Jump to content

Talk:Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconUnreferenced articles
WikiProject iconThis article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 2008-07-14. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources.Unreferenced articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articlesTemplate:WikiProject Unreferenced articlesUnreferenced articles articles
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Albanian Kingdom (1939–43). 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) 22:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move

[edit]

This article title is a misnomer. There was no separate or even autonomous Albanian Kingdom between 1939 and 1943. Due to the personal union, the kingdom involved was the "Kingdom of Italy and Albania". I suggest this article be moved to a descriptive one, Italian occupation of Albania, which reflects Lemkin's observation that in all practical terms, Italy was in belligerent occupation of Albania. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be straight a occupation compared -for example- to the case of Serbia or to any other similar WWII case. Officially it was a personal union & a temporary realization of Greater Albania. The official title of this country should stay as in the rest of the WWII countries.Alexikoua (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What source says this was its official title? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943). The discussion has reached consensus this is the most accurate way to describe the political entity. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Albanian Kingdom (1939–43) → Italian occupation of Albania Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943) – This article title is a misnomer. There was no separate or even autonomous Albanian Kingdom between 1939 and 1943. Due to the royal personal union between Italy and Albania engineered by the Italians after their 1939 invasion of Albania, the kingdom that existed during this period was the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania". I suggest this article be moved to a descriptive one, Italian occupation of Albania, which reflects the occupation law scholar Raphael Lemkin's observation that in all practical terms, Italy was in belligerent occupation of Albania from the time of its invasion in 1939 until the Italian capitulation in September 1943. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, this is a more natural title, being one that is more likely to be searched for, and is sufficiently precise that it does not require disambiguation. This move would also make this article title consistent with a number of other "occupation of" articles such as German occupation of Norway and Axis occupation of Greece. Per this ngram [1], "Italian occupation of Albania" has been used far more than even the undisambiguated "Albanian Kingdom", particularly in the period of WWII, but also more recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: In fact it was NOT an occupation as in the rest of the WWII cases (Norway, Greece etc.) Not to mention that we have similar articleS to this one for Greece, see Hellenic_State (1941–1944). Moreover, it was the realization of Greater Albania and a [personal union of Albanian with Italian crown]. The argument about consistency with the rest of similar WWII article is invalid in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying it was exactly the same as any other occupation, Axis occupation regimes varied widely. But Lemkin (pp. 99–107) makes it clear that a protectorate was established over Albania by Italy "in the course of a prolonged belligerent occupation". He goes on to say that it cannot be called a "union" because that would presume equality and coordination between the two states, but in fact Italy imposed a new basic law and took over the country, absorbing its military, foreign affairs and trade functions, and running every government department. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a reason why Albania shoulnd't have a similar article decicated to the puppet state that was established. As far as I can see we have similar articles to almost each state & and it wasn't simply a puppet since it launched its own irrendetist agenda. I won't object the creation of an article titled Axis occupation of Albania. However, the existent title deserves a seperate article (i.e. this one).Alexikoua (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But what sources do you have that Albania was a separate "puppet state" during this period? In terms of a "kingdom", it was "in personal union" with the House of Savoy, ie the kingdom that existed was the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania". There was no separate "Kingdom of Albania" after 17 April 1939 when the crown of Albania was handed to the King of Italy after the union was approved by the Italian Fascist Grand Council. According to Bernd Jürgen Fischer's, Albania at War, 1939–1945', Albania was annexed by Italy, and was a fascist military dictatorship (under the Viceregent) with a series of Albanian puppet regimes under it. The current title is made up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose (Edit: conditional support if the Move Request proposal is changed to Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943). For reason please see: [2]) This move request is an attempt of falsification of WWII history, which will find me strongly opposing. The Kingdom of Albania was not occupied by the Axis Powers in the sense France, Greece and Norway were. Albania was an Axis Power puppet of Fascist Italy already from the initial moments of the World War II. To claim that the Kingdom of Albania was "under Axis Occupation" instead of puppet state, is to claim that Albania wasn't an Axis Power in the first place but defeated and occupied instead. The whole world knows that Albania was part of the Axis and not merely "occupied", and to suggest otherwise, like this move request does, is no better than to accept the historical falsification for which the far-right Albanian nationalists are notorious and a clear attempt of whitewashing Albania's role in WWII. No matter what Peacemaker67 believes, the fact remains in that Albania was not neutral or enemy to the Axis, for it to be considered as "occupied by another Axis Power", but an actual puppet and member of the Axis Powers. To prove that Albania was a non-Axis Power occupied by an Axis Power, will be very difficult and will require very strong and reliable sources.
