Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino

Bear

I reverted this edit, adding the bear to the list of combatants. Note that I did so solely based on this being Aelimian21 (talk · contribs) acting inappropriately (see WP:SOCK). I take no stance on whether or not the bear should be included in the list, and my revert should not be understood as me advocating any position on that subject. I do really like the story of the bear, though. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been an issue on this page for several years, with some (usually drive-by) editors repeatedly adding "1 bear" to the allied belligerent strengths, and others (usually the regular editors of this page) reverting them. I completely support the reversions: even though Wojtek (bear) was technically enrolled in the Polish army, the belligerent strength numbers are necessarily very round figures, and there is absolutely no justification for singling out one "individual" who was present at but played no significant part in the battle. However, having said that, Wojtek is considered notable enough to have his own article (and was even once the subject of a "Did you know?" entry), and I would have no objection to his being given a very brief mention somewhere appropriate in the body of the article; or alternatively just being listed in the "See also" section. What do others think? GrindtXX (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we revisit this? Wojtek was an enlisted soldier and since bears cannot be categorized under men, tanks, or planes it is entirely appropriate to add in the "1 bear." It is misleading and detrimental to the article’s integrity to leave Wojtek out, GrindtXX. How does it actually hurt the article to add 1 bear? It is historically accurate and doesn't actually affect anyone. Aelimian21 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So im gonna raise this again, the bear, why can't he be a fixture of the page? or can he, i think this needs revisting. Lindwigtoon 00:24, 28th September 2020 (BST)

I take it no one is going to comment on this, so I'm going to make the change, if we discuss this at a later date and decide otherwise. Lindwigtoon 12:57, 9th October 2020 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4C75:C500:C81F:19C7:DA7F:E33D (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Impact on the Abbey building itself ? Impact on the town ? The Marocchinate ?

I find it astonishing that there is almost nothing about the impact and the almost total destruction of the abbey (especially the building) itself. That especially since this abbey is and was so much important as one of the original abbeys of the Benedictine Order. This historical importance is nowhere emphasized.

Compared against the great amount of detail and wealth of information of the battle itself, the destruction of the abbey's building itself is nowhere actually described. The battle is explained and described in every possible detail - but the actual destruction of the building - and what has actually been destroyed - is almost silenced to death.

Even more disturbingly, there does not even exist an English-language article about the abbey's building itself; there is only one single artice titled "Monte Cassino", and´the article begins as a description of the hill, not of the abbey. It does contain an description of the abbey - but the overall article's wording is always about the hill, not the actual abbey's building. Through this downplaying, readers can get the impression as if this special Benetictine founding abbey was "just another target" and didn't have any importance in Christian history at all.

I can also see no article on the destruction of the town of Cassino, nothing about its bombing, and no article how much of the ancient roman town of Casinum was destroyed through the bombing. And nothing about the fact that many civilians lost their lives there.

There is also almost no mentioning of the Marocchinate and its reasoning. That an Ally officer apparingly implicitely allowed the mass rape (or so I understand its article) is something that should be within the Battle article. Although this is clearly a part of the actual war, it is never mentioned within the main article, and the proposed thousands of cases of rape (if the numbers of the Marocchinate article are true) are thus downplayed as some kind of minor collateral damage. There is no mention of an scientific approac to the event, only the mention of an "claims of exaggeration" by a French Marshal, but this claim does not look to me like an the result of a scientific study.

When I compare the sheer amount of words of the paragraph called "the Battle" with the paragraph about the Marocchinate, then the reader can see how unimportant actual civilians are. Even the paragraph about "troop honours" is placed higher than the paragraphs about the civilians.

The article "Battle of Monte Cassino" is an military article. It should, however, show *everything* about the battle, and not downplay aspects of it, like the destruction of the actual, Abbey building, the mass rape called Marrocchinade, and the destruction of the town of Casino.

