Talk:Second Battle of the Alps

Naming

The current title is not ideal. There have been many French invasions of Italy and this is not remotely the primary meaning. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Second Battle of the Alps"? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd use lower case, to indicate that it is not so much a proper name in English as a direct translation of a common French term. It would be better than the current title, which should probably be a dab page if anything. If there's a primary meaning, it's Italian War of 1494–98. —Srnec (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• French Chasseurs Alpins,1945.jpg (discussion)
• French general,1945.jpg (discussion)
• French machine gun crew,1945.jpg (discussion)
• Italian soldiers 1945 Aosta Valley.png (discussion)
• Italian soldiers on the Western Alps during 1945.png (discussion)
• Monterosa Alpini Division.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

French forces preparing to fight the Allies

I've just removed a claim that French forces prepared to fight the Allies when it was requested that they withdraw from Italy. I've check the source, which does not support it at all - it actually says that there were good relationships between senior French and US and UK officers and soldiers on the ground. I note that when this material was added it omitted the fact stated in the source that the request for French withdrawal was made after French forces advanced deeply into Italy, well beyond the penetration which they'd been authorised to undertake by the Allied command at the start of the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Truman, in his memoirs, wrote, "The French commander had actually threatened to have his troops fight the American troops who had come into the area under orders from the Supreme Command." Truman places his response to this on June 5, in the context of the French occupation of Val d'Aosta. Srnec (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. It wasn't in the source being used here. I'll have a go at drafting some clearer text on the post-war incidents over the weekend, given that the current text sought to omit just how far the French advanced. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of what was written was close to reality but written with a very anti-French slant. I also added a source (Weinberg) which are transcripts from the time. The trouble is that what this editor adds is sometimes fact and sometimes total fiction and sometimes bent facts. It's a real problem sorting out which is which because they do not add sources and it is becoming tough sifting through it all. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: @Srnec: could you check which forces took part in this battle as there is a source cited in the article that say that German forces participated at least up until the 23rd of April; Girard, Joseph. "La participation des F.F.I. à la libération des Alpes-Maritimes", Cahiers de la Méditerranée 12 (1976), pp. 27 says "le secteur de Vintimille au col de Tende est tenu par le 34ème division d'infantrie allemande avec quelques unités italiennes rattachées. Plus au nord par la division LITTORIO italienne" and later on "Le 23 avril les allemands commencent à décrocher" which translated means "the sector of Vintimille to the Tende pass is held by the 34th German infantry division with a few Italian units attached. Further north by the Italian LITTORIO division" and "On the 23rd of April the Germans start to disengage". There are reports [1] of the 34th having participated in actions resulting in Italian civilian deaths on the 24th of April 1945 in Torre Pellice which is a handful of km from the Col de la Traversette site of the Defense of the Redoute Ruinée (1945). The French version of the battle fr:Deuxième_bataille_des_Alpes says it was between allied troops (mostly French) and the Wehrmacht as did the Italian version up until october of this year. This source [2] which is named "The second battle for the alps, spring 1945" from the French Army history section names the forces against the French as A: Col du Petit Saint Bernard, "Italo German troops" B:Operation Izard, 1 batallion of Gebirgs Jager reinforced by 1 batallion of the divison Folgore presumably 185th Paratroopers Division Folgore and German artillary. C: Operation Canard 5,800 men of the German 34th and 4,200 of the Littorio division. D: Operation Laure the same units as Izard. It seems that at least half of the forces encountered were German. There is some very serious checking that needs to be done to ensure that this battle is not being misrepresented or even rewritten. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Germans took part in the defence of the Alps in 1944–45. This is what the article originally looked like. You will see that it was supposed to be mainly about the "French invasion of Italy" at the very end of the war, which at least at the time of French troops crossing the border was primarily a Franco-Italian fight (insofar as there was still fighting). The page was moved to a better title that somewhat widened the scope (see brief talk above). Even if we stick to the period 23 March–2 May 1945 it still involved Germans alongside Italians. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop

Hry stop changing info Aldopaptistella (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is not allowed and all edits by sockpuppets can be reverted on sight regardless of their merits as per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Ask to be unblocked first and then you can resume editing with your main account. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Italian defensive victory

