Talk:Armistice of Cassibile
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armistice of Cassibile article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The article scarcely mentions the German reaction. Thereafter, they treated Italian forces worse than enemies (see Cephalonia) and acted against Italian warships. Similarly, what part did Italians play in the remainder of the war? For example, some RM ships patrolled the Atlantic and Italian former POWs assisted on the British Home Front. What impact did Italian partisans have? It should at least be mentioned. Folks at 137 20:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
After the surrender, not armistice, the Italians were enemies and traitors. What other than harsh treatment do you expect from the Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason, this particular Nazi sympathiser doesn't want to sign up and get an account, to show the world who he is. Perhaps our friend from Frankfurt-am-Mein is unaware that IP addresses can be traced very easily these days.
- Leaving aside the despicable nature of his sentiment, he should be aware that a talk page is for discussing improvements to an article with reliable sources. Now go fetch, or be quiet. BillMasen (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is summary and inaccurate. E.g., Mussolini was not arrested at the Fascist "Gran Consiglio" , but the day after, following a meeting with the King Giordaano 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm slightly in concurrence. The aftermath of the armistice needs to be expanded upon (German seizure of Italian forces, surrender of Italian Fleet, etc)Cam (Chat) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Surrender, not armistice
This article should be titled "Italy's Surrender." Italy did not obtain an armistice from the Allies, but was subjected to a virtually unconditional surrender. The definition of "armistice" is "a temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement of the warring parties; truce." World War I ended with an armistice. Many Italians use the word armistice when referring to Italy's exit of World War II as a euphemism to mask their denial that they just flat out lost. In an armistice, the opposing troops keep their positions and their guns, the opposing governments remain in place, and the front lines remain in place. In Italy, the government disappeared in the night of September 8, without giving the military forces specific instructions. As a result, nearly half a million confused and often leaderless Italian soldiers throughout Italy, Jugoslavia and Greece were captured by the Germans and put into forced labor in German concentration camps, where a large percentage of them died of starvation. Cefalonia was one of the few examples of armed resistance to German forces.Trieste1957 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Capitulation or surrender makes a lot more sense. I'll make a good faith move and see how it goes. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was indeed a de facto capitulation on the part of Italy, but it was called armistice by the powers that signed it ("The following conditions of an Armistice are presented by General Dwight D. Eisenhower ..."), by contemporary newspapers and by later scholars (see for instance , ). So calling it "Capitulation" or anything else would be a non-neutral denomination. Goochelaar (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"Armistizio di Cassibile" is in fact the normal designation of this event in Italy, and I don't think that any Italian in his right mind considers that Italy's defeat in WWII can be masked.Giordaano (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. The name they called it is irrelevant, only modern name use. Personally I believe we should call it what it is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, according to WP policy, it is what you personally believe that is irrelevant. It is verifiable sources that are relevant. If you believed that the king of Wherever were a tyrant, should we rename the article about him Tyrant of Wherever? Are there sources calling formally this event only "capitulation of Italy"? Goochelaar (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- We should refer to the naming conventions, not WP:V. And, of course, what I personally believe is indeed irrelevant, I was merely stating my position. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, the naming conventions are relevant here, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) prescribes "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." My claim is that calling it an "armistice", even if debatable in itself, is the common name of this incident. I have quoted the first few source I have found, but Google Scholar and books can provide thousands more. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)