Edit: just for everyone's information, for the actual conquest and military occupation of Albania by Axis Powers, please read: German occupation of Albania, where Nazi Germany attacked and conquered former Axis Albania which at that time, was in a personal union with Fascist Italy. It was then when Albania was actually occupied. As everyone can see, there is an obvious difference between the 1939-1943 puppet period and the 1943-1944's occupation. To rename the 1939-1943 puppet period into "occupation" as well, is only bound to generate problems for Wikipedia and I am strongly against. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident wellllll… you should read Italian invasion of Albania. The Italians first made Zogu dependent on them (the alternative was Yugoslavia) but then when he still tried to eke out some independence, they decided to get rid of him entirely and turn Albania into a puppet state. Well some of this was done by Mussolini for petty reasons like showing Hitler he could conquer places and avenging Italy's (incredibly embarrassing) loss to Albania a couple decades earlier, when the Italians had invaded the area around Vlore. But the result wasn't really that different than the German period, the Italians invaded and put up a quisling regime that had some limited support (primarily Muslim landlords like Verlaci (the biggest landowner) who "ran" it, and some of the northern tribes) and a pretty large amount of opposition. --Calthinus (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are pointint out to this, but it seems you have failed to understand my point and you have my apologies for this, as I am not an elloquent English speaker. So let me explain better (basically, with the aid of Constantine's and TU-Nor's descriptions): my point in the above comment is that the puppet period was not an occupation, at least not in the sense France, Norway and Greece were. Albania was not occupied or annexed, was just in personal union with Italy at that time. Formalities and appearances of a separate administration and state entity were preserved. The move request is problematic as it does not take in account these crucial facts about Albania. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 23:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Preserved? No, Albania was invaded, the Italian invaders won, they dismantled the Albanian government, exiled the monarch, forced the people to agree to a humiliating status of having the invading king as their own, and set up their own puppet government officially headed by a despised man whose inherited wealth came from Ottoman exploitation and corruption. --Calthinus (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing here (and in most other opposes) is any reliable academic source for the claim that Albania was a puppet state. Clearly it had a series of puppet regimes, as did many occupied countries and Axis-occupied sub-divisions of former countries, like Serbia (which was not a puppet state, but an occupied territory). I've provided reliable academic sources from specialists on Axis occupation (Lemkin) and on Albania during the war (Fischer), which say that Albania was occupied and annexed by Italy. In response, there has been nothing but opinion. No sources at all. I would support Cplakidas suggestion of Albania under Italian rule or perhaps Italian protectorate of Albania however, as I have pointed out with a reliable source (Lemkin, who draws this from the relevant Italian documents), there was no separate "Albanian Kingdom", so the present title is ahistorical. Perhaps Albanian puppet government (1939–1943 is an option if we are talking about an article for just the government? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support any of these except the first -- Albania under Italian rule could also refer to a certain period in the Middle Ages.--Calthinus (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, Italy didn't exist then, it would be Venetian rule. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct but it could still be confusing. It would be Venetian, or Sicilian -- the medieval Kingdom of Albania had mostly native nobles but the ruling family was came from Sicily (ultimately of Angevin origin). It's not a huge issue, I'd still support it over the current title.--Calthinus (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this proposal, especially for the rationale(s) given. We have plenty of articles for the puppet regimes established by Axis powers, where "in all practical terms", Germany or Italy "was in belligerent occupation of" some country, but where the formalities and appearances of a separate administration and state entity were preserved, no matter how irrelevant in practice, from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to the Government of National Salvation in Serbia and, yes, even the Italian Social Republic. The same goes for colonial and semi-colonial territories, from the Raj to the supposed "amical protectorate" of the United States of the Ionian Islands. If anything, it is the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania" that is an ahistorical neologism here, as nowhere was this term ever used. Formally, Albania was a kingdom in personal union with the Italian crown, not annexed within the Italian Kingdom. It kept its own prime minister, parliament, police, flag, anthem, even its own Fascist party and army units. This is not simply outright military occupation, where there is a military administration by the occupying power, nor de jure annexation. Whether the Albanians were consulted or consented is just as irrelevant as with the previous examples, or with any military dictatorship for that matter; it existed, period, and just like in any similar case, from the moment the Italians conceded even the semblance of native statehood, they were also forced to engage in some process of negotiation and co-optation with their nominal subjects, even if they were in undisputed control. There is a reason the Italians pandered to specifically Albanian interests when they annexed the Kosovo to Albania (and not Italy), or when they engaged in propaganda about Chameria. Implying that Albania was simply a voiceless province of Italy without any agency of its own is dangerous over-simplification, as others have noted. I could accept something along the lines of "Albania under Italian rule", if the object is to highlight the (undisputed) fact of Italian control over the country. This might also result from a split of the article, focusing on the puppet regime at the present title, and on the general relationship of Albania and Italy (including, for instance, the activities of the Italian Army in Albania) during this period in a new, appropriately titled article. However this would be a tenable proposal only when sufficient material is gathered; as it stands, there is no need for it. Constantine ✍ 16:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apart from the above issues the proposed title gives a wrong impression in terms of geography. The specific "Albanian kingdom" annexed parts of Montenegro and Kosovo/Yugoslavia, thus a title like "Albania under Italy" offers the wrong impression that's about the specific region under Italian occupation, in fact a more precise title would be "Albania, Kosovo & part of Montenegro/Yugoslavia under Italy" under this rationale.Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't it be kingdom of albania (1939–43) עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The name of the article is not of much importance in this case. I do not mind keeping the current name, though the proposed name is better per WP:COMMONNAME, as is very well argued by Peacemaker67 via Ngram results. The name of an article is decided on policies, in particular COMMONNAME, disregarding personal conclusions based on no sources. Fischer, an authority on World War II Albania, gives a good panorama of the situation during the Italian occupation [3]. Tanner goes as far as to present good and bad sides of the Italian occupation of Albania [4]. Lemkin argues that Italian propaganda of that time tried to portray the occupations as "union". Lemkin refutes that with facts and arguments. The Allies have issued statements on the restoration of Albania's independence after defeat of the Axis [5]. The actions of some Albanians regarding Kosovo etc are irrelevant and AFAICT any claim on connections is not based on sources. For that matter, Greece during and immediately after its Axis occupation killed almost every Jew inside its borders, and ethnically cleansed its minorities such as the Chams and Macedonians. Was Greece an Axis power? Nope. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Allies' declaration doesn't impact this Issue. No-one disputes that Albania was not really independent; that is what happens when your country gets invaded and forced to become a protectorate. That does not negate the fact that an Albanian state continued to exist, both de jure and de facto, in some form. The very content of this article is proof of that. Bringing Greece into this is also irrelevant, and I take very strong exception to your last sentences, which attempt a misdirection through what is either outright lying or ignorance; especially the claim that Greece "killed almost every Jew inside its borders" beggars belief. Either way, if you want to be taken seriously, please mind your facts. Constantine ✍ 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Do not worry about me. I am experienced enough to be taken seriously. I did not bring Greece, other editors brought it. I found it present in this discussion. I support this page move as I have supported a move of [6]. In any case, my comments reflect my opinion, and making assumptions about them is "either outright lying or ignorance". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine, although one can see what happened in Chameria as adherence to "Albanian interests", men like Shefqet Verlaci did not represent ALbanian nationalists but instead the stuffy post-Ottoman landed old elite (unlike the nationalists, who were better represented by the Ballists), and those annexations are also explained by some authors as cooptation of Albanian nationalism by Italians who wanted to use it to grab more territories. Meanwhile, some territories that also had Albanian majorities in Macedonia, Kosovo and Serbia were ceded to Axis Bulgaria. It is a valid point of view to have that the state had "Albanian" interests but it is not hte only one and to be fair in cases like Nedic's Serbia or Quisling Norway there was also some reference to native nationalism. --Calthinus (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: I know that Verlaci represented the old elite, and am not bringing him into connection with Chameria. I simply point out that, as in many similar cases (in Axis-occupied Europe, Japanese-occupied Asia, or any imperial project in modern times really), these old elites or other political non-entities were used by the occupiers, and the occupiers made some effort to pander to local desires and (mostly nationalist) demands, simply in order to gain some legitimacy. I do not dispute that Albania was not sovereign during this period, but it existed as a functioning state; this is unlike cases like Belgium, Poland, or Greece, where there was a government in exile, where the puppet regime, if it existed, never amounted to much, and where the area was under effective military administration. Nor am I disputing the illegality of the Italian regime and its basis in brute force, but Albania, like it or not, was a "pacified" colony, if you want to see it like this, not a territory conquered during a war and under provisional military occupation. Even Lemkin, who has been referenced here more than once, writes that according to some scholars, "Italy's occupation of Albania is in the nature of a pacific occupation". We are not here to pass moral judgment, as Lemkin does, we are hear to report facts. Albania in 1939-43 had all the attributes of a state or colony, even if that was a facade for Italian hegemony, and we have abundant examples of articles on WP where such entities are treated under their formal title, regardless how much of a fiction they were in reality. Fischer, in his Albania at War, 1939-1945, makes clear that Italy treated Albania as a colony, but that it also invested in it considerable sums, certainly more than it ever got out of the country; I know of no other military occupation that did this. Again, I am open to a renaming or splitting of the article or adopting a more nuanced name, but not on the basis of the nom. To take Greece as a familiar example, the topic of the Axis occupation is much broader than that of the puppet government; in Albania I am not sure whether this distinction can really be drawn. @Ktrimi991: Your comments may reflect your opinion, but your opinion is sorely lacking in factual basis; please read up on the actual situation in Greece during the 1940s, before repeating such claims. It certainly speaks volumes that according to you "Greece" was responsible for crimes committed on her soil by an occupying power that exercised direct military administration... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you misrepresent Lemkin here. If you refer to the page in question (p. 106), he is referring to Italian writers writing in 1939! In fascist journals such as Gerarchia and Civiltà Fascista... Not Italian scholars at a later date. Lemkin goes on to say that those authors "ignore not only the fact of the stubborn resistance of the outnumbered Albanian Army in April 1939, but also the circumstances that Albanian partisans continued to fight a form of guerilla warfare against the Italians." He goes on to say, "One must rather conclude that a protectorate was established over Albania by Italy in the course of a prolonged belligerent occupation, and that in fact the Italo-Albanian relationship cannot properly be described as either a "pacific occupation" or "union"." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the scholars, you are right. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that Lemkin's argument is about morality and legality, which is not really relevant to our discussion (I hope no-one here seriously disputes that the Italian annexation of Albania was illegal). Of course there was resistance to the Italian invasion, that does not alter the fact that there was a functioning "Albanian state" four this four-year period, even as an Italian colony. The legality or popularity of a regime is (unfortunately) beside the point as to its existence; we don't invalidate the RSI, Francoist Spain, Communist Poland, etc because they lacked legitimacy and were based on force. PS, Peacemaker67, have you got any evidence for the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania"? I can't find any support for this in the sources. Constantine ✍ 13:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cplakidas Your position is not as different from mine as you may think, although I have not referred to Albania as a "colony" as I don't really hold that to be the case. As far as I've read, Italy's long term goal was the Italianization of Albania so that Albania would become an integral part of Italy, an extension of Puglia, inhabited by patriotic Italian-speaking Italians who were descended from Albanians. If Algeria isn't really considered France's colony but a part of France, then Albania would seem to have the same relationship to Italy during this period. As far as I see it, the present title is unacceptable as it is implying continuity with the previous period, also titled "Albanian Kingdom", but as I believe we all agree on, Zogu's monarchy ended. As for Kingdom of Italy and Albania, here's one [an Albanian source using the title], [here's an Italian source using that to refer to the period]. Here are [the tens of thousands of Google results for "Regno d'Italia e Albania"] -- the first of which seem to include collectors coins printed with the name. Of course, that being said, I think most people would refer to it simply as the Kingdom of Italy (see also "United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland"... nobody says that). --Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: The name of this article is not of much importance. Maybe having one Axis occupation of Albania article and one Italian occupation of Albania/Albanian Kingdom (1939-1943) article would work, but I doubt there is any editor having time and energy for that effort. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid it is important. To support a move and then to not acknowledge how important it is, and at same time bring up nationalist lies of the kind "Greece killed almost every Jew and ethnically cleansed the Chams and Macedonians" to support your position on a move that is based on a problematic rationale that lacks strong reliable sources, doesn't help your position. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh, I go away from wiki for a day being busy and all, and what do I know but Arberia and Elladha are at each others throats yet again. I will !vote in a bit. A lot of the rhetoric here is unnecessary. For what it's worth, Ktrimi991 if I were you I would reclarify what you meant about your statement about "Greece" killing almost every Jew and ethnically cleansing Chams and Macedonians (Slavs). Right wing militias arising in a volatile war environment run by men like Zervas can only be said to represent all of "Greece" very controversially -- but that's how your statements are being interpreted.
