Talk:Ardeatine massacre

Bandiera Rossa

Non comunist group , this is not true . They were comunists.

Re the aspect of who the German unit attacked was - to be pedantic I think that the original description of it being Military Police is wrong - the Military Police (Feldgendarmerie) of the German Army and Waffen SS were a specific corps (like the RMP or US MPs or Airforce Police)- i think this unit was more likely to have been a locally raised SS Police unit (which is not the same thing as a Military Police unit)- the caption on the photo with the article in Germans says 'eine Südtiroler Polizei-Einheit' ( a South Tyrolean Police Unit) - there were many such security units raised there of both the Home Guard and more active combat/security police variant (still doesn't make them MPs though!). Various other accounts specify the unit to be S.S. Polizei Regiment 'Bozen' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.95.241 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the word Nazi

In the opening paragraph it is incorrect to speak of Nazi German troops. Nazi is a term denoting membership of in the National Socialist Democratic Worker's Party of Germany. Fewer that 5% of Germans were ever members of this party. To understand the absurdity of refering to German soldiers as Nazis, imagine referring to the Democrat American soldiers landing in Normandy, or the Conservative British soldiers fighting at El Alamein, or the Communist Soviet soldiers fighting etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.138.71 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. They were soldiers of a state commonly known as Nazi Germany, so "Nazi German soldiers" is fine. Manormadman (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Above rebuttal by Manormadman is sufficient by itself but, moreover, conclusive evidence has emerged in our days, that show the Wehrmacht to have been an equal protagonist on the various war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the German side during WWII. (See, inter alia, War crimes of the Wehrmacht.) What the German armed forces did during the war and how they behaved towards both opposite combatants and civilians was part and parcel of Nazi ideology, irrespective of each particular individual's status in German politics. The label "Nazi Germany", therefore, can only be denoted as apt.-The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Loaded language

For Piero Montesacro. Am simply a little concerned that the loading of the language will damage the article. If it seems too loaded/judgemental (e.g. "atrociously") or too graphic (e.g. "heads were blown off" and "crawled their way to other corners to agonize to death") people without a 'cultural' awareness of the events are likely to see the article as less balanced/realiable. r 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would understand your concern about the reliability of the article if I could agree that the language was actually "loaded".

However, at present, and based on what I am reading here, I can't.

In fact, last time I checked, it seemed to me that articles reliability was (mainly) based on sources and facts.

Heads were actually blown off or they were not? And, if they in fact were, why should this fact be omitted? Or, is there a gentler manner to best describe this fact in plain English?

Again, if the foresinc pathologists that were on place at the time the corpses were exhumed in order to try to identify the victims concluded that some of them most probably survived enough to crawl to death in a corner, sealed - while still alive - inside an improvised mass grave by the Germans, why should this fact be hidden and, which words would - in your opinion - be adequate to best describe their atrocious fate?

Furthermore, what do you mean with "a 'cultural' awareness of the events"? I thought that our purpose here was to contribute to such awareness (AFAIK we are "spreading knowledge worldwide", no less...) and I can't imagine how this could possibly be done by hiding facts and avoiding calling things with their proper names. --Piero Montesacro 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a diatribe or soapbox. The (initial) copy-editing of the article was to make both the language clear and facts presented impartially (i.e. neutral point of view. Indeed there are some poignant facts raised in the article, however many of these are submerged in "loaded language". Also too much reliance is made from the cinematic representation of the events rather that actually what occurred. friedfish 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure

The introduction is now far too large - we need to either put most of it under the "massacre" heading, or, IMHO better, split into "run up" to the event, "the massacre", and "after the massacre" r 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Piero Montesacro 13:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just tried to split the article contents in subsections (according to the suggestion by r above)... Sorry for the lack of edit summaries, but this is what I was trying to do with my latest edits... --Piero Montesacro 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - so I tried some more in this direction.-The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Need to expand

The Ardeatine Massacre is under reported in history, and especially on the Web. I hope someone can take some time to adequately expand this article.

Recent action includes a decision in a court case about a journalist's attempt to label the victims as communists. Here is a post from a usually reliable physicist in Italy, covering that matter, with a few links: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/via-rasella-the-truth-and-the-liar/

Surprisingly few photos of the memorial are available that I can find. Can we find someone in Rome to update and expand? It would be good to link to some of the panorama photos of the site that are available: http://ww2panorama.org/panoramas/roma Edarrell (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Illegal?"

