Talk:Great power/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Date Ranges for England and France Great Powers

Though marking the rise and fall of a great power is tricky, I would dispute the current date ranges for England (1169 to present) and France (1431 to present).

Though England was more of a bonus for Henry II, who derived most of his power from his considerable realms in France, Henry was a king by virtue of ruling England. Therefore, for simplicity's sake, I think it's fine to list his ascendancy to the English throne as the first beginning date for England's status as a great power. However, the battle of Bouvines would mark its first fall from great power status since it lost virtually all its French holdings and had little impact in international affairs until the Hundred Years War. If you wanted to be more accurate, though, this period would not belong to England but the Angevin Empire instead.

Bouvines, I would argue, also marks France's first rise to great power status. Philip Augustus, at that moment, had realized the ages long goal of virtually uniting France, plus he defeated the combined armies of the Holy Roman Emperor, King John of England, and the Count of Flanders. His article even notes that that victory made him the most powerful ruler in Europe.

Though it might be difficult to pinpoint at which point France may have fallen from great power status during the Hundred Years War, one can certainly say that England returned to great power status at its beginning. England's campaigns, in sum, subdued France (which was considered Europe's great power at the war's beginning) and campaigned at various times in Iberia. Also as certain, they fell from great power status at some point during the late days of the Hundred Years War when they lost all their French land but Calais while France had certainly reattained great power status.

England's next rise to great power status is tricky, I think. It definitely wasn't there during the Wars of the Roses and probably not there during the reign of Henry VIII since, though he would argue otherwise, wielded little power in continental politics. The reign of Elizabeth I, though, is often pointed to as a possibility. Though England proved its mettle against Spain's navy and had its golden period, I would argue she still wasn't a main player in Europe, nor were the Suart Kings. Cromwell and his military might may be another candidate, but again, he had little effect in Europe.

I would peg England's next rise to great power as either the Glorious Revolution or the War of the Spanish Succession. William III succeeded in dragging England into the fight against Louis XIV, and England's economy began to surpass that of the Netherlands during his rule. If not the Glorious Revolution, then certainly England reached it during the War of the Spanish Succession between their colonial operations and the Duke of Marlborough's brilliant campaign in Europe. From there, England's status would continue to the present.

If France fell from great power status after the Hundred Year's war, it probably would have been while it was somewhat in the shadow of the Hapsburg Empire and in the throes of the Religious Wars. It would have reassumed its position probably with Henry IV but undeniably by the time of Richelieu. --RemiCogan

Genoa

Would it be worth adding Genoa from when it defeated Pisa until it was defeated by the Venetian Republic? 12.220.94.199 22:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, as with Italy below, if you can find some work that supports Genoa as a great power, then add it. Personally, I've read many accounts where Genoa constantly had the upper hand against Venice until Chioggia, but I got the impression that neither was a great power while they throttled each other over the same pie (the levant trade). Once Venice more or less permanently vanquished her ancient foe, Venice became Europe's undisputed financial and naval power (if only for a century or so), plus she employed a mercenary army of about 30 thousand men, quite large for its time, during her era of mainland expansion. Genoa, to my knowledge, never reached such pinnacles.RemiCogan 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Italy

Ok, so should Italy be among the listed great powers in the present. They currently have the 8th highest GDP despite being in decline.(close to GB and France) They are among the G8. They are the third most involved country in peace keeping(behind U.S. and GB), I believe they also have the third largest army in Western Europe right behind Germany and France(both Great Powers) and ahead of Great Britain(also a Great Power). They are a nuclear country, easily capable of producing nuclear weaponry if necessary within 2-3 years. They also still have considerable cultural influence. 12.220.94.199 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you can find scholarly sources ranking Italy as a great power, then certainly do. However, though I definitely haven't had a peek at most books on this subject, I've never seen Italy referred to as a contemporary great power beyond its membership in the EU and the G7/G8.RemiCogan 19:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Great Power page has some minor mistakes like date of rise of Spain is Spain unification,right, but it was in 1492 not 1469, other thing I think is wrong is the downfall of Portugal, you can consider 1580/81,but you can consider the period from 1640 (reconquest of independence to Napoleonic Wars and Brazil independence as another period in which the country was a great power, and any historian will confirm it, in this period the country was so or more important than before. Another example is Japan, you cannot consider it a power from 1905-Present. You can consider it a Great Power between 1905 and 1945 and then from a date like late 70's or early 80's to present a Major Power, because if you consider it was always a Great/Mjor Power so you should do the same to Germany too. In the period 1945-50 Japan was occupied by USA forces, you should know it and was not even a sovereign country, from the 50's thru the 70's it went thru a major economic growth, but I think the 70's/80's is the best place to put Japan as a Major/Great Power again, but even today its more a economic power than a great power in all the senses that definition carries.

The major issue I want to report is Italy, first of all the downfall of Italy as a great power was 1943 and not 1945. In 1943 Italy surrendered and in the two subsequent years it passed thru German invasion, Civil War and Allied Occupation. So 1945 is wrong. The bigger mistake is not considering Italy as a Great or even Major Power from the 80's till present. Italy is a member of the G-7, meaning is a major economic power,in certain years was the 5th major on earth, the Made in Italy is the second most competitive after Made in Germany, the international trade is big, since the war it has grown at a very high rate, almost like Japan. It has a population, GNP and economic position like that of France and UK,altough in recent years it has fall behind a little. If you consider GDP PPP Italy as the same amount of total GDP as France. Italy has many more big or medium companies than Russia, India or China. It has companies active in gas and oil field, the biggest of whose is ENI,which is one of the major players in that fiels. Take Germany for an instance, it has none, only subsidiaries of foreign companies, it has Rurhgas and some Utilities but a Petroleum company it doesn't have, and Italy has. Italy also has a residual amount of Gas and Petroleum but nevertheless it has more petroleum than Germany, Japan or France, altough it has almost none too. The diplomatic and International Relations of Italy in the recent years changed too.Now Italy is not anymore the silent partner of the Franco-German axis on EU, it is an important partner of UK and has halted some federalistic ambitions of the Franco-German axis. Even on the World stage its word is more important than someone could judge at first glance and than many countries. What was the diplomatic achivement of the G4 so far, none. Italy with her allies has managed to block the entrance of this countries to UN Security Council. It proposed semi-permanet seats or permanent seats on a reagional basis with rotation,like another from EU which could be to Germany, Italy or even Spain or even more EU members on a rotational basis, others seats to other parts of the world. If the G4 proposition would go thru many important countries no only economically,but also geostrategically speaking would remain outside the real decisions. And don't forget who is the 4th net contributor to UN budget-Italy. Also in foreign relations, the position of Italy is geostrategically much more important these days than that of Germany. Cold War is over,in that time Germany was at the center, now the problem is in Meadle East and Arab countries in general, ao Italy is much more well connected, its like an aircraft base in the middle of the Mediterranean .Japan could be important in future, but today altough its is the 4th spender in defence and as large armed forces, they only serve to self-defence and peace missions. And what was the first real war Germany was allowed to intervene in the post WWII- Kosovo in 1999.It had a smal contigent in 1991 in the Gulf War, but nothing like Italy.Japan cannot enter agressive wars, Germany could only after 1990,when Italy could after 1970. Italy entered a real and difficult war cenario in 1982 in Lebanon and altough at the beggining the allies mistrusted Italy,in the end its participation was fulcral even to safeguard the life of french and USA citizens. In 1991 it sent a substantial contingent to Operation Desert Storm mainly consiting of F-104 and Tornado Bombers, which made their very countribut too. In 1999 in Kosovo was the same, even more with the AM-X Ghibli. In Iraq, (agree with the war or not) Italy has the third largest contingent, many italians have died and even a secret service official was killed in a position of honour, defending the life of a civilian. Italians are not cowards as the anglo-saxons tend to generalize. In military technologies Italy has it indigenous industries, the major of which is Finmeccanicca, a huge conglomerate. It builds its own tanks like the Ariete, Tanks destroyers, like Centauro, Dardo AFV's and many more. It builds missiles and is part of MBDA consortium, the second largets of the world after Raytheon corporation in missile technologies. Italy has a small aircraft carrier and its building another one bigger, with the most powerfull conventional(non nuclear) angine of the world. As I know Germany and Japan doesn't own aircraft carriers, nor big destroyers like the 2 ones Italy is building with France, and the 10 frigates of ultimate generation its building with France too. In terms of Nuclear capabilities, German and Japan sometimes talk of owning its own deterrent force, but the only missiles Germany is supposed to have owned was in WWII. Itally planned a nuclear destroyer in the 60's,nuclear submarines which would have been equiped with Polaris missiles, but it was forced by the USA, Nato and other preesures of its own to abanon them. But it lauche one of the first satellites of the world, has an important space agency-ASI, its the thir more important member of ESA, the VEGA project its almost all from Italy, and in the 70's it tested sucessfully ballistic missiles- ALFA, made by italian industry, but the signed the Non Proliferation Protocol,but in the early 80's the idea emerged again and it Italy was to have its own Force de Frappe, if you don't believe ask Mr. Lelio Lagorio, defence minister at the time. It builds since the 60's good conventional submarines,the last in cooperation with Germany. Italy has the third most important Navy of EU and the 6th of the world, Germany only equalls that of Holland. It builds fighter aircrafts too. It entered the Tornado and EFA Typhoon programm, with a minor quote but is part of the consortium. Since the 50's it produces advanced jet trainers from Aermacchi sold all over the world with much sucess, helicopters, it has build the firs attack heli in EU, the A129 Mangusta, now its one of the major player in that industry, owning AgustaWestland. It also haves Alenia, Telespazio, Avio, Selex, Fincantieri, Otobreda, Iveco Defence Unit.The Fiat G91 was another sucess, winning a NATO contest for a light attack and strike aircraft, Germany bought and manufactured under license many of them. The AM-X was mainly Italian, altough Brazil had a 30% quota on it. So you put Brazil as a potential Major Power and Italy, wich deserves a place for a long, you don't even consider it for the future. Even if Brazil growns economically, in military, international relevance, its nothing compared to Italy. Doesn't have nothing indigeneous in terms of military-industrial, while Italy has lots of things. Brazil, India and China have aircraft carriers for instance, but they are old crapp bought from real Major Powers. Even in the F-35 JSF Italy is a 2nd level partner, being the USA the main contractor and the only first level partner the UK. Its is a partner also in the Dassault Neuron UCAV.ACamposPinho 02:43, 5 May 2006

Please, while you present decent arguments this is OR. Please present a number of reputable sources that say specifically that Italy is a great power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the major power page has been redirected, I want to include my references which I put on that page for this one. I really don't want to recopy everything all over again. By the way, I think Germany should be included in pre-WW2 section as a great power even though it wasn't sactioned as such by the League of Nations. See what they did in five short years. Kind of sounds like Italy today. I guess we have to wait for the next big one and see how things turn out.

I've been reading all these articles on what constitutes a great/major power and my personal opinion is that if you decide on which areas (i.e. economic, military size, spending, influence on countries, scientific papers, technology, etc.) a country needs to have then list the top countries in each field/endevour, add each field to the other fields to give an overall score, and voila! You have the list. No favourites. No interpretation. Plain black and white in writing. I propose this since I believe that Italy will definitely be listed in that top ten. But even if it wasn't, I would still believe that this is an objective approach leaving media impressions behind. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or my favourite "E pure si muove." for those of you who like obscure quotes.

Afterwards if you want to give explanations of each power status or effect of that on the world, go ahead. Perceptions should be discussed. Remember when Japan was going to take over the world in the 80's. Then the bubble burst on the housing market. Those perceptions can change very fast. But no one doubts Japan became a second rate country. They were quiet for a few years. Now China is rising so America needs Japan to offset China, hence Japan is given a free hand to exert more regional influence. Therefore a more vocal Japan again today. Similar thing with GB and America.

Another thing I wanted to mention. Somewhere on these pages I saw Greece being stated as being the dominant power in the Med? I almost ROTFLMAS. Are you guys kidding me? What about Turkey? What about Egypt? Israel? And last time I checked Italy was surrounded by what sea? Can someone help me here? Hmm. Unless the Greeks have built a massive secret nuclear arsenal, why are they considered the major Med power. Must be that Ouzo. Opah!

--Hadrian1 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw that about Greece. The entire Southern Europe section was deleted once but some user put it back on. I don't see why Europe, a small continent, should have three (Southern, Eastern, Western) regions each with their own powers. But as I am not European, I would not know for sure. I believe Italy would be the Great Power for a Mediterranean region. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too het up about adding/removing certain countries at the moment as this and all the pages in the 'power' series are due a big re-write. I'd try and do that before adding certain countires if I were you. --Robdurbar 07:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My two cents on the issue of Italy:

Here is a list from an independent source and an american one at that.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

This site lists countries global firepower taking into account all resources needed to fight a war, economic, military, infrastucture, etc (oops, so sorry for you non latin speakers). Any way, as you can see they list Italy as number eleven in the world, two away from the UK.

I have another page as well from a different source: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again Italy in sixth place in Europe.

Naval strength on another page: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again sixth place.

Here is another page from the CIA, whose job it is to know these things:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

Look at that seventh place in the world. Hmmm.

How about economic power, again from the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Wow, number 10 in the world in terms of GDP by PPP, and not even a mention in your article.

Here is a list of the country's total output and infrastructure with links to rank in each category:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=19

Hey how about cultural influence with say something like tourism as a barometer:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1408_international_tourism_receipts_leading_countries.html

Again, number 4 in the world. Is there a trend here?

How about science and engineering:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1382_patents_by_country.html

Number 8 in the world. Not bad.

How about GNP versus GDP. ANd those of you who don't know the difference, GDP is the goods and services produced within a country regardless of the nationality of the company or individual. Whereas GNP is the good and services produced by a country's citizens and national companies regardless of the actual manufacturing takes place.

Now looking at the next web page:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1364_gross_national_product_by_country_1998.html

Again sixth in the world. Wow am I missing something!!???

