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]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armistice_of_Cassibile&oldid=1205342704"