Talk:Italo-Turkish War

Contradiction

I've added the Contradiction template here and on Balkan Wars because both are claiming to be the first use of aerial bombardment. --Stlemur 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Raheel Ubaid Ali[reply]

This "record" was set in this war.--FoxyProxy 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can you cite that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.70.201 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to Biddle, Rhetoric of Air Warfare, p. 19, the first ever aerial bombardment took place in 1849, when the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, during an attempt to suppress an Italian revolt, attacked Venice from the air with "projectiles carried by small linen and paper balloons."Xiphophilos (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could, but Italo Turkish war is the first war, that airplanes used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.147.198 (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naval actions during the Italo-Turkish War.

On January 7, 1912 the Italian cruiser "Piemonte", with the destroyers "Artigliere" and "Garibaldino", sunk in the battle of the Kunfuda Bay (Red Sea)seven Turkish gunboats ("Kastamonu", Ayintab", "Ordu", "Bafra", "Refahiye", "Gökcedag", "Muha") and a yacht ("Sipka"). On January 24, 1912 the Italian armoured cruiser "Giuseppe Garibaldi" sunk in the harbour of Beirut the Turkish armoured gunboat "Avnillah".

citations please

Nothing on this site is cited anymore, wikipedia is useless without citations.

Treaties of Lausanne

I think this article should more explicitly mention that the 1912 and 1923 Treaties of Lausanne are different. --Rajah 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Contradiction

First of all, thanks for creating this article in the first place! Some more references would, of course, be appreciated. To come to the point, the caption of the dirigible picture and the text contradict each other regarding the question whether air attacks "determined the outcome" of the war (photo caption) or " had little effect on the outcome" (text).Xiphophilos (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halil Paşa

As I recall, Halil Paşa, uncle of Enver Paşa, was among the young Ottoman officers sent out to Tablusgarp (Libya) to organize the Arab resistence to Italian invasion there. His memoires make much of his war experience there (with little mention of M. Kemal!) and tere is good amount of interesting detail from the "other" side. Should have been included here somewhere.--Murat (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing attempt of renaming the article

Alex2006 2006has suggested me to comment on the talk page about renaming article but I am not managing to undo my last change.
Sorry about it.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit request (Aug 2013)

The page Italian invasion of Lybia is redirected to this page. However, in the title of the redirect page, there is an obvious misspelling: Lybia (wrong) --> Libya (correct). Someone please fix this problem. FootballStatWhore (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, does it? If someone meant Libya but mistyped it, the redirect takes them to the right place. Italian invasion of Libya also redirects here. Howicus (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Why is Libia aftermath judged so negative,while for others colonies of others countries(France,UK)who suffered even more colonisation is seen as improvment? This is bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.196.196 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why so negative? Because of this "The result of the Italian colonisation for the Libyan population was that by the mid-1930s it had been cut in half due to emigration, famine, and war casualties." Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links? British and French colonisation was way worse but is n't view as negative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.65.249 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italo-Turkish War. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italo-Turkish War. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Balkan war as a result

I don't think this belongs here, while yes the Balkan wars started during the Italo-Turkish war, was this a direct result of it? SJCAmerican (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Claims About Italians Being Welcome

There is very little to support this claim. Especially "Indeed many of the 14000 Jews living in Tripoli -according to the Alliance Israélite Universelle- supported Italy, and some actively contributed to their war effort (one of the reasons behind their support of Italy were the recurring pogroms the Jews suffered from at the hands of their Muslim neighbors and the wave of anti-Semitism that spread through the Ottoman Empire during the early XX century". Patently false, and not even referenced. Jews in the Ottoman Empire were highly integrated and had very few problems. Unlike Greeks and Armenians, they had no outside "sponsors" and had thrown in their lot with Ottomans. In fact, they were highly placed in the ruling party at the time. Selanik, Ottoman city with the largest Jewish population in the World at the time was a cultural and political center of the Empire. Ataturk grew up there. Frankly, rest of the article has a particular slant to it too, does not read objective. Bulk of the population clearly detested the Italian invaders and even a few Ottoman officers were able to muster a small army of locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.210.73 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu

sewabhubha 197.90.52.200 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents Infobox: Asir

@XavierGreen and محرر البوق: Re this revert and your earlier restoral on grounds it was removed by accident... as محرر البوق noted in this diff, this was far from an accidental removal, it cited the proper policy of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Infoboxes are a brief summary; they are not for every true fact. It is for the most important facts, not every side story, and currently Italy shipping weapons to Asir is worth a whopping one sentence in the article. It's also very suspicious that the source being cited is a source on Asir specifically, not one on the war overall. I'm sure this might be relevant for the very very short independent history of Asir (only from 1910-1921 or so, maybe), but it doesn't indicate that it's relevant for a history of Libya, Italy, or the Ottoman Empire. Whatever happened here seems to be an ongoing struggle that started before this war and lasted after it.

