Talk:Italian campaign (World War II)

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Italy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: African / Asian / South Pacific / Balkan / British / Canadian / European / French / German / Indian / Italian / Nordic / North America / Polish / South Asia / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Indian military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Nordic military history task force North American military history task force Polish military history task force South Asian military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

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)[reply]

I´ve post some new titles on bibliography but I´m feel still confused about how to contact the others members to chat about. Have anyone a direct link to ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybershore (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not quite sure what you mean. If you want to discuss an issue about this article, just do it on this talk page. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...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

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)[reply]

To make it clear: in the opening paragraph it says that 110 000 Germans lost their lives in this theater. My assumption is that this number refers to the Axis - Italians and Germans. If it is not so (which I doubt), than why are the Italian casualties not mention in the beginning? I hope someone with more knowledge on this matter than me will straighten this out. With respect, Ko Soi IX 10:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced footnote is very specific referring only to German troops. I imagine that the Allied figure does not include Italian casualties either since the Italian troops fighting with the 5th and 8th Armies were technically "co-belligerents" and not "allies" (apparently it made sense in 1943 but I'm not sure what that means!). However, by 1945 there were 2 Italian divisions fighting on the Axis side (out of a total of say 20+) and were mainly in the west because Kesselring didn't trust them so I suspect that Italian casualties were quite low on the Axis side. On Allied side it took time to build up (re-equip, retrain etc) but there were the equivalent of 3 brigades (say 1 Division out of 20 ish) plus some more irregular formations by 1945. It appears they were then often in the thick of fighting but given the relative size and the shorter period they were involved I would guess that casualties would have been in the order of 5% of thge Allied total. Now I need to find some references!!Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this numbers too. There is an other book (inthe article) that cites that during the italian camapaign allied took 56.000 dead by all causes. There is another webpage about the german army from 1939-1945 that shows the number of german killed in action as 47,000 until 1945.(Five months aprox before the war ended).

I recomend to remove that citation after a reliable source is found or at least show in the article 2 or more sources of killed soldiers per side apart. best wishes , Miguel

The main strategic goal behind operations in the Mediterranean was preserving communication between Britain and her eastern dominions, was it not? For example, that's what Churchill wrote in his Second World War. Tying down (some) German forces sound like revisionism to me. With respect, Ko Soi IX 11:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the tying down rationale only came later, after Italy surrendered. The suspicion is that Churchill always had an agenda but at the end of the day, by 1943, he could do nothing without Roosevelt's say so and it was Roosevelt who ultimately determined what happened with Churchill constantly trying to sway him. I've made an edit to reflect some of this (with appropriate footnotes)Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" ... by 1943, he could do nothing without Roosevelt's say so and it was Roosevelt who ultimately determined what happened with Churchill constantly trying to sway him."

That must be why the Allies invaded Normandy in 1944 and not 1942 or 1943 - which Roosevelt wanted - then. And why the entire 'soft underbelly' strategy in Italy and Southern France was undertaken.

All things Churchill wanted that Roosevelt didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.90 (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows how the meeting between king Victor Emanuel III and the British 8th army did happen in Brindisi on September 11, 1943. Was it similar to the meeting between Mac Arthur and Hirohito in 1945? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.113.171 (talk • contribs)

At the prompting of Oberiko I have been giving the structure of the various Italian campaign articles and campaignboxes some thought. In particular I am finally addressing the thorny subject of the Winter Line and its varying definitions in different sources. I am proposing to do the following:

1. Use Winter line as the collective description of the Bernhardt, Gustav and Hitler Lines (this seems to be the commonest in the literature)
2. Take all of the text regarding the fighting on the Bernhardt Line from the Winter Line article and integrate it into the Bernhardt Line article (more logical)
3. Winter Line article becomes a summary description page pointing to other main articles
4. Remove Winter Line from the Italian Campaignbox and insert Bernhardt Line, also replace Cassino and Anzio so that all major actions of the campaign are in it making a continuous timeline. Make sure it is in all articles relating to the Italian campaign
5. Retain Oberiko's new Winter Line campaignbox in the articles relating to events on the various elements of the Winter Line. This will highlight some of the minor events (San Pietro, Ortona) not in the main Campaignbox. Keep Anzio in it (not techinically part of the Winter Line) and rename the campaignbox "Winter Line and the Battle for Rome".
6. Consider splitting the Gothic Line article. It is pretty long and covers two distinct phases of the campaign in northern Italy: 1. the Autumn 1944 assaults on the Gothic line and central Apennines and 2. the Spring 1945 assaults into the Lombardy Plain and the Po valley.
7. Consider having a new sub campaignbox for the northern Italian phase to perform the same role as the Winter Line Campaignbox

Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your points seem quite valid Kirrages. IMO, the first thing we should decide are the "phases" of the Italian Campaign. I'm no expert but they seem to be:

• Sicily
• Invasion of Italy
• Battles around the Winter and supporting lines
• Battles around the Gothic and supporting lines
• Surrender of German forces in Italy

Are these feasible? Oberiko 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you want to define phases for. It's quite difficult to "phase" the campaign anyway. Obviously Sicily was separate but after the landings on the mainland in September it was a constant grind until after the third battle at Cassino when there was a pause (both at Anzio and on the Gustav Line) until better spring weather. Within this grind there tended to be alternating fighting between the Adriatic front and the western side of the Apennines. In Spring 44 the grind continued after the breakout from Cassino and Anzio until the Gothic Line was reached. There was then the briefest of pauses for reorganisation (switching forces to the Adriatic front) and then the grind continued until weather stopped the fighting around the end of the year because of the weather. In April 45 the fighting re-commenced with the Allies breaking through and precipitating the Germans' surrender in Italy in early May.

If you really want phases, I would suggest they are:

• Sicily
• Invasion and the capture of southern Italy
• The battles of the rivers. (this takes us from the Volturno to the Garigliano on the western front and includes Volturno, Barbara and Bernhardt lines and the first three Cassinos. On the Adriatic front it's the rivers Bifurno, Trigno and Sangro taking in Volturno, Barbera and Gustav Lines)
• Breakout at Cassino and Anzio: the battle for Rome and Central Italy
• Gustav Line and the autumn campaign 1944
• Spring offensive 1945 and surrender

Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically I try to break down phases for the main article headings. Though if it was basically one (mostly) continuous grind then we probably don't actually need to break down the campaign box then, and can stick with the one for all battles and operations in the campaign (I don't think we'll face the same problem as the Soviet-German War with it growing to monstrous proportions). If we do that though, I'd like to remove the defensive lines from it and place them in their own template; they do not represent battles or operations per say, though we can describe the actions around them within their respective articles. I think that's what threw me off the first time. Oberiko 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how we can remove the defensive lines. Each defensive line represented a battle (or several actions) to breach the positions and then exploit which was followed generally by a re-grouping before attacking the next line - and that is how the main battle articles are structured, either as a landing or a line (except the Gustav and Hitler lines are in the Cassino article because it is Cassino rather than Gustav which is in general usage worldwide and Caesar C is in Anzio for the same reason - although the spring 45 operations at Anzio could be split out into a separate article, but I don't think that is called for). This structure gives a nice progression and easy to follow timeline in the campaignbox. Are you suggesting there should be a templated article for each line and a separate "Battle of (X line)" article as well? Seems a bit drastic and a lot of hard work! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that I'm poorly educated on the Italian Campaign, bear with me as I try to muddle this through. Right now it seems that we've got both the lines and the battles/operations around those lines in the same template. This, to me, is like having a super/sub set within the same campaign box, which I think could be broken down (which is why I initially moved the combat around the Winter Line). Each line is, in a way, the "parent" article of numerous battles/operations.

How about this? What if we were to keep all the lines and battles/operations in one template, but find a way to create dividers within the template itself (Something like: Winter Line - San Pietro, Ortona, Monte Cassino, Anzio; Gothic Line - Battle 1, Battle 2...) Oberiko 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I had a quick fiddle with the standard campaignbox template to achieve this but it doesn't look very good (you can have a look for yourself in my sandbox). Not to say it couldn't be improved with more work. I still like your original idea of a sub campaignboxes grouping logical operations together although this goes with excluding the smaller articles (Ortona, San Pietro, Gemano) from the main Italian campaignbox - which won't necessarily please everyone. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done #1-4 in my list above because it was uncontrovertial. I'm also thinking about splitting the Gothic Line article but I'm leaving the rest whilst we decide what to do about the campaignbox(es) design. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? It's a little spacey, but if it can be filled up with more of the battles / actions (including the minor ones that merit articles) it should look alright. Oberiko 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! My comments would be:

• Battles at the Winter Line and Rome should be The Battles for Rome and Central Italy (The Cassino and Anzio combination is often referred to in the bibliography as the battle for Rome. Trasimene Line was well north of Rome and so not part of the Winter Line or Rome battles but the Central Italy name for the fighting in June and July north of Rome is widely used in the bibliography. Bernhardt Line was part of the Winter Line and is (correctly I think) in the previous section, so let's omit WL from this section title.)
• San Pietro should be the last item in the Advance to the Winter Line section because it was an action forming part of the Bernhardt Line battle
• I better get working on the Gothic Line article split!!

Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're defining the Winter Line as Gustov + Bernhardt + Adolf Hitler lines, then shouldn't the Berhhardt Line and Battle of San Pietro be considered part of the action around the Winter Line, Rome and Central Italy?

It would also appear, to me, that we could probably even merge Volturno and Barbara lines with the Winter Line, as their primary purpose seemed to be to stall the Allies from reaching the Winter Line itself. Theyy only took up about a month each so I also wouldn't consider them quite up to the same scope as the other stages of the campaign. Oberiko 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point 1. Technically yes although the Allies saw the Bernhardt action as part of the approach to the Gustav and so a continuation of the Volturno and Barbara phase they didn't neccessarily use the German's definition at the time...). You can argue it either way.....I had it in the approach section because of the phasing argument and because the Rome and Central Italy section was already quite full (OK, not the best reason!)

Your point 2: Absolutely not! Volturno and Barbara were major actions with significant casualties (the US alone had 10,000 battle casualties getting from the Volturno to the starting point of Bernhardt). It's just that nobody has got round to writing much about them yet. Leave them as they are and hopefully someone will fill them out...a year ago the Gothic Line article looked a bit like the Barbara Line one.

I've split out and created a Spring 45 article Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 20:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{main}} 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)[reply]

I've now re-written the section to reflect the above and incorporate relevant recent edits. Hope this is siutable. Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The recent mute revert made today even reinstated the spelling mistakes I had carefully corrected! Please don't do this without some comment here. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wasn't Yugoslavia included in campain as well? At the end of war it captured Trieste and it's air forces were located in southern Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.216.28 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I started adding ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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) I'd suggest cutting this whole little section. It adds nothing, is not part of the history of the campaign, and does not fit its title. (AM)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• 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 {{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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 09:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The infobox says that Italy became a co-belligerent of the Allies in September 1943, but according to the sources Italy actually entered on 13 October 1943. [1] [2] [3] [4] DavideVeloria88 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is misrepresenting since Royal Italian units were formed on the allied side since September already. They were already cooperating militarily with the Allies since before the formal declaration of war --Havsjö (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to what sources? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primo Raggruppamento Motorizzato was created on 26 September. It was created by Royal Italy after they protested to Allied command who initially said Italian units should not participate further in the war. I.e. Italy was militarily cooperating with Allies since 26 Sep, when the earliest Italian Allied military units were created. it:Primo Raggruppamento Motorizzato --Havsjö (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The Primo Raggruppamento Motorizzato was created on 26 September, but it entered the war only in December 1943 with the battle of Montelungo ([5]). The Kingdom of Italy participated to the campaign in October 1943, when it officially declared war on Germany. Before that, no Italian units were at war. They were created, but they had not yet entered the war. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt "wrong" on anything as I didnt say they entered battle on 26 Sep. You may want to re-read my previous comment "I.e. Italy was militarily cooperating with Allies since 26 Sep, when the earliest Italian Allied military units were created." Keep in mind this unit was created despite the Allies originally not wanting Italian participation, yet the Royal Italian gov. insisted to cooperated with the allies against Germany, leading to the creation and integration of allied Italian military units into the Allied armies in Italy on 26 Sep.

The infobox shows when the Kingdom of Italy started allying (militarily) with the Allies, not when they declared war on Germany. They started militarily allying (co-belligerence, I know) with them already on 26 sep. with the creation and integration of that unit, with the purpose of using it to soon fight Germany, into the allied forces --Havsjö (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: this edit summary is a WP:PA, compounded by this. Don't do it. What was there may or may not be right, but you need to AGF. Havsjö, an experienced editor, replaced the flag here with what appears to be, on its face, a reasonable explanation. A single edit editor then replaced the flag with the modern Palestinian one which is clearly nonsense and which I reverted. Now, I don't actually know what the best representation is - that should be discussed here - but to start bandying around accusations of vandalism in that context is unacceptable. Can you please explain why Havsjö's explanation is wrong. And Havsjö, you might want to weigh in. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the use of the word vandalism, I had not realised it was not you who had added the Israel flag. I only realised that this was not a case of vandalism when I reverted and saw the equally inappropriate modern Palestinian flag.

