Talk:Italian protectorate over Albania

Proposal to change the name of the article

"Italian Protectorate on southern Albania" has zero Google search hits (except this article).

On the other hand there are dozens hits on "Italian protectorate over Albania" + 1917.

Maybe much more important reason is that according to the secret treaty that was basis for establishing this protectorate, Italia was to get southern and central Albania and Serbia and Montenegro northern Albania. There are numerous sources [1] which claim that Italia proclaimed protectorate over (whole) Albania, or Albania.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are some sources claiming that this was "Albanian Republic under Italian protection"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the territory of Albania under Italian control was significantly increased after 1918 it is another reason to change the name of the article that deals only with protectorate on southern Albania.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here and here is also written: “In 1917, however, the Italians proclaimed an independent Albanian republic under Italian protection” and “Italy, which controlled the south of Albania and Vlorë decided to set up an Albanian Republic under Italian protection” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to rename "Italian Protectorate over Albania".--93Mutina (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

May be it is better: Italian Protectorate in WWI Albania.....Regards.--93Mutina (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottomans in northern Greece and western Macedonia in autumn 1918?

"The Italians in autumn 1918 expanded their Protectorate to areas of northern Greece and western Macedonia, conquered from the Bulgarians and Ottomans."

I checked the source and could not find ottomans in the text. I propose to check the sources for Ottomans.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There were a few Ottoman troops fighting with the Bulgarian Army (I believe even some German & Austrian troops).--93Mutina (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to provide inline citation?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Antidiskriminator. Here it is a clear reference to the Ottoman Army in Macedonia: [2]. The Rumelia Field Detachment was sent to fight in Monastir, as you can see--93Mutina (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the link. It says that Ottoman army was present in Western Thrace, Struma sector and Dobrudja. That means that "areas of northern Greece (around Kastoria) and western Macedonia (around Bitola)" could not be "conquered from the ... Ottomans" because this source does not prove that there was Ottoman army around Kastoria and Bitola.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC) My mistake, I now realised that it says "transfer to Monastir". Thanks for link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I still find information about "The Italians in autumn 1918 expanded their Protectorate to areas of northern Greece (around Kastoria) and western Macedonia (around Bitola), conquered from the Bulgarians and Ottomans." confusing and misleading. Italians could not capture area around Bitola (Monastir) in autumn 1918 because it was already captured in 1916 during Monastir Offensive. Also, I think Bitola was part of Yugoslavia after 1918 and was never part of Albania under Italian protectorate.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, read this) (or translate from Italian with google): it says that the Italian 35 Division attacked the area around Bitola (near Sop and near Baba, the mountain overlooking Monastir/Bitola) in september 27, 1918 and was stopped further conquest by the bulgarian surrender.--93Mutina (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC) PS: Borders with Yugoslavia were done after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919: before that year existed only the Italian Protectorate in the lake Prespa area.

The link you provided support the claim that Italian army fought against Bulgarians in the mentioned area. Still, it says nothing about Ottoman army or Italian protectorate over area around Bitola which was (together with area around it) under control of Yugoslavia after 1918 and officially within its borders after peace conferences in 1919 and 1920. Do you have any source to support the claim that Bitola was part of Albania under Italian protectorate after the autumn 1918? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Ottoman Army you know my answer with the "Rumelia Field Detachment" in Monastir....but I cannot keep answering all your questions, even because I am not a scholar ready to give every answer about (:D)....I have only written The Italians in autumn 1918 expanded their Protectorate to areas of northern Greece (around Kastoria) and western Macedonia (around Bitola), conquered from the Bulgarians and Ottomans. I did not write anything about 1919. What happened in 1919 in western Macedonia is out of my knowledge (and I am not going to do a research about), but the areas conquered by the Italian Army in autumn 1918 were surely administered at least until december 1918 in the same way in Italian occupied western Macedonia as in Argirokaster. It was a policy of the Italian government to administer in the same way all the areas conquered. Of course, we know that (after the Paris Peace Conference) an Albanian rebellion was started against the Italians and soon the Italian Army was reduced to defend only the Vlora area and central Albania. So, when Jugoslavia was created, the macedonian area around lake Prespa was surely without Italian troops. I hope to have answered your questions. Now I have to go back to my work. Regards.--93Mutina (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not answer my question: Do you have any source to support the claim that Bitola was part of Albania under Italian protectorate after the autumn 1918? In the text of the article you wrote that western Macedonia (area around Bitola) was part of Italian protectorate and now you talk about area around Prespa, which is of course completely different thing, though it is near Bitola. I think that using the word "around" can mislead the readers to believe that Bitola itself was under Italian protectorate in the autumn 1918. I propose to use word "near" instead of "around"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I never wrote that Bitola was part of the Italian Protectorate over Albania. I only wrote that the Italians expanded their Protectorate with a military campaign, without any reference to adding Bitola to Albania. In order to prevent misundertandings I have added something to the article, indicating that officially western Macedonia was NOT part of the Italian protectorate. With the word "expansion" during a military campaign we use to refer to military occupation, not political annexation.--93Mutina (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose rewording of protectorate which is independent

"Italian Protectorate on southern Albania was established by the Kingdom of Italy on June 23, 1917 -during WWI- in order to create an independent Albania under Italian control. It lasted until summer 1920."

I think it is absurd to claim that Italy created protectorate under Italian control "in order to created an independent Albania". Therefore I propose rewording of the first sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In History there are cases of States that are independent, but at the same time are under "control" of other States. To name a few: the Quisling States during WWII or the famous "France of Vichy" (independent but fully controlled by nazi Germany). Anyway I have changed the sentence and now it says: The Italian Protectorate over Albania was established by the Kingdom of Italy on June 23, 1917 -during WWI- in order to create a "de iure" independent Albania under Italian control and influence. Hope it is OK now. Regards.--93Mutina (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I understood word independent too literally. If you think that previous formulation was better, I do not oppose it anymore. Sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian Protectorate over Albania

I agree with the rename of the article, as proposed by Antidiskriminator.--93Mutina (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

May be it is better to rename: Italian Protectorate in WWI Albania.....Regards.--93Mutina (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense because Albania was more than once under Italian protectorate. But we need to provide sources for name of the state under Italian protectorate. Your proposal has zero Google Search hits. Till now I found Albanian Republic and Italian Protectorate over Albania. Maybe we should try to find what are the most reliable sources and to make decision then?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, for me it is OK even to use this reference on Google book: [3] As you can read, it is clearly written Italian Protectorate in Central and Southern Albania. Anyway, many articles on wiki are not named because of the google search hits, don't forget this simple reality.Regards.--93Mutina (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Still, this protectorate was a state, with its government led by Turhan Pasha, its flag, ... That state had its name. I think that sources I provided above say that the name of the state was Albanian Republic, but still, maybe we need more sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Protectorate was not a State: it was not even recognised by Great Britain and France (as I have added in the article a few minutes ago, with a precise reference)). So it is impossible to find the name....it was only a Protectorate in central and south Albania. Furthermore, all the references in Italian that I have checked refer always to a Protectorate (located in Albania) and never to a State with a specific name. Regards.--93Mutina (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Protectorate "the term protectorate has two different meanings. In its earliest inception,....it retains sufficient measure of sovereignty and remains a state under international law. A second meaning... were not regarded as separate states under international law." It looks that you may be right, but I will try to investigate further this matter.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, my friend.--93Mutina (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well. After nearly two weeks I see that nobody has added anything about, so I am going to move the article to Italian Protectorate over Albania, as discussed previously.--93Mutina (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)