Apparently this edit war goes back some time - I see removals in 2020 as well. I cannot fathom what is going on here, but it seems like it should be discussed on the talk page to avoid a long-running edit war. I think that, based on what is currently in the article, it absolutely does not rise to the level of relevance required for the Infobox (and yes, I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other over-stuffed MILHIST infoboxes out there... and they should be trimmed, too.). Which is not to say that expanding things is bad; the Idrisid Emirate of Asir article is quite short and stubby. I don't want to discourage expansion efforts, but maybe the Asir article should be more than a Start-class article, and we can return to this topic then? SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asir only entered the war because the Italians prompted it to. Asir had been at war with the Ottoman Empire until a short time before the outbreak of the Italo-Turkish War. The peace was only breached at the prompting of the Italians, who as you stated supplied arms to Asir but also attacked multiple cities along the Red Sea coast in support of Asir's forces. Your comments that Asir was "no different from any other hostiles they had to worry about on other fronts" is entirely wrong. There were no other "hostiles" on "other fronts". The Italian government had an immense worry that the Ottomans would launch an assault across the Red Sea into Italian Eritrea. The Italo-Asir actions along the Red Sea coast were a key part in the Italian plan to prevent that from happening (even though in actuality it was virtually impossible for the Ottomans to actually attempt such an invasion of Eritrea).XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also how is the infobox "overstuffed" with belligerents, when there are only a handful listed. This isn't the WWII or Thirty Years war infobox where it is impractical to list every combatant (like the hundreds of German states in the 30 years war).XavierGreen (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this information from? What source? If it's a good source (ideally one on the war and not only on Asir), it might be worth expanding the Red Sea bit to "prove" that the campaign there mattered. The impression I get was that Asir didn't even "exist" as far as the Ottomans were concerned, they were de jure still part of the Ottoman Empire and were just very independent locals in an era when it would have made zero sense to send Turkish troops out on a snipe hunt into the Arabian desert, and could plausibly have been convinced to return in time if WWI & the Hejaz - Saudi war hadn't happened.
Also, please read the cited policy MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It's not about raw size, it's about relevance. The current article (i.e. not your talk page comments here) does not support the idea that Asir was a major player in this war, so therefore they don't go in the infobox, even if there were 10 major combatants on the other side and it wouldn't "stretch" the infobox any further. Take American Civil War for example - the belligerents are just the Union and the Confederacy. It doesn't include every single American Indian tribe that took sides, even though there absolutely was real fighting that tied down Union soldiers in the West. SnowFire (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments here don't really make any sense. Asir was a belligerent in the war, it entered the war at the instigation of Italy and conducted operations supported by Italian naval forces in the area. See here [1]. Your statement about the American Civil War is meaningless, the Indian tribes were not independent belligerents they either remained loyal and fought as part of the Union or the Confederacy and Indian territory received representation in the Confederate Congress. For example, the Cherokees who sided with the Confederacy were enrolled members of the Confederate Military, i.e. Stand Watie.XavierGreen (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (de-indent) First off, on a procedural note, since you're invoking "consensus" - multiple editors have removed this, not just me. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN, the burden of inclusion is on the person adding the content. You can't claim consensus is in your favor when you're outnumbered 3-1 and also trying to add content and also not seeking more consensus yourself. Frankly, you should have been the one to do this, but I'll add a neutrally-worded notification at WT:MILHIST asking for input.
  • But more importantly, we should discuss the merits of the case. You'll note I mentioned American Indians in the "West". The fighting in the Arabian Peninsula was nowhere close to Libya. This is closer to the US cavalry maintaining scratch forces in Colorado / Montana / California. If it turns out that one of those Indian tribes had received a shipment of CSA weapons once and empty promises of aid... it still wouldn't be enough to elevate them to the infobox. It's good that you linked that book on Faisal, because it shows just how minor the issue was: it was dealt with largely by internal Ottoman forces and the Italians basically didn't do very much at all. Based on your own linked source, this was a minor, independent struggle that was relevant in Ottoman Arabia (you're citing a book on Faisal and on the state of Asir, not on Libya or the Italo-Turkish War), which is not under dispute (and totally valid to add to the article on Asir), but was a tiny sideshow to the main conflict between Italy and the Ottomans in the context of this war. Again, this is maybe more obvious with even larger empires like the British Empire: yes, it's understood that conflicts in multiple theatres of war can tie down troops, but that doesn't mean that the Afghans should be put as a co-belligerent in the Irish War of Independence in 1919 because they both fought the British at the same time. Your own source says that the Italians canceled their plans to land troops, so they basically had some ships drive by and do a bombardment. If you're familiar with 19th / early 20th century warfare, this kind of "gunboat diplomacy" was quite common. Again, the infobox is not for listing every single event ever; it is for major players. It's been linked to you by others in edit summaries and by me again, but just in case you didn't actually read it, let me quote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:
...keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. (Emphasis mine.)
  • Again, nobody is contesting this happened, but it simply was not a "key" fact. If this standard was used, then hordes of 19th/early 20th century wars would include tiny belligerents whose importance pales in comparison to the main conflict. Let me stress again that if you really care about this, instead of edit-warring over the Infobox of all things, you could use the source you've found to expand the article on Asir itself... SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were three campaigns/theatres of operations to the Italo-Turkish War, libya was just one of them. The war was fought over a much greater area than just Libya. There was a campaign in the Aegean agains the Turks there, with the Italian navy attacking the Dardenelles multiple times and capturing Rhodes. Then there was the campaign in the Red Sea, in which the Italian navy wiped out all Ottoman naval forces and then proceeded to assist Asir in combatting the turks. The Red Sea campaign was part of the war, the sources say so, your assertions to the contrary are unsourced. I have provided multiple sources. There were only two belligerents on the Italian side, Italy and Asir. Your arguments that the "infobox would be crowded" are of no merit, for example see the WWI infobox where the Hejaz is listed as a belligerent.XavierGreen (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it you're so eager to talk about the Red Sea theatre on the talk page but not in the article? And sure, the Italians fought in the Red Sea theatre, a fact so important it's covered by a single sentence in the current article. This is the Italo-Turkish War and I'm not complaining about Italy being in the Infobox. The question is whether the Asir-Ottoman struggle was a mostly separate revolt fought around the same time (like the Third Anglo-Afghan War and the Irish War of Independence) or if there was actual military coordination as co-belligerents (like the British and Hejaz during the Arab Revolt). The Hejaz during the Arab Revolt received major, gigantic British funding and supplies and direct military coordination and fought in multiple battles and actions against the Ottomans. From your own source, Faisal led an expedition of 1,900 locals to scare off Asir, successfully. The Italians' only instance of working directly with Asir is that they supported them with naval guns in a single battle as best I can tell from your source (which, again, is very common in the era and does not signify a particularly deep alliance). Compare that to the amount of people fighting and dying in Libya - it's a rounding error.
Finally, you clearly aren't reading what I wrote. I have never once said that the problem is that the infobox would be over-crowded and in fact specifically explained how that was not my complaint above and in edit summaries - please re-read them. There's no point in discussing matters if you can't be bothered to understand the basics of what I'm actually saying. (I'll be nice and repeat myself for what, the 5th time? The problem is not overcrowding, but relevance.) SnowFire (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to post at MilHist. I have made myself familiar with the discussion and the article. I am quite familiar with the guidance. Unfortunately, too many editors try to write the article in the infobox. Asir has a passing (one sentence) mention in the article body and the long footnote in the infobox tells me we must try too hard to justify its inclusion there. I see a case being made here for the significance of Asir's involvement, which, if written into the article, would lend weight to the significance of Asir's involvement - but it isn't in the body. This war was between the Italians and the Ottomans. Asir was having its own stoush with the Ottomans. These two separate stoushes that coincided in time and space made Asir and Italy passing bed-fellows in matters that were otherwise unrelated. The essence though is that the involvement of Asir is not a key fact but an aside. The article does not show this to be otherwise. The inclusion is not supported by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of the Senussi Order and Omar al-Mukhtar as a commander

