History Groups of Two

And yet the Italians established colonies, in Ethiopia. Sure, they were repulsed a few years later, but does that mean it didn't happen?

Really just playing devil's advocate. I'll bow to conventional wisdom... and the Ethiopian tourism department.

The general consensus there seems to be that the brief period of Italian rule in Ethiopia was wartime occupation, not true ownership.

Italy invaded and occupied Addis Ababa and most of East Africa. They imposed their will, government, politics and culture upon the place for half a decade. And remnants of this imposition remain to this day.

No modern-day African country still has claims on it by European colonial powers. So... if an empire eventually relinquishing its claim on a land means that that land was never colonized, then no part of Africa was ever colonized by Europeans except maybe that one Spanish exclave that borders Morocco. Is there a time limit? Like the 5 second rule for food that falls on the floor? If you are colonized for 5 years it doesn't count?

No lasting infrastructure? You've never been to Addis Ababa, have you? And still, why is this a rule for what constitutes colonization? You're just making stuff up. There is not really a lot left in the USA that was built by the British. Are you going to say that North America was not colonized by the British Empire? The Spanish held the the Philippines as a colony for 333 years. But there is barely more evidence of them having been in Cebu or Manila than there is of the Italians being in Addis. Arguably less. According to Wikipedia there were 4,500 km of roads and 900 km of railway built in Italian Ethiopia. There are tons of buildings still standing. Like I said in my original comment, until recently the Ethiopians had not really built much else. Why doesn't anyone actually look stuff up before they comment? No lasting infrastructure... I'm sure you just typed that because it seemed true to you. But a simple google search would reveal it's not.

It is the Ethiopian's version of events that the war between Hailie Selassie and the Italian invaders went on this entire time and eventually ended in an Ethiopian victory. That's why they make the claim that the Italians never colonized them. I humbly submit this is inaccurate. Italy won the war. Hailie Selassie fled the country and went to London. The Italians set up shop, completely in control of the capital city and most of the country for years, and built a sh*t ton of infrastructure, much of which remains to this day. They only left later when, as part of World War 2, they got forced out by the Allies. I'm sorry if this hurts Ethiopian pride.

What is the difference between occupation and colonization? I know both terms carry with them a lot of political connotations and can be used, and misused, to try and prop up certain narratives. But I think realistically the difference between the two is an intent to stay on the part of the occupiers/colonizers.

If one country enters another country's territory uninvited, and they build only temporary military structures like barracks and fortifications before being forced out, this is an invasion.

If they do this but manage to largely defeat the defenders, and then build permanent structures like military bases or communications and transportation infrastructure, but they have no intent of actually sticking around permanently themselves and the presence is largely militaristic in nature, this is an occupation.

If they intend to stay and bring in people and families to live there, and they build permanent structures like churches, restaurants, administrative buildings

entertainment venues, permanent domiciles, court houses, schools, et cetera... then this is colonization.

The Italian Empire intended to stay in Ethiopia. They built many of these things. If the war had gone differently, they would have still been there for another 40 years.

If you spent a year there it's surprising that you are so ignorant about this and have to resort to making inaccurate ad hominem attacks instead of actually engaging in the conversation. but that's the Internet for you. Though 80% of your comment is insults, the 20% that tries to be a response I already refuted if you actually read what I wrote. Not going to waste my time on the semi-literate.

If any intelligent people out there actually wanted to have a civil discussion about this I'm legitimately interested in why anyone outside of Ethiopia takes this claim seriously. It's definitely not that the Italians built no lasting infrastructure (they did). Or that they weren't intending to stay there permanently (they were). Or that they were resisted by partisan fighters during the time that Italian East Africa was part of the Italian Empire (as the same thing occurred in most countries that were colonized in history). Or that they eventually left (as all colonial powers in Africa eventually did the same thing).

Is it some arbitrary cut-off in time? Have there been no efforts to colonize territory in history that failed after fewer than 6 years? And if so, what's the next shortest one? I'm not sure how to look this up. I know of numerous failed attempts by European colonial empires to colonize North America. Most of those failed in less than a year, though.

I believe what actually happened is that there was already a settlement néár where the Dutch would found the fort and town of Batavia, which then got incorporated into the city as it grew. But since the point from which the city grew was that Dutch fort, it's considered a city founded by the Dutch.

Kind of similar to the story of Calcutta (or Kolkata, if you need a different spelling that sounds identical in speech): There were already three villages at the mouth of the Hooghly river near where Fort William was founded by the British, but since the city grew out of the fort, Calcutta as a city was founded by the British.

If only his first name was accepted, that would be Gaius.