Talk:Italian Social Republic

Operation Eiche

The daring German paratrooper action "Eiche" was NOT led by Otto Skorzeny.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unternehmen_Eiche

"Die Talstation einer zum Hotel führenden Bergseilbahn in der Nähe des Ortes Assergi wurde von der Stabskompanie sowie der ersten und zweiten Kompanie des Fallschirmjäger-Lehr-Bataillons unter Major Harald Mors, der von General Kurt Student mit der Durchführung des gesamten Unternehmens beauftragt worden war, gegen 14:00 Uhr auf dem Landweg eingenommen. Bereits zuvor waren von diesen Truppen alle Telefonverbindungen unterbrochen worden. Die italienischen Verteidiger leisteten nur geringen Widerstand (zwei Tote auf italienischer Seite)[1].

Gleichzeitig (um 14:05 Uhr[2]) landeten mit insgesamt zehn Lastenseglern DFS 230 72 Fallschirmjäger der ersten Kompanie des Fallschirmjäger-Lehr-Bataillons unter dem Kommando von Oberleutnant Georg Freiherr von Berlepsch sowie ein kleines SS-Kommando mit Skorzeny, dem italienischen PAI-General Fernando Soleti und weiteren 16 SS-Männern "

 2.215.19.92 (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Coat of Arms

I return again over the matter: the most faithful representation of the coat is file:CoA of the RSI.svg like it is shown in the law: Decreto Legislativo del Duce 23 gennaio 1944 – XXII, n. 15 - Stemma e Sigillo dello Stato (translation: Legislative Decree of the Duce - January 23, 1944 - XXII, No. 15 - Coat of Arms and Seal of the State). Everyone can see that part of the law in the book by Mimmo Franzinelli, RSI. edited by Mondadori, 2009 at page 55. I hope it is clear. --F l a n k e r (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Until this is resolved I've reverted it back to the previous coat of arms. You need to first establish a consensus. A previous discussion led to an agreement not to use the arms you keep adding.-- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact it appears you attempted to add CoA of the RSI.svg a couple of years ago, so you know full well that there was a discussion. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't see how it matters all that much which version is used, the only difference is that the eagle on F l a n k e rs version of the CoA has more black shading on it. They seem basically the same, you got the eagle, the tricolor, and the fasces. It might be helpful if someone could point to previous policy regarding CoAs (I assume this has been up for discussion about other CoAs).--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CoA_of_the_RSI.svg is the link to the Commons discussion. As ever, F l a n k e r has a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and/or is a liar.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but my image with sorces must come first that my image without sources (it is actuali a fancy image). --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, you're wrong. "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) 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact we do not talk about heraldics, but about the original effective historical a coat of arms of the Italian Social Republic. I have included a number of sources, authoritative and unambiguous in this regard in the file. You simply can not put a different coat of arms from the original one just because you like the most. --151.24.185.8 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I require at least a third opinion on the question: why use a unofficial coat of arms (a patchwork with my images, I must say!) when we have an official coat of arms? --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A 3O was provided, and you were there, by Swarm X at 01:35, 10 December 2010. Don't be obtuse.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry can't find it in your deletion request: [1] nor in this discussion. --F l a n k e r (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I'm obtuse? You insist to use a coat of arms different from the one represented in the establishing decree. I know that a coat of arms is not a logo (I've done so much coat of arms for Commons), but even so, we have the original coat of arms, so why don't use it? Only because you don't like it? --F l a n k e r (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And the answer is? --F l a n k e r (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Use "Puppet state" POV

