Jump to content

Talk:Armistice of Cassibile

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

German reaction

[edit]

The article scarcely mentions the German reaction. Thereafter, they treated Italian forces worse than enemies (see Cephalonia) and acted against Italian warships. Similarly, what part did Italians play in the remainder of the war? For example, some RM ships patrolled the Atlantic and Italian former POWs assisted on the British Home Front. What impact did Italian partisans have? It should at least be mentioned. Folks at 137 20:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the surrender, not armistice, the Italians were enemies and traitors. What other than harsh treatment do you expect from the Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.113.40 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this particular Nazi sympathiser doesn't want to sign up and get an account, to show the world who he is. Perhaps our friend from Frankfurt-am-Mein is unaware that IP addresses can be traced very easily these days.
Leaving aside the despicable nature of his sentiment, he should be aware that a talk page is for discussing improvements to an article with reliable sources. Now go fetch, or be quiet. BillMasen (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate

[edit]

This article is summary and inaccurate. E.g., Mussolini was not arrested at the Fascist "Gran Consiglio" , but the day after, following a meeting with the King Giordaano 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly in concurrence. The aftermath of the armistice needs to be expanded upon (German seizure of Italian forces, surrender of Italian Fleet, etc)Cam (Chat) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender, not armistice

[edit]

This article should be titled "Italy's Surrender." Italy did not obtain an armistice from the Allies, but was subjected to a virtually unconditional surrender. The definition of "armistice" is "a temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement of the warring parties; truce." World War I ended with an armistice. Many Italians use the word armistice when referring to Italy's exit of World War II as a euphemism to mask their denial that they just flat out lost. In an armistice, the opposing troops keep their positions and their guns, the opposing governments remain in place, and the front lines remain in place. In Italy, the government disappeared in the night of September 8, without giving the military forces specific instructions. As a result, nearly half a million confused and often leaderless Italian soldiers throughout Italy, Jugoslavia and Greece were captured by the Germans and put into forced labor in German concentration camps, where a large percentage of them died of starvation. Cefalonia was one of the few examples of armed resistance to German forces.Trieste1957 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Capitulation or surrender makes a lot more sense. I'll make a good faith move and see how it goes. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed a de facto capitulation on the part of Italy, but it was called armistice by the powers that signed it ("The following conditions of an Armistice are presented by General Dwight D. Eisenhower ..."), by contemporary newspapers and by later scholars (see for instance [1], [2]). So calling it "Capitulation" or anything else would be a non-neutral denomination. Goochelaar (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Armistizio di Cassibile" is in fact the normal designation of this event in Italy, and I don't think that any Italian in his right mind considers that Italy's defeat in WWII can be masked.Giordaano (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The name they called it is irrelevant, only modern name use. Personally I believe we should call it what it is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP policy, it is what you personally believe that is irrelevant. It is verifiable sources that are relevant. If you believed that the king of Wherever were a tyrant, should we rename the article about him Tyrant of Wherever? Are there sources calling formally this event only "capitulation of Italy"? Goochelaar (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should refer to the naming conventions, not WP:V. And, of course, what I personally believe is indeed irrelevant, I was merely stating my position. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the naming conventions are relevant here, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) prescribes "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." My claim is that calling it an "armistice", even if debatable in itself, is the common name of this incident. I have quoted the first few source I have found, but Google Scholar and books can provide thousands more. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender of Italy

[edit]

Could we have "Surrender of Italy" redirect to this article? Seems reasonable enough! Crazy Eddy (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armistice of Cassibile. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misused word? "frondeur"

[edit]

The word frondeur, defined in Wiktionary and elsewhere as "a political rebel" (singular), seems to be misused in the sentence: "The secret frondeur later involved Giuseppe Bottai... and Galeazzo Ciano..."

Could someone with subject knowledge please copyedit this so that it makes sense,

Gambaguru (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About names

[edit]

I noticed that Pietro Badoglio is always referred to as "Duke of Addis Abeba" or even "Addis Abeba", without "Duke". While he was indeed made Duke of Addis Abeba, I did not find any serious source calling him systematically with his recent title instead of the proper name. The same applies to Raffaele Guariglia, called "Barone di Vituso". If there are no objections, I'm going to edit this. Serenior (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Term "Fascist Italy"

[edit]