How about another indicator of fighting power. Homogeneity of the population:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1354_foreign_or_foreign_born_population_and.html

Again Italy has far fewer immigrants than the other countries. Try to get a Turk to fight against Turkey in a war even though he's a German citizen. What about France's five million Islamic North Africans. Hey did you guys go up north during the summer during the riots.

How about merchant fleets, you know the ability to ship stuff around the world.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/world_fleet.html

Not great but where's that power house France. Hmmm.

How about central government expeditures, how much money a government spends every year:

1 United States 1,780,000 2 Japan 706,000M 3 Germany 694,000 4 France 662,000 5 United Kingdom 531,000 6 Italy 504,000 7 China - Mainland 400,000 8 Brazil NA 9 Russia 156,000 10 Canada 142,000 11 Spain 124,000 12 Netherlands 118,000 13 Belgium 115,000 14 Austria 113,000 15 Poland 110,000

Number 6 again but sadly not considered a major power even though it's ahead of China, Russia and Brazil.

How about number of scientific papers produced and published:

http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2004allfields.html

Internet users: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=118

Number eight worldwide. So much for soft power.

How about world influence in terms of what people buy from where:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=10&v=85

Again number 7 in the world for exports.

How Olympic medals as measure of a country's pride and ability to waste money on international competition in order gain world prestige and bragging rights:

http://www.aneki.com/olympic.html

Number six. Those Italians have a lot of medals considering they are unable to feed themselves :P

I can go on and on and on. If you can't see that Italy is a major power in the world in almost every respect then you are deluding yourselves. "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

And for my brothers: "Andiamoci!"

--65.95.147.214 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Hadrian1

Hey here is another one since you consider influence on other countries.

From your own source the Central European Initiative is centered in where? Trieste Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Initiative

Which was a precursor to earlier groups which Italy was a founding member from the beginning.

I guess leading economic, scientific and cultural exchange groups doesn't mean much. --Hadrian1 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Repost again since nothing changed since last time. Since major power has been deleted for some strange reason, I put it here again. So since this is not a major power page anymore, then I dispute that Italy's greatness ended in 1945. I would say that there was a period when the country was rebuilding and that rebuilding is over a long time ago. My opinion is around 1980 or 1985. Since then the country has been involved in more and more international "peace-keeping efforts", which means clout and power projection.

By the way , who decides what's on here or not?

--Hadrian1 21:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy decides: I'm opening a vote: Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please insert general comments relating to the topic here

No it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a democracy --Robdurbar 09:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's possible that we overlooked Italy in the original inclusion of Modern Great Powers. Perhaps this is a mistake by us, the sources above seem convincing to at least have a proper discussion about it. Remember, the aim of Wikipedia is to represent the truth. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would very much support its inclusion, however unless we have proper refernces then we have OR, and are back where we started at. Somebody needs to do signficant work at a library. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Even in portuguese books about International Relations(that are probably translations of Anglo-Saxon ones-I don't know for sure), Italy is widelly mentioned, ahead of Germany,not only in european affairs but even most in world stage affairs.In english,american and of course italian libraries I think would not be hard.Not to mention the Internet, and Hadrian1 provided some links.

ACamposPinho 3:39, 26 May 2006

I totally agree with Robdurbar. WIKIPEDIA is not democratic. A vote was open, but will appear "friends" of wikipedia establishment saying no-opposong Italy, because wikipedia wants that way.

And for NobleEagle; you want sources? Read what Hadrian1 wrote and there are plenty of sources. I also put some sources. You read, but what you do then criticise, because the sources are not in the proper place.What you want more authoritarian and dictatorial than that. It reminds me police-states, one thing could be well done, even according to the police-state orders and censure, but if its put on a street for ex., instead of a square, its wrong, despite its content.

Show fairness, open-mind, intelligence and learn with the others. We learn with everybody and if one knows more of something listen to it, in this case read and learn.

ACamposPinho 23:26, 28 May 2006

Are you mistaking me for Heilme, because I haven't criticized Italy in this debate yet...and somehow some comments always get directed at me. I haven't criticized your sources, I was just saying that there's a reason why there is a comments and vote section, that's to make it easier to tally up the eventual votes. If you want me to vote in support of Italy, I am not voting because I don't know much about Italy, thus my support may be blind and my oppose could be ignorant. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding sources. In Rome be like Romans. Where were the sources for Germany, FRance, India, UK, etc? Self-Knowledge.

Sources for India? There are over 100 in India as an emerging superpower, all the entries on India on Major power, Great power, Regional power and Superpower were created using the information on that page. PS. this isn't a prompt to pick up 100 sources on Italy... :D Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

- The world knows them better, only because you think are more spoken about? Facts speaking for themselves? -In that case here are not wonders, are realities and well provided sources. There are many books too. I provided an author of geostrategic books from Italy, you laughed at myself. Perhaps you would like to laugh at him to. I can get the contact and I think a former Minister of Defence will appreciate very much beeing joked about. Go, laugh!

ACamposPinho 23:43, 28 May 2006

I have the article listing Italy as a major player in Nato so much so that it warrants its own section, right after Germany. They are ranked in order of importance. For you perusal. Notice the contributions in various regions of the world.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_contrib2003/Allied2003_Chap_2.html --Hadrian1 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another link on Italy's importance in Canada http://www.ambottawa.esteri.it/Ambasciata_Ottawa/Menu/I_rapporti_bilaterali/Cooperazione+culturale/

Another link here to rebut Heilme contention that Italy is filled small family owned businesses. Why then are they number eight in the world when it comes to number of large corporations. Explain me that Heilme?

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200text.htm Go to pdf page for the charts.

--Hadrian1 05:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think your point would be better proven if you presented more sources that compared against the rest of the world as opposed to simply Europe. You see the possibility of an Asian Century in this globalized era means being 3rd or 4th in Europe doesn't really mean much. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't presented enough sources? Most of the articles are on total world outputs and indicators. Only the last few were European based to prove a point that Italy is not below the other big countries in Europe. What is this? Heilme puts up three articles max and Campos and I put probably over forty citations, and I need to do more work?

By the way, where are the sources for the countries already deemed to be "great powers"? I didn't see anything posted so far. Hey maybe I can write to Bush to give a White House press conference saying Italy is a great power. Even the World war 2 article where wikipedia says Italy was a great power, if you read the page, not one thing positive is said about Italy. Zero. Made to sound like an opportunistic slouch who's plan backfired. Even the page about Italian people, not Italy wasn't too flattering. Apparently someone changed it since then.

I noticed something else about this page, it's only in two or three languages. I wonder why. Maybe there might be an outcry if other people could actually read what's in here.

Getting back to the original point, most of the sources and lists I provided are world based, not solely europe.

I acknowledge that you've done a lot of work and actually wish that you take a rest now. For the countries already deemed to be great powers, which one do you particularly debate about? Some are obvious (France, Germany, UK), some are heavily sourced (China, India). Could you please state your issues? Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not debating whether they should be or not. I am questioning why there are no citations for those powers already listed. Aside from the two books listed at the bottom of the page, there is nothing else. And I don't see necessarily that it's self-evident. If fact, on the old page, there were numerous arguements to the countries already listed, nevermind whether Italy deserved to be there or not.

Off topic but related, Greece is still listed as the Med power. Do you truly believe that Greece is more powerful than Italy or Spain or Turkey or Egypt? If you read the article Greece, Greece always dominated the Med? What happened to Carthage, Rome, East Rome, the Arabs, the Ottomans, Venice, Genoa, France, Britain, ...

Mr. NobleEagle, since it seems that you are custodian of these great power pages, where did you get the references that Greece of all the countries bordering the Med is the greatest and always was? Or did someone feel compelled to mention the Greeks somewhere in these pages?

Second beef, Rome did not end in 476AD. It continued until 1453AD until the Ottomans broke through the walls of Constantinople with the new cannons they purchased fom the Hungarians. That was the fall of Rome. But the true fall from grace was after the Battle of Manzikert. After that battle, the Roman Empire lost its hinterland to recruit new soldiers from. It was only a matter of time since the west did not want to support them and they would become increasingly out-numbered. But it took another three hundred years, and there were many reversals. I know this since Rome has been my personal project for over three decades. I know more about Rome than anything else. Rome was not only the western portion of the Empire. The East continued for a very long time after that.

Third, I am taking your comment to "take a rest now" to mean either A) I cannot change the page since people minds are already made up. B)You are sick of hearing my arguements including Campos I assume even though you didn't mention him. C)I have put up a convincing arguement and a revision will be made to include Italy. D) The discussion is getting to long according to Wikipedia rules and you have been reprimanded for not taking corrective actions. Which is it?

--Hadrian1 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen to it that the Greece stuff is removed. Greece is in no way a Regional power. By "take a rest now" I meant that you've provided enough arguments for potential voters to decide. Please wait a week, I'll give a heads up to a few people involved in these articles to have their say. If you feel like I've done something terribly wrong in this process you may file an RfC against me. But I wish for peace Hardian. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to stir a little

Since no one has posted anything about Italy for a while, I found an interesting article on G8 from the University of Toronto. It's an essay on Italy's role in the G7/G8 and how it evolved over the years. I found it quite interesting and wanted to stir things up a bit again. The article is here http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/g8online/2004/english/lectures/lecture012.html

I might add this an academic source and citation that has been asked for. After searching for a while, I found it. Most notable are how the professor of international studies says the G8 could be a replacement for the UN and Atlantic treaties that are now disfuctional. He also states how the G8 has adopted more issues than economics and now includes transglobal issues and peace-keeping issues around the world. Hadrian1 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I read in "Le Monde Diplomatique" that Russia wants to be regarded as a world Major-SuperPower and for that its using its presidency of the G8 and its possible entry to World Trade Organization. For people who asks for sources and say Italy is not in any great body and has no international clout, this must be a good answer. If one country who wants to enter WTO and holds for the first time the presidency of G8 think that these conditions are enough or the principle to be a Major or even SuperPower, so Italy has many attributes, it his a member of G8 since beggining, when it was the G-6 and its member of the WTO since the beggining too, before made part of the GATT agreement, which was the predecessor to WTO.Notice too that being part of the G-6 was very important then, it was a sign of economic distintion, more than now.

ACamposPinho 22:10 ,16 June 2006

Well I listed the above article because it states in it that it was Italy that brought Russia into the G7, it also was Italy that invited the African countries to Genoa, and it was Italy that sought to expand the G7 to include India, Brazil and China in order to make it make world representative. Unfortunately, I have shot myself in the foot since I posted an essay which deals with Great Powers and how when they are great powers. In this essay, it states that Italy lost this status and has not regained it. I dispute this assertion that Italy has not recovered, specifically since the mid-80's. Mind you the criteria that makes a great power is having ability, acting like one which Italy is doing through bilateral agreements with other big nations like India, third it must be perceived as one by the majority of countries. Unfortunately this is where Italy fails. It is not perceived as one as you see from the general consensus around here. We only had two yes votes, mine and yours. The others are leary of calling Italy a great power for whatever reasons. The articles and citations I put up are considered OR and I haven't yet been able to find a source that states conclusively that Italy is in the top tier and has been for a while in my opinion. I thought by posting the essay on G8 that this would act as a counterbalance to the other essay that Italy was finished after the war and still is according to the author. The essay was written ten years ago so I don't know if the author would still have that opinion.

I wrangled with posting this for a while but I felt in order to really make this a true body of knowledge then the criteria were important to be known and understood. We needed a foundation on which to build on. I have provided that foundation. Now the major power page can be resurrected. I was hoping that you would find something conclusive about Italy in a different language and translate into English so to provide that vital reference we need. I will continue my search but I might add that neither Brazil nor India were mentioned as great powers in that article either. So does that mean we remove them as well. India is listed here not only as a major power but an emerging superpower. China is mentioned but only as a major power and only after 1960. 1965 for Japan and Germany with the proviso that only in the area of economics not militarily. UK and France are considered in some tables to have ceased being great powers in 1940 and 1949 respectively. Some argue that great powers are only the US, Russia and China. Everyone else doesn't have global reach. Mind you, Italy is developing that capability and already has some in place, more than Germany does. In regards to Japan, I don't know.

There are more pages there deal with the issue in depth and it all very interesting and pretty close to my feelings on who really is great, who is a regional power and who is not.

In the end, I found an article that helped this page but damaged my POV and yours. Now one article is not the end all and be all of everything but I feel that I did a great disservice to myself and to you. In the end though regardless of the general consensus, Italy will continue make deals, agreements and alliances with others major powers. It is simply too large to ignore. Which is why this whole debate started. I don't think that Italy was regarded as a great power in 1895 until much later. Why would the others want more members. It creates longer discussions, more diplomacy, more concerns, more headaches in general. Countries are admitted after the fact they have been major powers for a while.

Japan and Germany are much more militaristic than Italy is. Italy never committed genocide a large scale like the other two. And Italy's forray into militarism was a disaster. It was a calculated gamble that didn't pay off. Do you think the Italians didn't know they weren't ready for WW2. Today these two agressive countries are demanding their place in the sun with bribes and coersion. Japan threaten to stop aid to certain nations if they didn't support Japan's bid. Very humanitarian. I haven't seen anything on Germany but they do believe they are superior. It's part of their collective psyche, so I believe they must be doing something as well.

What else could I say but I did it to establish the criteria to which I could argue the case, point by point, sort of like in a law court.

Find that reference! Hadrian101:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm bound to say that I consider that you've shown admirable integrity in bringing forward that source, especially after all the referencing work that's been done; you have my utmost respect for that.

