[tz] Italy April 1944 discrepancy between comment and data

[D Nathan Cookson]

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 at 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20190701/36aa9ae7/attachment.html>