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. The article does not mention the Senussi Order. It make a passing mention of the execution of "Omar Mukhtar" in the Aftermath section. These entries are not supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result Of Italo Turkish War

The Italo-Turkish War was not a straightforward Italian victory, and to characterize it as such is to ignore the broader strategic and geopolitical implications. It is true that the Ottoman Empire officially ceded Libya to Italy, but there are several credible scholarly sources—many of which I have already cited—that demonstrate that the Senussi Order continued to defy Italian rule for several years after the de facto end of the conflict. Italy had claimed sovereignty on paper, yet actual control over Libya remained out of reach of it well into the 1931.

The argument that "the Ottomans lost their last land in Africa, so how is this a victory?" shows a naively simplistic understanding of military and political victory. Losing territory doesn't necessarily constitute defeat. I have already presented evidence to demonstrate that Libya at the time was extensively underdeveloped desert land with very little infrastructure or population hubs in Ottoman hands—factors contributing to both the Ottomans' strategic retreat and the failure of the Italians to solidify control in the face of nominal victory.

Also, the war cost Italy a gigantic sum of money. The cost estimated at 1.3 billion lire (equivalent to roughly 320 million rubles) contributed to joblessness and sluggishness in the industries domestically. This is totally appropriate to fit into the category of "Result," as the section of the "Result" is designed to summarize the grand impacts of the war—not simply geographic changes.

Lastly, labeling the sources I provided as "poor" is unjust. Sources I provided are from learned sources, supported with footnotes and institutional backing. If questions of credibility or impartiality of the sources do exist, those must be brought up directly and with evidence, not dismissed.

@Kajmer05 Selim beg (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article says: As a result of this conflict, Italy captured the Ottoman Tripolitania Vilayet, of which the main sub-provinces were Fezzan, Cyrenaica, and Tripoli itself. These territories became the colonies of Italian Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, which would later merge into Italian Libya. '''The cost estimated at 1.3 billion lire (equivalent to roughly 320 million rubles)''' So does this now explain the Ottoman victory? Kajmer05 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the sources i put already debunks the "italy captured all of libya" thing and theyre not even poor sources they have a lot of footnotes. One of them even has like 5. Senusis in 1915 august even had all of libya except for homs and tripoli. The italian economic loss alone doesnt really make it an ottoman victory however i added it just to prove my point that the italians went almost bankrupt just for some desert which they couldnt even capture of. Senusis also became stronger after this war thanks to Enver Bey which strengthened the resistance even more. So how could this be an italian victory ? Oversimplifying this war by just saying "The italians captured libya so they won" is wrong. Selim beg (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italy formally took control of Tripoli in 1912 with the Treaty of Ouchy, and local resistance in the area (especially the Senussi) prevented Italian control for many years, but this does not change the formal outcome of the war. The later resistance of the Senussi should be considered as a separate local struggle. We are talking about what happened during the war, not what happened after it. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Enver Bey, the Turkish general, had succeeded in building up a fairly effective force of twenty thousand men, and, with the aid of the desert, Turkey was able to prevent any considerable advance into the interior. Although Italy re-doubled her efforts in Tripoli from April to August, 1912, and succeeded in making some local gains, Tripoli remained uncon-quered when Turkey concluded peace. It was not completely brought under subjection until about 1931"
william c. askew - europe and italy's acqusation of libya 1911/1912 p. 188
"Because the people of Tripolitania never accepted Italian rule and did not give them peace, the Italian government repeatedly complained to the Ottoman government about the people of Tripolitania. In the meantime, they also filed a complaint against Lieutenant Colonel Enver (Enver Pasha)."
Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Tarihi Osmanlı Devri Osmanlı-İtalyan Harbi (1911-1912) p. 422-423
these prove that italians couldnt fully annex libya even though the treaty of ouchy was signed.
"and local resistance in the area (especially the Senussi) prevented Italian control for many years, but this does not change the formal outcome of the war. The later resistance of the Senussi should be considered as a separate local struggle. We are talking about what happened during the war, not what happened after it. "
It literally changes the formal outcome of the war because the entire point of this war for italy was to annex Libya and if they couldnt, then its an italian loss this is the truth even if we dont take account of the italian economic losses. Selim beg (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enver Bey, the Turkish general, had succeeded in building up a fairly effective force of twenty thousand men, and, with the aid of the desert, Turkey was able to prevent any considerable advance into the interior. Although Italy re-doubled her efforts in Tripoli from April to August, 1912, and succeeded in making some local gains, Tripoli remained uncon-quered when Turkey concluded peace. It was not completely brought under subjection until about 1931"
It is true that the Italian advance was delayed, but this did not change the outcome of the war. In the Treaty of Ouchy, Benghazi and Tripoli were taken over by Italy. It was not completely brought under subjection until about 1931 this expresses the post-war resistance. The official outcome of the war was determined by the Treaty of Ouchy. The Ottomans lost their last land in Africa. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't reject the fact that the ottomans lost the land, my argument is that the land became sennusi rather than italian. Again, you're rejecting the sources i provided you and you havent provided me any source throughout this talk. The sources i provided argues that nothing changed after the treaty of ouchy + if it expressed the post-war resistance, it would say from 1913 and not just until 1931 Selim beg (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war activities are irrelevant. The Italians clearly won the war. The Ottomans lost their Libyan and Dodecanese holdings. Jon698 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ottomans lost the libya but the italians didnt gain them either. + What i mentioned isnt post war at all ottomans won militarily aswell, it was a diplomatic stalemate. Selim beg (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottomans did not win in any military sense. They lost far more men and battles. Countries that win militarily don't give up large holdings. Jon698 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ottomans lost more because they clearly had weaker equipment and troops, despite that the italians lost a thousand and like 200 officers. + This doesnt conclude anything. Ottomans won militarily because italians couldnt just advance into inner libya + Ottomans perhaps won more, read memoirs of halil kut and süleyman askeri book by süleyman tekir. There are a lot of battles that ottomans won there Selim beg (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In determining the result, we are guided by WP:RESULT, which gives voice to the template documentation for the result parameter. This was a war between the Italians and the Ottomans in which the Ottomans acknowledged defeat. While the Senussi Order is listed as a belligerent, this is not supported by the body of the article. Ottomans began using guerrilla tactics. Indeed, some "Young Turk" officers reached Libya and helped organize a guerrilla war with local mujahideen.[46] Many local Libyans joined forces with the Ottomans because of their common faith against the "Christian invaders" and started bloody guerrilla warfare. While local resistance continued after the Ottoman withdrawal, this is not reasonably part of the war between Italy and the Ottomans. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t say the Ottomans and Senusis won because the resistance continued. My arguments are: the entire point of this war for Italy was to capture Libya, and I provided sources showing that they failed to do so. The Italians also suffered near bankruptcy as a result of this war. Additionally, the war helped the Senusis to unite and become weaponized, which would prove valuable later. These are significant effects of the war and should be taken into account. They shouldn’t be oversimplified or dismissed by saying "it wasn't part of the war." Selim beg (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selim beg Italy's financial state is irrelevant to whether or not they won the war. Jon698 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't irrelevant because then you would be saying Mussolini's rise would be irrelevant. Selim beg (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t say the Ottomans and Senusis won because the resistance continued. I didn't say you did. What hasn't been said is what the result might change to in accordance with WP:RESULT and the template doc - and what sources explicitly qualify the result as opposed to editor conclusions that would be characterised as WP:SYNTH. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't understand anything you have said Selim beg (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:RESULT and Template: Infobox military conflict on the result, then tell us what you think the result should be and what sources explicitly support what you propose. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    my sources support what i said Selim beg (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Army numberes