Xdamr^talk 01:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In reference to India, the source you provided is limited to events up to 1985, this page states India's economic explosion in the 1990s. India is widely regarded as an Emerging Superpower. Italy's positions seems delicate, it's almost there but as you said, it doesn't meet the third criteria that you presented. It's a difficult debate. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, your posting maybe says that Italy is not regarded as a Great Power, but also said that was Italy who invited the other countries to G-7, that is very important just for itself. Onthe other hand it also states as you say that even France and UK maybe aren't anymore Great Powers. It also never states Brazil as a Great Power and I have reliable sources-Geo and Strategical Atlas that states Brazil as the Major Power of Third World, regarding China is not thirdworld, so India is bellow. Your statement also says India is not a Great Power, even less an emerging SuperPower.India is only big because of booming economy NobleEagle? So Spain,Canada,Australia,etc are also Major/Great Powers because they have an economy larger than that of India and are growing fast too, not so fast but with more solid bases. India is like Japan and Asian tiggers,one moment that tremendous growth can stop. If the rest of the world closes its doors only a bit, there it go India and China growth to stop or in the better chance to be bellow that of today.

For Japan and Germany their position in a global of all criteria is that they are equal to Italy, because have greater economies but militarilly, in world missions and in making "bridges" between countries they are less sucessfull,so in the end their position is the same for the three. Also Italy's Soft Power is bigger than that of these two countries.

Regarding International clout and Iran affair I have something for you:

16 giugno 2006 Il ministro della Difesa Parisi a Kabul

Il ministro della Difesa Arturo Parisi è giunto a Kabul nella tarda mattinata di venerdì 16 giugno per una visita di due giorni ai militari italiani in Afghanistan: «L' Italia non dimentica i suoi caduti, ma li onora, ben consapevole del significato del loro sacrificio e dei risultati raggiunti dopo quattro anni di presenza internazionale»; Parisi ha ricordato uno per uno «i militari caduti in questa terra». Nell'agenda di Parisi, fra l'altro, anche colloqui con il ministro della Difesa afgano e con il comandante di Isaf, la forza della Nato alla quale l'Italia contribuisce con circa 1.300 militari, schierati a Kabul e ad Herat. Sabato il ministro dovrebbe recarsi proprio a Herat, nell'ovest del Paese, dove l'Italia ha la guida di un Prt, quei team di ricostruzione provinciale attraverso cui la Nato punta ad estendere la sua presenza in tutto l'Afghanistan. La visita di Parisi - che dovrebbe incontrare anche l'ex re dell'Afghanistan, Zahir Shah - è in questo momento particolarmente importante: per le forze armate italiane, infatti, parallelamente al prossimo rientro di 1.600 soldati oggi presenti in Iraq, potrebbe profilarsi un imminente impegno proprio in Afghanistan, come ha detto solo l'altroieri anche il vicepresidente del Consiglio e ministro degli Esteri Massimo D'Alema.

La Nato, in particolare, vorrebbe più truppe, più forze speciali, più aerei, e se l'Italia non sembra intenzionata a chierare in Afghanistan i suoi caccia Amx, potrebbe invece mettere a disposizione un maggior numero di soldati, un incremento complessivo di qualche centinaio di uomini, più o meno un contingente della stessa grandezza di quello schierato fino a poche settimane fa, durante i nove mesi in cui l'Italia ha avuto il comando di Isaf. In ogni caso, il Governo dovrà decidere in fretta: il decreto di rifinanziamento delle missioni italiane all'estero, compresa quella in Afghanistan, sarà discusso in Parlamento entro la fine del mese di giugno.

16 giugno 2006 D'Alema: «Amici degli Usa, ma in modo diverso da Berlusconi»

Viaggio a Washington per il ministro degli Esteri e vice presidente del Consiglio Massimo D'Alema: è la prima visita di un esponente del nuovo governo Prodi, da «amico degli Stati Uniti» - ha detto prima di partitre - anche se «in modo diverso da come lo era il precedente Governo».

D'Alema incontrerà il segretario di Stato Usa, Condoleezza Rice, e il segretario alla Sicurezza Nazionale Stephen Hadley. Sul tavolo, ha detto il ministro dal vertice Ue di Bruxelles, le grandi questioni internazionali «su cui l'Italia, l'Europa e gli Stati Uniti devono collaborare per ricercare soluzioni positive e pacifiche». In agenda, specificano fonti della Farnesina, i quattro punti all'ordine del giorno sono l'Iraq (e il ritiro delle truppe italiane), l'Iran, l'Afghanistan e il Medio Oriente.

Caso Calipari e agenti Cia. «Vado a Washington per discutere di politica, più che di vicende giudiziarie» ha precisato D'Alema in una intervista alla Associated Press; è possibile dunque che il caso Calipari venga citato, ma la morte del funzionario del Sismi ucciso a Baghdad dalla raffica di un soldato americano, Mario Lozano, per cui la procura di Roma ha chiesto il rinvio a giudizio, è «una vicenda che riguarda la magistratura indipendente» ha sottolineato il ministro degli Esteri. «Certo io ribadirò che vorremmo una maggiore collaborazione da parte degli Stati Uniti per quanto attiene alla ricerca della verità», ma «non so neanche cosa possa fare il segretario di Stato per garantire la collaborazione da un punto di vista giudiziario». Così a una domanda sul caso dei «voli Cia» e in particolare dello sceicco Abu Omar, per cui la procura di Milano ha chiesto l'estradizione degli agenti Usa, D'Alema ricorda che «Non si può intervenire sul passato; l'accertamento delle responsabilità e di eventuali violazioni della legge spetta ai magistrati».

Sui temi internazionali in agenda, invece, D'Alema confida nel fatto «che da parte dell'Amministrazione americana si capisca che noi siamo amici degli Stati Uniti. Amici forse in modo diverso da come lo era il precedente Governo, ma dobbiamo ricercare un terreno di collaborazione per risolvere i grandi problemi che abbiamo di fronte».

Il ritiro dall'Iraq. Primo punto, dunque, illustrare la visita a Baghdad compiuta la settimana scorsa dal ministro e i piani per il ritiro dei soldati italiani. Gli Stati Uniti hanno più volte dichiarato che si aspettavano già la decisione, come indicato dal governo Berlusconi; ma un punto più dolente è che il ritiro completo significa l'impossibilità di mantenere la Squadra di ricostruzione provinciale di ingegneri il cui nucleo è già attivo a Nassiryia. Ma il capo della Farnesina - scrive il «Corriere della Sera» di ogg, 16 giugno - avrebbe esaminato una nuova idea con il segretario della Nato, che prevede la permanenza in Iraq di 39 ufficiali impegnati nell'addestramento delle forze di sicurezza irachene, che saranno inseriti in strutture Nato già attive.

Altri due punti sull'agenda possono offrire un terreno di dialogo e forse di promesse. Prima di tutto l'Afghanistan, su cui il governo Prodi, sotto pressione dall'ala più a sinistra, mantiene un atteggiamento attendista. L'Esecutivo rimanda ogni decisione di un incremento militare italiano, auspicato dalla Nato visto che l'alleanza vuole raddoppiare il numero dei soldati nel Paese ed estendere la sua azione in particolare nelle turbolente regioni del Sud. D'Alema ha sottolineato ieri che l'Afghanistan è «un problema che deve essere esaminato con i nostri alleati. Noi non siamo in Afghanistan come Italia, c'è la Nato la quale si è assunta una responsabilità sotto mandato delle Nazioni Unite»; anche se la situazione «per molti aspetti ci preoccupa e si fa ogni giorno più preoccupante».

Sul dossier del nucleare iraniano, il ministro ha osservato ieri che l'Italia non partecipa al gruppo dei 5+1 (i membri permanenti del Consiglio di sicurezza più la Germania); «e questa esclusione» ha osservato parlando alla Associated Press, «è un fatto molto negativo, anche perché noi siamo il principale partner commerciale europeo dell'Iran». Come chiedere all'Italia dunque di aderire anticipatamente a eventuali sanzioni contro Teheran, che la penalizzerebbero fortemente, se non può neppure prendere parte al negoziato? La soluzione diplomatica resta la via da percorrere fino in fondo per Roma. Ultimo punto sull'agenda, la crisi mediorientale, che ormai si declina nel conflitto interno palestinese, oltre che nel blocco del processo di pace fra palestinesi e israeliani; una situazione che vede l'Unione europea cercare un meccanismo internazionale per mettere in moto gli aiuti alle disastrate finanze palestinesi. Source:www.ilsole24ore.it,www.panorama.it

ACamposPinho 20:57, 17 June 2006

Thanks for that, could you perhaps give us a summary in english?

Xdamr^talk 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Latter I will tradute you the text.Now I've some work to do but in summary its what I said before, Italy was a littleout of World Stage because of elections and making of new government. Now it has defined its miniterieslike Defense and Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Minister is in USA to meet its counterpart and talk about bi-lateral relations, Irak and Iran Crisis.

ACamposPinho 21:18, 17 June 2006

Does Italy have a military anywhere near as big as India's? There are many factors in India's favour, factors which nations like Australia, Canada or Brazil do not have. Please read India as an emerging superpower, which happens to be fully sourced with over 100 sources. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a whether India is or isn't a superpower/great power. That's not what the discussion is about. So let's drop it. I made the comment because India wasn't mentioned in the list I posted of that essay. It was to make the point that the list was not important, the criteria was. As far as the posting of Campos in Italian, I read parts of it.

Summary:

The first part says the Italian minister of defense visited Afghanistan where 1300 troops are located to acknowledge the sacrifices and the fallen in the struggle to liberate Afghanistan. Also that Italy was having a meeting with the ex-king of Afghanistan.
The second part says the new vice president of the ruling party Massimo D'Alema has visited the State department to discuss Iraq ( the return of Italian troops), Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East.
The third part says that Nato would like Italy to deploy its AMX tanks to Afghanistan or increase its troop commitment. Also some discussion going on about the budget for the Afghanistan mission in the Italian parliament.
Later it says that Nato would like Italy to double its troop commitment in Afghanistan particularly to stabilize the south of the country.
Finally the last paragraph says that the exclusion of Italy in the Iran nuclear talks where the 5+1 (UNSC + Germany) is a hugh error in consideration that Italy is the largest trading partner with Iran and any sanctions to work must include Italy in the negotiations since it will be the main country blocking any trade to Iran. Further states the Italian gov't is discussing with the US how to diffuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to create an international mechanism to resolve the financial disaster of the palestinians which the Eu is searching for.

There is other stuff in there but this is basically the jist of the article. The fifth point is significant since Heilme said Italy is not included in the Iran nuclear discussions but I said before and posted an article from Iran stating that it was on its own. I'll say it again as I said it before, sooner or later Italy gets involved. It's too big to ignore and it has its fingers in a lot of pies.

Forget about Brazil, India and the rest, at least for now or start a new topic if you want to discuss that. I don't know a lot about India other than they have 1.1 billion people and Microsoft does a lot of programming there. Hadrian1 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, the 5th point is important but the first 4 are not too huge. Living in Australia, that sort of stuff comes in the Australian news a lot...increasing troop deployment, going into bilateral talks etc. The fact that the news was in Italian means that its intended for an Italian audience, thus it is similar to something that you'd find in an Australian Newspaper. The fifth point is in Italy's favour however as it not only proves that Italy has political influence in the Middle East but also proves that it has some economic influence. It'll be interesting to hear the views of Xdamr and Heilme. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Traduting all will take time, but your summary is well NobleEagle, only one error AMX are not tanks in Italy, there are a French tank called AMX, but the italian ones are Ariete,Drado, Centauro,... they have their one tanks, even the Leopards they used since the 60's were developed by Germany with Italian collaboration. The AMX is a Strike Fighter made by Italy(70% quote of development and construction) and Brazil(30% quote). There are article inwikipedia about all these tanks, fighters and many more.

Regarding India I said that if economics are the most important source so Spain, Canada and Australia are Great Powers too. But of course in the overall concept, India is much more powerfull, specially than Canada or Autralia. but even Spain or Brazil are bellow. I've nothing against India NobleEagle, I only want things to be clear. As a matter of fact I like Indiafor itself and much more than another countries I won't mention in order to be objective.

The problem here and everywere is that Italy as any other country is talked about in books and sources of what origin? Anglo-American. And the most authors still have prejudices against Italy and I have an anglo-saxon book about Mussolini's Italy and even about that time there are many mistakes written, regardless of the "importance" of the writter. Then (30's and 40's) they regarded Italy as one of them but now they discuss if even then Italy was really that great. But this is changing as I said, inthe 70's and 80's the situation was very worst.

The source Hadrian1 put has 10 years and the content is untill 1985,and they say that Germany and Japan only regained economically Great Power status. The same should have been said about Italy, because italian growth between 1945-1985 was greater than Germany and only was bigger in Japan, as a matter of fact Italy's economy was booming again in the 80's. In 1986 it surpassed that of UK and in 1986/7 Italian Stock Exchange was the second in Europe by market capitalisation, London was the only one above,with traditional strong exchanges like Frankfurt,Paris, Zurich and Amsterdam bellow. Another thing is geo-military,in 1985 Italy hadonly taken part in Lebanon War and much better than other countries expected, since then they participated in many wars and Peace-Keeping missions. In 20 years many things change and now Germany is not only an economic powerhouse is beggining to be a Political Power too(since reunification, when it became full sovereign) and Japan because of China threat is also becoming pollitically more powerfull. USA wants Japan to be a counterbalance to China power. The Armed Forces of Japan are called of Self-Defence and cannot attackanione, only defend their country if it were attacked. The difference to other countries is that others can attack another country if there is a plausible reason and some countries attack others even withouth reason, only for their gain. Ex: Iran attacking Kuwait. But the stute of Japan Armed Forces will probably be changed, because they want and more important USA want too. The one who doesn't is China.

Regarding India sources and missions, I tell you what I told you before. I can find more than 100 sources for Italy as a Great Power too. And you can find more than 100 sources for India too and many more. Specially because the BRIC countries are well sourced, because they have great economic growth, USA and european countries want chepa labour, investing in countries with high returning prospects and all Asia is in ascendent. For that fact, even studentes make many more works and thesis about these countries now. But the reall power is at least by now in USA and european countries. The investment are in Asia, but excluding Japan from where came the money and the big financial institutions and holdings where are them.Of course there are exceptions and those came from India specially and Japan of course. China is different,the capital is mainly or almost exclusivelly from the state and there are many companies only because of cheap and with a little Know-How labour. India has more independent capabilities.