As for the question at hand, something very similar to the modern Israeli flag was the regimental standard of the Jewish Brigade, a unit recruited largely in Palestine but commanded by English officers. I have never seen a regimental standard used to represent a state, or in this case, a colony on wikipedia. I would expect an experienced user to know this. And the Jewish Brigade were not the only Palestinians in Italy, there were also mixed Jewish and Arab units of the Engineering Corps, who had no relation to the Star of David regimental standard whatsoever. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. According to Jewish Brigade it was a unit of the British Army (unlike the Indian Army - not sure about the Newfies). So why is it even separately represented in the Infobox? DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the process by which participants are selected for WWII articles. It seems to generally be based on participation of soldiers from that country, but I'm not sure what the criteria are. Perhaps there is a general policy across wikipedia, or perhaps not? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The participation in this case seems to have been quite modest - of the order of a few platoons. Even putting it in the infobox - which is supposed to be summary of the article content - when not covered in the article text, might be considered WP:Undue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Also, the Ghurkas were famously at Monte Casino but that doesn't mean there should be a Nepali flag. The Caribbean Regiment was also part of the Italian campaign. I don't think there's any logic in including flags for places around the globe where the British Army recruited - and I haven't spotted another Infobox where that's been done. I think the best solution to this is just take it out until someone can justify it. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree with what each of your points as a whole, I would say that the Jewish Brigade was, as the name suggests, Brigade strength. Their article indicates the whole brigade took part in the Italian campaign, and indicates its strength as 5500 Palestinian Jews. Though, obvs wikipedia is not RS. The other units from Mandatory Palestine in Italy were 4 companies of the engineering corps of mixed Arab and Jewish Palestinians, that would be Battalion strength. There may also have been some Jewish only engineering companies, but the source I've seen on it (Palestinians fighting against Nazis. The story of Palestinian volunteers in the Second World War by Mustafa Abbasi) doesn't mention whether they were in Italy. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a big topic which applies to lots of conflicts and situations, is it perhaps not a bit of a big question for 3 users to decide on one talkpage? Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around and haven't yet been able to find an Infobox with a similar issue (a British army unit recruited from outside Britain which is independently listed with its own flag). I could easily have missed them though. Are you aware of it elsewhere? DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly allowable to have a local consensus; what's decided here doesn't necessarily set precedent across wikipedia. And if consensus changes, then so be it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of De Causa's question we run into the issue of what is a colony at what time. Australia, Canada, Newfoundland and NZ are frequently listed as participants in First World War battles. None of those countries were independent by any measure at that time. If we take the Battle of the Somme, we have a single "British Empire" entry, with 8 dominion and colonies listed, quite similar to what we see in this page. The Second Boer War page shows something similar, listing Basutoland and Bechuanaland as combatants. The Battle of the River Plate shows New Zealand as a combatant, despite the fact its participation was as a New Zealand division, similar to the situation of the Palestinian contingent in Italy. However, there are also battles on here, such as Siege of Mafeking where the belligerents are linked simply as "British Empire", despite the article mentioning the presence of Australians and Rhodesians. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were the same. AFAIK, those forces, like the British Indian Army, weren't part of the British Army. We don't really need to discuss how independent they were as political entities (although by WW1 they were all self-governing dominions which Palestine wasn't) the point is they had their own armies separate from the British Army - Canada since 1855, Australia since 1901 and NZ since 1845. The Jewish Brigade was just a unit of the British Army. It's not really any different to Lowland Brigade (United Kingdom). DeCausa (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree here. The NZ armed forces in WWI were commanded, equipped, raised and organised by the British Army. The expeditionary forces were not the same as the permanent defensive militia that existed prior to this, and had no operational independence from the UK forces. They were regular British Army units. And this disregards the other colonies listed as combatants at the Somme, such as Bermuda, Rhodesia and Newfoundland. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this is involving me in something I'm not that interested in - arising out of patrolling the original revert that prompted this. I'll leave it to you and others to resolve as you see fit. To me, I don't see the comparability of the Jewish Brigade (or the Caribbean Brigade) of the British Army with other Dominion armies...and the colonial flags of the Caribbean should be added to the infobox of that's the thinking. But I'll leave it to you. DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a difficult one, I can totally see your point of view and it is a question of where to draw lines in an extremely blurry area. That was why I feel maybe a unified policy would be for the best, rather than local consensus. Anyway, apologies again for going in two-footed at the beginning. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]