Italy April 1944 discrepancy between comment and data
For Italy in 1944 zone Europe/Rome there is a discrepancy between the comment and the data. comment: # From Paul Eggert (2016-10-27): # Go with INRiM for DST rules, except as corrected by Inglis for 1944 # for the Kingdom of Italy. This is consistent with Renzo Baldini. # Model Rome's occupation by using C-Eur rules from 1943-09-10 # to 1944-06-04; although Rome was an open city during this period, it # was effectively controlled by Germany. Data for Italy is Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s 1:00 S Data for C-Eur is: Rule C-Eur 1944 1945 - Apr Mon>=1 2:00s 1:00 S where Mon>=1 in 1944 is April 3. So Rome is NOT following C-Eur. I think the rule for Itay is right, only the comment is misleading.
On 2019-07-01 17:24, Alois Treindl wrote:
For Italy in 1944 zone Europe/Rome there is a discrepancy between the comment and the data.
comment:
# From Paul Eggert (2016-10-27): # Go with INRiM for DST rules, except as corrected by Inglis for 1944 # for the Kingdom of Italy. This is consistent with Renzo Baldini. # Model Rome's occupation by using C-Eur rules from 1943-09-10 # to 1944-06-04; although Rome was an open city during this period, it # was effectively controlled by Germany.
Data for Italy is Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s 1:00 S
Data for C-Eur is: Rule C-Eur 1944 1945 - Apr Mon>=1 2:00s 1:00 S
where Mon>=1 in 1944 is April 3.
So Rome is NOT following C-Eur.
I think the rule for Itay is right, only the comment is misleading.
I am not so sure. The INRIM site no longer seems to give historical information. But the switch on 1944-04-03T01Z is also on [www.ac-ilsestante.it/MERIDIANE/ora_legale/ORA_LEGALE_ESTIVA_IN_ITALIA.htm] for the Social Republic of Salò, and Rome was only liberated on 1944-06-04. So I think 1944-04-03 may be right for Rome. Michael Deckers.
On 01.07.19 21:34, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
On 2019-07-01 17:24, Alois Treindl wrote:
For Italy in 1944 zone Europe/Rome there is a discrepancy between the comment and the data.
comment:
# From Paul Eggert (2016-10-27): # Go with INRiM for DST rules, except as corrected by Inglis for 1944 # for the Kingdom of Italy. This is consistent with Renzo Baldini. # Model Rome's occupation by using C-Eur rules from 1943-09-10 # to 1944-06-04; although Rome was an open city during this period, it # was effectively controlled by Germany.
Data for Italy is Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s 1:00 S
Data for C-Eur is: Rule C-Eur 1944 1945 - Apr Mon>=1 2:00s 1:00 S
where Mon>=1 in 1944 is April 3.
So Rome is NOT following C-Eur.
I think the rule for Itay is right, only the comment is misleading.
I am not so sure. The INRIM site no longer seems to give historical information. But the switch on 1944-04-03T01Z is also on [www.ac-ilsestante.it/MERIDIANE/ora_legale/ORA_LEGALE_ESTIVA_IN_ITALIA.htm]
for the Social Republic of Salò, and Rome was only liberated on 1944-06-04. So I think 1944-04-03 may be right for Rome.
Michael Deckers.
But was'nt the viceroy or other repesentative of the passive kind, who issued the ruling for DST for the liberated part of Italy, sitting in the open city Rome itself? Regio decreto-legge n. 92 del 29.03.1944 according to http://www.renzobaldini.it/le-ore-legali-in-italia/ It would be strange if his own seat was not included in the zone covered by the law. The Italian sources Baldini and http://fisa.altervista.org/ore_legali.html write that the royal decree of 29 March 44 applies from the south up to the 'Gothic line'. That makes little sense in April 1944. The Gothic line was far north of Rome. The Gothic line is up in the mountains north of Pisa-Firence, and the Allied forces arrived there only in September 1944. In March 1944, the royal goverment had no effectuve jurisdiction over the area north of Rom up to this 'Gothic line'. So, what Baldini writes cannot be the truth. But that does not answer the situation in the open city Rome, where the king had his seat and some kind of power.
Throughout history, there have been claims that didn't always coincide with what was use one the ground. This timezone declaration appears to be another examples. Others include the Emancipation Proclamation, Brazzaville Declaration, and more recent discussions of other regions and their local time. On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 PM Alois Treindl <alois@astro.ch> wrote:
On 01.07.19 21:34, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
On 2019-07-01 17:24, Alois Treindl wrote:
For Italy in 1944 zone Europe/Rome there is a discrepancy between the comment and the data.
comment:
# From Paul Eggert (2016-10-27): # Go with INRiM for DST rules, except as corrected by Inglis for 1944 # for the Kingdom of Italy. This is consistent with Renzo Baldini. # Model Rome's occupation by using C-Eur rules from 1943-09-10 # to 1944-06-04; although Rome was an open city during this period, it # was effectively controlled by Germany.