Missions abroad Italy has many more and if India has more personnel is because they have more population too - many more infact - but in capability of power projection Italy,UK or France have more power.

Latter I will put some sources I have for Italy.

ACamposPinho 20:45, 18 June 2006

Another thing is that italian politics were divided during cold war and that was usefull for both USA and USSR, they didn't want another France (to make a more independent geostrategy) even if less powerfull,neverthless powerfull enough to make difference. As no bloc could totally controll italian political life, altough USA had proeminence-NATO, Democrazia Cristiana,..., the two blocs intended to gain as much as possible of italian politics. So the internal divisions between christian-democrats and communists and to a lesser extent socialist an neo-fascist divided for decades italian political scene. With that, it was not enoughhaving a big economy to counter-balance the lack of national spirit. Ideology came first of the nation, so geostrategy suffered a lot, with Italy being a major ally of USA but with internal discussions and even terrorism about that and by the other side not an ally like UK or West Germany. UK was a loyal and strong ally, West Germany was controlled by the Three Powers and was reliable and had stable governments. In Italy because of their people allegiance to one or other ideology and because of external influence like " GLADIO" the political situation was unable to construct a real and great voice inthe world.

After the Cold War and the end of blocs confrontation, the situation began to change and the italian politics began to be more and more active not only in EU but also in UN and the world in general. And this process is only onthe beggining. Look at a military partnership example:inthe Tornado Strike Defence aircraft UK and Germany had 42,5% each, Italy the remaining 15 %, inthe Eurofighter Typhoon Italy has almost 20% and there is one more partner-Spain with almost 14%. What do we conclude Italy's power internationally and the need of Italy being active in EU and world affairs is bigger, while comparatively UK and Germany have being in diminution, altough Germany had grown too, but Italy politics growth and stability had grown at a much bigger stance.So the diminushing of UK and Germany quotes, when compared to Itally,doesn't mean that they shrinked, only means that proporcionally Italy has grown more, geopolitically speaking. In the bellow link is an italian article by an Italian General - Carlo Jean - abouth world political changes and it speaks of Italy case. Sorry,but is in italian. Besides Lelio Lagorio, this General has several articles about Geopolitics, italian ones in particular and he is a contributor to Limes magazine, the most important italian magazine of Geostrategy and Geopolitics. Site: www.limesonline.it

http://www.luiss.it/ricerca/istituti/ise/review/2002/01/Jean.pdf

Another source of italian Geopolitics in the world.

http://www.difesa.it/backoffice/upload/allegati/2004/%7B841B90C1-164C-4CD2-AD07-1CD882EDAA15%7D.pdf

I have other source for what I said above about changing Geopolitics, and this is a strong one, but I will not put the article here, its in italian but thats not the problem, because the others are too, its because its a source and information provided by the SISDE and I don't want problems with these agency.

Other things from this own site - Wikipedia - "Reform of the United Nations Security Council" - "Italy opposes this kind of reform, and has submitted another proposal, together with other countries, based on the introduction of semi-permanent membership" ; "Foreign relations of Italy" - "Italy – wishing for a seat on its own – opposes the request of G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, accusing them of buying votes of poorer countries using aid money."

As I said more than once Italy opposed since the beggining, was the first country of doing it and has bringed to her field more than 100 countries,is that not having power inthe world? They agreed with Italy for their own purposes, but when USA makes a war and other countries go with them, they aren't doing that for the same reason? Do you think is because of fear? So, why Canada and Mexico aren't in all the wars USA make, they should be the ones who fear most, they confine with USA.

About buying the others with money,I can't say for sure for all the G4,but Japan as stated that if it didn't get an UNSC Permanent Seat it would stop donating aid to UN nad poor countries trough UN. What is that? Democracy? A country that deserves being Permanent Member of UNSC or is the position of a country who uses blackmailing to make its position. Reagardless of the means, what counts forthemare the ends.

ACamposPinho 1:31, 19 June 2006

Yes Campos is right. I made a mistake. The AMX is a French tank but the Italian AMX is an Italian/Brazilian ground attack plane. I was trying to understand what they meant by "caccia" which means "hunt". I assumed it was a euphanism for tank which should have been "carro armato". So I guess Nato wants them to deploy their ground attack aircraft. Small point anyway.

By the way Campos, I don't believe these guys can read Italian so there's no real point in posting it without the translation or at least a summary. Unless of course you are expecting me to do the translation. Hadrian101:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

-Sorry Hadrian1,I didn't notice it was you who tranlated it. As I said I will translate it latter.

To NobleEagle- You can't compare italian deployment of troops to autralian one. Besides bigger numbers, the importance and quality of equipment isn't comparable.

As about the Newspaper,I have something for you.You can't either compare it to an autralian one and to australian audience. First of all Italy has circa three times australian population size, second it is mainly for an italian audience,but there are many italians abroad,even in Australia besides the fact that Australia official language is english and they read USA and UK newspaper and magazines too, while in Italy these have a little audience. And to finish; of course you know Financial Times, the most read and most important finacial newspaper of UK and Europe, because of its history, because it has a german version and because of english being universal. But do you know what is the second most read and most importante financial newspaper of europe- it's Il Sole24Ore of Italy from where I got the source. It is also readed abroad, altough italian is a language not spoken by many.The other source is Panorama magazine, the most read and important generalist and news magazine of Italy and one of the most considered in europe.

ACamposPinho 2:53, 20 June 2006

You misunderstand me. I was simply saying that all national media make their country seem important. You won't hear any media saying While our troops relaxed doing nothing, the American troops were making an advance or saying our position in the current conflict is negligible compared to other nations, in fact most casualties on our side go unnoticed by people from other nations. It's always more like our troop committment has further increased following discussions by our Prime Minister and George W. Bush. You get my point, even Australia boasts about its troop committment and importance in Iraq, I can expect Italy to do the same. Therefore the first 4 points mentioned by Hadrian don't really matter all too much. By the way, Australians don't really read many USA and UK newspapers and magazines, they simply don't as one can relate a lot more to news from their own country when compared to news from other nations, even if it is English. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't live in an anglo-saxon country and people, at least more culturally driven people read USA and UK press,even fromother countries.

I usually read american, british, italian, french, spanish(not very much) and russian(when its in english) press. But in this point I'm an exemption.

Anyway I have a source of Russian-Italian relations,who speaks for itself (and this you can say its italian view,its russian one):

"Putin and Prodi Reaffirm Close Ties

By Francesca Mereu Staff Writer

Sergei Grits / AP

Prodi and Putin speaking to reporters while meeting Tuesday in the Kremlin.

Emerging from their Kremlin meeting all smiles, President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi signaled Tuesday that while Putin's friend Silvio Berlusconi was no longer in power, ties between the two nations remained strong.

Referring to the changing of the guard in Rome, Putin said, "Relations with Italy are a priority for us, and they don't depend on the country's internal policy."

Putin enjoyed a close relationship with Berlusconi, who lost to Prodi in an April election and repeatedly defended Putin against charges of human rights violations in Chechnya and improperly jailing former Yukos head Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

On Tuesday, Prodi said Russian-Italian relations would further develop under his watch. "My role has changed, but not our relationship," he told Putin.

Prodi and Putin last met in Moscow in May 2004, when Prodi was president of the EU Commission. Putin was one of the first world leaders to call Prodi after his electoral victory this year.

At Tuesday's meeting, energy and bilateral trade topped the agenda.

Prodi's trip to Russia capped his first European tour as Italy's prime minister. He met Putin at the Kremlin shortly after 5 p.m., having arrived in Moscow a few hours earlier.

"I am convinced that your visit not only confirms the high level of interest we have in each other's countries but also will yield more mutually beneficial joint projects," a smiling Putin told Prodi at the start of their talks.

The prime minister's visit coincided with an announcement Tuesday by Eni CEO Paolo Scaroni that Europe's fourth-largest oil company would help state-controlled Gazprom expand in Italy in exchange for access to exploration resources in Russia.

Also, UniCredit, Italy's biggest bank, said Tuesday that its HVB Group had agreed to buy a 26 percent stake in International Moscow Bank from Nordea Bank as the Italian bank expands eastward.

Trade between the two countries reached $23.5 billion last year, making Italy Russia's third-largest trade partner, according to Itar-Tass.

The Italian prime minister on Tuesday recalled that his first exposure to Russia came 20 years ago when he visited the Kremlin as the president of the Institute of Industrial Reconstruction.

Earlier in the day, Prodi said, he met with Italian business leaders in Russia. He reported that there were more than 150 ventures being pursued by Italians in the country.

The two leaders also discussed creation of a Russian-Italian bank, Prodi said, with each side contributing half of the capital.

Unlike Berlusconi -- who was known for clowning around with world leaders and showering the Russian president, in particular, with affection -- Prodi, a former economics professor from Bologna, was more reserved.

As prime minister, analysts said, Prodi is likely to spend more time on problem-solving than vacationing with Putin, as Berlusconi did in 2003, when the president, his wife and their two daughters spent three days at Berlusconi's Sardinia retreat.

Giulietto Chiesa, a prominent journalist and independent Russia specialist, said the Italian prime minister's stolid demeanor would improve Italian-Russian relations by lending a new seriousness to them.

Issues of chief concern to the Italian are expected to be Russia's human rights record, the Chechen conflict and Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky's imprisonment.

Franco Apicella, an expert in Italian-Russian relations with the defense review "Pagine di Difesa," noted: "Unlike his predecessor, Prodi is not an extrovert. He will focus on concrete questions. He wants to ensure Italy gets its gas from Russia."

Western Europeans have worried about relying on Russia as an energy supplier since January, when Moscow briefly turned off gas heading to Ukraine, disrupting the gas flow to much of Europe.

Adriano Roccucci, a Russia specialist at Roma Tre University, said Prodi was likely to be tempered in his criticism. "Prodi is an European politician," Roccucci said. "He will be cautious and careful in his criticism, as is the European tradition."

On Tuesday, Putin and Prodi also signed an agreement expediting cooperation between Russian fighter-jet maker Sukhoi with the Italian firm Finmeccanica. The agreement aims to bolster Russia's struggling aviation industry.

Prodi's visit is his last stop on a tour that included Brussels, Vienna, Paris and Berlin. The trip comes less than a month before Putin hosts Prodi and other leaders from the Group of Eight countries in St. Petersburg."

Source: www.themoscowtimes.com

ACamposPinho 0:03, 21 June 2006

Another source from my country press. And look that here we take in higher regard France, Uk or even Germany geopolitics. The press and mass media in general regard Italy in general more as a source of Soft Power and a Power by itself but not so high as the other,because of past prejudices, like the ones that the rest of the world have- considering Italy economically powerfull, in Geopolitics not so powerfull.

But going to the source I read:it talks about Italian Diplomacy and more properly that Italy gaves support to an UE-Africa summit and that Italy is particullary interested in the situation in Somalia and Darfur. The article states what Italy is doing about these two issues and aren't little actions, besides being auctions of Italy itself, not of UN or UE. And also state that Lybia is today a recognized member of international institutions, while Italy is being always more related to Lybia and breaking issues that camed from Fascism period. Also states that Lybia could be an ideal interlocutor of EU in Africa through Italy.

The Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema also says that Italy has a policy for Africa,similar to the oneTony Blair wanted to develope during Bristish presidency of UE,but have modest results, while Italy will do everything to expand that policy and improve it by itself and with help of african interlocotors and other EU countries whiling to do the same,an aproching and help to Africa.

Source:Diário de Notícias; Online: www.dn.pt

ACamposPinho 2:03, 24 June 2006

Vote (Closed)

Please insert Support if you support the inclusion of Italy or Oppose if you oppose it

Support I vote yes obviously since I seem to be protagonist with respect to this. I think I have shown that Italy is in the top ten of world powers in many respects with my many references to various sites which took some I might add. I understand this topic of OR but even if I can't list several experts in geopolitics to say conclusively that Italy is still a great power, I believe the numbers speak for themselves. For instance, up until Germany was re-united, there was little talk of Germany as a current great

power. However, now that it is and it seems their attempt at getting a permanent seat on the UN security council is being succesful (i.e. their consultation in the Iran issue), everyone is considering them as such, not to denigrate them. But I also haven't seen them listed conclusively as a great power conclusively either. There are also contentions about Russia as a great power. I've seen France being referred to as a has-been. Ditto GB. In fact depending on who you listened to, you get a different answer. Some people think USA is a has-been or on a serious decline. What seems to matter is the ability to wage war. That means economics plus technology plus military hardware. Of course in the end, it's economics. Which is why the G8 is so important. America won the cold war through economics. Reagan said " We will out produce them in an arms race that they can't win." In the end, he was right. So my assertion here is that the top ten world economic powers are the world powers/great powers. Therefore since Italy is that list, sixth or seventh depending on whether it is GDP (PPP)or GDP (nominal), higher if it is GNP then it is a current great power. Also I would like to note that if the underground economy is taken into consideration which every country has, Italy has an approximate percentage of 25% - 30%. France has been estimated at around 10 - 15%. GB is even lower. Adjusted values would give Italy a bigger economy than France and maybe GB (UK has been doing relatively well lately, ten years ago Italy was definitely ahead). I don't have sources but I will find them and list them here.

There you have it.

