User talk:189.33.12.27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WW![edit]

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)[reply]

The links all work. Give them time. They are PDF files. Thanks for reverting the result.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a link tht was not formated porperly, so did not work as a link, but thanks for correcting it now.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, actually they did work. See [1]. I meant thank-you for changing the Result from 'Allied victory' back to 'Tactical German victory'.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its absurd. It was in no way a German victory. That's just stupidity of the highest order. Dapi89 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about. The Germans met their objectives and the British failed to meet theirs. I would argue that it is a strategic victory and at least a tactical stalemate, but I would need to look into that. Instead of blindly throwing insults, why don't you try justifying your argument.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't. Read the article. German strategy failed. Dapi89 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading Wikipedia. 250,000 troops, or, as mentioned elsewhere in this article, about one million men in all were tied down in German East Africa.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Britain did not manage to vanquish the German resistance.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was British forces they attempted to divert. German strategy failed in diversion after 1916. German East Africa was abandoned in 1917. They survived by running away and ambushing, without a hope of winning. In every sense they were beaten. If they hadn’t surrendered in 1918, they probably would have starved. After the war their territory was lost. The fact that every German was not killed does not constitute a German victory - of any sorts. In case you hadn't noticed two-thirds of the German soldiers died. A comparable combat ration to British forces, most of which died from disease. Dapi89 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian and South African troops could have been used in Europe. 250,000 is huge. It's about the size of the entire Belgian army. How is that not diversion. von Lettow-Vorbeck held no hope of defending German East Africa for long. He only wished to pin down troops, and this he did. "After a series of retreats and evasive manoeuvres, in 1917 he slimmed his troops down to the fittest 3,000 or so (mostly the ones who had not succumbed to malaria) and set off to invade Portuguese East Africa rather than be trapped on German territory." [2]. He was in fact advancing successfully into Northern Rhodesia at the time he heard of the surrender. He and his men were definitely not about to starve.
By the way, I looked at the page's history. [3] seems to be the first change from the original "Treaty of Versailles" to "Stalemate". The same guy then changes his mind ("actually that would be even more accurate") and puts "Tactical German victory" instead [4]. It was then changed to "British victory" [5] without comment. Another user adds the Belgian commander, and chages the result to "British-Belgian victory" [6]. The original guy then comes back here [7], and explains "germans acheived their goal of tieing up large entente foces". After this our argument begins.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, the reason I thought a link was broke was the orphan closing tag so I copyed and pasted the address, my mistake. As to German tactical victory. The Germans had no chance of holding DOA and knew it. The bes they could hope (and the avowed stratergy) was to tie down as many allied troops as posible for as long as posible (and by the way they were able to invade and defeat Portugese troops as late as 1917 (the 'abandonment') re-entering GOA in September of 1918 (using that same logis a re-conquest. Its ture that as a real threat (except to the portugese) Von Lettow Vorbeks forces had ceased to be one in 1917. Its also possible that the South Africans would have been unwilling to deploy such a large force outside Africa. But Von Lettgow Vorbek did tie down large numbers of allied forces in DOA for years of pointless fighting in a classic of gurrila warefare. Could he have held out much longer, doubtfull I suspect he only had another couple of months in him at best. But he achived (his limited) aims, the allies failed to achive thiers. that is to my mind a tactical victory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to copy this discussion to the Talk page.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Godd idea, and I would add this. In battle for the Bundu the author has this to say about Von Lettow Vorbeks Berlin Parade “It did not matter, no one needed immaculate goose-stepping grey ranks to be reminded that Germanys only undefeated army was giving the beaten nation its only victory parade”Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.33.12.27&oldid=1019803094"