This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 24, 2014. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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=1273When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
The article should mention that the partisans were terrorists. ( 109.153.101.59 ( talk) 15:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC))
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 24, 2014. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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=1273When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
The article should mention that the partisans were terrorists. ( 109.153.101.59 ( talk) 15:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC))