Talk:Italian Social Republic/Archive 1

sources

01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC) : This is not exactly an NPOV article. Some sources suggest that the Salo republic was in fact quite independent in Germany (which in any case had problems elsewhere in its crumbling empire.) --Timothy Horrigan

cite sources please .......xerex

Salò Republic was a puppet republic beyond any possible doubt. They were even taking orders by the Germans. --MauroVan 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Extract from Sentenza del Tribunale Supremo Militare, n. 747 del 26 aprile 1954 (Sentence of Supreme Court Martial, n. 747 - 26 April 1954):

"[...] Evidentemente l'Autorità tedesca ebbe allora ad inserirsi nella vita italiana del centro-nord, con i suoi princìpi e i suoi durissimi metodi di lotta; indubbiamente le autorità della Repubblica Sociale Italiana subirono talvolta la pressione e le direttive del loro alleato, pur opponendosi spesso con energia alle sue iniziative; ma tutto ciò non può mutare la posizione giuridica della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, di essere un governo di fatto, sia pure a titolo provvisorio, che manteneva relazioni diplomatiche con alcuni Stati e intrecciava rapporti internazionali, quanto meno ufficiosi, con molti altri che pur non l'avevano riconosciuta. [...]"

"Clearly german Authority entered in north-center italian life, with its principles and its very hard fighting methods; undoubtedly Italian Social Republic authorities sometimes suffered pression and instructions by their allied, even though they often opposed with energy its enterprises; but all this can not change legal position of Italian Social Republic, to be a real government, even if provisional, which manteined diplomatic relations with some States and interlaced international connections, unofficial at least, with many others which hadn't recognized it."

This source demonstrates, beyond any possible doubt, that Italian Social Republic was not a puppet state. --Homer935 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's the opinion of an Italian military source in 1954. Everyone who knows the political situation in Italy in 1954 and the character of the Italian army can understand the political motivation behind such a description of the RSI by this military tribunal. --MauroVan 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. If you can consider RSI a 'puppet state', I wonder how do you consider the 'entity' that represented the Allied-occupied Southern Italy (it is not really the case of talking about a 'state'). In the South there was an occupation currency (the RSI kept its regular 'Lira') and the government was entirely taken over by Allies; there the Allies closed newspapers, controlled all of the media and propaganda, organized a system of concentration camps for the opponents, even bring back the mafia on rule in sicily etc.

On the other side, we have in RSI a state with some 600.000 men at arms: 250.000 in regular Army (including the personnel of the Republican National Air Force,) and the rest in GNR (Guardia Nazionale Republicana, former Carabinieri) and the different police corps. We have a government recognized by the whole population and supported by the great majority of it; a government that has control of all the public apparatus, the media, instruction, justice, university, young organizations etc. Certainly, there was the presence of the German war machine and the economical system was subordinated to the Axis (so German, but also still Italian) war effort; it is a fact. Anyway, the attempt of presenting RSI as a 'Vichy' or, worse, as a version of the Southern Italy 'thing' (please let me not use the term 'state' for that...) is simply ludicrious. (27/1/2007)

We're not talking about the character of the Southern Kingdom in this article. However, I'm partially agreeing that also the entity in the South was at a large extent a puppet (of the Allied forces, in that case). Nevertheless, it existed also before and without the military occupation of foreign forces, something that cannot be said about the so-called Social Republic. BTW, I'm not telling that the RSI or the Southern Kingdom were no state, they were states of the puppet kind (100% the "Republic", 50% the Kingdom). --MauroVan 09:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian Social Republic.

The Italian Social Republic rejected the royal surrender on September 27, 1943. The baptism of fire of the Army took place on October 30, 1943 (Mondragone); the baptism of fire of the Air Force on January 3, 1944 (sky of Turin); the baptism of fire of the patrol boats of the Navy on March 1, 1944 (Anzio). Marshal Rodolfo Graziani ordered to the troops of the RSI to surrender on May 1, 1945 by a message broadcasted by the Radio of Florence.

Site clean-up

I have changed the site of the Italian Social Republic to be more like that of the sites on other WWII nations like Vichy France and Nazi Germany with regards to the description panel on the right, I hope this makes the article look more standard than it did previously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Social vs Socialist

I cannot access the the template to change (which is a good thing), but I believe that the English version of the title for this organization is the "Italian Socialist Republic". Mkpumphrey 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. All sources and history books refer to it as the Italian Social Republic.

Here's an easy way to figure out the proper English language name: Sociale means Social, Socialista means socialist. Italy becoming a socialist republic happened much later. --NEMT 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Err: when did that happen, then?! —Ian Spackman 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an important point that needs elaborating on, the RSI was supposed to be a recreation of Mussolini's fascist ideology, he admitted himself in his biography that Italy previously under him become too dominated by the monarchy and big business, and the RSI was supposed to be a left-turn in that it rejected monarchy and was republican and socialistic in inspiration, and was to be based on Mussolini's collectivist ideology (as written in the 'Doctrine of Fascism' which Giovanni Gentile ghostwrote for him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.181.129 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Navy

"Very little of the Regia Marina chose to side with the RSI." This is misleading as the bulk of the Italian navy was ordered to Malta as part of the surrender before the RSI was formed, there was no choice or "siding" involved. --NEMT 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Capital

From Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana

Art. 4 - La capitale della Repubblica Sociale Italiana è Roma.

The capital was Rome not Salò.--Homer935 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FerruccioNazionale.jpg

The image Image:FerruccioNazionale.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Winter Storm

There is a mistake, the article says that Operation Winter Storm took place in December 1944, in fact it began near the end of 1942. It also says that RSI units took part in the operation, which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. Operation Winter Storm did involve Italian forces, but it predated the RSI and took place in the Soviet Union. Any idea what battle this article should be referring to? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what it may be referring to, most likely it's a mistake and I suggest that it be removed altogether.72.219.221.177 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Map

can anybody put up a map of the territory claimed or controlled? What did the German Nazi Empire look like at this time... this included a sig. portion of northern Italy including the South Tyrol. I believe lands were taken from Italy prior to the Allied invasion and the fall of the Reich... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.86.60.133 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no detailed map of northern Italy and the Greater Reich showing the exact details of the German annexations at the expense of Italy and Slovenia/Yugoslavia!

Finances and Constitution

"The finances of the state were completely dependent on German funding, the state lacked a constitution and had no organized economy"

RSI was financially independent by Germany, had its own 'Lira' while the Southern Kingdom had Allies Occupation Currency and had its own Constitution written by Minister Carlo Alberto Biggini. Pickett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.31.125 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The flag of the Italian Social Republic was a plain Italian tricolour, the flag with the eagle was the war flag

This mistake has been made far too many times now, so I am posting it in the discussion board to avoid any further confusion. A plain Italian tricolour was the flag of the Italian Social Republic. The war flag had the eagle on it.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not completely correct. This story of the plain tricolour rose after 2000 into clubs of Italian far-right, as a part of a large attempt to give a form of legitimacy to the RSI. It was said that the flag of the RSI was a plain tricolour simply because a couple of laws of the RSI said so. But all RSI "laws" lasted no more than a pure theory. The real situation was that the RSI had been in war for all its history, and the war flag became the sole flag really used: [1]. What would be happened if WW2 had a different ending, it's a matter of alternate history.--95.236.141.83 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say both visions have merit. If "a couple of laws of the RSI said so", then it is certain that the official flag of RSI was the plain tricolour. The fact that it has never been used is irrelevant to determine what the official flag was. On the other hand, the one and only flag RSI ever factually used was the war flag. Therefore I find it appropriate to use it in the article infobox, and to mention the official flag as a further information. --Cyclopia^talk 13:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it was never used. Please make sure that is accurate before you change it. From what I have read, the plain tricolour was the flag.--R-41 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The flag of the RSI was only the eagle's version of the tricolour. The plain trocolour was never used. A post-war photo can show the situation. Here you can see the copy of the Corriere dello Sport of Tuesday, July 9, 1946. On this day, Italy had become a republic since a month. Use the ↑ button to see the first page. There's a photo of cycling champion Gino Bartali passing throuogh the Rolle Pass. Now use the + button to enlarge the photo. You can see that the flag is a RSI flag: the eagle had been covered with a piece of white cloth, but the eagle's wing setting over the green (left) stripe can be clearly seen. In fact, the monarchist tricolours had been destroyed in all Northern Italy by fascists and nazis during 1943-45 period, and Italian factories had more urgent problems during 1945-46 than producing new flags. Plain tricolours had never been produced, so the sole available flags in Northern Italy were the RSI flags, and pieces of cloth were used to cover the eagles. If plain trocolours would exist, no pieces of cloth would be necessary.--95.236.153.62 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The official flag of R.S.I. was the plain italian tricolour and nothing else :

The national flag of the Italian Social Republic was made ​​official by three public acts:

« "Il Consiglio dei Ministri ha poi deciso che dal 1º dicembre p.v. lo Stato nazionale repubblicano prenda il nome definitivo di "Repubblica Sociale Italiana". Ha inoltre stabilito che la bandiera della Repubblica Sociale Italiana è il tricolore, col fascio repubblicano sulla punta dell'asta..." » 
(Verbale del IV Consiglio dei Ministri dello Stato Nazionale Repubblicano del 24 novembre 1943 pubblicati come: Anonimo, Verbali del Consiglio dei Ministri della Repubblica Sociale Italiana settembre 1943 - aprile 1945, Archivio di Stato, Roma (2002) - Vol. I, pag. da 76 a 162.) 
« "Schema di decreto col quale si stabilisce la foggia della bandiera della Repubblica Sociale Italiana e della bandiera di combattimento delle Forze Armate." » 
(Verbale del VI Consiglio dei Ministri della Repubblica Sociale Italiana dell'11 gennaio 1944] pubblicati come: Anonimo, Verbali del Consiglio dei Ministri della Repubblica Sociale Italiana settembre 1943 - aprile 1945, Archivio di Stato, Roma (2002) - Vol. I, pag. da 223 a 289.) 
« La bandiera della Repubblica Sociale Italiana è formata da un drappo di forma rettangolare interzato in palo di verde, di bianco e di rosso con il verde all'asta sormontata dal fascio Repubblicano. Il drappo deve essere alto due terzi della sua lunghezza ed i tre colori vanno distribuiti nell'ordine anzidetto ed in parti uguali. » 
(Articolo nº 1 del Decreto Legislativo del Duce della Repubblica Sociale Italiana e Capo del Governo nº 141 del 28 gennaio 1944 - XXII E.F. "Foggia della bandiera nazionale e della bandiera di combattimento delle Forze Armate", pubblicato sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale d'Italia nº 107 del 6 maggio 1944 - XXII E.F.) 

The flag with the eagle (Junio Valerio Borghese in his memories said to have suggested it to Mussolini searching for a war flag) was the war flag and surely became the recognized symbol of R.S.I. like the 'Southern Cross' was the symbol of C.S.A. during the American Civil War but both (the eagle flag and the southern cross) weren't official flags. R.S.I. and C.S.A. are both countries never recognized from their respective counterparts (Southern Italy Kingdom and U.S.A.) cause they existed in times of civil war, but if you use on wikipedia the 'Stains and bars' like official flag of C.S.A. maybe you've to use the plain tricolour as official flag of R.S.I.

coat-of-arms

I have replaced the coat-of-arms with the one fixed by the Graphics Lab, as multiple depictions exist, just as they do with many coats-of-arms. In addition to the strange non-eagle, the fasces should be centered top-to-bottom, and the border should be solid, not beveled.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion at Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CoA_of_the_RSI.svg ) finished as unresolved, however the other editor seems to want to bring the dispute over into en:wp space. If the emblem is reverted again, I am taking this to 3O.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:COA#Definition_and_representation . This is the proper space for discussion, not my talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why use a fantasy coat of arms instead of the historical and original? The new fancy image well managed in the difficult task of being far uglier than the original: I find no reason to put it in the article. Is not, in any way, resembling the historical coat of arms, is not better than the historical, has not sources, so... why? --F l a n k e r (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F l a n k e r (talk • contribs)

You have an inability or unwillingness to read or understand Wikipedia policy already spelled out for you. I will continue to revert you. Verbatim: There is no such thing as an "official CoA (drawing)" in heraldics, this would be a confusion with logos (where the representation must be the official one). In heraldics, any drawing corresponding to the definition (like the one to the right) is correct (as long as a herald can recognise it).--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo's above comment is virtually the same as my 3O response would have been. They are certainly correct. Either image would be 'valid'; it comes down to which one looks better. In my opinion, the one that is currently on the article looks much better. Let me add that edit warring over the image is unacceptable. Swarm ^X 01:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, because the coat in question is clearly illustrated in official documents you can find. It is like coat of arms of Russia or Italy or else. --F l a n k e r (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't listen to anyone, do you? Very well, I'll just keep reverting you until you stop.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm listen to you, so please, tell me: why you insist to use a fancy coat of arms instead of an official one? Yes, the coat of arms can be "interpreted", but as there is, in this case, the official one, why use another? Because you don't like it? Sorry but this is not a valid reason. Nothing personal, even I don't like it. --F l a n k e r (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to talk about. Wikipedia policy is against you. 3O is against you. I've told you what will happen if you revert, and I will continue to do it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry my friend, but sources (this and this are only few examples...) are against you... and threaten me will not change it. --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Capital... again

Capital was officialy Rome, not Salò even if Mussolini never wanted to return in Rome befor the war's end. The Social Republic's national territory was officialy the entire italian territory, even provinces occupied by the allies (by the Republic's perspective) so the official capital was Rome like Social Republic's constitution says.

Writing that was no official capital is a serious error not so neutral.

From Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana

Art. 4 - La capitale della Repubblica Sociale Italiana è Roma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickett76 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)