Talk:Italian campaign (World War II)

message: Hi, here Cybershore. Thank you for call attention for this point (as much as I can only comment the edits did by myself) I´ve tried to put referring bibliography, english editions of course, that contains quotations direct related to the "original" text of wikipedia without as possible alter this one. The intention is to provide the online reader access to check information reasserting and contraditory ones without pollute the wikipedia text. When possible the more proper page(s) or Chapter(s) are quoted to save time to reader but beyond I repeat that no book can contain alone all satisfactory explanations about complex facts as the historic ones I strongly believe that a Intelligent and Nonsluggish or Nonlazy reader with a minimal interest and/or knowledge on the subject can find easily by him(her)self on table of contents of each book quoted the exactly point related to the footnote and most important of all take his(her) own conclusions. I´ve also tried to focus just on books easily reasearchables on internet to find, buy and some classics widely used on militar and political studies about this subject.
:I'm afraid I cannot agree to assume that the readers are lazy if they resent sifting through the index and contents to find a reference!. I am definitely lazy by that definition. If you read any serious academic book, the convention is always to quote the the page or pages referred to. I would suggest it is more a reflection of the laziness of the writer who cannot provide a specific reference. The fact is Wikipedia requires that entries contain no original research. Therefore all content should theoretically have its origin from a credible publication elsewhere. Consequently, all facts in the entry should be verifiable from specific locations in one or more books. But let's not get too heavy about this..... 
:By the way, a small point: when starting a new discussion item, could you do so at the bottom of the page? It just makes it easier later when the page needs archiving if the entries are in date order from top to bottom.Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New books sugestions on the subject 

message: 2004-2006
I´ve had see to much focus on the british side of the history based on just one book  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.150.231 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Hi, I´m cybershore. The confusion and the mispatch on this subject I´ve founded over many books and another references that I´ve read, saw and debate on the last 25 years. I tried not to base on only one  reference no matter how good is seems to be. I´ve cross information over books written and/or military files as Documentaries did by americans, british, germans and brazilians by/and or/and about or/and with militars who : A)stood there - italian front - on command or near at command positions of V American Army and/or VIII British Army or Units incorpored them; B)Academics, Profissional Writers or just Amateurs like me who love the subject; C)Veterans who follow the militar carrier after the war but were non Hiofficials at time; D)Veterans who back to civillian life after the war. After I tried eliminate the inconsistences, contradictions over the writings, testimonies and let just the essential ( not detailed at the point to tired the public in general ) about the coincident points. I hope have time to colaborate more on future
I see that Cybershore has reinstated the revert I made earlier. Perhaps it might help if explained my original revert:
* Heading: What's wrong with "final stages"? The replacement heading "Apenine Campaign" is mis-spelt and is confusing since the armies had been fighting in the Apennines since late 1943.
* Edit to  turns a perfectly good blue link into a red one
* Introduction of irrelevent reference to Russian front and reference to Italian campaign as "third theater of importance" is POV
* The reference to "Experienced British and Americans units as the French Colonial Troops were pulled out of Italy to participate in France campaign. Those units were just partially substituted by Brazilians & Americans Units." is a) not English b) anachronistic because it confuses the withdrawal in '44 of US and French troops for the south of France invasion with the '45 withdrawal of Canadian and British troops to NW France and Greece c) They weren't just French Colonial Troops but included French nationals. The existing wording is precise regarding the earlier event and links to Operation Dragoon.
* The breakthrough did not take place until April 45 not March.
* The delay of the advance in the Netherlands had little impact on Eastern Europe because the final spheres of influence for this front had already been agreed between the Allied leaders
* The advance by US 10th Mountain Div and the Brazilians in Jan / Feb 45 did not take the "last germans positions on Apenines". Final breaking through the Appenines was accomplished by US II Corps in bloody fighting in April. The Feb attack was a limited one to confuse the Germans into thinking the main thrust would be coming from further west than it did (Blaxland p.244). It did not " liberating the way to VIII British Army take Bologne and prepare the path to final spring offensive that occured in April" Bologna was liberated in April by a double thrust from the Poles in 8th Army and US II Corps in 5th Army.
* The {fact} tag has been shifted from its relevant place (relating to partisans).
In addition to the above criticisms, the new edit is not compatible and is at odds with the narrative of the underlying main articles and is poorly written whilst the previous text provided a well-written and  balanced summary of events.
Finally, please do not take this as a personal attack. When reading the above rather than hearing such arguments face to face it is easy to misread the "tone" and spirit in which they are offered (which is intended to be friendly but realistic). 
For the above reasons I propose to revert to the previous wording subject to further discussion here. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits on section 5