--Hadrian1 01:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - well first off, some of those numbers you supplied are grossly outdated (1998 for example), so I don't think it's useful for discussion. Second, even if Italy's numbers are top 10 in the world, so what? Italy's influence in the world is almost non-existent. Italy is not even one of the stronger member of the EU. Who decides in the EU mostly? France and Germany. Italy?? Italy belongs to same class as Spain, Netherlands, and other second-tier European countries when it comes to international politics. Third, regarding Italy's economy. Italy's economy (GDP), when measured nominally, is still larger than Russia and India. But, in terms of PPP, Italy is much smaller than India's, roughly the same with Russia's. But take note that Italy's economy is growing at practically zero percent nowadays. Furthermore, Italian economy is mostly composed of middle or small businesses (i.e. family-owned businesses) and therefore they aren't going to be able to compete against big multinational companies especially in this globalized era. It's doomed. Italy's southern region are also poorer than the north anyways. Fourth, in terms of military power, Italy belongs to medium-class country. It's not overly superior nor it is inferior. But, it's not that strong and remarkable. What's Italy's military budget for last year? Italy's defense spending is smaller than most major powers listed here, except against India's. But then, you must take note of purchasing power parity. India can get more with $1 spent than Italy can. Furthermore, number counts. India's army size is definitely much larger than Italy's. And, Italy's military size is not comparable to French, UK, or Russian. Only in terms of soft/cultural power, Italy scores BIG. Yes, everyone knows Rome, Colosseum, spaghetti, pizza, Prada, and Gucci......but it's not enough criteria for a great power. Sorry. --Heilme 23:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, 1998 is only 8 years ago. I don't know what planet you're on but countries don't lose their power status in eight years. Also only one of the lists I put up are from 1998. The rest are more recent. The GDP numbers are 2005. Secondly, the GDP for Italy is much higher than Russia's and in terms of GNP way higher. But you wouldn't know the difference. Thirdly, Italy's army and navy is quite large and only Russia, GB and France ahave bigger armies. If you want to dispute it, I can back it up with sources from the CIA. Where are you're sources? You have presented nothing but your opinion, hyperbole, and old fashioned outdated views of the country based on watching too much Sopranos. According to you if they are not the top militarily in Europe, they don't count. And from you username I can tell where you are from, obviously German. Our great buddies the Germans. The only guys that attack you when you fighting with them. But I digress. That's off topic. Unless you can list references, I suggest that you do some homework before posting. Oh by the way, who cares about the EU. Some stupid French/German plan to take over the continent without firing a shot which probably won't survive very long. Do you really believe Europeans love each other. If I had my way, Italy would be out. If they want want the country, let them fight for it. The EU is bad for Italy and we don't fit in with the Northerners anyway. Totally different culture, attitude, way of life. It made sense when the Russian bear was watching but now it doesn't. Let the French and Germans fight over who controls their marriage. Leave the other countries out. I also feel that it too is a marriage of convenience. When push comes to shove, they'll be at each throats again.

So go find some references to blow my arguements out of the water if you can. (Throwing dowmn the gauntlet, figuratively).

--Hadrian1 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To things, A) Let's keep the discussion calm and clean, act in good faith. B) I always thought Heilme was Chinese. Just coz you say 'Heil' doesn't meen your German :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment -

Dear Hadrian, Chill and relax. It's just an exchange of thought. Hadrian, Italy can't be a modern great power unless it is frequently and strongly represented in the world stage (politics and/or socio-economics). However, it used to be a great power (prior to WWII), but that's included already. So far, the only international body membership most important to Italy is being in the G7, that's all. The rest: Italy is not member of UNSC council, not even applying to be one (see G4 - India, Brazil, Germany, Japan; in fact Italians oppose German UNSC membership....so much for EU), and Italy's not a big player in any other world body. Italy's not even crucial in the EU3 talk against Iran's nuclear crisis. And of course, again, Italy's voice is medium in the EU, although you didn't care about EU. Last of all, Italy is already listed as a middle power along with countries of its peer: Canada, Australia, Korea etcetera. Let's hear what other people say first. If everyone else can be convinced with their own data and info, then I see no problem. Okay? --Heilme 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Italy may be part of the G8 and have a large economy but it isn't a great power by itself. It is a regional power. There is still a great difference between Germany, the UK and Italy. Not only is the economy (formal and informal) much larger in the other great powers, look at the culutral influence. The UK through the British Empire has had a huge influence on this world. German culutre has had a huge impact on the US and has a huge GDP. Italy while being highly develop, and a regional power it simply isn't a Great power. The difference between the other great powers and Italy are too great. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support - Firts lets look at the argument of Heilme-very deep and of a person who understand of International Relations indeed!!!!!! Vote unsigned...if anyone can find who this was then the vote will be unstriked and counted.

Support Obviously.The arguments are unquestionable. Only the anti-italian lobby doesn't want to see them. ACamposPinho 0:50, 27 June 2006

Well I don't know who writted the Support vote above neither who scratched it out, but one thing I have been noticing. You people have a really a lobby. And what you have written in wikipedia is unquestionable and can't be improved or changed. Its funny,because this support vote was here for a wild,only when I voted you scratched it out. When things balance to the other side you always make them disappear. I wonder if it was a no vote, even witouth signature what would you do?

ACamposPinho 23:52, 27 June 2006

We have come to agreement that it was your original vote Campos, so you voted twice. See here. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"We have come to an agreement that it was my original vote?" What is this, now you came on agreements about what I've done. I voted but my original vote was "cleaned" and my friend that wasn't my original vote because I always sign what I writte here. How can you agree or not agree what I now I did or did not. You aren't the owner of wikipedia and if these things continue I would have to complain to somebody really impartial.You said there are admnistrators 13 years old,I make a quote and you never answered, that shows a lot of your impartiallity and education. Could you,please tell me your age?

Articles of a great source of references being edited and managed by 13 year old people or younger, I don't think deserve to be taken into such account.

And by the way it wasn't 2-2, wheter with or without signature it was 3 Yes, 2 No. ACamposPinho ,28 June 2006

Campos, if you really want solid proof that it was your vote then here it is: Vote 1 by Campos

Vote 2 by Campos, now can you stop this meaningless babble about dictatorship and lobbying etc. etc. In case you didn't notice, it is only 2-2 because me and Xdamr decided not to vote. User:Nixer also stated his opposition to Italy as a Great power on my talk page but abstained from voting. In that case, since our POVs are clear, it would be 5-2, with the two votes coming from the two who nominated the discussion to take place in the first place...am I right? So stop complaining... Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ok, this entire vote/comment thing has got a little out of hand. I'm not sure exactly how long this vote has gone on, but it must be more than a month by now. One thing which seems clear is that there is no expressed consensus here one way or the other.

One problem with the concept that we are pursuing on this page seems to be its absolute nature, country A IS, country B IS NOT. When you look at it, International Relations is really just human relations writ large. And as I'm most of us can testify, there are very few absolutes in that area. I'm thinking of Italy as being in the transition zone, not definitely in - but not definitely out. Perhaps we would benefit from treating this subject in a less absolute fashion? Is there perhaps room to acknowledge (for example) Italy's superior economy whilst at the same time noting that it doesn't have many large scale overseas military deployments? That is broadly the position that we have adopted with respect to Germany (although Germany can offset this deficiency with its substantially bigger economy). I'm really thinking of something similar to the EU 'compromise' on the Superpowers page, for those of us who edit across this series.

Either way it seems to me that the time has come to make an end to this vote one way or the other.

Xdamr^talk 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's beginning to look like the Congress of Berlin. Both Italy and Turkey were invited but directly making decisions. What are you proposing exactly? A great power ranking system or list in order of importance or influence? Hadrian103:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No ranking system...that would have to end up being OR. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I Agree any such ranking system would be OR as there currently is nor rakning system for power. There may be sources on the criteris for a great power but no ranking system. We would need to agree on a guideline for such as system such as GDP or military strength. Doing so would not only cause a long debate without results but would also be completely OR as we would have invented our own renaking system. The question here is whether or not Italy is a superpower. While I don't beleive it is, we are talking about an ideology here and we will always disagree so we need to find a compromise. Perhaps a solution can be found in the wording reading Italy's part of the table, stating that some bleive it is a great power while others don't, both sides w/ the corresponding references, much like the superpowers article. I hope this helps. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And for Germany. Why it is a Great Power? Only for economy, the same aplying to Japan. Where are Germany international clout? And sources, references, books,links? And why it is a Great Power since the 1970's when two weeks ago was again a Great Power since 1990 only. A country that was divided and only entered to UN in 1973, talked in the 70's and early 80's as the new wealths of europe was a Great Power in the 1970's? Only in economy and before reunification the total GDP of BundesRepublik Deutschland was not so above that of France, uk or Italy. Not to speak of its armed forces, power projection, sovereignity. And if its military was not smaller it was because of Cold War and USA wanted West Germany to have self defence and had troops stationed there and still has. The other Germany- Deutsche Demokratische Republik was a USSR puppet, was much bellow BDR. The two combined didn't make a Great Power, lesser divided? And another question,what Germany in the 70's and 80's you are speaking? West of course-so even if you were correct in the definition periods, you should put 1970's-1990, 1990-Present.

ACamposPinho 1:48, 29 June 2006

Why is Germany a Great Power? Well, for starters Germany is one of only three countries w/ a GDP of over TWO trillion, that makes it the most powerful country in Europe. You will find a large selection of German consumer goods in any country on earth. Pretty much no matter where you go on this planet you will find German brand names in a store near you. Then there is the control over the global allocation of resources, again unmatched by any other European country. For example, the RWE owns the water-mains below NYC and in many part of California. The economic clout of Germany is the third largest in the world and by far the largest of any European country, which shouldn't come as a suprise as Germany, even before the reunfification was the largest European country in terms of population. Also google the topic, you'll find the Economist refering to Germany as "Europe's giant." Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added some prose into the Modern Great powers section and it does mention Italy...The thing is that we don't have enough votes to reach consensus, me and Xdamr have refrained from voting for our own reasons. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's broadly what I had in mind - an acknowledgement of Italy's uncertain/disputed status. I'm closing the vote now; it seems to have been open for 38 days now, more than long enough.

Xdamr^talk 16:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No Consensus Reached : For - 2, Against - 2

well, i guess i'll add a vote after closing. i support italy being added to a present great power. i feel it is in the same debate that groups Germany and Japan as well, if you go by the criteria on the page! 192.45.72.26 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Moved Comments

Table 1.2: Shadow Economy and Underground Economy in Italy from 1996-2001 Italy

	Shadow Economy)	Underground Economy 1) (classical crime activities)
Year	in % of offic. GNP	in % of offic. GNP
1996	27.0	18.2
1997	27.3	18.9
1998	27.8	19.3
1999	27.1	19.9
2000	27.2	20.6
2001	27.0	21.7

Table 1.3: Shadow Economy and Underground Economy in France from 1996-2001 France

	Shadow Economy 1)	Underground Economy 1) (classical crime activities)
Year	in % of offic. GNP	in % of offic. GNP
1996	14.9	8.9
1997	14.7	9.3
1998	14.9	9.8
1999	15.2	10.3
2000	15.2	10.9
2001	15.1	11.8

Table 1.4: Shadow Economy and Underground Economy in Great Britain from 1996-2001 Great Britain

(classical crime activities)

	Shadow Economy 1)	Underground Economy 1)
Year	in % of offic. GNP	in % of offic. GNP
1996	13.1	9.4
1997	13.0	9.8
1998	13.0	10.2
1999	12.7	10.4
2000	12.7	10.6
2001	12.6	11.8

Table 1.1: Shadow Economy and Underground Economy in Germany from 1996-2001 Germany

(classical crime activities)

	Shadow Economy 1)		Underground Economy 1)
Year	in % of offic. GNP	in bill. Euro	in % of offic. GNP	in bill. Euro
1996	14.50	263	10.4	189
1997	15.00	280	11.6	217
1998	14.80	286	12.8	248
1999	15.51	308	14.1	280
2000	16.03	329	16.3	334
2001	16.00	336	16.9	355

Source: http://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/Schneider/financeterror.PDF]

Taking 2001 data we have as follows:

Germany 16% GB 12.6% France 15.1% Italy 27.1%

GDP official

            Germany        $ 2,454 Billion     2005 est.
            United Kingdom $ 1,869 Billion     2005 est.
            France         $ 1,822 Billion     2005 est.
            Italy          $ 1,651 Billion     2005 est.

Source CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Apply correction factors:

            Germany        $ 2,846.6 Billion
            UK             $ 2,104,4 Billion
            France         $ 2,095.3 Billion
            Italy          $ 2,096.8 Billion

Italy has now moved to third from fourth position and much closer to the UK. In fact all three are basically at the same level of GDP which is what you would expect since the countries are roughly equal in population.

I have found something else EU battlegroups. These are the countries that will form the defence force. Each line is a separate battlegroup. Italy heads up it's own like France and UK. Also involved in two other groups. Notice how it's not paired with other big european countries.

EU BATTLEGROUP COMMITMENTS
So far, the following Member States have indicated to commit to EU Battlegroups, formed as
follows:
• France
• Italy
• Spain
• United Kingdom
• France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and potentially Spain
• France and Belgium
• Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
• Germany, Austria and Czech Republic
• Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
• Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
• Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania
• Sweden, Finland and including Norway as a third State
• United Kingdom and the Netherlands
Niche capabilities
So far, the following Member States have offered niche capabilities in support of the EU
Battlegroups:
• Cyprus (medical group)
• Lithuania (a water purification unit)
• Greece (the Athens Sealift Co-ordination Centre)
• France (structure of a multinational and deployable Force Headquarter)

Source: http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/MILITARY%20CAPABILITY%20COMMITMENT%20CONFERENCE%2022.11.04.pdf

File:I2 st1.gif

More stuff later. I don't know if this should be in the voting section? Seems not the best spot since the discussion is above it.

--65.94.217.208 03:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Hadrian1

Not to mention the fact of not hearing the news. Italy's influence in the world is almost non-existent.-Its only your point. Irak for ex.:who is the third major power in Irak "peacekeeping auctions"? Germany or China of course....

