Italian Armistice 8 Sept. 1943

Discussions on all aspects of Italy under Fascism from the March on Rome to the end of the war.
Post Reply
User avatar
Folgore
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Apr 2002, 18:09
Location: Roma, Europe

Italian Armistice 8 Sept. 1943

#1

Post by Folgore » 19 Apr 2002, 11:38

In Italy this armistice has generated a civil war, serious debates, tensions, cultural and social fragmentations, which still now affect Italian society. The question is: In a war which outcome had become evident (at least in the Mediterranean), had Italy the moral right to surrender separately, or may this act be condemned as betrayal?

Thanks, Folgore

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#2

Post by michael mills » 19 Apr 2002, 16:33

The case of Italy in 1943 is rather similar to that of france in 1940. In both cases the legal government of the country surrendered to the enemy, but part of the armed forces refused to accept the surrender and continued to fight on the side of the former ally, eg the "Free French" forces of De Gaulle on the side of Britain, the forces of the Repubblica Sociale Italiana on the side of Germany.

In both cases, the former ally, Britain in the case of France and Germany in the case of Italy, regarded the surrendering government as traitorous. In both cases, the former ally attacked the armed forces of the surrendering country when they refused to desert and continue to fight the enemy. In 1940, the British Navy attacked the French fleet at anchor at Mers-el-Kebir when it refused to desert to the British side. In 1943, German troops attacked and imprisoned Italian forces who followed the call of their government to surrender to the allies.

The big difference is that Italy soon joined the war against Germany, whereas France after surrendering never allied itself with Germany against Britain. The only fighting between French and British forces occurred when the French were attacked, as in Syria in 1941.

Another difference of course is that the Allies won. For that reason, Petain was tried as a traitor, whereas Badoglio was not.


User avatar
Folgore
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Apr 2002, 18:09
Location: Roma, Europe

Differences.

#3

Post by Folgore » 20 Apr 2002, 14:27

Michael your point is interesting, French armistice of 1940 and Italian of 1943 have some similarities. The formal situation is indeed quite similar: Legal governments surrender, while portions of forces decide to continue to fight. However I would say there are some primary differences in the “substance” of the two contexts:
1) In June 1940 the war had still many aspects of a “conventional” war, not of a total, absolute, world war. This means that, in case of German victory, it could have been supposed that the eventual peace treaty would have essentially consisted in a transfer of territory, in war reparations, and in the moving of part of the political and power balance in favour of the Axis, all this in the logic of a continous and secular dispute for power between European nations. - In Sept. 1943 the situation was completely different:
All the World was at war, Powers and ideologies were fighting for survival, unconditional surrender was the Allies only target, it was clear that, once ended the war , much more than a portion of territory would have been pretended by the enemy.
2) French Armistice was signed one week after the Germans had entered Paris, western and central France had been occupied, the Maginot line had been passed, the British had evacuated Dunkerque, Italian troops were attacking from the Alps, practically no valid defense could be continued in the motherland. – In Sept. 1943 , for what concerns Italian national territory, only Sicily had been lost, the bulk of the army was still intact, German troops in Italy were figthing with convintion, and the italian peninsula (as the evolution of the campaign will demonstrate) is an easy territory for defense.
This difference is important, because in one case the general impression is you surrender after the crucial battle, in the other you surrender before.
3) The fightings between British and French forces were not a natural consequence of the Armistice. Dakar, Mers-el-Kebir, Syria, Madagascar etc... were operations the British considered necessary for their security. Vichy France maintained an ambigous role, under many aspects it represented a guarantee for many French interests, many cases of intelligence between Vichy and Allies took place, at the point that in November 1942 Axis forces occupied it. Vichy was not like the Badoglio government, which unconditionally passed to the other side under all aspects. – In Sept. 1943 the situation, in its ambiguity, was much more neat and tragic: or one side or the other, and if you chose one side you were inevitably , in substance, in war with the other. This extreme situation was obviously caused by the fact that Italian and German troops were practically “melted” in the territories occupied by the two armies, and in Italy,( The British- French troops’ displacement is not comparable). Moreover, in the Italian case, there could be no hope of preserving part of the territory from foreign occupation (like for Vichy), being one part occupied by your former ally, and the other by your former enemies (with whom you have signed an unconditional surrender), and being this territory the battlefield.

Ciao. F.

trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: Italian Armistice 8 Sept. 1943

#4

Post by trekker » 27 Aug 2013, 10:51

There is a particular view of the armistice signed with Italy in September 1943 which has attracted my attention. First, let me present three facts:

1) Military armistice signed at Fairfield Camp, Sicily, September 3, 1943 was signed by general Eisenhower acting by authority of the Governments of the United States and Great Britain and in the interest of the United Nations.
2) Instrument of surrender signed at Malta September 29, 1943 was signed by Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Force general Eisenhower. The instrument stated that the United States and United Kingdom Governments were acting on behalf of the United Nations. In article 38 the term "United Nations" was defined as to include the Allied Commander-in-Chief, the Control Commission and any other authority which the United Nations may designate.
3) January 1, 1942 a group of states signed a Declaration by the United Nations in which they subscribed to the Atlantic Charter and declared: “Each Government pledges itself /.../ not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.“ The United States and the United Kingdom where among the signatories.

Here are my conclusions based on the above presented facts:

A) The USA and Great Britain signed the armistice on their own behalf and not on behalf of the United Nations but they pretended to act on behalf of the United Nations.
B) The only United Nations known in September 1943 were a gruoup of states that signed a declaration on January 1, 1942 promising not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies. The USA and Great Britain declared to sign the armistice with Italy on behalf of the United Nations to mask the violation of the declaration signed on January 1, 1942.

I would appreciate to read comments and suggestions on legal aspects of the matter. I do not at all raise the question of whether signing the armistice was appropriate or not. Has this question already been covered by some book?

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Italian Armistice 8 Sept. 1943

#5

Post by GregSingh » 27 Aug 2013, 12:54

This is the beginning of the first public broadcast about the Armistice (from Radio Algiers, September 8th, 18:30 local time):

"This is General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied forces. The Italian Government has surrendered its armed forces unconditionally. As Allied Commander-in-Chief, I have granted a military armistice, the terms of which have been approved by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus I am acting in the interests of the United Nations.[..]"

Also in his speech to the nation, president Roosevelt said about the Armistice:

[..]During the past weeks, Mr. Churchill and I have been in constant conference with the leaders of our combined fighting forces. We have been in constant communication with our fighting Allies, Russian and Chinese, who are prosecuting the war with relentless determination and with conspicuous success on far distant fronts[..]

So Armistice was not a surprise to "Allies", not even to Germans as they intercepted Italian response on September 1st.

trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: Italian Armistice 8 Sept. 1943

#6

Post by trekker » 27 Aug 2013, 14:03

GregSingh wrote: "This is General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied forces. The Italian Government has surrendered its armed forces unconditionally. As Allied Commander-in-Chief, I have granted a military armistice, the terms of which have been approved by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus I am acting in the interests of the United Nations.[..]"
Thanks for your post presenting additional facts on involvement of allied countries.
I do not suggest that any of allies opposed to signing the armistice. I do not doubt that Eisenhower was „acting in the interests of the United Nations“ when signing it.

I do wonder who was legally bound with obligations arising from documents signed by Eisenhower. No doubt they were the USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union as seen from Amendment of Instrument of Surrender (9.11.1943) and Eisenhower's broadcast: „As Allied Commander-in-Chief, I have granted a military armistice, the terms of which have been approved by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.“

It is my opinion that other allied countries were not legally obliged by terms of the armistice unless they officially approved them.

Post Reply

Return to “Italy under Fascism 1922-1945”