The Term Fascist Italy was the de facto name of state of the Kingdom of Italy. That was until the armistice is signed in September 3 1943.As the Allies is still fighting the Italians after the overthrow of Mussolini. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of state the Kingdom of Italy began to be used after the armistice signed. The government may be changed but the name of state doesn't. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong. The formal name of the state has always been "Kingdom of Italy", even under fascism. The de facto name of Italy is and always has been "Italy". One can call it "fascist Italy" or "liberal Italy" or "republican Italy" to highlight specific periods. Of course, “fascist Italy” is a legitimate expression to identify the years of fascism, but it is not a de facto name of the Country. You may check the “Fascist Italy” entry in Wikipedia, that correctly reports “Fascist Italy is a term which is used to describe the Kingdom of Italy when it was governed by the National Fascist Party”
Besides that, the point is that claiming that ”fascist Italy” signed the Amistice is completely missing the historical point: Italy signed the armistice as a step in its exit from fascism (it was, of course, a long process), and just thanks to the fact that the fascist regime has ended!
Finally, claiming that the Armistice changed the nature of the Italian government is utterly inappropriate. The fact that Allieds were still fighling durng Badoglio government does not change the fact that Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy has a specific date, and it is July, 25th 1943.
The edit should be reverted. Serenior (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The July 25 plot was the official end of the Fascist regime in Italy. But it's Fascist government were dismantled and a new government was formed. Badoglio even proclaims that Italy will still fight alongside Germany after the July 25 . The Armistice of Cassibile or the Italian Instrument of Surrender was the official collapse for Fascist Italy, ending its overall participation at the war, until Mussolini's rescue and the establishment of the Italian Social Republic at the North, while in the South, The Kingdom of Italy under the King and Badoglio was also established. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is plainly wrong. The fascist party was disbanded immediately after July 25 (royal Decree n. 704, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1943/08/05/043U0704/sg
The Badoglio statement that Italy would still figh with Nazi Germany was obviosly a ruse to (try) avoiding German reaction, given that negotiations with allies were immediately started (actually renewed).
In any case, this makes no difference, given that the fall of fascism is obviously related, but not the same thing of the end of the war between Italy and Allies.
Plese show reliable sources saying that "The Armistice of Cassibile or the Italian Instrument of Surrender was the official collapse for Fascist Italy". This is a misconception and a unpleasant way to put things for the Italian people, but above all is a very POV statement.
And, by the way, there was no Kingdom of Italy to establish in the South. The only thing Badoglio and the King succeeded with their botched managemnt of the armistice was guaranteeing the continuty of State and Government. The Kingdom "in the South" was just the Kingdom of Italy, with the same King and the same Government. Saying that the Kingdom of the South was established "while" the puppet Social Republic was established in the North means giving the same legitimacy to both, while it is obvious to non-nazi parts that the legitimate state was the Kingdom of Italy and the Social Republic was the seceding part.
--Serenior (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying that Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany falls from power resulting the collapse of the German Empire, since the German Empire was transformed into the Weimar Republic starting from 9 November 1918. Therefore, it is the delegates of the Weimar Republic that signed the 11 November 1918 Armistice. The Fascist organizations was the only thing the King suppressed. The armistice and the Instrument of Surrender signed at Cassibile in 3 September and 29 September in Malta were the key events of the collapse of Fascist Italy, NOT the July 25. The Instrument of Surrender signed at Malta tells that all Fascist organizations must be disbanded throughout Italy as well as handing over of Benito Mussolini and his Fascist officials to the United Nations and the unconditional surrender of the Italian forces to the Allies
PS: The Armistice of Cassibile was a military armistice only, ceasing hostilities between Italy and the Allies, the agreement signed at Malta on 29 September was the formal Italian surrender in World War II. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but repeating twice a wrong thing doesn't make it right. Please avoid analogies and just show reliable sources that say that Fascism fell on September, 8th and not July, 25th. Serenior (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't get it. Only the Fascist regime collapsed, not as a whole nation. On September 29 signed at Malta , that's the official and formal Italian surrender that tells us the total dissolution of Fascist organizations throughout Italy, the regime collapsed, but it doesn't mean the whole nation also collapsed. Yes, The July 25 or the Luglio 25 was the date where the Fascist regime collapsed. But did Italy as a nation also collapsed? No. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even have sources that tells us after the collapse of the Fascist regime. It was returned as the Kingdom of Italy again? Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are continuously changing the point, complicating things and adding wrong/controverisal statements, I think I will need to start some kind of external arbitrate on this dispute, but let's try a last time
>Only the Fascist regime collapsed
That's right, it is actually my point.
>Yes, The July 25 or the Luglio 25 was the date where the Fascist regime collapsed
thar's also right, but this is my point too
Your point, the point that I asked to change in the article, is that "fascist Italy" is a term that applies to Italy between July 25 and the armistices.
This is actually a minor point and it wouldn't be worth discussing, if it weren't for two reasons, the reasons why I'm insisting.:
1) the afterthought you've expressed several times: the end of fascism coincides with the date of the armistice of Cassibile (or Malta), and fascism in Italy ended thanks to the impositions of the armistices.
This, in addition to being a point of view bordering on neocolonialist, is POV and wrong. Fascism was already collapsing in July, and a strong military Resistance developed very soon. The Allies, if anything, had a role in slowing down the de-fascistization, because they feared an excessive influence of the communists
2) "You really don't get it. Only the Fascist regime collapsed, not as a whole nation" I get it and I agree, still, this does not authorize to call the Badoglio government(s) the government of fascist Italy, because it is a statement historically misleading. It implies that fascism distantiated from the war/Nazis, while it didn't (some gerarchi actually tried to)
>Do you even have sources that tells us after the collapse of the Fascist regime. It was returned as the Kingdom of Italy again?
Sorry, I don't understand very well. Are you asking sources that after July, 25 the Kingdom of Italy was restored? Are you serious? Please note that:
1) Kingdom of Italy was never formally dissolved, so nothing needed to be formally restored. Your question implies that there was some kind of transition Kingdom of Italy->Fascist Italy->Kingdom of Italy. This is misleading, the fascist Italy is a historical period of Kingdom of Italy. A relevant, constitutionally-coded, drastically different period, bus still a period that did not interrupt the formal conutinuity of the Kingdom of Italy
2) The document of Gran Consiglio of July 25th clearly states that all powers granted by the Consitution (Albertine Statute of 1848) should return to the King. You can find the text on Wikipedia, "Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy". The aim of the document is to substantially restore the powers of the King of Italy, that was (do I really have to say it?) the head of state of the Kingdom of Italy.
The armistice/surrender signed in Malta did indeed have deep consequences for the future of Italy, but was irrelevant for the "collapse" (of Italy, not fascism), that was triggered by Cassibile armistice, its botched impolementation, and German invasion.
So, to summarize:
1) Fascism collapsed on July, 25th
2) Kingdom of Italy "collapsed" after September, 8th, but it kept formal continuity
As a consequence, the armistices were signed by the government of Kingdom of Italy and not by the government of "Fascist Italy".
Finally, a short list of your wrong statements:
-"The Term Fascist Italy was the de facto name of state of the Kingdom of Italy.That was until the armistice is signed in September 3 1943"
-"The name of state the Kingdom of Italy began to be used after the armistice signed"
-"The Kingdom of Italy under the King and Badoglio was also established" [after the armistice]
-"The Armistice of Cassibile or the Italian Instrument of Surrender was the official collapse for Fascist Italy" [emphasis on Fascist, as clearly highlighted by your long explanation that the "long armistice" signed the collapse because stipulated that "all Fascist organizations must be disbanded throughout Italy as well as handing over of Benito Mussolini and his Fascist officials to the United Nations and the unconditional surrender of the Italian forces to the Allies"] Serenior (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some (primay) proof that the State was called Kingdom of Italy before fascism, during fascism, between July 25th and September, 8th, after September, 29th and until the Republic
The Gazette in
1920 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1920/02/24/45/sg/pdf
1930 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1930/01/23/18/sg/pdf
1940 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1940/06/15/140/sg/pdf
August, 5 1943 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1943/08/05/180/sg/pdf
September, 7 1943 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1943/09/07/208/sg/pdf
November, 18 1943 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/do/gazzetta/downloadPdf?dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=19431118&numeroGazzetta=1&tipoSerie=FO&tipoSupplemento=GU&numeroSupplemento=0&progressivo=1&estensione=pdf&edizione=0&rangeAnni=postRsi
June, 10 1946, last of the Kingdom of Italy https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/1946/06/10/133/sg/pdf
June, 20 1946, first of the Italian Republic https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/do/gazzetta/downloadPdf?dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=19460620&numeroGazzetta=134&tipoSerie=FO&tipoSupplemento=GU&numeroSupplemento=0&estensione=pdf&edizione=90 Serenior (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only stated it using newspapers or a gazette as a source , What we need is a good and credible source like coming from Google Books or JSTOR backed up by it or it is coming from other reliable sources other than the newspapers, so if you give a source coming from a reliable source like Google Books or other reliable source except using newspapers or gazette, I can accept it and edit it later. Better Try Again. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Italy", now "Official Gazette of the Italian Republic" is not "a newspaper", it is the official journal of Italy, where laws etc. are published by the government. Please check the voice on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazzetta_Ufficiale. You won't find a primary source more authoritative. Finding further sources that the Italian state was called Kingdom of Italy between July and September 1943 is frankly useless for an historian, I will find for you a secondary source just to follow wikipedia guidelines Serenior (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Armistice of Malta into Armistice of Cassibile

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no support for merging. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information present here can be mentioned as a new section in the target article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Well, the armistice of Cassibile and the Instrument of Surrender signed at Malta are two different things. The Armistice of Cassibile was a military armistice which puts all Italian and Allied forces to cease hostilities between them which was signed on September 3. The Instrument of Surrender here signed at Malta on 29 September is the agreement which puts all Italian forces must surrender unconditionally to the Allies, the disbandment of the Fascist militaries. As well the handing over of Benito Mussolini and his Fascist officials. As mentioned at the External Link that I gave. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two different things with more than enough to say about each. I have added interwikis. Srnec (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I'm withdrawing this nomination given the arguments in the oppose votes above. Let's leave this discussion open for a week more just in case. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armistice_of_Cassibile&oldid=1251117722"