The Iraqi conflict is for the most part a US-UK-led war. Other Allied nations play little role, perhaps important only in the rebuilding effort. Italy may have 3000 troops stationed in Iraq (will be withdrawn soon), but many other countries such as S Korea, Australia, Poland, and in the past Spain too have stationed troops in Iraq numbering in the thousands. So, I don't see the "special thing" here about Italy. Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus, Macedonia. I can name more and give references. --Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My answer is above in the Italy section since there have been complaints about voting section. --Hadrian1 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And who is the 4th net contributor to UN budget, after US, Japan and Germany.-Not UK, not France, not China or India who are considered Great and even Major Powers.Its Italy-a non-existent country inthe world stage of course. Go to UN site and search,you will find it.

Urm, from my understanding, the largest UN contributors right now in order are USA, Japan, Germany, UK, France, then Italy. But, regardless, I think Great Power criteria based on how much each country contributes to UN budget is not really a strong argument, don't you think? Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't think so eh. Why then did Japan up its contributions to the UN in order to get a security council seat? You want references for that too I guess.--Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Italy is not even one of the stronger member of the EU. Who decides in the EU mostly? France and Germany.-In that case UK is not important in EU either,it must be Greece or Czech Republic. Don´t make me laugh. Never heard of the British-Italian Axis in EU opposed to the France-Germany axis, and this late was more important in the past, UK was not part of EEC, there was the Cold War,France had the Nuclear Weapons, Germany had the Mark and the EEC was most balanced to north, Italy was the only southern country.Nowadays with 25 its very different.

Well, the UK has always thought itself as "its own island", as people know. The UK is not a member of the euro community. But Italy is. So, France and Germany tried to dominate the EU. The UK tried to ally themselves closely with USA to increase its own influence. And Italy.....left behind? Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First Italy allied itself with the UK as an opposition to the Franco-german axis. It seems that France and Germany have lured the UK into their camp with something, probably the CAP and the UK's rebate. The UK doesn't put much into the EU because of its rebate. This was negotiated by Thatcher in the 70's. Without it, the UK would be the one of the biggest net contributors, something the UK doesn't want. Italy is now alone in the EU because Berlusconi had an Italy first policy. The French and Germans started a smear campaign against Italy and Berlusconi, deliberately left them out of negotiations, alienation and underhandedness. The axis doesn't like the neo-fascists and hard right liners in Italy over the past five years.--Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Italy?? Italy belongs to same class as Spain, Netherlands, and other second-tier European countries when it comes to international politics.- Another laugh,excluding economic companies operating in Latin America what is the importance of Spain, only inthe past was great,now its a shadow. Italy is in the same league of France, UK and Germany, like it or not. Only sometimes, its a bit like the US, turns its politics only to internal factors and many countries do that in some certain periods. Comparing to Spain is ridiculous-Spain is a puppet compared to Italy, its a total puppet of the Franco-German Axis in the EU nowadays. And it was Italy who helped Spain entering EU,don't forget. The GDP per capita of Spain is aproaching that of Italy, but the submerse economy in Italy is larger than that of Spain too and Italy will not stagnate forever as Spain is already decreasing and Italy is increasing its economy.

I am not trying to encourage hatred between Spain and Italy here. But what I am trying to imply is that in terms of international influence, Italy = Spain. For examples, both are supporters of Iraq's war (although Spain pulled out in 2004 and Prodi said he will pull out Italian troops soon). And in terms of economy, I think Spain is growing at a healthy rate of 3% last year, while Italy stagnates? But this is not what I meant here. Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Third, regarding Italy's economy. Italy's economy (GDP), when measured nominally, is still larger than Russia and India. But, in terms of PPP, Italy is much smaller than India's, roughly the same with Russia's. But take note that Italy's economy is growing at practically zero percent nowadays.- If it was the same of Russia, only in economy it would be already a Major Power,since Russia is.But you are talking of PPP, important only to measure the purchasing power of one country inhabitants inside that country, taking in account the prices of goods. But we are talking in International/World stage, in that case it must be nominal GDP,because its the real cost of the products and services produced by one country in a year and its in nominal cost, not PPP.Go learn economy too. Italy was untill the late 90's the 5th Economic Power in the world and in reality(taking into account the submerse economy) it probably still is. You don't even realise the importance of the G-7, liking or not this "club". What matters now more than nukes its economy, Russia has a vast military, but doesn't have the resources to go through war during much time, because of its low GDP. In the end I will post the capacity of war of the Major War Powers in 1937 and in 2005.

I thought the reason why economists created the PPP is so that people can have a more meaningful way to compare different prices across the globe. So when comparing, PPP should be used. For instance, a busy market in India would only have a daily turnover of US$1 million (nominal). While in Italy, the same busy market could have a daily turnover of US$2 million (nominal). But because prices in India is much cheaper than in Italy, when adjusted for PPP, the Indian market's daily turnover would be about $5 million (5:1 India:Italy PPP ratio). So, this suggests that the economic activity is much livelier in India than it is in Italy and this should make sense. And, when you talk about those submerse economy in Italy (the underground activity), I wonder how economists can measure it when it is underground...supposedly unrecorded and hard to measure (a lot of errors). I understand the importance of G7 and that's why I said it's the only important club Italy joined. Did I say otherwise? Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all you said 2 million per day for Italy compared to 1 million for India. That gives 5:2 not 5:1. Keep your own numbers straight. Not that I agree with them. Secondly the real number to look at is GNP not GDP whether PPP or not. For reasons I have stated earlier in this article GNP is the true measure of a country's output since counts all manufacturing owned by a nation's citizen's. Therefore any companies with operations in cheap countries counts. In GDP it doesn't. And if you want sources, I'll get those too. From the Nato website.--Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where did you get 5:2 ratio? I was assuming 5:1 PPP ratio for example a shoe in Italy cost 5 euro while in India it costs 1 euro. Heilme 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What I am talking about? Quote" While in Italy the same busy market could have a daily turnover of $2 million dollars", next sentence from Heilme, Quote " But because prices in India is (that's are, genius) much cheaper than in Italy, when adjusted for PPP, the Indian market's daily turnover would be about $5 million"

That's 2:5! not 1:5 or 5:1 depending on which country you are talking about in your scenario. That's what I am talking about. If you are going to use PPP then use it consistently.--Hadrian1 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, in terms of military power, Italy belongs to medium-class country. It's not overly superior nor it is inferior. But, it's not that strong and remarkable. What's Italy's military budget for last year? Italy's defense spending is smaller than most major powers listed here, except against India's. But then, you must take note of purchasing power parity. India can get more with $1 spent than Italy can. Furthermore, number counts. India's army size is definitely much larger than Italy's. And, Italy's military size is not comparable to French, UK, or Russian.- Italy's military size is not comparable to Russia, French and UK. And Germany, Japan, India or even China are? Italy has the third most important navy in western Europe, Air Forceis 4th and Army is 4th or even 3th. Number counts- India, China, North Korea, Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan have many more military personnal. And quality,not only of the material, but also preparation. The same country- Italy before WWII had a large quantity of military equipment and personnel. Its performance in the war? Bad-why? Lacks of personnel preparation,ancient equipment, country was still waking after the Ethiopyan and Spanish wars.

So that's why I said that Italian military strength is medium category (scroll up). I never said it is pathetic. Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy was talking about World War two not now. And the main reason why Italy did poorly was the equipment was out of date by five to ten years when the war began. Mussolini knew that Italy was not prepared but it looked like Germany was about to win the war in months. Mussolini wanted to be at the table during treaty negotiations. Therefore he entered the war unprepared with only the navy in adequate shape. Then the Germans declared war on everybody.--Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Italy can't be a modern great power unless it is frequently and strongly represented in the world stage (politics and/or socio-economics). However, it used to be a great power (prior to WWII), but that's included already.- And you really think that Fascist Italy was more powerfull that nowadays Italy? It was mostly propaganda. Only because it was more spoken about,it was Great Power.It was a very, very much poorer country, with low levelsof education, motorization,industrial importance in the world, only Mussolini's speechs inflated their power. Since the 50's Italy growth was spectacular,until the 70's only Jpan performed better. And as far as industries are concerned, Italy has some great enterprises, and ifit doesn't have more is also because many when were privatised, were smantelled in various minor companies and for Italy you must also consider the clusters- many small enterprises work as one big concern. Look at Brianza,Nord Est Italy, Turin,Genoa; there you find cluster of specific sectors working together and that makes Italy economic strenght and difference.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say in the last 2 sentences. But if you meant about Italy's small businesses, to my knowledge, they are the reason that makes Italy no longer competitive in the export market. Small companies can't use economies of scale (unlike big MNCs) and so they can't compete with global market. There's a NY Times article on it but it's only for subscribers. Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah so post it. I can show an article that says the opposite. That Italy's small and medium sized companies can respond better to market fluctuations than large corporations. Secondly Italy has many large firms. ENI, Agip etc. I'll find sources for those too. Then what are you going to pick on? --Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article. Only subscribers. [1]. Heilme 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one of mine showing ENEL being the third largest energy compnay in the world http://www.radfiber.com/Article/0,6583,27608,00.html --Hadrian1 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So far, the only international body membership most important to Italy is being in the G7, that's all. The rest: Italy is not member of UNSC council, not even applying to be one (see G4 - India, Brazil, Germany, Japan; in fact Italians oppose German UNSC membership....so much for EU), and Italy's not a big player in any other world body. Italy's not even crucial in the EU3 talk against Iran's nuclear crisis. And of course, again, Italy's voice is medium in the EU- The G4 is not an institutionalised international body, only a cooperation of countries with the samepurpose.And they fullfilled their commitment?... I think Italy so far is doing better,only another european country would enter, as Germany is highly considered nowadays, Italy played its cards, opposition to Germany plans and so far it is being most well succeeded than the G4. Who has more sucess? Someone who wants a thing but doesn't own it in the end,or the other who can't get the thing but because of its opposition manages to blockthe other? Think in it. And Italy not a big player inanything besides G7, what about UN missions. And tell me, what was the first war Germany entered after WWII? And Japan already entered one? Does it even can enter one? And what is the EU3-only a momentaneous cooperation inside EU-UK and France are there because are Permanent Members of UNSC, Germany is there trying toget noticed and to achieve its goal of entering th UNSC, not for peace or because it was needed, Italu has I said has a better geostrategical position for today world conflits and problems than Germany has. And speaking about nuclear weapons, after WWII has Germany ever possessed any nuclear weapons,besides the American ones stationed there? Italy had more than one time nuclear programs. And the American nukes stationed inItaly are of double key-its necessary not only US president, but also Italian one to send this missiles.Did you know that? Don't forget the Aircraft Carrier, specially the new one, whose designand patent India probably will buy from Italy.

EU3 is actually, UK, France, and Germany. Germany is not UNSC member. I don't know about nukes stationed in Italy, that'd be interesting to know, but even that would only mean that the US has big control over Italy. Not a good reason to be a great power now, is it? And if you want me to think that Italy is better than Germany now, well, you need more to convince me. You see this Wikipedia Politics section sometimes are vague and needs personal opinion (although not allowed, but can't help it). Political deduction cannot simply be made on here's the data, here's the numbers, and it's proven. This isn't math. Sometimes, a certain bias and way to interpret things are unavoidable. I am against this vote, but isn't this better? People can now listen to arguments from both sides (you support and I oppose). Heilme 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about NPOV? I've posted source after source, reference after reference, article after article to prove my statements are right. You on the other hand just say "I don't think so". I have a POV but I am backing my statements with facts. Not just numbers as you have stated. That's what the articles are for. Actually I surprised even myself when I started digging. Somethings I didn't know of popped up. If it looks like a rose, smells like a rose, feels like a rose, then it must be a rose!. But not in your world. --Hadrian1 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, you should see the reality.Not given personal opinions without knowledge of facts.

ACamposPinho 4:51, 26 May 2006

Heilme has mentined that Italy is not in the EU3 talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. I beg to differ. Italy has entered talks with Iran on the Nuclear issue and said it would be willing to negotiate with the european powers along side them. My references from an Iranian newspaper site.

http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=284226

Iran welcomes Italy’s willingness to join nuclear negotiations TEHRAN, Jan. 29 (MNA)

 -- In a meeting with Roberto Toscano, the Italian ambassador to Tehran  
 which took place in the Majlis headquarters on Sunday, MP Mahmud 
 Mohammadi thanked efforts by the Italian government to enter nuclear 
 dialogue with Iran along with Germany, Britain and France.

 Italy has expressed its willingness to be a partner in nuclear dialogue 
 between Iran and the European Union.

Italy is also talking with Russia about Iran.

Italian, Russian foreign ministers discuss Iranian nuclear issue
	
20:14 	| 	07/ 02/ 2006
	
Print version

 ROME, February 7 (RIA Novosti, Dmitri Panovkin) - Iran's controversial       
 nuclear energy plans were discussed during a meeting between the                                                                                                                                                                          
 Russian and Italian foreign ministers in Rome Tuesday.

 After talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, Italian Foreign                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 Minister Gianfranco Fini told journalists: "The Iranian issue is of                
 great concern both to our government and to our people."

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060207/43405534.html

More on international influence, the UN that Heilme says Italy doesn't count and a non-player.

 Italy criticises Germany's UN bid
 UN Security Council in session
 Many feel the structure of the security council is outdated
 Italy has lashed out at Germany's bid for a permanent UN Security 
 Council seat, saying it risks dividing Europe.

 Germany insists Europe would lose out if it were the only region not to  
 have a new representative on an enlarged council.

 Under a proposed reform, Germany, Brazil, India and Japan are seeking 
 additional permanent seats for themselves and one African nation.

 Permanent members France and Britain back the plan, but Italy opposes 
 it.

 "I will not accept competition based around national interests. That  
 risks dividing Europe," Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said in 
 interviews to two Italian daily newspapers, published on Sunday.

Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3691770.stm

Another listing of Germany trying to convince Italy to drop opposition.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1244548/posts

I wonder why anybody would care if Italy opposes the plan. Everyone is looking for Italy's participation in the world and their influence around key events. I have given it to you. Change the article and include Italy.