Only 8 Turkish Troops and 20k armend Libyan civilians fight 102k italien troops The History of the Italian-Turkish War, William Henry Beehler, book 184.63.243.113 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gains of Italy

Italy never gained the entire libya until 1930, therefore after the treaty of ouchy they only gained some ports in coast of libya:

"Only by the early 1930s did Italy conclude her occupation of Libya, which lasted for another decade."[1]

"The 1912 Treaty of Lausanne was meaningless to the beduin tribesmen who continued their war against the Italians, in some areas with the aid of Turkish troops left behind in the withdrawal. Fighting in Cyrenaica was conducted by Sanusi units under Ahmad ash Sharif, whose followers in Fezzan and southern Tripolitania prevented Italian consolidation in those areas as well. p.24 "Although the victorious Allied Powers accepted Italy's sovereignty in Libya, Italian forces there at the end of World War I were still confined to the coastal enclaves, sometimes under conditions of siege. A campaign was initiated to consolidate and expand Italian-held territory in 1919, but the colonial policy pursued by the Italian government was moderate and accommodating. Steps were taken toward granting limited political rights to the people in occupied areas. The provinces of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania were treated as separate colonies, and Fezzan was organized as a military terri-tory. The Fundamental Law approved by the Italian parliament in 1919 provided for provincial parliaments and for local advisory councils appointed by the Italian governors and district executives in the occupied areas. p.25"[2]

"Oct. 1912, the Turks agreed to evacuate Tripoli and Cyrenaica. At that time the Italians held only the chief seaports of Cyrenaica, the rest of the country being in the military occupation of the Senussites and their allies."[3]

"However, the Italian military still only occupied just portions of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and had no presence in the interior of the provinces or even all of the Fezzan. Furthermore, the armed irregular bands led by former Turkish officers men who had resigned their commissions to remain as volunteers were able to operate against the Italians. 30 In fact, the Berbers had started attacking positions from the western mountains when their leader, Suleiman el-Baruni, vowed to continue the war in Tripolitania"[4]

"Although Italy re-doubled her efforts in Tripoli from April to August, 1912, and succeeded in making some local gains, Tripoli remained uncon-quered when Turkey concluded peace. It was not completely brought under subjection until about 1931"[5]

"Peace at Lausanne did not bring peace in Libya. While the Turks in Tripolitania surrendered and withdrew, the Berbers retreated to the Djebel to continue the fight. Turkish troops stayed behind in Cyrenaica, where the Senussi continued the war. At the end of 1913 there were reports of Turkish officers and men among the Senussi, and by the following spring when there were still 66,000 Italian troops in Libya it was clear that Enver Bey was supplying the rebels with money, arms and ammunition. In July rebellion broke out in three districts and by Novem-ber the Italian forces, besieged in Tripoli, Homs and Zuara, were facing a general insurrection. With a European war on his hands, the new chief of the general staff, Luigi Cadorna, categorically refused to send out any more men, and by 1 August 1915 only Tripoli and Homs remained in Italian hands."[6]

"In Cyrenaica, on the other hand, the situation remained virtually unchanged with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne (ouchy), and by the end of the year a marked antagonism had emerged between the two provinces. The Italians could not take any steps forward, and there was still occasional exchange of fire between Arab and Italian patrols in the immediate neighborhoods of Derna and Benghazi...[7]

"The Italians occupied the last months in 1911 in cleaning up the couss and taking possession of the country lying immediutely beak of it. The interior however remained unconquered and fighting continued there throughout the last months of 1911, and the syring and summer o 1912. Enver Bey leading the Turks and Arabs kept up a harrowing warfare which samped the strength and grilled the nerves of the Italians" [8]

"Enver Bey claimed a victory at Derna, but this was disputed by the Italians, whose lines were not pene trated. The Italians did not make any advances into the interior and such an advance did not appear probable soon."[9]

All of these sources are more than enough to prove that italians achieved almost nothing after italo-turkish war.

