<div dir="ltr">Throughout history, there have been claims that didn't always coincide with what was use one the ground.<div><br></div><div>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. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 PM Alois Treindl <<a href="mailto:alois@astro.ch">alois@astro.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="gmail-m_8184926950384746416moz-cite-prefix">On 01.07.19 21:34, Michael H Deckers
via tz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
On 2019-07-01 17:24, Alois Treindl wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">For Italy in 1944 zone Europe/Rome there
is a discrepancy between the comment and the data. <br>
<br>
comment: <br>
<br>
# From Paul Eggert (2016-10-27): <br>
# Go with INRiM for DST rules, except as corrected by Inglis for
1944 <br>
# for the Kingdom of Italy. This is consistent with Renzo
Baldini. <br>
# Model Rome's occupation by using C-Eur rules from 1943-09-10 <br>
# to 1944-06-04; although Rome was an open city during this
period, it <br>
# was effectively controlled by Germany. <br>
<br>
Data for Italy is <br>
Rule Italy 1944 only - Apr 2 2:00s
1:00 S <br>
<br>
Data for C-Eur is: <br>
Rule C-Eur 1944 1945 - Apr Mon>=1
2:00s 1:00 S <br>
<br>
where Mon>=1 in 1944 is April 3. <br>
<br>
So Rome is NOT following C-Eur. <br>
<br>
I think the rule for Itay is right, only the comment is
misleading. <br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I am not so sure. The INRIM site no longer seems to give <br>
historical information. But the switch on 1944-04-03T01Z is
also on <br>
[<a class="gmail-m_8184926950384746416moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ac-ilsestante.it/MERIDIANE/ora_legale/ORA_LEGALE_ESTIVA_IN_ITALIA.htm" target="_blank">www.ac-ilsestante.it/MERIDIANE/ora_legale/ORA_LEGALE_ESTIVA_IN_ITALIA.htm</a>]
<br>
for the Social Republic of Salò, and Rome was only liberated <br>
on 1944-06-04. So I think 1944-04-03 may be right for Rome. <br>
<br>
Michael Deckers. <br>
</blockquote>
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?<br>
Regio decreto-legge n. 92 del 29.03.1944 according to <a class="gmail-m_8184926950384746416moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.renzobaldini.it/le-ore-legali-in-italia/" target="_blank">http://www.renzobaldini.it/le-ore-legali-in-italia/</a><br>
<p>It would be strange if his own seat was not included in the zone
covered by the law.</p>
<p>The Italian sources Baldini and
<a class="gmail-m_8184926950384746416moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fisa.altervista.org/ore_legali.html" target="_blank">http://fisa.altervista.org/ore_legali.html</a> write that the royal
decree of 29 March 44 applies from the south up to the 'Gothic
line'.<br>
That makes little sense in April 1944. The Gothic line was far
north of Rome.</p>
<p>The Gothic line is up in the mountains north of Pisa-Firence, and
the Allied forces arrived there only in September 1944.</p>
<p>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.<br>
But that does not answer the situation in the open city Rome,
where the king had his seat and some kind of power.<br>
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>