Data for Italy is Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s 1:00 S
Data for C-Eur is: Rule C-Eur 1944 1945 - Apr Mon>=1 2:00s 1:00 S
where Mon>=1 in 1944 is April 3.
So Rome is NOT following C-Eur.
I think the rule for Itay is right, only the comment is misleading.
I am not so sure. The INRIM site no longer seems to give historical information. But the switch on 1944-04-03T01Z is also on [www.ac-ilsestante.it/MERIDIANE/ora_legale/ORA_LEGALE_ESTIVA_IN_ITALIA.htm]
for the Social Republic of Salò, and Rome was only liberated on 1944-06-04. So I think 1944-04-03 may be right for Rome.
Michael Deckers.
But was'nt the viceroy or other repesentative of the passive kind, who issued the ruling for DST for the liberated part of Italy, sitting in the open city Rome itself? Regio decreto-legge n. 92 del 29.03.1944 according to http://www.renzobaldini.it/le-ore-legali-in-italia/
It would be strange if his own seat was not included in the zone covered by the law.
The Italian sources Baldini and http://fisa.altervista.org/ore_legali.html write that the royal decree of 29 March 44 applies from the south up to the 'Gothic line'. That makes little sense in April 1944. The Gothic line was far north of Rome.
The Gothic line is up in the mountains north of Pisa-Firence, and the Allied forces arrived there only in September 1944.
In March 1944, the royal goverment had no effectuve jurisdiction over the area north of Rom up to this 'Gothic line'. So, what Baldini writes cannot be the truth. But that does not answer the situation in the open city Rome, where the king had his seat and some kind of power.
On 2019-07-01 20:19, Alois Treindl wrote:
The Gothic line is up in the mountains north of Pisa-Firence, and the Allied forces arrived there only in September 1944.
In March 1944, the royal goverment had no effectuve jurisdiction over the area north of Rom up to this 'Gothic line'. So, what Baldini writes cannot be the truth. But that does not answer the situation in the open city Rome, where the king had his seat and some kind of power.
In 1944-04, the "Linea Gustav" was more or less the defensive boundary of the German occupation. It was well south of Rome, so Rome was administered by German troops. Michael Deckers.
On 7/1/19 2:23 PM, Michael H Deckers via tz wrote:
In 1944-04, the "Linea Gustav" was more or less the defensive boundary of the German occupation. It was well south of Rome, so Rome was administered by German troops.
Yes, and that's why I guessed German DST rules for Rome in April 1944. If memory serves, the "Rule Italy 1944 only Apr 2 ..." line is used only indirectly by zic (comment it out to see why). Of course primary sources (such as Roman newspapers during that period) would be better than my guess, but it was a chaotic time and it might be difficult to come up with anything reliable.
Thank you for remindig me of newspaper archives. Should have thought of it myself. I spent 6 Euros to buy two archive copies of Il Messagero, a Roman paper, for 1 and 2 April 1944. The edition of 2 April has this note: Tonight at 2 am, put forward the clock by one hour. Remember that in the night between today and Monday the 'ora legale' will come in force again. That makes it clear that in Rome the change was on Monday, 3 April 1944 at 2 am. Screenshot of paper archive attached. On 02.07.19 02:42, Paul Eggert wrote:
Of course primary sources (such as Roman newspapers during that period) would be better than my guess, but it was a chaotic time and it might be difficult to come up with anything reliable.
I had sent this in 2019, and my email is quoted in file europe. However, the Rule line still has Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s 1:00 S It should be Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 3 2:00s 1:00 S -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [tz] Italy April 1944 discrepancy between comment and data Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:10:05 +0200 From: Alois Treindl <alois@astro.ch> To: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, Time Zone Mailing List <tz@iana.org> Thank you for remindig me of newspaper archives. Should have thought of it myself. I spent 6 Euros to buy two archive copies of Il Messagero, a Roman paper, for 1 and 2 April 1944. The edition of 2 April has this note: Tonight at 2 am, put forward the clock by one hour. Remember that in the night between today and Monday the 'ora legale' will come in force again. That makes it clear that in Rome the change was on Monday, 3 April 1944 at 2 am. Screenshot of paper archive attached. On 02.07.19 02:42, Paul Eggert wrote:
Of course primary sources (such as Roman newspapers during that period) would be better than my guess, but it was a chaotic time and it might be difficult to come up with anything reliable.
On 10/4/21 7:07 AM, Alois Treindl via tz wrote:
I had sent this in 2019, and my email is quoted in file europe.
However, the Rule line still has
Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s 1:00 S
It should be Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 3 2:00s 1:00 S
I think we're OK there, as Europe/Rome follows C-Eur rules and not Italy rules during April 1943, and this results in the correct transition for Europe/Rome. I installed the attached commentary patch to try to clarify this.
participants (4)
-
Alois Treindl -
D Nathan Cookson -
Michael H Deckers -
Paul Eggert