@Jon698 what do you think Selim beg (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Almost nothing I would not say...it saw the establishment of Italian Libya, with Italians getting the main cities and coastal areas. It's true nonetheless that they did not control all ot Libya at the end of this, since the interior was largely in the hands of local groups; that's a common pattern in colonial conquests, not unique to this case. However, it's also true that in the 1912 treaty (Ouchy/Lausanne) the Ottomans agreed to give up all of Libya (bar for the symbolic religious authority the Sultan retained), not just the coast. And thus the Italians claimed all of Libya, a claim the other powers recognized. On the other hand, the Dodecanese were occupied as opposed to annexed; and they were annexed with the 1920 treaty of Sevres (the article says it happened with the 1923 treaty of Lausanne, but that just confirmed it). I don't really like how you rewrote this, it's confusing 'cause it makes one think that what the Ottomans gave way were the occupied territories (including Dodecanese, but excluding interior Libya) and that's not the legal territorial change. What was effectively ruled and what was not is an Italy-locals issue, not the result of the Italo-Ottoman treaty.2A01:E11:17:40B0:B58F:E1DE:610E:6F83 (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're describing the italian positions from a de jure perspective, not de facto. De facto. Most of Libya remained under senussis, not italians as the sources i cited prove this. Other powers recognizing de jure borders which is more political than reality, doesn't change the fact that Italians couldn't annex all of libya until 1930. Ottomans giving up Libya to thier muslim allies isn't really that big of a defeat.
    You're right about the islands but it's such a low value territory that the economic losses outweight it completely. Selim beg (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is the difference between annexation/territorial change and occupation. The Italians via this treaty annexed all Libya, whereas what they occupied was the coastal regions and not the interior. On the other hand, they occupied the Dodecanese but did not officially annex it.2A01:E11:17:40B0:D8FA:AC7B:F6CC:9257 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Italians did neither of the things you listed after the treaty. The treaty of ouchy was basically just symbolic and did not take effect in Libya. What you're talking about is de jure if you're following the treaty. But de facto, Italians did not annex all of libya and this is what matters.
      ""In Cyrenaica, on the other hand, the situation remained virtually unchanged with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne (ouchy)"
      "The 1912 Treaty of Lausanne was meaningless to the beduin tribesmen who continued their war against the Italians" Selim beg (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is "de jure" vs "de facto". I was just using different language, but we agree actually. "De Jure" Italy got all of Libya (not the Dodecanese)."De facto" Italy took coastal Libya (not interior) and the Dodecanese. We could write it like this, too.2A01:E11:17:40B0:D8FA:AC7B:F6CC:9257 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, i'm glad we came into an agreement i agree with you. Selim beg (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jon698 You didn't even respond to any of the messages in the talk page, instead someone else did. And it ended in favor of Inconclusive, since we got in an agreement of De jure italian annexation but not de facto, and de facto is the part that matters. Read it from start to finish please. Selim beg (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Selim beg one IP editor agreeing with you is not consensus. Multiple editors disagreed with you months ago. Jon698 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        You can re-add the information in the body, but you are not going to change the infobox. Jon698 (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        My arguement of it being Inconclusive still stands since historical evidence links to it. Selim beg (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Multiple editors diagreeing doesn't make a difference if my sources literally complete my thesis. Also, that part was inconclusive too since they didn't respond back.
        "Heavy inflation and near bankrupcy (The region was literally called poor)
        Failing to conquer Libya
        Senussis growing territory and becoming more weaponized (reason for Italy's quick loss of libya in ww1)
        "
        Are these victories for you? Selim beg (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Selim beg Yes, that is indeed is a victory since Italy conquered Libya. The economy of the region is irrelevant. Italy didn't conquer it in the name of economics. They conquered it for land, which they got.
        You also don't seem to understand what consensus is. Jon698 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Italy didn't conquer Libya, only the coastal ports. Look above for the sources i cited. Also economy of the region is relevant since that's the outcome of the battle. You think Economy had no role in Italo-Turkish war? Selim beg (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Selim beg "Italy didn't conquer Libya, only the coast parts" so you're saying that they conquered Libya. Jon698 (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        is libya just seaports Selim beg (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        A population density map says yes. Jon698 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Senussis were more advanced in Cyrenaica and Fezzan provinces, since they knew guerilla tactics and the desert way more than italians so it doesn't really make much of a difference for them in engagements.
        Economically and in terms of population, yeah indeed seaport regions are more important but that doesn't mean just because italy captured some seaports entire Libya capitulated. Senussis continued fighting alongside Berbers, later driving italians out of those ports too, as the sources i sent above prove this.
        Also, none of the sources i sent say they gained all of coastal libya, they say "just portions of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and had no presence in the interior of the provinces or even all of the Fezzan" so it's not even the entire coastline. Even if we took your thesis of "losing coastal libya = losing the entire thing", Italians couldn't manage to take those either.
        "Although Italy re-doubled her efforts in Tripoli from April to August, 1912, and succeeded in making some local gains, Tripoli remained uncon-quered when Turkey concluded peace"
        so they couldn't even get all of Tripoli, let alone the entire coastal region. How is that an Italian victory? Selim beg (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