The article calls the ISR a puppet state. This is a derogatory term and doesn't fit in a NPOV article. There are neutral ways to make clear that a state is dependent of another one. Otto (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "puppet state" can be used as an insult, but this is also true for any number of terms. For example, the "psychopath" label is often thrown around as an insult, but it also has a technical definition and is used by doctors to describe a clearly defined medical condition. By searching for "puppet state RSI" on Google books I found plenty of sources that call the RSI a puppet state. This shows, I believe, that reliable sources use it and that it is not POV. The RSI was created and controlled by the Germans, so the Italians had no real power and it is therefore justified to call the RSI a puppet state (the term also adroitly conveys what sort of state it was). The RSI did more than depend on Germany, it had no autonomy. There is a difference between dependency and having your government run by a foreign power. There is also a difference between satellite and puppet states. Satellite states, such as Romania during the Cold War, were not directly controlled by the Soviet Union but could not leave the orbit of the Soviet Union. So Romania could refuse to send troops to Czechoslovakia in 1968, but could not leave the Warsaw Pact.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My remark is not about the specific relation between Germany and RSI but about the credibility of the use of the term "puppet state". The German and French Wikipedia both renounce the term as improper (German "Dieser Begriff ist abwertend und wird daher ausschließlich von Kritikern solcher Regierungen benutzt."; French "Le terme est partisan et polémique, il est source de disputes sémantiques.") In both versions of the article about RSI a neutral description of the state is used. To that end I recommend to change the wording of the article as I did. It is hard to believe that any of the Italians which participated in the government of RSI regarded themselves as puppets. To brand them so is not a neutral observation but a political biased point of view. Otto (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Usage of a term in other languages is irrelevant to usage in the English language; usage of this or that term can therefore vary across different language Wikipedias. For comparison, the Germans have a hair up their butt about the name Kristallnacht since the Nazis used it sarcastically to imply that the victims of the pogrom were rich fat cats crying over their expensive glassware being broken. Nobody in the English speaking world cares about this so Kristallnacht is the name universally used here and elsewhere. "Neutral" doesn't mean "any description that doesn't offend anyone", or we'd be calling the Kristallnacht a "disagreement", since "pogrom" is polemical and leads to semantic disputes. The terms used on the English language Wikipedia should be the same as those used by the reliable sources, the sources dictate what terms are used since Wikipedia should not conduct original research or be in the business of coining new terms. The Oxford Illustrated History of Italy is just one source that says: "Mussolini, rescued from his mountain prison by German gliders, returned to Italy as the head of a puppet Fascist State". I could go on listing sources that use the term without prejudice. The "puppet state" metaphor handily conveys what sort of relationship the RSI had with Germany. Germany wanted total control combined with the appearance of a sovereign Italian state. This separates the puppet state from a colony where the power relationship is openly one-sided.

"It is hard to believe that any of the Italians which participated in the government of RSI regarded themselves as puppets." This is completely irrelevant; ask anyone in the North Korean government and they'll swear up and down that North Korea is a democracy. This does not mean we need to go along with the charade. Any Italian in a position of power who worked for the RSI knew the score, that much seems self-evident.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "puppet state" is a pejorative term that is only used by opponents and critics of the sponsoring nation. The term Provisional Government is a more neutral term. Even the Wikipedia article for Puppet State says the same thing, that it is derogatory. While the Wikipedia article for Provisional Government concedes "Provisional government is an emergency or interim government set up when a political void has been created by the collapse of a very large government" and "Provisional governments are generally unelected and tend to arise in association with or in the aftermath of civil or foreign wars. In a time of crisis a collapsed government may reform with provisional status under a coalition." Professortimithy (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Mussolini and Fascism p. 156: "in essence the RSI was a puppet state"
2. Rescuing Mussolini - Gran Sasso 1943 p. 62: "Yet the RSI was little more than a puppet state"
3. The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe p. 172: "The awkward terms nazifascismo and nazifascisti were coined during the war to refer to the supporters of the Italian Social Republic (RSI), the puppet state set up by Mussolini in Nazi-occupied central-northern Italy"
4. Uncertain Refuge: Italy and the Jews During the Holocaust p. 151: "The acronym RSI stood for the puppet Fascist state established by the Germans in northern Italy in September 1943,"
5. Ian Fleming's Commandos: The Story of the Legendary 30 Assault Unit p. 194: "Mussolini was set up as the head of a Germancontrolled puppet state in northern Italy, Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI)"
6. Italy's Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century p. 118: "The Germans staged a rescue of Mussolini and reestablished him as head of a new Nazi puppet state, the Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana or RSI)"
7. Allies and Italians Under Occupation p. 8: "Northwards there was a new entity, a puppet state, the Italian Socialist Republic (RSI)"
8. Italy's Divided Memory p. 113: "it is surprising how little historical work compares the French and Italian cases. France also experienced defeat and invasion and set up a collaborative puppet government."
9. Warfare and Society in Europe: 1898 to the Present p. 140: "but it soon became apparent that the RSI was an even more complete puppet of the Nazis than the previous Mussolini regime had been."