On the page about the town Cassino there is a picture of the destroyed town "ruins of Cassino after the bombing". What I do not understand is that it is not shown within the "Battle of Monte Cassino" page, although its destruction was clearly a part of the whole battle. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The simple reasons for your first two questions is that this is an article about the battle in the context of the campaign in Italy and not about the building or town except where that has relevance to the fighting. And that's where the focus of the article lies. That does not preclude anyone writing an article about the buildings or the town but if volunteer editors don't have resources or inclination to write about those then they won't. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"After the bombing" quote

From the article as it stands: "Cardinal Secretary of State, Luigi Maglione, bluntly stated to the senior U.S. diplomat to the Vatican, Harold Tittmann, that the bombing was 'a colossal blunder … a piece of a gross stupidity'." That should clearly be (in correct English) "a piece of gross stupidity". Is Maglione being misquoted, or was his English poor? Can anyone check the cited source: Hapgood & Richardson, p. 225? Thanks. GrindtXX (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Quote is correct. In Hapgood & Richardson, New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1984, it is, however, on p. 227. TrinityGate (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) x

Haven't researched this particular quote and am not going to, but I feel compelled to point out that Romance languages do not use "a" and "the" the same way that English does. Very plausibly he was mistranslated, since this is a Top Ten translation mistake. Alternately, if he was speaking in English it is possible that he had not grasped this difference. It seems rather pointless to make a distracting issue of the use of language when the ellipsis could cover it: "a colossal blunder...gross stupidity". That said, I have no intention of doing a deep dive on the issue, consider this a drive-by suggestion. I am here trying to parse out which "corps" joined "Armée B". It wouldn't be the Germans and doesn't seem to have been the Fifth Army. Off to look further. Elinruby (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Polish unit that captured Monte Casino

If Polish forces captured Monte Casino why is the Polish unit not mentioned, only the British and Americans. Surely the Polish unit had a name and a leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.121.235 (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Newfoundland - a separate belligerent? Huh?

It wasn’t a separate country in 1944. Boscaswell talk 01:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wojtek Compromise

Ive been reading lack of consensus here on the mentioning of Wojtek the bear in the Strength Section of the Infobox.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached by adding a note on the 240k men to make note of Wojtek, given that they didnt fit the commonly understood notion of "men" in a military context.

Given that Wojtek is of notoriety for his combat in the battle, especially given how unusual it is for a bear to fight in a human war, I think it should be at the very least, a footnote Cheese ¹²² 07:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There's clear consensus that he's not to be added to the infobox. He's already listed in the article under "See also". --Denniss (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean looking above at the Bear Section only one person @GrindtXX directly agreed with the not making a note of it however even they stated they would be ok with a small mention. The rest of the comments all either want it to be revisited or the original person who made the revision specifically not taking a stance on the issue.

That doesn't seem like a consensus unless the discussion about this happened elsewhere? Cheese ¹²² 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree on the footnote stance, I see this as a fair compromise. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:8480:1EF2:5379:7F65 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to include among actual editors, which is visible in talk page comments both in one of the above sections and in the TP archive. Drive-by IPs are not pertinent to that consensus. Loafiewa (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Again if I am missing something, please point to the supposed consensus that exists. 1 person in the above sections, mildly agrees with its lack of inclusion although is open to some other means of inclusion.

Looking through the archive, 1 discussion was held 4 years ago about the dispute that cited the reason for not including it as " just nationalism/fanboism vandalismus. " which makes zero sense given that it is an objective fact that Wojtek was a part of the battle and that he is a notably unusual aspect about that battle, likely where most people actually hear about the battle itself.

Furthermore, it only seems like two editors actually agreed with the belief that its inappropriate which I think is fair to say that it is not a consensus, especially when its keeps getting added by Driveby IPs Cheese ¹²² 07:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, let's just go over the facts again. Wojtek did not "fight" in the battle: he was a unit mascot, who (as a technical fiction, to allow him to be shipped to Italy) was nominally enrolled as a soldier. He may, on occasion, have helped carry boxes of ammunition (though even that's disputed). As for your suggestion that he is "likely where most people actually hear about the battle itself", that's nonsense: that may be how you heard about the battle, but most people will learn about it as a major battle of World War II, involving thousands of men and thousands of casualties, not because of one minor "fun fact". As far as I can see, Wojtek gets no mention in any of the standard English-language histories of the battle (Majdalany, Ellis, Parker etc). The figures in the infobox are rounded off to the nearest thousand, and there is absolutely no reason to single out one "individual" for mention, either in the infobox itself, or in a footnote from it. We don't mention the hundreds of mules who played a far more significant role as ammunition carriers.

The presence of a bear technically in the Polish ranks is a piece of trivia, completely incidental to the story of the battle (which is what this article is about). I'll agree it's "quite interesting", and could be mentioned in, or as a footnote from, the body of the article – but absolutely no more than a single sentence, with a link to Wojtek (bear). Unfortunately, there's no obvious place to insert it – possibly under "Legacy", though even that's not really ideal. GrindtXX (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, with your statement that he did not "fight" per se in the battle, however he was certainly involved in the battle itself in a combat capacity, compared to the mules that you mention which played a logistical role instead of combat.