User:Jon698, to clarify, I actually agree with you that this is obviously an Italian victory leading to the establishment of Italian libya and to the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese. This clearly cannot be disputed, per all sources. I agreed with the user in saying that Italy, initially, did not have effective rule over all of Libya (which is true for most colonial conquests, actually). In this war Italy conquered and gained effective control of the most important parts, while the local tribes of the interior were only completely conquered by the Fascist regime. But this of course does not change that Italy defeated the Ottomans in this war, with the Ottomans losing Libya in the peace treaty. What I did was making a suggestion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italo-Turkish_War&diff=prev&oldid=1318183495) that we could distinguish between Italian annexations and occupations (or "de jure vs de facto" as the other user said).2A01:E11:17:40B0:AC7A:46A7:5EEA:78A5 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottomans ceded Libya after the treaty, yeah they lost Libya i agree. However, Italy didn't gain Libya either. Who gained libya was Senussis, another Muslim power in africa, growing even more powerful (they collected weapons after Ottomans withdrawed). Italians had heavy economic casualties, which senussis or ottomans did not need to worry about since senussis weren't a country and the only thing Ottomans did in this war was sending volunteers and defending Gallipoli. Yeah, Italy occupied Dodecanese islands (not even annexed) however it's such a low value territory. Due to all of these reasons, the war should be Inconclusive. Selim beg (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italy’s goal wasn’t just to make the Ottomans sign a paper, i guess everyone can agree on this there was a lot more than just signing a paper. It was to conquer and control Libya, which they failed to achieve.[10][11][12][13] Spending 1.3 billion lire[14](ruined ten years of fiscal prudence)[15] (By 1915, Italy had the second-highest rate of war expenditures in Europe)[16] to get no control is not a win or an economic benefit either. The Ottoman Empire gave Libya, yeah but not to Italians. The territory was basically empty and Senussis filled the power vacuum quicker than Italians, thus gaining most of Libya. [17][18]
Askew (1942): Tripoli “remained unconquered when Turkey concluded peace.”
Choate (2008): “The Libyan campaign ground to a stalemate by December.”
Del Boca & Calchi Novati: describes the war as costly and unfinished.
Barclay, Sir Thomas: "For Tripoli and Cyrenaica, which are poor and lacking in every-thing, the Porte cannot request as much. An indemnity of from 20 to 30 million lire ought to be sufficient" Selim beg (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tripoli was conquered in 1911, I don't know why that specific source is at odds with the others. As for the Sennusis and other tribes, they were already there and this is the Italo-Ottoman war. Italy gained, creating the colony of Italian Libya ("de jure" it covered all of Libya, "de facto" it covered coastal regions/main cities while the rest remained under local tribes' effective controlp). The Ottomans lost, giving up Libya. So the result cannot be inconclusive. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:AC7A:46A7:5EEA:78A5 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tripoli was OCCUPIED in 1911, that's a battle, not the overall overcome of the war. The city's capture doesn't mean they held it after the war.
Yes, Senussis and other tribes were there however they weren't as armed or organized until 1912. When they seized abandoned Italian weapons Ottoman weapons and gained battlefield experience with future Ottoman generals. From that point forward, they became the only dominant power in Libya, driving Italians out of every city except for Homs and Tripoli in 1915.[19]
Yeah, Italy claimed the Libya on paper. But de facto, Italy only gained a few coastal cities and not even all the major ones, where Senussis didn't even have that much of an impact.
In the rest of Libya, Senussis expanded their influence so the "Italian sovereignty" is not realistic. Even those occupations of coastal cities triggered more instability and conflict, while Italy’s economy continued to fall even after World War I, so those gains in Libya was completely useless economically too.
Thats the definition of an inconclusive result, nobody wins.
Italians couldn't win because they suffered economic losses for basically empty territory and failing to capture all of Libya (sovereignty failed).
Ottomans lost because they had to withdraw from Libya due to Balkan wars.
Senussis were the only ones that came out benefital here, but they weren't always united. Selim beg (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look better at the sources. They say that, during the Italo-Turkish war, Italians aimed at and got the coast with the then main cities of Libya: indicated as Tripoli and Homs in Tripolitania, Tobruk, Derna and Benghazi in Cyrenaica. They didn't advance much further into the interior, but kept those. After the Italo-Turkish war, Italy started to expand more into the interior, but then retreated back due to local insurgencies. But they still managed to keep those aforementioned cities. After Italy joined WW1, Italians and Ottomans were again at war, with Italy again keeping those cities in face of some attempts of reconquest. So the situation created at the end of the Italo-Turkish war situation remained more or less the same, with Italians established on the coast and the Senussi remaining in control of their territories. The campaigns of the 1920s changed this. Anyway, here we deal with the Italo-Turkish war, in which one sides gains a territory and the other loses it...it's not inconclusive. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:AC7A:46A7:5EEA:78A5 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
War wasn't aimed to control a few ports; it was the conquest of Libya as a colony,[20][21][22] which they failed to as my sources show it. but since you already agreed on this previously, i won't go over it again.
“Italy found the conquest of empire a long and expensive business. Her war with Turkey cost 527,000,000 lire… When Italy entered the war in 1915 the natives drove the Italians to the sea… Reconquest of Tripolitania was completed by 1925, but Cyrenaica was not recovered before 1931… Libya was a great strategic asset to Italy, as another war was to show, but it was never to be more than an economic burden.”
— William C. Askew, Europe and Italy’s Acquisition of Libya, 1911–1912, p. 249
So Italy wanted Libya for strategic asset but got economic burden instead. I don't see how this is a win for Italy long term. They couldn't even assert control until 1931.
Gaining territory doesn't mean you win, if you fail your goals then you failed. Selim beg (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Annexation of Libya (both parties agreed that Italy did not annex Libya.) ==
“Only by the early 1930s did Italy conclude her occupation of Libya, which lasted for another decade.”[23]
“The 1912 Treaty of Lausanne was meaningless to the Beduin tribesmen who continued their war against the Italians… Although the victorious Allied Powers accepted Italy's sovereignty in Libya, Italian forces there at the end of World War I were still confined to the coastal enclaves, sometimes under conditions of siege.”[24]
“At that time the Italians held only the chief seaports of Cyrenaica, the rest of the country being in the military occupation of the Senussites and their allies.”[25]
“The Italian military still only occupied just portions of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and had no presence in the interior... In fact, the Berbers had started attacking positions from the western mountains.”[26]
“Tripoli remained unconquered when Turkey concluded peace. It was not completely brought under subjection until about 1931.”[27]
“Peace at Lausanne did not bring peace in Libya… rebellion broke out in three districts and by November the Italian forces, besieged in Tripoli, Homs and Zuara, were facing a general insurrection… by 1 August 1915 only Tripoli and Homs remained in Italian hands.”[28]
“In Cyrenaica... the Italians could not take any steps forward, and there was still occasional exchange of fire between Arab and Italian patrols in the neighborhoods of Derna and Benghazi.”[29]
“The interior however remained unconquered and fighting continued there throughout the last months of 1911, and the spring and summer of 1912.”[30]
“The Italians did not make any advances into the interior and such an advance did not appear probable soon.”[31]
== Was Libya Helpful to the Italian Economy? ==
“His autarkic policy was adduced as a reason for sinking vast sums in colonies which could offer little in raw materials or foodstuffs and which could never hope to be anything but an economic liability to the mother-country.”[32]
Trade data from Italy’s African colonies (G., “Italy in Africa,” The World Today, 1948, p. 67)
| Colonial Possessions | Imports into Italy (million lire) | % of total imports | Exports from Italy (million lire) | % of total exports |
|----------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------|
| Libya (1936)         | 51.4                            | 0.9 %             | 333.8                            | 6.0 %             |
| Libya (1937)         | 90.9                            | 0.6 %             | 396.0                            | 3.8 %             |
| Libya (1938)         | 55.5                            | 0.5 %             | 526.2                            | 5.0 %             |
Italy was literally spending far more than it gained. Italy gained just 0.9% from Libya in 1936 and spent 6.0% maintaining it. This figure worsened over the years.
“Italy found the conquest of empire a long and expensive business... Reconquest of Tripolitania was completed by 1925, but Cyrenaica was not recovered before 1931... Libya was a great strategic asset to Italy... but it was never to be more than an economic burden.”
— William C. Askew, Europe and Italy’s Acquisition of Libya, 1911–1912, p. 249
== Sovereignty and Legitimacy ==
"in which one sides gains a territory and the other loses it...it's not inconclusive." let's see Italy's Sovereignty:
"The public document¹ known as the Treaty of Lausanne makes no mention either of the Italian annexation of the two provinces or of Italian sovereignty over them, but only of the Turkish evacuation of the two provinces and of the Italian evacuation of the Dode-kanese on the coast of Asia Minor"[33]
So Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Italian annexation or even Italian sovereignty. They couldn't even gain the sovereignty De jure, let alone De facto. @2A01:E11:17:40B0:AC7A:46A7:5EEA:78A5
Article 10 of Treaty of Ouchy:[34]
"The Italian Government engages to pay annually to the office of the Ottoman public debt on the account of the Imperial Government a sum corresponding to the average sum which in each of the three years preceding the declaration of war has been applied from the revenues of the two provinces to the service of the public debt ... or in substitution of such annual payment, a corresponding capital sum calculated at the rate of 4 per cent. . . . The Italian Government recognizes that at present the annual payment cannot be less than 2,000,000 Italian lire and is disposed to hand over to the administration of the public debt the capital sum correspondiing as soon as the demand for it shall be made."
Italy was required to pay the Ottoman Empire 2 million Italian lire after supposedly “winning.”
Italo-French Declaration (1912):[34]