And there were sources in the search that rejected the idea that the RSI was a puppet state, but I found zero sources that rejected the term in itself. It might be helpful if you could provide a source that explicitly rejects the term and maybe even explains why. Because I believe I have shown that the term is used without prejudice in the English language literature.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is banned from colleges. Because people insist on this crappy unscientific brand of infotainment. I give up on you all.Professortimithy (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I might be in error, you could launch a requests for comment if you want. I've just never encountered a source that has rejected the term "puppet state" on its face.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I can dig up hundreds of sources of information that refer to African-Americans as "Negroes" or worse and the mentally challenged as "idiots, imbeciles, morons". The fact that a term has been used popularly in the past does not make it acceptable or scientific today. You will not find a source that states the ISR was a provisional government because the term is new and part of the evolving science of diplomacy and peace studies.Professortimithy (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the sources I cited are quite recent (2011, 2010 etc.). If the term "provisional government" (in this context) is so new that it isn't found in any sources, it may not be appropriate to use it on Wikipedia, since there is no way to verify that claim. A third party might enter this debate and decry the term "provisional government" as inappropriate and have another alternative that's not found in any sources, and then where would we be? With terms like "idiot" that were acceptable in the past, one can find sources discussing why they are no longer acceptable. For instance here is an article about the term "Negro":When Did the Word Negro Become Taboo?

I searched for "Italian Social Republic" on Encyclopedia Britannica, and both entries that came up referred to the RSI as puppet government: "In the meantime the Germans had rescued Mussolini from his mountain prison and restored him in the north as ruler of the “Italian Social Republic,” a last-ditch puppet Fascist regime based in Salò on Lake Garda." and "But the Repubblica Sociale Italiana thus established at Salò was, as Mussolini himself grimly admitted to visitors, no more than a puppet government at the mercy of the German command." Seems like the esteemed competition hasn't gotten the memo on provisional governments either.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A search in JSTOR fully supports Sus scrofa's comments. "Italian Social Republic" and "provisional" only produces five articles (from 1947, 1947, 1948, 1953, 1996), and the 1996 one does not use the term "provisional to describe the Republic. In stark contrast, searching with "puppet" produces a ton of hits. Interestingly, I'm sure the professor is familiar with Klinkhammer's 1993 study, Zwischen Böndnis und Besatzung: Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und die Republik von Salo, 1943–1945, reviewed here (don't be deceived by the title: it's a set of reviews), which does take issue with the term "puppet state" and others. And this article by Gianmarco Bresadola in Contemporary European History (2004) states that it was "more than a mere Nazi 'puppet state'" (and if the professor wants to make the argument, they should consult the books cited in footnote 7 of that argument and tell us what's in them). But despite the recent wave of publications reassessing the politics of fascist Italy and its relations with Nazi Germany (see this review article for instance) the term is still in widespread use ("But anyone who doubts their relevance to the ideology of Italian fascism should examine the program of the Italian Social Republic at Sal) (a Nazi puppet state) during the last two years of the war"). In other words, it is entirely possible that it is time for a reassessment, but that will call for a discussion in the article based on scholarly sources, not on simple changes in the article and some generalities on the talk page. Sus scrofa and I have done legwork to support our position; I have seen nothing from the two opponents. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well this is an English language page so the English speaking world will write the version of history they see fit. The French, German and Italian pages do not assert that it was a puppet state, only that it was "called a puppet state". Either way, that was only a small portion of my edit, and being the lazy slobs that you all are, instead of changing the one part you just reverted the whole thing.Professortimithy (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC).

The Italian Social Republic was a Sovereign state (de jure at least) as held in Manifesto di Verona (18 articles) and in ISR constitution (138 articles). The ISR was, only de facto, a satellite state of Germany; but never a puppet state (the term is an insult). The ISR governement was created and composed by Italians; controlled by Germans, but sometimes Mussolini, charismatic ruler, was able to implement an indipenent policy: for example, in the case of the socialization law. In another case, the italian ISR "Fulmine" batallion (Decima M.A.S.), fought against the yogoslav soldiers in the italian easterner border, despite the preferences of the Germans (who sympathized with the yogoslavs).

1. Giorgio Pisanò, La generazione che non si è arresa (The generation who did'nt give up), Milano, Pidola, 1964.
2. ISR Manifesto di Verona (Verona's Manifesto):

ART. 1: Be convened the Constituent Assembly, the sovereign power of popular origin, which shall declare the decline of the monarchy, solemny condemn the last king as a traitor and a fugitive, proclaime the social republic and appoint the ruler.

ART. 18: Essential purpose of the foreign policy of the Republic (the ISR) shall be the unity, independence and territorial integrity of the country in terms of maritime and alpine marked by Nature, by the sacrifice of blood and history; the terms are threatened by the enemy with the invasion and with the promises to the refugee governments in London. Other essential purpose will be to make recognize the need for the essential habitat for a country of 45 million inhabitants (Italy) over a sufficient area to feed them.