I actually don't see the point in discussing who kills more people. The record is actually that "collaborators" except for Germany-Austria and Romania (Codreanu and friends had their own love of slaughtering Jews independent of Nazi race theories) have a better record with regards to saving Jews than conquered ones-- the three "best" are the Danish protectorate, the Albanian quisling regime, and Axis Bulgaria. It should be clarified that with regard to Jews in Greece, the record is mixed, as in the Southern areas the Greek population was very protective of Jews, while in Thessaloniki... things were perhaps not as great, becuase of the history of Jewish-Greek tensions in that city-- but it isn't correct to say "Greece killed almost all its Jews" as that would give the impression that it was a scenario like Romania or Croatia (or even Germany) when it wasn't. On the other hand, what happened to the Chams aligned well with the slaughters and ethnic cleansing of German and even Polish populations by non-Axis Soviet and allied communist forces, which resulted in millions of deaths. The Allied side wasn't really even preoccupied with saving Jews, they had many opportunities to but ... didn't care enough I guess. Anyhow, in a bit. --Calthinus (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, could also support the proposal by TU-nor It looks like Peacemaker67 has his facts and sources in order here, while the arguments against really don't cut it, in my opinion. The "Albanian Kingdom" was a farce (guess who the "Albanian" king was? Victor Emmanuel of Italy), and a load of Italian fascist propaganda. The actual "Albanian Kingdom" existed before that and its king was Zogu who was removed from power and expelled by the Italians. How can we have the Albanian Kingdom when its monarch has been expelled and its institutions dismantled? Real power, de jure, rested with the Italians -- it was de facto that this was resisted at times by nationalist-minded Albanian collaborators. The "autonomous" Albanian government institutions were issued commands to pass laws by Francesco Jacomoni -- in short, it was at best a quisling regime and at worst a puppet show farce and existed mainly for appearances and perhaps because the Italians were too lazy/busy to enforce everything themselves. Peacemaker's argument is inline with coverage of this period elsewhere. That being said I could get behind TU-nor's proposal here where the Italian occupation refers to the policies set by Italians and then an "Albanian" page specifically about the characteristics of Verlaci's quisling state. --Calthinus (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically supporting the article being moved to "Italian occupation of Albania" even though you just acknowledged that it was a puppet country? I am sorry but you will have to choose between occupation and puppetry. Not both. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 23:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In many situations (including this one), occupation and puppetry are quite mutually inclusive. If people get behind TU-nor's compromise, I would support that too. But it seems nonsensical to me to have an article titled "Albanian Kingdom" when that was exactly the entity that the Italians ended. How was it an "Albanian kingdom" when the Italians expelled the Albanian monarch?--Calthinus (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: During my research I saw that several sources say that Albania was a protectorate of Italy. It would be a good article name. However, since "Albanian Protectorate" is used also for Albania during the Wied gov, "Albania under Italian rule" would probably be better. "Albanian puppet government (1939–1943)" too would be good. Which one do you prefer the most? Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the WWI protectorate, perhaps the best title for this article without changing the scope would actually be Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Calthinus (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I agree with this proposal. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner this has moved along a bit since you supported. Can you advise on your views re: Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943)? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943), which appears to be a more precise representation of the facts than Italian occupation of Albania. The Wikipedia main header which comes closest to it is the one in Polish Wikipedia, which has been titled Kingdom of Albania (Italian protectorate) since its creation in January 2010. As I previously mentioned, the Italian Wikipedia has it nearly the same as the original nomination, above — Italian occupation of Albania (1939–1943), while the title in Albanian Wikipedia is the same as that in most Wikipedias — Albanian Kingdom (1939–43).    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I have no problem with renaming this article per se, as long as it is not made out that Albania somehow vanished; Kingdom of Albania (Italian protectorate) would work for me, of Kingdom of Albania under Italian rule, or anything similar. I would be a bit careful with the use of the "protectorate" label, though, since Albania was a de facto Italian protectorate already since the 1920s. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Albania under Noli had as its specific foreign policy the removal of Italian (as well as Greek and Yugoslav) influence and tried to balance their roles with those of Britain and America. After Zogu came back to power, Italy had influence but it was resisted at times (hence Italy invaded), and I haven't yet seen RS refer to the period as a "protectorate". For what it's worth, authors like Stafa [[7]] typically refer to Verlaci/Merlika-Kruja's entity as "the collaborationist government" during the period they call the "Italian occupation".--Calthinus (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with retaining "Kingdom of Albania" (even with disambiguation) as the title is, as I've explained above, the Kingdom of Albania did not exist as a distinct kingdom during this period. The Kingdom involved was the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania", as it was a unified kingdom, like the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707, which subsumed the Kingdom of Scotland. This is explained in Lemkin, pp. 99–107. The "protectorate" label is what it is called in reliable sources, both Lemkin and Fischer use it. Disambiguating by year solves the problem with confusion with other periods. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad Peacemaker67 is finally acknowledging my points that Albania wasn't occupied, but a puppet state. I highly recommend that your current Move Request is dropped and a new one is initiated with a better proposal that takes in account Albania's status as a protectorate. As it stands now, the current move request not only is problematic, but is going gathering support by nationalist users (the Balkan editors is what concerns me here) who are going to make your move request succeed, and their views of the Nazi period are well-known, and that without taking in account the valid points raised by Constantine and me, which is what concerns me here. But I am glad everyone here so far is leaning towards a compromise that acknowledges protectorate status of Albania. I recommend that we choose a title that 1) reflects Albania's puppet status, 2) does not make Albania disappear as a separate entity (it was in personal union with Italy, but still was not anexed yet and regarded a separate entity), 3) does not equalize Albania's unique situation with that of the occupation regimes in France, Norway and Greece. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 09:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got that from, SilentResident. I don't accept that Albania was a puppet state, I consider (based on reliable sources such as Lemkin and Fischer) that it was a protectorate with a puppet government. They are two distinct things. I have modified my RM to Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943), as noted above and supported by a few other editors. RM's often morph during discussion. A reminder that casting aspersions on other editors' motives is inappropriate unless you have provided sufficient evidence for your claims at the appropriate forum, and may be considered a personal attack. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To say: I don't accept that Albania was a puppet state, I consider (based on reliable sources such as Lemkin and Fischer) that it was a protectorate with a puppet government., is to say that a puppet government dosen't make the country a puppet. My apologies but I can't make sense of what you are telling me now. Unless you are implying to me that the Albanian state wasn't under the effective control of the Albanian government? To say there can be a country that is ruled by puppeteers but is not a puppet is quite... ashtonishing. I am missing something here? Was there was a single government in Albania, or were two 2 parallel effective governments in the country at that time period? If yes, then that could fit your description. But there weren't any. The puppet government had under its control the whole country as far as I am aware, and the Albanian King was exiled to Greece, unable to govern his country anymore, right? As for the updated Move Request, I could lend my support to it. But, for aspersions on other editor's motives, don't get me wrong, I am not referring to you nor to any specific editors, but stands as a warning and reminder to everyone here that the past discussions on Balkan related articles about WWII were caught into polemics and disputes (of which I was not part) and I am not willing to see this dragged there as well because of the Move request. I highly recommend that we are cautious so that the Move request discussion here doesn't get affected by the situation in other Balkan topic articles. I am certain that everyone who is as concerned as I do, will agree with me on this. Obvious to most of us, but those not familiar with the Balkan topic area, will have to undestand in that the Move requests about controversial periods (WWII) should be worded carefully so that they not get dragged into endless disputes that can deviate from the scope of the OP, because this is what has actually happened here on the Balkan articles before. Unfortunately.