message: I'm having a lot of difficulties on the recent edits made by an IP contributor. I truly welcome contributions from editors whose first language is not English since they often give an extra viewpoint to articles which are Anglo-Saxon orientated. I'm sure this contributor is trying to do that. However:
* In the above spirit I have taken the edits and tried to turn them into flowing English although I have to say that much of the time it is difficult to make real sense of what the contributor is trying to say because, quite honestly, the English is so poor. Some appear POV but that may just be a language difficulty thing.
* Also in order not to appear arrogant (I'm not, really!) I have retained a lot of detail in the article which, since this is supposed to be an overview of the campaign, should not really appear here but in other articles. For instance a lot of detail specific to the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (1 division out of about 20 Allied divisions involved) now appears which should really be confined to the BEF article.
* The editor's wikipedia etiquette is lacking: existing contributions which have precise references to specific page numbers in cited books are habitually deleted or substituted with other text with broad and imprecise references to books (no page number referenced) and websites. These deletions are made with no justification in the edit summary, nor, when repeated, explained on the talk page. This is just plain rude and lacks respect
Please could we follow the Wikipedia ground rules? I am going to revert the recent deletions and request that you justify them here in the talk page if you want to reinstate any of them. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits on Section 5 (2): open discussion

message: ...Much least on tryings on AfterWars in enhancing one or another country specifically in detriment of other(s). Sometimes its came disguised under a facade of presumable objectivness. As a non Angle-Saxon I believe its countyer-productive this apparent discussion between americans and (white) british that I had observed on the last days through constants and opposites Gottic Line´s file atualizations.
That´s really a Pity the past century didn´t get inoculated us against acerbated nationalism, under any disguise.
I like repeat to the conflitant parts that History are not exact as Nature Sciences, even on these the knowledge are not statical and also Military ( mainly on Tatical and Strategical Aspects )in sense of a Science are more a Social one considering a lot of Art and Luck on it. We can never forget that, remembering Somme and Verdun ( just to mention only 2 events ), must to be constantly prevented against Specialists on War and Political Matters, too important to rely Just on their hands...
It´s fair easy from a confortable position on a warm Office HeadQuartter or Academic one far away on a space and in a time from a cool, bloody and durty battle field to say anything. So thats the Why understand the deleted reinsertions of certain patches. For Example : Anyone who had read, Reread, view, Review testimonies or talked personally with germans and italians ( partisans) veterans of Italy Campaign know that Surrender to Partisans means assured death sometimes preceded by torturing and humilation and the natural Partisans´s desire of revenge were specially high on the last days of war. So, germans surrender to guerillas was a completely out of question business.
When you sum to it the reading of different authors : Bingo - its not necessary be a genyous to get the most presumable assertions about.
I also mention how would be a TragicComic thing i.e. for a author to be put face to face with descendents from all those wered killed or severed wounded in combat on last days of war and see this author trying explain to them and to survivors and still alive vets that in accordance with his theories or what he heared about or read about what they saw, suffered and hear are not possible. Come on... give a Break ! 
To conclude I never tired of to repeat that its unprescindable to anyone who would make a history work checking and crossing of inumerous as possible fonts as possible not just rely on the officials and specialis but too on those ordinary people whom saw and suffer the events related.
Thank You All
: Thanks for the above....I think I understand.....but I am concerned less about philosophy and more about practicalities namely:
* You are an active contributor (terrific, I encourage you in this) but you make no explanation in the edit summary or talk page when your edits are challenged. Wikipedia guidelines encourage editors always to fill in the edit summary to minimise confusion between editors interested in the article. 
* Wikipedia also requires consensus and disagreements must be discussed on the talk page and resolved amicably (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia faux pas
* Wikipedia etiquette asks that when contributing to talk pages you log in and sign your contributions. You can do this easily by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your typing.
:Please take this in a positive and friendly spirit. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, Theres is no Glory in the War... 

message: I can't keep up with all the weird pro-Italian fractured English edits to the WWII Italian related articles. I surrender. It feels like a war all in itself. Rob Banzai (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I surrender to the revisionists 

message: A lot of new footnote references have been put in recently which is terrific. However, what is not terrific is that many have no associated page numbers. Putting a footnote in with no page number means you are saying "Here's a fact, you can find it somewhere in this 500 page book". Since footnotes are there to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements that facts are "verifiable", having no page number is not very helpful to the verification process!
* Where I have a copy of the book, I have been trying to insert appropriate page numbers
* Where I don't have the book I am deleting the reference if there is another appropriate reference alongside. If there isn't, I try to find an alternative reference with a page number. 
* For single references with no page number where I have failed to find a suitable alternative, I am leaving it in but ask here if someone with a copy of the book could look it up and insert the appropriate page number.
Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote references