The war was an Italian victory. France managed to reoccupy their territory, but it wasn’t able to annexed Valle D’aosta, Piemonte and Liguria as originally planned by De Gaulle, and French troops withdrew, so they failed. It's the same question for the Italian invasion of France, in which Italian soldiers invaded some French territories but it is considered a French defensive victory. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The question is what was the aim of the battle? Was it to drive the German and Italian forces out of the Alps as part of the spring offensive or was it to occupy a part of Italy temporarily or permanently? Your opinion is the latter and in that case it was not a French victory but it was also not an Italian victory because it was only when Allied Powers Europe threatened to force France out that they finally gave up some of the places they occupied. If it was to drive the axis forces out of the Alps then it was a victory and if it was to temporarily occupy parts of Italy it was also a victory. I'm not really bothered of we don't say it was a French victory because we don't really know what the principal motivation was but it most definitely was not an Italian victory. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And it is quite interesting to note that you use the word "war" and not "battle". Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The aim of the battle was to annexed a part of Italy. The page says "Charles De Gaulle had been planning a hypothetical revenge against Italy ... De Gaulle began studying a plan for occupying Italian territory with French influences: the Aosta Valley, western Piedmont, and the coastal cities of Ventimiglia and Imperia in Liguria". That was the French mission, and they failed. So I think that the battle can be considered an Italian defensive victory, as mentioned in the sources that I had inserted. It must also be noted that the previous French territories were annexed only two years later with the Treaties of Paris, while in the battle the French withdrew. DavideVeloria88 (talk), 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a military battle. The French aim was to drive the enemies out of the Alps and occupy parts of Italy. This they achieved because the Italian and German forces retreated with the French army following before surrendering to the Americans. France then occupied parts of Italy thus achieving their aim. The only reason they had to leave was because their allies forced them to do so...not the Italians. This could be described as a political or diplomatic defeat I suppose but in no way an Italian military victory defensive or otherwise that is just pure fantasy. In the end France obtained some of the territory anyway so Italy finally lost that as well. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The article just says "French forces penetrated deeply into Italy" and that the recover of italian regions at the border was only due to Allied interventio. However, there were indeed defensive Italian victories of both Italian partisans and members of RSI (oddly "allied" in this case). So once the article is expanded we may say "Italian defensive victory". But so far this article completely fails to account for the actions of Italians in the area. Barjimoa (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like to use words like ridiculous on talk pages but this really is becoming just that. Please read the instructions on Template:Infobox military conflict concerning the parameter "result" which says.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

I have bolded certain parts to try and make it clear as day to you why we cannot say that it was an Italian defensive victory. The battle was to clear the enemy from the alps and the result was a success for the French forces as German and Italians abandonned the defensive positions, retreated and surrendered. The political aim may have been to annexe parts of Italy and it was not a complete success but this article is about the military battle. Also please do not forget that Italy had joined the allies in 1943 following the Armistice of Cassibile and the forces fighting the French were from a Nazi puppet state so if you are talking about Italy it was not fighting against the French but with them, and the ones fighting against the French forces was the Italian Social Republic which had received no diplomatic recognition apart from Nazi Germany Japan and their puppet states. I really think that enough has been said about the result now and this should be the end of the discussion. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to add the non-standard parameter of "Italian defensive victory". My point was that the article only talks about the obvious alliance between the Italian social republic and Germany: there was another de facto local alliance going on between the partisans and the fascists (still made to defend Italy from France, omitted by the article). Moreover the chronology misses the final defense of the Redoute Ruinée, where italian troops won and then surrendered to the Americans on 4 May. Someone else proposed that addition because the page of the Italian invasion of France used to have "French defensive victory" or "Italian marginal victory" or something. But it wasn't me. Barjimoa (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't see how in any way you can consider they won when they abandoned the position to retreat back to Turin to surrender. When defending a position you can consider you won when the attackers give up the siege and go home or move on. You can be ordered to hold a position for a certain length of time before surrendering but this is not a victory either. The attackers can say they finally took a position at great cost but if the aim was to conquer that position then if the enemy abandons it there is no way that the defenders can be considered the victors. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Battle casualties

Battle casualties is redundant and infoboxes should be succint. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Aosta Crisis

I've seen in a number of sources that this has been called the Val d' Aosta Crisis. I will add this into the lede. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that "Val d'Aosta crisis", like "liberation of the Val d'Aosta", refers mainly to the final action on the northern section of the front. The current title of this article is in fact unknown in English (from what I can see), but it is a direct translation of terms used in French and Italian RS. When, following a dicussion (above), I moved the article from its original title (French invasion of Italy, accurate but not PT) I also broadened the scope chronologically. Srnec (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the Val d'Aosta crisis refers probably to the period where the French through Doyen tried to resist the setting up of the AMG and remain in possession of Val d'Aoste Susa and Tender and got called out by the other allies. The crisis itself only lasted a couple of weeks at most, from about the 19th of May until the first week of june. I don't think that this could be considered as a synonym for the whole campaign/battle and should not be bolded in the lead. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It could probably have its own article in itself - perhaps the allied intervention section could be renamed as 'Val d'Aosta crisis'? Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Renaming that section makes sense. Srnec (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with both. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)