And now, for something completely different. Rockets!

File:Alfacolr.jpg

This is a home-grown Italian rocket, the Alfa. Designed and tested in the sixties and seventies to the launch vehicle for the independent Italian nuclear deterrent.

  Intermediate range ballistic missile. Year: 1973. Family: Scout.  
 Country: Italy. Status: Development 1975.

 Italy briefly flirted with the creation of an independent nuclear 
 deterrent in the late 1960's. The Alfa project for an indigenous 
 Italian submarine- and ship-launched ballistic missile was begun in 
 1971. Three Alfa test missiles with inert second stages were 
 successfully launched in 1975-1976 from Salto di Quirra in Sardinia. 
 The programme was abandoned at this stage, when Italy and its 
 neighbours ratified the nuclear proliferation treaty.

 In the early 1960's Italy found itself surrounded by states pursuing 
 nuclear weapons. Yugoslavia and Rumania had begun independent 
 development of atomic bombs and collaborated in the design and 
 development of the Orao strike aircraft. Switzerland had decided to 
 pursue nuclear weapons on 23 December 1958. By 4 May 1964 the Swiss 
 military joint staff issued a recommendation to have 250 nuclear 
 weapons, including 100 on rockets, by 1980. Italy, for its part, 
 modified the 1930s-era Cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi with four launch 
 tubes for Polaris missiles. It was Italy's intention to equip them with 
 American nuclear weapons under the NATO Multilateral Nuclear Force 
 (MLF) concept. Polaris missiles were supplied by the United States and 
 were flight tested from the Garibaldi during the mid-1960's.

Source http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/alfa.htm

Another rocket/launch vehicle. The Vega.

 All-solid orbital launch vehicle. Year: 1998. Country: Italy. Status:  
 Development.

 Proposed Italian all-solid propellant launch vehicle. Despite years of 
 furious debate, no final production decision was made by ESA.

 Italy long tried to carve a niche for itself as a supplier of 
 solid-propellant orbital launch vehicles, beginning with the San Marco 
 Scout program in the 1960's. The hoped-for Advanced Scout 2 never 
 materialized, and in the mid-1990s, the Italian Space Agency turned to 
 a concept called VEGA (Vettore Europeo di Generazione Avanzata). This 
 went through several versions:

     * 1995 - Three-stage vehicle. The first two stages would use a BPD  
 Zefiro motor, 1.9 m in diameter with a mass of 16 tonnes. A nose 
 fairing would cover the payload and the third stage, an IRIS (Italian 
 Research Interim Stage) apogee kick stage, 1.3 m in diameter with a 
 mass of 1.7 tonnes. Maximum payload would be 700 kg to low earth orbit.

     * 1997 - FIAT Avio collaborated with NPO Yuzhnoye to propose two  
 possible variants:

           o Vega K0 - a four stage vehicle, again using two P16 Zefiros 
 as the first and second stages. The upper stages would be built by 
 Yuzhnoye and use N2O4/UDMH liquid propellants. The third stage would 
 use a 78 kN RD-861 engine, and the fourth an RD-869. Payload would be 
 300 kg to a 700 km polar orbit.
           o Vega K - The first stage would be a P85 shortened Ariane 5 
 solid rocket booster. Payload would be 1600 kg to a 700 km polar orbit. 

     * 1998 - the configuration selected at an ESA council meeting in 
 June 1998 was a three-stage solid vehicle. This would use the P85/P16 
 lower stages of the Vega K but have a single West European third stage. 
 Provisionally this would be built by Aerospatiale and be a 7 tonne P7 
 solid propellant stage with an auxiliary liquid propulsion module for 
 high-accuracy orbital insertion. This could place a 2,000 kg payload 
 into a 700 km circular orbit. 

 Although BPD conducted the first static firing of a P16 Zefiro on June 
 22, 1998, the collapse of the space launch market, the multiple Ariane 
 5 failures, and the costs of the International Space Station put the 
 Vega very far back on ESA's priority list. However the project 
 continued slowly and was nearing a first flight test by 2004.

 LEO Payload: 2,000 kg (4,400 lb). to: 700 km Orbit. at: 98.00 degrees. 
 Total Mass: 118,000 kg (260,000 lb). Core Diameter: 3.00 m (9.80 ft).
 Bibliography and Further Reading

     * Serra, Jean-Jacques, Rockets in Europe, . Accessed at:  
 http://www.univ-perp.fr/fuseurop/index_e.htm.

Source: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vega.htm

Here's a link to rockets made in and by Italy.

http://www.astronautix.com/country/italy.htm

It lists all the rockets made over the years.

The Space Program

  M2 PRESSWIRE-20 April 2001-NASA/ASI: NASA and the Italian Space Agency 
 set framework for possible extended iss cooperation that could result 
 in an Italian built habitation module (C)1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS  
 LTD

 RDATE:19042001

 NASA and the Italian Space Agency (ASI) announced their agreement on 
 the framework of a potential bilateral cooperative agreement, that 
 could result in ASI development of a U.S. Habitation Module for the 
 International Space Station. This agreement allows the U.S. to explore 
 an alternative approach to achieve full crew Habitation for the ISS ...

Italy working with the Russians and the American to go to Mars.

Source http://www.people.virginia.edu/~eob9q/nasa/essay-2.html

The Italian Space Center in Kenya.

Source: http://www.eastandard.net/print/news.php?articleid=38356

Been there for years and recently tracked an ESA rocket launch for the French.

I guess the Italians do more than make food and fashion. I will provide more info later. --Hadrian1 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is the comments section for?? We have tables, pictures, articles and everything all in the voting section! Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted everyone to notice the information I put up. You wanted references and I gave them. The articles are to respond to assertion that I am putting up OR. These articles show that currently events that have happened lately. Events that are relevant to this discussion. I also thought the pictures would make a bigger impact. No one reads articles, especially some people (guess who?) around here, but pictures say a thousand words.

Heilme again ignores every reference that I put up here, like how do you measure the underground economy. Why does he just click the links I put up in the text and read for a change. Then he would know that the numbers come from very reputable sources that spend their entire lives doing this.

Second, the nukes in Italy are not solely under US command. One key is under the American presidential control and the other is under the Italian premier's control. Nothing fires if the Italian government says it doesn't. If you want references, I'll find those too. Of course you'll ignore them and say something like "Yeah but their American made nukes". You know what? I'm going to find those articles to show Heilme he's wrong again.

I don't know where this guy comes from but it's obvious to anyone that he won't change his mind. I'd like to hear from others for a change.

I'd like to know how many sources I need to put up before this guy admits he's wrong. He hasn't even put up any references at all.

Stubbooooorn. but I'm more. And give Campos a break with his grammar. --Hadrian1 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This Heilme is only here to maintain everything as it was, or since the Major Power article was deleted at least for a period, to change all things in order that nothing changes.

This is not mine, of course,but I want to prove something. With this sentence, everybody will say I used another one motto and won't ask for sources.

For things and facts about Italy beeing a Major Power, with many links provided by Hadrian1 and some by myself and with many facts being well known to people who I think understand at least a little of International Relations; we are always beeing asked forlinks, sources, book....

Be fair. One can have saw the sea and deny the existence of water,or ask for sources providing its existence.

-Anyway,another source:

Capacity of war: 1937 Country % of Total Warmaking Potential United States 41.7% Germany 14.4% USSR 14.0% UK 10.2% France 4.2% Japan 3.5% Italy 2.5% Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)

2005 United States 35.4% Japan 13.4% Germany 6.6% UK 5.2% France 4.8% Italy 3.9% China 2.5%

Seven Powers (total) 71.7%

http://www.changingthetimes.net/resources/why_japan_really_lost_the_war.htm

So Italy is one of the world seven powers and ahead of mighty China. You should know that in order to make a war and go trhough with it, you should have economic power, not only personnel, and many equipment. Things Italy has.And where are India, Russia and Brasil?

-If you don't wan't to believe in me and Hadrian1 and want more and more sources; go ask UN, EU, G-7/8, OECD,NATO, WTO, World Bank, IMF. I think that this "little" and with no power institutions might have something for you!!!!!! And ask where are Italy placed in any of this institutions, well placed? In your mind not... PS:Don't forget the world has about 200 states.

Of course I don't mention own Italian Government,because you would think they are untrustfull and will only defend their country.If there is a government, whatever the ideology/color is that are fair and not very chauvinist is the italian one and its people.

ACamposPinho 23:38, 28 May 2006

Some things for the two Italians above and other readers to enjoy: [2] [3].

Also, the resources Hadrian1 put from Globalfirepower and Strategy on military strength, I think Italy placed at 11th overall and 6th best armed forces in Europe, placing Italy behind Turkey. So is Turkey a great power? Also here's some comparison between Italy vs other "middle power" nations, placing Italy's armed forces on par with them. -> Italy vs S Korea -> Italy vs Pakistan -> Italy vs Egypt And no Italians here have convinced me how Italy is politically influential in the world. At least France and Germany are strong in EU (plus in Mid-east talks whether it's Iraq/Iran/Palestine), France is still quite influential in their ex-colonial Africa world [4] [5], UK ally with USA (in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc), Russia in their post-Soviet states [6] [7], China and India growing quick. Heilme 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

First off I have been reading the Economist before as well. And you find it a very cold day hell before these guys say anything positive about Italy and Italians in general. But even they when Italy surpassed the UK in the early nineties said well yeah there OK but they need a lot of work. Secondly I put up thirty articles here and you put up two to back your point of view. In my books I still win. Thirdly if Italy is on par with South Korea, Pakistan (a nuclear country with a huge army), and Egypt, why are placed so much lower than Italy on the overall score. You know why? Because they can build and support a much larger army at will. They have the economy for it. Something you seem to miss. Italy is behind Turkey because it is a militaristic regime run by the military up until very recently when an Islamic party was voted in free elections. Over th past decades, th military has been building up their force to take on Greece. The Greeks have responded by building up their's to the detriment of everything else. Technically, Greece and Turkey are in a cold war situation. Italy is not with its neighbours.

Did yo forget about the huge Nato table I put up showing the army sizes in Europe or wasn't it big enough for you? From that list I get Italy in Third. Or do you think Nato is an Italian promotion site.

--Hadrian1 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said quantity is not the only thing that matters,in that case the UK army is not even comparable to middle powers! Its a question of elite forces, quality of equipment and quality of personneland readyness to be active.

Does you people read what I've been writting, for example the Warmaking Potential, if Italy was like Turkey or in that places it would not be the 6th country in the world in Warmaking Potential. And as I also said, in circa 200 countries being 10 is being in the top-tier.

-Another thing; Italy has transport aircrafts of its own design: Alenia G222/C-27 Spartan, has the C-130 Hercules (doesn't make part of Airbus A400M project because it pulled out, it was not in her interest) , have tankers-B707, that are being retired and will se substituted by Boeing B-767 Tanker, Italy participated in the B-767 civil programm, as well as in other Boeing and also Airbus projects and constructs parts of those planes. But the more important thing: Italy have a high probability of buying C-17 Globemasters, it will be the second country in western Europe to have them, after UK and no other country of this continent besides Russia and UK have or will own planes of this kind. With this transport planes Italy Military can be deployed anywhere in the world, which speaks for Italy Power Projection.

-Why don't you accept the facts? You are here only to distruct, don't show any good and reliable arguments.

And by the way, I'm not Italian. You only see what you think its obvious.Another proof of your close-minded taught or lack of taught. Guess where I'm from if you can.....

ACamposPinho 2:48, 29 May 2006 --Hadrian1 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To Noble Eagle

Uh NobleEagle, you moved Campos's comments with his signature after his support vote and then you want to strike it because you removed his signature. What is this, a Russian vote? If you are going to be dictatorial then just do it. Don't play games. You know it was Campos who voted yes.

--Hadrian1 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, don't want to be dictatorial. Anyway, in that case, Campos voted twice...which if purposeful ruins the good faith in consensus. You do agree that the tally has 2 Supporters don't you? Again...sorry. By the way, you could've brought it up on my talk page, I would've realized faster. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are two supporters and two opposing so far. You inadvertantly moved Campos's signature when you moved the comments. I understand why you moved the comments but you should be more careful.

--Hadrian1 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some reorganization's called for

The more I've read the list of great powers and the article, the more I think the list needs to be divided into time periods and regions. For instance, the list is supposedly for "modern" great powers, but some listed appear before the Age of Exploration.

I think a good date to split the list between regional periods and global periods would be 1500, a nice round number date when Europeans first started reaching out worldwide and the global community started to form. Pre-1500, perhaps the list should also be split between the actual regions, as well. For instance, China was a great power during the Yuan years, but its direct influence at most extended into central Asia and Indochina, not so much Europe, India, the Middle East, or Africa (its parent state, the Mongol Empire, on the other hand . . . digression: the Mongol Empire should be accounted for regardless since it ruled everything from Korea to Eastern Europe at one point). Another instance would be the Inca Empire, which reigned supreme in western South America but had little reach beyond. Sound good? RemiCogan 20:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. :) But keep the dicussion open for a while. We should split into regions until the world has reached a proper form of globalization. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I've been letting this one stew. It'd be a fairly big revision, so more input's encouraged. I've actually started rehashing the list on my user page if you want to peek at it. Probably won't be done for some time, and yes, it looks like a big mess at the moment (not just the list, buy my user page as well ;) , but feedback is welcome. --RemiCogan 23:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Powers

I've moved this section to the Power in international relations page, it seems more appropriate there than on this page, a page dealing with Great powers only.