message: Revisiting this, I'd like to purpose a (slightly) new suggestion for the article framework:
*Background
*The campaign
**Invasion of Sicily
**Invasion of southern Italy
**Allied advance to Rome
**Allied push to northern Italy
*Aftermath
While it's basically the same as what's already on the page, I think it will be easier for the readers to immediately grasp what each section is about (easier to understand for the uninitiated then the various defensive lines). Oberiko (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of "The campaign" heading but don't see that the re-naming of the segments adds much.... but I don't feel that strongly about it either. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Framework pt. 2

message: or what its name was, the German take over of Italy as it surrendered is basicly not mentioned at all, i for one would like to know more details of this and so on, i dont think theres even a wikipedia article about it, which is a shame, cause disarming most of the Italian military in relatively bloodless fassion was no minor feat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.197.79 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Operation Axis" 

message: There are in line citations to a book by Jackson but it doesn't appear in the references section. Any ideas exactly which book it is? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added it, sorry about the delay - i was trying to find the original publishing date (which i think i have inputted the correct one after a couple of google searches).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson citations 

message: The figures i added from Jackson provide German casualties only from the invasion of mainland Italy till the end of hostilities (and i believe the same for the Allied forces), should the losses incurred (including prisoners?) be added from the fighting in Sciliy?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualty figure 

message: Why are Australia and New Zealand, which were independent states, listed on their own, but Canada and South Africa, which were also independent states, listed as subsets of Britain? (India, I can see)
CaptainCanada (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the Canadians were serving under the British armies. CanadianStereotype  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.96.152 (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of countries 

message: Jackson in Vol VI part III of "The Mediterranean and Middle East" (pp. 334-335) gives an in depth breakdown of the Allied casualties during the campaign on the Italian mainland and in Appendix 5 does the same for German casualties. Sadly Volume V does not do the same job for Sicily. At the moment the Sicily article gives a figure of 22,000 Allied casualties, "around" 10,000 Germans and 132,000 Italians using Shaw as a reference. Shaw is not a great source and anyway the Italian figure includes a large unspecified number of troops surrendering when fighting ceased on the island. Since the mainland campaign figures exclude the large numbers which surrendered when hostilities ceased, the numbers are not comparable. Does anyone have a serious source for Sicilian campaign casualties (killed, wounded + missing/captured) that are comparable and can be added to the mainland figures to give an overall Italian campaign figure in this present article? BTW I don't have access to the C.N. Barclay source which cites over 600,000 as the Axis casualties. I don't understand how this figure is arrived at but seems very high compared with the other figures available. It may be partly to do with the fact that, according to Jackson, official OKH figures for the German southern theatre included casualties going back to April 1941 and include around 150,000 casualties not directly associated with the Italian campaign. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties (again!) 

message: I started adding  comments into the text, but then I realised that huge portions of the article are not cited.  I think it's a very well written and historically  accurate article, but with so many missing citations, I question it's B Class status.  Opinions?  Farawayman (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  B Class Status 

message: This article would benefit substantially from some mentions of what
the Italians were actually doing during this campaign.Eregli bob (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an entire topic unto itself, really, though their participation was almost always at the mercy of the main combatants - Germany, Britain and the US. The partisan war in northern Italy, in particular, was not nearly as black and white as some postwar accounts suggest. 198.161.4.90 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were the Italians all doing ? 

message: Are the countries being ordered (on the infobox) according to army/navy size or by other means? Thanks! (Central Data Bank (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries 

message: As I've already filled the edit summary box, I thought I would add a bit more here:
*I've replaced the 'line' map with something more readily understandable. I think the original (which incidentally has no scale and is so unclear that it took me ages to find Rome, never mind Anzio), was produced before the war; the First World War, that is !
*I've only managed to find a few words on the Air War in the Italian campaign. It could do with quite a bit more.  
*I've standardized the dates (we had 'dmy' and 'mdy' in the same section), but there are still several examples of 'defenses' and 'defences' which I haven't got round-to yet. Consistency must be the name of the game.
What do other editors think?
RASAM (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: The entire air campaign seems to be summed up by a short anecdote about a Flying Officer J. F. Bartlett, who jettisoned a hung bomb in early 1945 whilst over the Adriatic. I have no doubt this is true, but why is it important? Who is Flying Officer J. F. Bartlett? Why has this event been chosen to represent the entire air campaign? Was he awarded a medal? 31.185.218.9 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air campaign 

message: I've stuck a citation needed tag on Ethiopia being in the belligerents list. I can't find mention of Ethiopia's involvement in any Wikipedia article let alone in the main body of this one. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopia 