"The Royal Government of Italy and the Government of the French Republic, wishing to execute in the most friendly spirit their agreements of 1902, confirm their mutual intention not to place any obstacle to the realization of measures they may judge appropriate to enact — Italy in Libya and France in Morocco. They also agree that the treatment of the “most favored nation” will be reciprocally assured — to Italy in Morocco and to France in Libya — this treatment to apply broadly to nationals, products, establishments, and enterprises of both States, without exception."

If Italy had won the war, it wouldn’t need France’s diplomatic approval. It proves that the "victory" was declared only on paper; in reality Italy needed the recognition of Libya since they were dependent on foreign validation.
== Military and Administrative Reality ==
"The restrictions on agricultural colonization eased dramatically after Italian forces occupied most of northern Tripolitania in 1922"[35]
So Italy couldn't occupy most of North Tripolitania until 1922, 10 years after Italo-Turkish war ended. Only after 1922 they could finally start agricultural colonization. If capturing a few ports equaled “annexing Libya,” why did it take a decade to begin agricultural settlement? @Jon698
Mattia Cosma Bertazzini, shares a map of Italian occupation and settlements in 1939, which clearly shows that almost all Italian settlement and occupation in both Tripolitania and Cyrenaica began only after 1921, not 1912 or 1913.[36] It also shows that Italian presence was only limited to surrounding Tripoli and Benghazi, not all ports. Please open the file and check the maps yourself.
== Conclusion ==
Italy’s main goals were the full conquest and colonization of Libya, not just holding coastal areas or ports. It failed militarily, economically, politically, and even strategically.
The Ottoman Empire lost Libya, but Italy didn't gain it either, Senussis filled the power vaccuum while Italians were unable to move from coastal areas.
Due to all of these factors, Italo-Turkish war should be inconclusive.
Thank you for reading. Selim beg (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No block of text, no matter how long, is going to change my opinion. Jon698 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get your obsession with changing this infobox. Even the Turkish language version of this page lists it as an Italian victory. Jon698 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I look forward to speak historical facts, not own preferences. Turkish wikipedia is weak, so people don't even bother to Edit there. Selim beg (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it's just egoism and not historical facts, understood your intention better now. Selim beg (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The historical fact is that Italy conquered Libya. The remaining holdouts were crushed in a later war. A clear victory. Jon698 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after looking at the sources i cited, it seems like history is on my side on this one. Selim beg (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be incorrect since no other editor, across all language Wikipedias, agrees with you. Jon698 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the war came eventually to be regarded as a thoroughly ‘negative page’ in Italy’s military history"
The Last Ottoman Wars: The Human Cost, 1877–1923. Jeremy Salt p. 118
"The prolonged deadlock in Libya wore down Italy's human and logistical resources on the eve of the First World War, boosted the defence budget and war costs to 46.9 per cent of state expenditure for 1912-13,2 and did little to enhance Italy's military reputation abroad. The slowness of the campaign caused even Giolitti to doubt the fighting qualities of the Italian army on the outbreak of the World War.3 One of Italy's most prominent military historians has called the Libyan operation 'one of the negative pages' in the history of the army"
The Paralysis of Italian Strategy in the Italian-Turkish War, 1911-1912 pp.332-333
"poco edificante storia di questo rinnovamento dimostra… (The not very edifying story of this renewal shows…)"
Breve storia dell'esercito italiano dal 1861 al 1943 - Giorgio Rochat, Giulio Massobrio p. 157
pretty sure all of these say Italy didn't win, perhaps a Pyrrhic victory but not a decisive one. Selim beg (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not include pyrrhic victory in the infobox. Once again, the economic outcome is irrelevant. Jon698 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen pyrrhic victory being included in the infobox many times.
economic outcome is irrelevant only to you, but specialists in this field always include it in their books as a "disaster" for Italians. What is your source that the economic outcome is irrelevant? Selim beg (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple users have told you that the economic aspect is irrelevant to the outcome. Italy fought this war for land and got the land. Read the infobox rules that have been sent to you, thry clearly state that pyrrhic victory is not used. Jon698 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should i trust some random wikipedia users or specialists and historians who have studied this topic far more than some random wikipedia users? Selim beg (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I trust a random Wikipedia user like you to understand the historical consensus of this war? Jon698 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My statements are supported and based on academic sources, including Cambridge and other historians. youre not disagreeing with me personally, instead youre disagreeing with the sources I’ve cited. Selim beg (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have discovered so much "evidence" for your point yet you have failed to discover anybody that agrees with you.
As stated in the talk page of another user, your own sources state that this war was won by Italy. No number of selectively cited sources will change the infobox. Jon698 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you have already said "No block of text, no matter how long, is going to change my opinion." therefore proving that you don't care about evidence, i won't text in this talk page anymore until another user comes. Selim beg (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:RESULT and the section of the template doc it refers to. A thesis as to why this is not an Italian victory is not how this is determined. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not:
    "Drawing non-trivial inferences is the heart of argument, and on talk pages, you're supposed to present arguments. As the policy consensus says, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."
    What am doing here falls within that category, Im connecting statements that was already made by reliable academic sources to create a thesis: that the outcome was "Inconclusive"
    Talk pages are where such discussions are meant to happen, i didn't paste the entire thesis to the infobox. Selim beg (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it, did you redirected me to a wrong page? I don't see any of the things you're talking about. Selim beg (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody changed the shortcut. Please see MOS:MILRESULT and the template doc. Specifically, the immediate result. Arguing that x and y mean z and that z should therefore appear in an article is SYNTH if z is not explicitly sopported by sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2025