I believe I may not have properly conveyed my belief when I said that Wojtek "likely where most people actually heard about the battle itself". I mean to convey that, for more youthful users, they likely do not learn about the battle directly unless they live within Italy itself. Outside of this, I have heard very little mention about the battle of Monte Casino despite its importance. However many people likely have heard of Wojtek through the memeiness of the bear. Looking at the views of both this page and Wojtek's, at time of current writing, Wojtek has approximately 600 more views than this article. On Youtube, where most people likely learn about Wojtek, the top videos have 3.8 Million views; 4.3 Million Views and 9.9 Million views compared to the highest video on Monte Cassino being at 1.3 Million Views and is a reupload of a old documentary, all others are under 1 Million. While this doesn't intended to show the Wojtek is more important than Monte Cassino, Wojtek is likely more known than the battle he was present in.

I agree that Wojtek shouldn't get an extra statistic in the strength forces and I agree that Wojtek is absolutely a piece of trivia of the battle, but he is a well known piece of trivia, and I believe he is worthy of a mention, however brief in the article for being that piece of trivia.

I suggest, as a footnote on the strengths of soldiers, we add "A unit mascot, Wojtek, a bear, was allegedly present in the battle, carrying ammunition to troops". I think this would be a simple and small note to give mention of Wojtek as trivia while not immensely infringing on the content of the article itself. Cheese ¹²² 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a sentence along those lines – preferably citing a couple of references (which could just be copied from the Wojtek article). However, I still don't think that the infobox (or even a footnote from the infobox) is the right place for this. The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I think Wojtek should be mentioned in the body of the article. The problem is where: there's really nowhere obvious as things stand. One possibility would be create a specific (but still short!) "Bear" section – perhaps after "Casualties" and before "Legacy". Another would be to create a "Bear" subsection within "Legacy" (probably at the end), with a mention of his postwar life in Scotland and the fact that a number of memorials to him exist. Other views? GrindtXX (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, the bear is of no importance at all for the Battle article. At best a footnote and this is already handled in the see also section. --Denniss (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@GrindtXX I see your point on the info box, I agree that a small subsection in the legacy section could be sufficient.

@Denniss As I showed in my previous comment about the internet notability of Wojtek, I would say Wojtek is relevant to the battle, especially in its legacy which has, at least online, become more prevalent and known than Monte Cassino itself Cheese ¹²² 01:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That may be in a polish bubble only but not in the rest of the world. Wasn't the polish nationalist party mis-using him for advertizing? --Denniss (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wojtek is a trivial subject compared to the battle itself. It's worth a link to the Wojtek article from the "See also" section, but that's it. (Hohum ^@) 12:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Denniss I had been looking through English youtube and Wojtek is a more viewed subject on English youtube than this battle specifically. I don't know anything about a polish nationalist party misusing him and I also don't see how that is relevant.

@Hohum Trivial, maybe, but is a large part of this battles legacy due to his legend and I dont think a link the "See also" gives proper justice, nor does it adequately explain his relevance to the battle.

In case y'all want any more date showing Wojteks notoriety over Monte Cassino, see below:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0fcx81,%2Fm%2F081w0&hl=en

Based of the google trends data, Wojtek as been consistently searched more online than the Battle of Monte Cassino except for a brief period between December 2016 - December 2018. While I'm sure Google trends isn't the best source for the frequency of searches, it does show that broadly Wojtek is searched more worldwide than the Battle of Monte Cassino Cheese ¹²² 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles about battles should by guided by what is in military history resources, not relative popularity on a social media platform. (Hohum ^@) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, however when an certain aspect of this battle is so prevalent in the common knowledge, arguably more than the actual event itself, I would say that is is worth to be mentioned as part of its legacy Cheese ¹²² 13:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about a battle; the main Wojtek article is not, and goes into as much detail as required. All that needs to be in this article is a link to it. (Hohum ^@) 13:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

A link however, does not actually convey the cultural impact from wojtek to the history of the battle and I think is insufficient Cheese ¹²² 13:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you are over emphasizing Wojtek's cultural impact on the historiography of this battle. Of the relevant reliable sources about this battle, how many have more than a passing reference, or any reference to Wojtek? (Hohum ^@) 13:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

RSI Belligerent

Should the Italian Social Republic be added as a belligerent in this battle? The battle took place in Italy in 1944, well after the RSI had been established, therefore it should be added to the infobox of belligerents. 85.229.111.139 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)