I agree. sometimes Mussolini, in the ISR period, was able to implement an indipendent policy. He was'nt a puppet of Nazi Germany:

As Renzo de Felice says, the Italian Social Republic WAS NOT A PUPPET STATE. It could have some political autonomy thanks to a charismatic ruler as Mussolini, who effectively opposed the Germans (especially the military). The ISR could maintain, until its last months, an organizational efficency, with an own administration and bureaucracy, an own military system (Rodolfo Graziani wanted an apolitical army; Alessandro Pavolini and Renato Ricci wanted a fascist army...), an own police (rather, more than one), an own political structure, an own diplomacy, etc...The ISR was a "needed republic", who could partly achieve the objectives set by Mussolini on September 1943; its presence did not allow the Germans to inflict a too excessive punishment against the italian population.

(Renzo De Felice, Breve storia del fascismo - Brief history of fascism, Milano, Mondadori (Collana Oscar storia), 2002, pp. 120-121) --95.234.210.173 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The efficent Italian Social Rrepublic administration, in spite of many difficulties (which could have decreased its prestige) each month, without going bankrupt, as minimum paid 12 billions (with a maximum of 17 billions - italian Lira) to the Germans as costs of occupation, since the first months, until March 1945! (Renzo De Felice, Breve storia del fascismo - Brief history of fascism, Milano, Mondadori (Collana Oscar storia), 2002, p. 120)--95.234.210.173 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The ISR Constitution (142 articles, and not 138) was a demonstration that the Italian Social Republic wanted to be a sovereign state, with fully effective powers. So it was not a provisional governemnt, not even a puppet state; it was de facto a satellite state. As stated by the article 10 of the ISR Constituion: The sovereignty emanates from all the Nation. --79.55.34.202 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Italy

Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in this article?Pistolpierre (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Italian Social Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060506043053/http://axishistory.com/index.php?id=37 to http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=37

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources check for Establishment by Nazi Germany

"Three days following his rescue in the Gran Sasso raid, Mussolini was taken to Germany for a meeting with Hitler in Rastenburg at his East Prussian headquarters. While Mussolini was in poor health and wanted to retire, Hitler wanted him to return to Italy and set up a new Fascist state. When Mussolini balked, Hitler threatened to destroy Milan, Genoa and Turin unless he went along. Reluctantly, Mussolini agreed to Hitler's demands."

The source: Moseley, Ray (2004). Mussolini: The Last 600 Days of Il Duce looks highly unreliable, I can see that the source itself doesn't provide any real reference about that supposed exchange between Hitler and Mussolini, have we got any other source for these facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphac (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map?

According to the article "After the Italian capitulation, the Italian Aegean Islands were occupied by the Germans (see Dodecanese campaign). During the German occupation, the islands remained under the nominal sovereignty of the RSI, but were de facto subject to the German military command."but the map does not show them in the same way as south Tyrol. On that subject, what were the RSI's other claims? Did they just surrender all of their Balkan territory? Were the African colonies still treated as Italian officially or had they given up on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The account of Fascism given in this article is false.

The article claims that under Fascism there had been relative "economic independence", in fact the Italian economy and society was dominated by state regulations - indeed control of the economy and society in general is part of the core definition of Fascism. And the article also implies that it was only under the Italian Social Republic that the Fascists tried to nationalise industry (and downplays even this), in fact Fascist Italy in the 1930s had more state owned enterprises than any country - apart from the Soviet Union. The account of Fascism given in the article (as so often in Wikipedia) is essentially Marxist propaganda - yet no where in the article is it openly announced that the view of Fascism given is from a Marxist perspective. Thus, as so often on Wikipedia, a reader with no prior knowledge of the subject might be fooled into thinking the article presents an objective account.2A02:C7D:B48D:1200:49E7:54CE:8B4E:E85C (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You are very welcome to change the article. But please stick to a neutral tone and WP:REF your additions properly. Travelbird (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Flag dispute

There is a long standing disagreement among editors as to which flag should be in the infobox: the national flag (plain tricolor) or the more commonly used war flag (with eagle). I don't know which side to take and I don't know if there is a precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I do know that it is preferable that editors seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it should be the regular tricolor flag without the Eagle whenever displayed. It’s the actual flag of the country and that’s what is always used in Infoboxs or pictures when discussing any other nation-state on Wikipedia. Digital Herodotus (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus @Sus scrofa Both flags are not entirely correct; the staff with the republican fasces is part of the national flag. The addition of this detail should resolve the dispute among editors.

Italian:

Art. 5 – La bandiera nazionale è quella tricolore: verde, bianca, rossa, col fascio repubblicano sulla punta dell’asta.

English:

Art. 5 - The national flag is the tricolor flag: green, white, red, with the republican fasces at the tip of the staff.

Source: http://www.dircost.unito.it/cs/docs/repubblica.htm 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)