EDIT: And to clarify my position on the Puppet/Protectorate: you won't find myself objecting to describing Albania as a protectorate with a puppet government, or a puppet country with a puppet government - for me what matters is that the new move request's title reflects 3 facts about it: 1) The government was puppet, and none can deny that, 2) the country was not annexed to Italy, and importantly, 3) the country was not "occupied" in the sense the Allied countries were. Any proposal taking in account these facts, including Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943), will have my support. Edit: my first post above has been updated as well (Oppose -> Conditional Support to reflect what I wrote here) --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to new suggested move target. --T*U (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that a specific editor keeps falsifying some basic WWII facts (and irrelevant in this discussion): for future reference Chams "fled" due to large scale Nazi collaboration & Zervas followed allied orders to clean up some Nazi&co. element. Nothing bad on that, after all he saved several Cham Albanians from their collaborator co-ethnicsAlexikoua (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua I am honestly unsure whether this post refers to Ktrimi or myself (despite my having corrected some of the statements about Greece). In any case I think it is best that we all stop discussing Chameria on this page, immediately.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, all editors should actually stop making more comments than their vote. One comment per every vote would be best. Re Chameria, victims are always easy to be labeled as "Nazis collaborators", "terrorists", "extremists" etc. If we were to believe that kind of logic, Greek victims of [8], [9], [10] would be criminals cleaned up by heroes. That kind of thinking is surely wrong, and Greek victims in Turkey and Cyprus, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Chams expelled and suppressed by Greece are all victims of nationalist policies of some governments that desperately try to hide issues with their national myth building. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that discussion about this irrelevant topics needs to stop. If someone "has" historical info to present that's not the correct place.Alexikoua (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good, and apologies, I do acknowledge I was a bit hypocritical saying as much as I too was discussing it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day Slatersteven so far as I can tell, it was part of the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania" under the Italian king, and didn't have a unique geopolitical "official title" except perhaps "Albania" per se, although that is probably a title of convenience in the sources. And that clearly isn't precise enough for an article title. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we treat Scotland, or wales? So I would think "Albania (1939–43)" would fit the usual convention.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Good grief? Its not my fault if you lack arguments for your own POV. Its not my fault because plenty of academic sources exist to refute your attempt to present position of other editors as mere unsourced persional opinions But what sources do you have that Albania was a separate "puppet state" during this period?....No sources at all. Its not my fault if your position is POV as noted by many editors here in the above comments you no doubt read: it was the realization of Greater Albania ... it wasn't simply a puppet since it launched its own irrendetist agenda..... The whole world knows that Albania was part of the Axis and not merely "occupied", and to suggest otherwise, like this move request does, is no better than to accept the historical falsification for which the far-right Albanian nationalists are notorious and a clear attempt of whitewashing Albania's role in WWII. No matter what Peacemaker67 believes, the fact remains in that Albania was not neutral or enemy to the Axis, for it to be considered as "occupied by another Axis Power", but an actual puppet and member of the Axis Powers.... there is an obvious difference between the 1939-1943 puppet period and the 1943-1944's occupation. To rename the 1939-1943 puppet period into "occupation" as well, is only bound to generate problems for Wikipedia and I am strongly against. .....Implying that Albania was simply a voiceless province of Italy without any agency of its own is dangerous over-simplification, as others have noted. etc. Its not my fault that you failed to gain consensus for your POV after writing 21 comments here. All the best. User:Antidiskriminator/signing template 2/2 comments--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

[edit]

Article contradicts itself saying the independence of Albania ceased to exist after 1939, but literally has the title protectorate in the article name. The Albanian protectorate has everything needed for statehood, mentioned also in this article the Albanian fascist party, and it's military wing. Albozt (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. KyloRen3 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Do we have sources calling this a protectorate? It was a personal union. A protectorate is when a state conducts economic and/or foreign policy for another one. A personal union is when the head of state is the same. If anything the term "protectorate" should be used for the previous period, when Zog was a protegèe of Italy (what this article calls the "de facto" Italian protectorate over Albania). But this article is about the years in which the title of King of Albania was taken by the King of Italy. So i have doubts that this can be called a protectorate. That would be like describing 17th century Sicily as a Spanish protectorate or 19th century India as a British protectorate. Barjimoa (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying....the Constituent Assembly of Albania sent a text draft to the Italian foreign minister Galeazzo Ciano explicitly reffering to the creation of a "Personal Union" (Source) UnsungHistory (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution does not mention anything about being a protectorate UnsungHistory (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying....the Constituent Assembly of Albania sent a text draft to the Italian foreign minister Galeazzo Ciano explicitly reffering to the creation of a "Personal Union" (Source),but also a protectorate UnsungHistory (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source cited

[edit]

the citation for the flag (here)is not a reliable source UnsungHistory (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming of government infobox and religion infobox

[edit]

I think there's a good argument to be made for keeping the religious details and mention of totalitarian dictatorship. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_protectorate_of_Albania_(1939–1943)&oldid=1259445794"