References

  1. ^ https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/italo-turkish-war-1911-1912/
  2. ^ https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/li/libyacountrystud00metz_0/libyacountrystud00metz_0.pdf pp.24-25
  3. ^ https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.83474/page/n415/mode/2up p.396
  4. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592318.2014.959765 p.164
  5. ^ https://archive.org/details/europeitalysacqu0000will p.188
  6. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/italian-army-and-the-first-world-war/FDA7C396CCAED1EA85A2FD6F41CF9033 p.49
  7. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Italy-Africa-account-Tripoli-enterprise/dp/B009UX4IUG p.225
  8. ^ https://archive.org/details/italoturkishwari00gree/mode/2up p.19
  9. ^ https://archive.org/details/historyofitalian00beehiala p.70
  10. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592318.2014.959765 p.164
  11. ^ https://archive.org/details/europeitalysacqu0000will p.188
  12. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/italian-army-and-the-first-world-war/FDA7C396CCAED1EA85A2FD6F41CF9033 p.49
  13. ^ https://archive.org/details/italoturkishwari00gree/mode/2up p.19
  14. ^ Mark I. Choate: Emigrant nation: the making of Italy abroad, Harvard University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-674-02784-1, p. 175.
  15. ^ Mark I. Choate: Emigrant nation: the making of Italy abroad, Harvard University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-674-02784-1, p. 175.
  16. ^ Morgan, Philip (2004), Morgan, Philip (ed.), "Fascist Italy at War, 1940–43", Italian Fascism, 1915–1945, London: Macmillan Education UK, p. 388, doi:10.1007/978-0-230-80267-4_8, ISBN 978-0-230-80267-4, retrieved 2025-10-28{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
  17. ^ https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.83474/page/n415/mode/2up p.396
  18. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Italy-Africa-account-Tripoli-enterprise/dp/B009UX4IUG p.225
  19. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/italian-army-and-the-first-world-war/FDA7C396CCAED1EA85A2FD6F41CF9033
  20. ^ Childs (1990). Italo-Turkish Diplomacy and the War over Libya, 1911-1912. Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia. Leiden Boston: BRILL. p. 32. ISBN 978-90-04-09025-5. In Italy, the nationalists began lobbying in earnest for the conquest of Libya with the appearance in March 1911 of their journal L'Idea Nazionale, edited by Corradini.
  21. ^ Childs (1990). Italo-Turkish Diplomacy and the War over Libya, 1911-1912. Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia. Leiden Boston: BRILL. p. 40. ISBN 978-90-04-09025-5. in this he called for the conquest of Libya not only because it was allegedly rich and fertile and would be a natural outlet for Italian emigration, but more importantly because a new Italy would emerge from the war of conquest.
  22. ^ Bogdan, Morar (2025-01-01). The Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912. p. 3. The Cause of the War FOR Tripolitania
  23. ^ https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/italo-turkish-war-1911-1912/
  24. ^ https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/li/libyacountrystud00metz_0/libyacountrystud00metz_0.pdf pp.24–25
  25. ^ https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.83474/page/n415/mode/2up p.396
  26. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592318.2014.959765 p.164
  27. ^ https://archive.org/details/europeitalysacqu0000will p.188
  28. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/italian-army-and-the-first-world-war/FDA7C396CCAED1EA85A2FD6F41CF9033 p.49
  29. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Italy-Africa-account-Tripoli-enterprise/dp/B009UX4IUG p.225
  30. ^ https://archive.org/details/italoturkishwari00gree/mode/2up p.19
  31. ^ https://archive.org/details/historyofitalian00beehiala p.70
  32. ^ G., M. K. (1948). "Italy in Africa". The World Today. 4 (2): 67. ISSN 0043-9134.
  33. ^ Section, Great Britain Foreign Office Historical (1920). Italian Libya. H.M. Stationery Office. p. 23.
  34. ^ a b Section, Great Britain Foreign Office Historical (1920). Italian Libya. H.M. Stationery Office. p. 63.
  35. ^ Fowler, Gary L. (1972). "Italian Colonization of Tripolitania". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 62 (4): 636. ISSN 0004-5608.
  36. ^ Bertazzini, Mattia Cosma. The economic impact of Italian colonial investments in Libya and in the Horn of Africa, 1920-2000. London. pp. 128–130.

Aviation

This war witnessed some very important firsts in military aviation history. It should have its own section. I think historically important. I will help if anyone leads. Murat (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Italo-Turkish_War