The article says the reprisal was illegal, but in the film, written by Robert Katz, the Germans say it is legal under the Hague Convention, and the Italian priest seems to reluctantly agree. What is the true position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.254.54 (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reprisals were arguably legal according to the Hague Convention, but the way in which they were carried out made them an unequivocal war crime. Mballen (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course the action by the illegal combatants, sometimes also called "Partisans", was illegal. The 3rd Geneve conventions states "(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

At least b-d is important for the assault and murder of the German soldiers who became victims of this malicious ambush. No one cares if Italian courts did justify this act, it would be a big wonder if they would not. Did not the latter US General George Patton justify/excuse the Dachau massacre too and quit the charges against his soldiers in drum court trials!? He even called it a "good job" in his conversation with them after the trial! Does anyone hesitate to consider the killing of unarmed German POW in US custody as a war crime? SS-men who were only called to this place days before and even not responsible for the deeds in the KL Dachau. Isn´t the onlooking of US soldiers of the torture and killings of German POW by former inmates also a violation of the rules of war and a war crime? According international law they had to protect their prisoners, not to kill them. But that´s another story.. Austrianbird (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Austrianbird (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The question was about the massacre the article is about, not the initial action by the Partisans. Aside from that, rules apply to legal bodies, which is what the Hague convention is saying, missing the point that when your country is occupied by foreign soldiers, it's not about legalities anymore, you resist or you don't. If you do, all is fair. Aesma (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Occupied Italy

We need to inform readers through a very short link or sentence or phrase, that Italy was, at this time, allied with the, uh, Allies, a change from a year earlier. Therefore, this part of Italy was, de facto, "occupied by German soldiers." This is to justify the "collaborationist" sentences later. Don't want to distract the reader, but s/he may need that info as background. Student7 (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, but don't know yet how to do it. At the time of the Massacre Rome had been declared an "open city" -- i.e., a demilitarized zone, at the request of the Pope, but the German occupiers disregarded this, moving their soldiers and tanks through it, as did the Allies, who were bombing it. In 1943, the king had deposed and imprisoned Mussolini, appointed Badoglio Prime Minister, and had surrendered Italy to the Allies. However, Hitler was not happy about Italy's defection from the Axis cause. He sent in his troops to invade Rome and he rescued Mussolini, setting him up in the so-called "Republic of Salò" in Northern Italy. The king and Badoglio had fled in advance of the German invasion, leaving a power vacuum for the Wehrmacht to fill. The German troops that were ambushed on Via Rasella had been organized by the Nazis to intimidate and hunt down members of the Resistance (which also included Monarchists and members of the Carabinieri, whom the Germans particularly distrusted and subjected to torture). The Resistance was working with the Allies to throw out the Germans. The Pope and some of the Nazi diplomats were dead set against the Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" and were hoping to negotiate a "separate peace." This was why some of them, such as Dollman didn't want severe reprisals and even tried vainly to prevent the round-up of the Jews of Rome. It should also be mentioned that Roberto Rossellini's film "Open City" was based on these events and was filmed in 1944, immediately after the Allied victory, and was therefore, virtually a reenactment. That is the backstory.Mballen (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ardeatine Caves

The article does not say much about the Ardeatine Caves themselves. Where do they come from, what do they look like, what is their geology, are they natural or man-made? It would be good if somebody with appropriate knowledge could supplement this information.ViennaUK (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an article dedicated to the Caves as such would include all the pertinent details. But this entry is about the "Ardeatine Caves massacre.-The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed names of two sections

I changed the names of two sections. One changed "protagonists" to "participants", because "protagonist" is often used in contrast to "antagonist" and the section discusses individuals from both sides. It was "Fate of protagonists" and was changed to "Post-war fate of major participants".

I changed "Terrorism or freedom fighting?" to "Was the Via Rasella attack an act of war or an act of terrorism?". This is the language used in the section and I think it is better to avoid the term "freedom fighting." The Via Rasella incident has to be considered in the context of World War II. The section does this effectively, and I think the title change reflects that. Roches (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see an example in which "protagonist" is used in contrast to "antagonist". I have never heard of this usage. The dictionary merely defines protagonist as a "main character" in the story. Mballen (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ardeatine massacre. 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/20060302093625/http://www.catholicleague.org:80/piusxii_and_the_holocaust/viarasel.htm to http://www.catholicleague.org/piusxii_and_the_holocaust/viarasel.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://resources.ushmm.org/film/display/main.php?search=simple&dquery=keyword%28HUMAN+REMAINS%29&cache_file=uia_kCvydr&total_recs=36&page_len=25&page=1&rec=1&file_num=1273

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Policeregiment Bozen

Several Italian-language sources explicitly state that the surviving regiment members did not participate in the massacre. I will attempt to consolidate the references and possibly make a case for removing the regiment's name from the 'perp' list.

Also, I read one claim that these units from Sudtyrol did not have SS appended to their designations until sometime after the massacre.

Blbachman (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorists

The article should mention that the partisans were terrorists. (109.153.101.59 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

There is some disagreement among scholars, clergy, and historians about whether violent acts by irregular resistance forces against invaders with whom one is at war constitute terrorism. The head of the legitimate Italian Government, Badoglio, seems to have sanctioned resistance in the statement he issued before he fled the country, and the Allied forces announced that it expected and supported such resistance. Don't forget that during this time the illegal Nazi occupiers were were summarily shooting and torturing Italian civilians and army officers: acts of war, surely. That the targeted regiment was composed of former soldiers of the Italian army is unfortunate, but they were on the wrong side of the conflict and must have known they could be targets. Mballen (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)