es Salaam and Tanga, but now the accord was modified and it seemed “only fair to warn the Germans that the deal was off.” So which is it? Was Dar es Salaam shelled in August, or was it's neutrality in place until November? Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East African Campaign (World War I). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Nihlus1: I'm not sure that it helps to make a bigger distinction between army and porter casualties. The British at least buried porters in military cemeteries. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum: I'll stop editing for a while as I've had three edit conflicts already ;O) Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Applodion: The infobox is for a summary Template:Infobox military conflict
casualties1/casualties2 – optional – casualties suffered, including dead, wounded, missing, captured, and civilian deaths. Terms such as "dead" (or "killed"), "wounded", or "captured" should be used in place of abbreviations such as "KIA" or "POW".
Elaboration of the details should be in a casualties section in the article. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is this listed as an Allied Victory? Having read both this article, the talkpage, and the article on Lettow-Vorbeck, all the text seems to indicate that this was a German Victory. They achieved their goals and the Allies failed at theirs. In the article, it states that "The strategy of the German colonial forces... was to divert Allied forces from the Western Front." Based on the troop numbers in the info box it seems they did that. The reasoning on this talkpage for why it's an Allied victory seems to be that since the Germans lost the war and the colony via the Treaty of Versailles, they also lost the East African campaign. That, to me, seems to be faulty reasoning, as by that logic, the Germans lost the Battle of France in World War II, or the Austrians lost the Battles of the Izonso because they lost the war. In my mind, it seems clear that the Germans won for the following reasons: 1) They achieved their goals of tying down Allied forces. 2) The Allies failed to destroy Lettow-Vorbeck's forces. 3) The end of the campaign came after the end of the war, on November 25 rather than November 11. And 4) Lettow-Vorbeck's forces were fighting in Zambia at the end of the war. Wandavianempire ( talk) 17:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Staberinde: You'll need to relate that change to RS. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I suppose we could placate Stab' by making the views of the RS explicit in the aftermath. The German defeats in Togo, Kamerun and SW Africa were so complete and the occupation of Tanganyka and the chasing of Lettow-Vorbeck all over the place seem to be self-evidently a victory and that the war was decided in Europe, that the authors might not have thought that they would need to point it out. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the narrative of the German unconditional surrender has been expanded (Paice 2007) and can hardly be ambiguous. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I see it has been changed to "Allied victory" again, I guess the only solution is to set up a RfC.-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello - I wanted to alert those editing this page to valuable source information published in the book "On Call in Africa in War and Peace 1910 - 1932" by N.P. Jewell (ISBN 978-0-9931382-0-1 , published 2016). Based on the diaries of Dr Jewell (medical officer) who was active throughout the East Africa campaign and brings photographic and direct medical data to the historical record. The book is in print and also available electronically, and has a website www.oncallinafrica.com . It would surely improve the record to reference both Dr Norman Parsons Jewell and his published account of events he witnessed during WW1 in East Africa. I trust this is useful. Please feel free to contact gillyflowerpublishing@gmail.com for any additional information. Richard Jewell 62.235.122.107 13:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)