message: There is a citation error in the opening section. The Keegan's quote refers to all campaigns waged by the Western allies, not only at the Mediterranean theater, as can be checked in the book: the picture Here is clear. 179.111.69.34 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening section 

message: There has been some recent dispute over which nation should go first in the infobox, possibly triggered by some changes I tried to make to the Italian page in order to put the British flag first on there. There were two armies involved in the Italian campaign, the British 8th and American 10th, under the overall command of a British general for most of the campaign. At most points in the campaign there were more British divisions active than american, and at all times the American army contained at least a corps of non-American troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Army_Group    Here, in August 1944, we have 6 British divisions and 3 brigades, to 5 US divisions (1 in reserve). These figures exclude the large British Empire and commonwealth contingent (7 divisions), the British supplied Poles (2 Divisions and a brigade) and the Brazilians' 3 divisions, as well as a Greek Brigade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Line_order_of_battle This is even more varied, containing 9 British divisions to 8 American and 7 others.
I think this demonstrates the significance of British forces in this exercise, and more than justifies putting them first in the infobox.
Boynamedsue (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of nations in infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Italian Campaign (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/limeydvr/italycamp6.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Italian Campaign (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/limeydvr/italycamp6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520190343/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Italian Campaign (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314131038/http://www.italiancampaign.ca/ to http://www.italiancampaign.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tunisian Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hi all, I am new to these talk pages and Wikipedia editing.
I was wondering why there is no mention of Operation Brazzard in these ital amp sign pages.
A few helpful links are:-
https://www.combinedops.com/Elba%20-%20Op%20Brassard.htm I think this is the best information as it contains first and secondhand reports of what occurred, from hose engaged in the invasion or close relatives.
My uncle Victor Parsons is mentioned on these pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Elba
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/85/a2943885.shtml
The bbc article contains the following war diary extract”
The post operation report of the action, (DEFE2/ 111,PRO) states;
"In conclusion, it is to be appreciated that it is difficult to give an accurate and cohesive report of such an action as this, fought in total darkness, relieved only by the light of gunfire and the flash of explosions. Eyewitness accounts are hard to obtain, as 47 out of the 48 commandos taking part became casualties. Lastly it is impossible to give an accurate chronological summary of events as time went unheeded in the heat of the action."
And
The bravery awards for this action, percentage wise, was the highest for any British naval action of the entire war. Sadly, the majority were posthumous.
In his post-operational report (W.O. 204/1473. PRO) to the C.in.C. Admiral Troubridge wrote: -
"The garrison of the island we had been told was under 800 Germans and reports spoke of their being preponderantly Poles and Czechs of low morale and all set for evacuation. In fact the ration strength was 2,600 Germans who fought extremely well. The defences of Campo Bay were somewhat stronger than intelligence reports had led us to believe, and were in fact, extremely formidable. They had excavated caves in the granite cliffs flanking the beaches and installed 155 mm, 88mm and machine guns in them. Behind the beaches, exactly ranged on the likely places of disembarkation were heavy mortars
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020184
There are many more besides these which a quick google of “operation brazzard” will return.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbridge276 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Brazzard - the invasion of Elba Island - June 1944 

message: On 11 June 2021 an IP added a new war crimes section here. This requires some discussion and justification. Firstly, the focus on some instances of Allied war crimes compared to the many thousands attributed to the Axis is WP:UNDUE as is the balance between this issue and the overall narrative of the campaign. Some account of alleged war crimes is certainly valid but not in this way. Secondly, the sourcing is dubious on many occasions. Because of the natiure of the allegations the sourcing should be impeccable. It is not. Opening this thread to begin the discussion. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes section 

message: Please can a better form of words be used to replace this sentence:
"The German 10th Army were allowed to get away and, in the next few weeks, may have been responsible for doubling the Allied casualties in the next few months."
Unclear over what time period the doubling of Allied casualties occurred, was it a few weeks or a few months? John a s (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied Advance - unclear sentence 

message: This seems to be a back and fourth thing for a while concerning articles about the Italian Social Republic. The official state flag of the Social Republic is tri color flag with no designs on it, just like the modern Italian flag. The one with the Eagle on it is specifically the war flag. 
The standard rule for Wikipedia is that when listing a country in something like an Infobox concerning a battle or war, the country should be listed alongside its official state flag, in this case the standard tricolor flag. Digital Herodotus (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian flag 

message: I'm amazed that there is almost no mention of this battle anywhere in Wikipedia. Not only was it the first time the US 10th Mountain Division saw combat, more importantly it involved a successful nighttime assault up a cliff face that was previously considered unclimbable -- thus proving the ability of the US to field & train an effective alpine unit. -- llywrch (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Riva Ridge/Mount Belvedere