Xdamr 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spain

I noticed a lot of debate about Spain and its loss of great power status. I personally would argue it did lose the status in terms of ability in the early 1800's but by the late 1800's with new colonial aquisitions Spain was once again a great power under the restoration period. However it lost that status with the Spanish-American War and the selling of its other Pacific colonies to Germany. For now I'm going to revert, so the wikipedia articles will remain consistant, but besides this one poor source that took a long time to dig for [8] I can't find any other via a google search on the topic for any of the three "supposed" periods where Spain lost its status. 12.220.94.199 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly worth more research. Off the top of my head, I recall that the end of the Thirty Years' War may be regarded as an official waning of Hapsburg Spain into second-rate power, though the decay had set in some time before then. I also recall that the ascendancy of the Bourbons to the Spanish throne reversed some of the Spanish reversals, so to speak, for some time by bringing in some modernizing ideas, but I also don't recall them being considered a great power after the War of the Spanish Succession, either. --RemiCogan 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rise of America

The Spanish American War was our first major conflict as a great power but that does not mean that we became a great power at that point. At the end of the reconstrusction in the 1870's-80's, our military was a formidable force and our economy was booming with the Industrial Revolution. Our Ability to go to war with the Spanish Empire at all, as well as our easy victory over that power, clearly demonstrates that our strength prior to the Spanish American War placed us in our separate and equal station among the great powers of the Earth.

It's tricky trying to assign a concrete date to most rises and falls of great power status, and I certainly understand your argument. I've also heard the United States recently described as a middling military, industrial, and economic power around 1880 (from a historian on the History Channel's documentary about the McKinley assassination), which was about the time the US started its ascent and eventual grand entrance onto the world stage against Spain.

Could the US have taken on Spain before then over Cuba? Probably. However, the political will wasn't there as the US was deeply into isolationism, and the world's unquestioned big players of the moment didn't regard the US as an international force, even with the Monroe Doctrine in place (the US grumbled at the French adventure in Mexico but did nothing about it, though one can note that Maximilian's reign was short and that the US may have reacted differently if Max had proved more durable).

I think the end of the Spanish-American War, which officially established the US as an international player for more than a moment, would be the appropriate date. --RemiCogan 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Power/Superpower

This article really now needs to be re-writtene to allow for the fact that it includes Major power as a redirect, and be bought up to date. My copy of 'International relations and world politics' by Viotti and Kaupi describes US and USSR as 'superpowers' during the Cold War period. The divisions made between times as great power are arbitrary and misleading. Its not neutral and its not sourced - its probably original research too.

This needs sources to show the term is used and to show that these countries are described as 'Great Powers'. I'll help though after the weekend sometime. But I think it shouldn't be too hard to find sources etc. --Robdurbar 07:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat an opportunity to rebuild the Major power stuff from scratch and make it a proper article. Let's not simply copy and paste the information from the Major power articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think rebuilding the Major Power article will be a very wyse decision, because there are powers below superpowers, but that are still powers exercing influence in the world stage. And of course, Italy must be included as a Major Power. All said in this discussion and in the past, in Major Power discussion, are facts that speak for themselves-ITALY IS A MAJOR POWER. Someone above compared Italy decision making and influence in the world stage to Spain and even Netherlands. Spain is a puppet compared to Italy, its a total puppet of the Franco-German Axis in the EU nowadays. And it was Italy who helped Spain entering EU,don't forget. The GDP per capita of Spain is aproaching that of Italy, but the submerse economy in Italy is larger than that of Spain too and Italy will not stagnate forever as Spain is already decreasing. By the way Italian growth is increasing. As for Netherlands, I can only laugh. Italy in EU was never big as France, UK or Germany because of internal divisions and a certain lack of national spirit,but that is changing. ACamposPinho 3:25, 26 May 2006

Firstly, the place to discuss that would be above, secondly, if you say that something is changing it means Italy is a Potential Major Power and thus not fit to be put into this article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean with changing is the minds of italian politicians what is changing., who are becoming aware of Italy's real dimension and capacity.Italy is not a potential Major Power-ITALY is a Major Power for a wild.

Brazil could be a Major Power, Spain, South Africa, Australia could also be and India I think its a Potencial Major Power,not already one. Look at the arguments I wrote above. Enormous number of personnel and material is not enough, quality is the issue. Read the book how to make war and see why North Korea, India, Pakistan and others with tremendeous numbers are well bellow Italy, Germany and even Spain in Military Power Capability.

ACamposPinho 22:47, 28 May 2006

Question about Antiquity

Does the definition of "major powers" include ages before the modern era? There are entries like the Mughals, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, etc. If we include pre-modern years and antiquity, then China is a "major power" (arguably) from the Shang to late Qing (1st Opium War), and we include the Byzantines, Romans, Assyrians, Persians, etc. Are we supposed to put those entries in, maybe under a seperate "pre-modern" table? MetraB 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Great powers term can refer to powers before the modern era. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rome and other inconsistencies

I would like to point out that Rome as listed in the pre 1500 section shows it being ended in 476AD. This actually is not the case since the East continued for another 1000 years after this point. So the table should refer to the west roman empire which actually only definitely came into being in 395AD.

Second point, I noticed Spain is listed in both the pre-1500 section and the modern era. In the pre-1500 ad era it states it started in 1462AD. Pretty close to 1500AD. But the end dates are different in the two sections. Someone should decide which it is.

--Hadrian1 15:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rome and other inconsistencies

I would like to point out that Rome as listed in the pre 1500 section shows it being ended in 476AD. This actually is not the case since the East continued for another 1000 years after this point. So the table should refer to the west roman empire which actually only definitely came into being in 395AD.

Second point, I noticed Spain is listed in both the pre-1500 section and the modern era. In the pre-1500 ad era it states it started in 1462AD. Pretty close to 1500AD. But the end dates are different in the two sections. Someone should decide which it is.

--Hadrian1 15:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to make the necessary changes, I cannot say I have a voice of authority on European History. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rome's tricky. When I started working some of the new tables on the page (which I'd only posted on my user page, never here . . . it still needed work, and the Rome issue was one I was going to work on before posting. But that's fine. Now lots of people get to work on it, a good call by Nobleeagle ;) I had to decide how to tackle its various incarnations since there's the republic, the empire, the East/West period(s), and the East's survival into the Renaissance. Here's what I decided and why:

The Roman Republic - Gets its own section since it had many different de facto institutions from the imperial era, though starting around Marius, those institutions began their transition towards autocratic government. Historians also like dividing Rome into the republican and imperial eras. I had trouble, though, pinning a date to the dividing line between empire and republic. The moment I picked was an educated guess (the First Settlement), so if anyone can make a better precision, it would be welcome.

The Roman Empire - See the above (those arguments work here), then regarding the imperial split, it'd happened twice (IIRC, first with Diocletian. Constantine reunited the halves, and the final division came a little later). I simplified things by not noting the divisions in notes or giving each division/reunification an entry (since this is a table, I thought it'd be too much info), then set the end date as the last moment the western emperor lost for good influence in the west. Yes, the empire would continue in the east, but the words "the fall of the Roman Empire" commonly refer to the fall of the western empire, I think (do correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the convention I've noticed). THEN I was going to move on the next part, but I didn't get around to it before the table posted.

The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium - I was going to add one entry on this empire, though some histories I've read like to divide it into Roman legacy and Greek periods. Looks like you or someone else got to it. Much obliged :) The start date is tricky: do you set it at its first creation under Diocletian, its second creation, or at the fall of the west? I'm thinking the second creation since it was from then on that it was a separate political entity (in other words, I agree with the current table). Its fall from great power would be The Fourth Crusade, I think, even though it didn't finally collapse until later. If you wanted to divide it into its post-Rome and Greek periods, the date's somewhere in the period it fought the Islamic empire. --RemiCogan 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made a few changes to the Europe section and some one changed it using an anonymous ip. Shouldn't people be required to log in before they make changes? I mean there is no way of telling this guy the reasons or whatever. Besides, taking the last city of an empire is not the point when the empire/country loses its great power status. Its well before that.

--Hadrian1 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on your frustrations and when Byzantium leaves the list. I'll make a little tweak to fix it. With unregistered users, the best I've been able to come up with is, when you edit their work, to title your edit summary as "Please see discussion section" or the like. --RemiCogan 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with a 1204 date, but I personally believe it was earlier at Manzikert in 1071. The fourth crusade really closed the door for any recovery of Byzantium/Constantinople. As far as when East Rome stopped and Byzantium began I think when the imperial court stopped using Latin as the official language and switched to Greek is when the change happened. I think this happened sometime in the 600's.

--Hadrian1 00:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Manzikert's another possibility. I've seen that put forward as the moment marking Byzantium's jumping the shark. However, Byzantium bounced back nicely under Alexius Comnenus, who was crucial in starting the Crusades and managed to grab back lots of Anatolia in the crusader wake. Byzantium by then had seen better days, but it was still a potent military, political, financial, and cultural force. Come 1204, though, there's no debate to be had, so that's why I pegged it as the fall from great power status. . . . Yes, the transition to Greek as the court language was around then and wrapped up with its losses to the Islamic Empire.--RemiCogan 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Italy debate

I wonder if I might make a plea here. Can I ask that people contributing to the Italy debate try and be as concise as possible in their arguments. I'm not trying to restrict people's freedom to make their point (even if I could), but reading screen after screen of closely typed text, no paragraphs, graphs etc gets pretty tiring, especially to someone new to the debate trying to get an idea of the views of the respective sides.

Thanks, Xdamr 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will try to make it more easy and practical to read. But its the fact of asking for more and more arguments, facts, sources, that make the debate so extence.

The people who doesn't want Italy included, think the sources are never enough,for the other countries included as Great/Major Powers, the sources are none or so basic that I really think somebody wants to stop Italy into this "club"

ACamposPinho 2:54, 29 May 2006

To Xdamr

Campos listen to this!

First off discussing Italy off this page in colusion with NobleEagle is despicable, unethical, unsportsmanlike, and depraved. The place for the discussion is here not off-page where two guys can decide on what's in or out. Who knows what you have decided on with others that have made themselves known to the discussion. Do you guys get some sort of sick pleasure knowing that I personally spents hours of my own time to research this when from the start it was doomed. I read what you wrote over there. Do you think Italians are stupid or something, we are genetically inferior. I can't track what you are saying on other pages. Buddy I'm an engineer, been around the world, come from a wealthy family. I'm not off the banana boat. I not some stupid student at university with time to blow after class. I took this on as a project to try and enlighten you but I see you are just as bigoted as most people in this world. And I have found people of the Anglo-American group to be more bigoted than most. At least the French let you know up front that they think you're inferior. Not the sneaky English. Besides, Italy still has a big influence in South America and the Mediterrean, regardless of what you write here. I can write whatever I want on the web too.

Dear Campos, it seems that you were right when stated that things must change in order to stay the same. Our efforts here are unwelcomed and unappreciated. They have twisted our facts until we are going around in circles trying reprove the facts over and over again. This is nothing but a kangaroo court.

I suggest you take a look at NobleEagles homepage and read the "Italy debate". Quite revealing what these guys think. Over there you truly understand what we are up against. Nevermind the bull that NobleEagle is reserving his vote because he just doesn't understand the issues with Europe, He is not an authority on the subject. Like anyone here is. There was a predetermined outcome from the very beginning. I personally will send an official complaint that this page is prejudiced and extremely biased to support the editor's views. I recommend yo do like-wise and forget about Wikipedia.

--Hadrian1 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To Hadrian1;

I must presume the first part was written by someone else,not you Hadrian. To whoever wrote that I must say that before start insulting someone,in this case my person, look at you. An engineer, do you know anything about geo-politics,geostrategy, military, economy and Italy att all. You probably don'y know of enginering either. And who are you calling stupid student? And what is the importance of being of a wealthy family. By the way I came from a moderately wealthy family and I don't like to be vain but we are from noble origin,for real, is not like one who calls himself NobleEagle being from India, is what a Maharadja descendent... As the fact of being from some university and being stupid, you are probably talking about you. I said I study facts in universities and have access to them,not that I'm an university student. I research and take aknowledge of matters, I'm not student in the common sense. Do you really know to whom you are talking? And how I know all this things and have the contacts I said?And I have them, be sure.Don't play around.I will discover who you are and then dear "engineer" you will have more education and discipline, you little nothing.

ACamposPinho 0:28, 4 June 2006

Actually Campos, I did write the first section. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was talking about Xdamr comments on NobleEagle's page. They were discussing the Italian debate off-page which really annoyed me. The comments were not directed at you but to Xdamr and NobleEagle. And the comments on my background were to indicate that I am not a student nor uneducated. I have seen that most people here are in fact students at university by checking their webpages. And by extension less life experiences than myself. Of course this a generalization. So don't be offended by my comments. Xdamr should be. --Hadrian1 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, I haven't made any personal attacks, why are you guys insulting me...I've invited users to the discussion, a 2-1 consensus is definitely not enough, just because they post on my talk page when I invite them doesn't call for you guys to have a go at me. I honestly don't care if you're an engineer and you're from a noble family. Some of the best users here (some admins even) are 13-14 years of age. So it doesn't make any difference alright...by the way, you can see an explanation of why my username is NobleEagle on my User Page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that there has been some offence taken here - none intended. I've posted a note on User_talk:Hadrian1 to which I'd direct interested parties.

Xdamr 01:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To Hadrian1:Yes, I latter tought it was you and i give you my apologies. I tought some kid or something was trying to pass by an engineer of noble ancestry and that we both,specially me where the stupid students. And for NobleEagle, sorry too, but I tought you where behind this complot. Of course you can be of noble ancestry-Indian or British or none, I don't know.And doesn't matter-its your nickname. As for myself, I have noble origins too but its a thing I have no special vanity in it, of course I have some pride of it,but there are many people of noble origin and nobody is superior to the others.

ACamposPinho 3:42, 5 June 2006

This article became a mess!!

Is it just my opinion or we have so many confusing tables ??Cloretti2 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's your opinion regardless, but I can see where it's confusing, so let's see if we can't improve it. I'm going to put the modern chart first since that's probably the one most people would be interested in. Next, perhaps a table of contents immediately above the first chart and just for the charts should be added for easier navigation. I haven't learned how to do that yet, so maybe someone could help out with that? Hopefully that'll at least be an improvement.--RemiCogan 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)