Question of ethnic cleansing[edit]

Older versions of the article stated in the introduction that it is disputed whether or not the killings constituted an ethnic cleansing. Since November 5th 2022, however, the sentence reads "The type of attack was state terrorism, reprisal killings, and ethnic cleansing against Italians." Same claim is also made in the infobox, as if this were an undisputed fact. But this is contradictory to how the article itself then treats it. The rest of the article repeatedly cites historians, such as Pupo and Pirjevec, who dispute this view, and also quotes a whole paragraph from the report by the Italian-Slovenian historical commission that describes the events as part reprisals against fascists and part political purges, but not as ethnicly motivated. There is a section titled "Alleged motives", not simply "Motives", again treating the motives for the killings as not yet completely objectively established. There is, however, one paragraph from which it can nonetheless be understood, that while some people were killed as fascists or anti-communists, some people were killed simply as Italians (and this is presented as objective fact and not as just somebody's statement, like Napolitano's further down): "The foibe massacres were state terrorism, reprisal killings, and ethnic cleansing against Italians. The foibe massacres were mainly committed by Yugoslav Partisans and OZNA against the local ethnic Italian population (Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians), as well against anti-communists in general (even Croats and Slovenes), usually associated with Fascism, Nazism and collaboration with Axis, and against real, potential or presumed opponents of Tito communism." All this makes the article self-contradictory. Either it should not say anywhere that the massacres were ethnic cleansing without at least prefixing it with some word like "allegedly", or it should have a section called "Genocide denial" and only present Raoul Pupo's views there. I think the article should clearly state, as it previously has, that ethnic cleansing is disputed, because there clearly are different views on this, and Pupo and others are presenting perfectly legitimate arguments for their case. Perhaps the Alleged motives section should also be expanded with more detailed description of what the actual arguments for each interpretation are. 84.255.245.95 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At most what we can say is that the motivations are disputed, with some claiming this was ethnic cleansing (with sources cited), while other state it was reprisals against occupying forces (again with sources cited), etc. It should be noted that much of the Italina exodus happened years after the war, while the massacres ended in May and June of 1945. And unlike the expulsion of the Germans, where German civilians in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere were indiscriminately rounded up and forcefully expelled, with tens-of-thousands killed or dying in concentration camps, this did not happen to Italians in former Yugoslavia. Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss: I restored the previous version as there doesn’t seem to be a consensus remving the disputed part. Thoughts? Unless new findings gind that it was without a doubt ethnic cleansing by goal. I know recently it has been a heated controversial topic in politics as of late. OyMosby (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally 5 different references, written by academics from all over the world, and all of them call it ethnic cleansing against Italians.[1][2][3][4][5] Stop making up things without any source backing you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you specifically attacking me personally here and in the article edit diff summary when this was a disputed claim and multiple users brought it up? The “Disputed” part has been in the article for years long standing, I returned it after your unexplained edit removed it. It was not my personal introduction to the article. Please do not make claims that I “made it up” or added it as new. I simply reverted and came here to discuss further. Such attacks don’t go unnoticed per Wikipedia guidlines. As well as assuming bad faith. The other users such as @Thhhommmasss: stated there are sources disputing the claim of ethnic cleansing. You cannot ignore sources that are inconvenient or dislike. Consensus is needed. As I said I don’t have an issue either way so long the their is a consensus in the sources. Pinging @Peacemaker67: who has contributed before here and has experience with this era, maybe can offer some inpute on best course to proceed? OyMosby (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further referenced answers at #False claim. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
  1. ^ Bloxham & Dirk Moses 2011.
  2. ^ Konrád, Barth & Mrňka 2021.
  3. ^ Ferreto Clementi.
  4. ^ «... già nello scatenarsi della prima ondata di cieca violenza in quelle terre, nell'autunno del 1943, si intrecciarono giustizialismo sommario e tumultuoso, parossismo nazionalista, rivalse sociali e un disegno di sradicamento della presenza italiana da quella che era, e cessò di essere, la Venezia Giulia. Vi fu dunque un moto di odio e di furia sanguinaria, e un disegno annessionistico slavo, che prevalse innanzitutto nel Trattato di pace del 1947, e che assunse i sinistri contorni di una "pulizia etnica". Quel che si può dire di certo è che si consumò - nel modo più evidente con la disumana ferocia delle foibe - una delle barbarie del secolo scorso.» from the official website of The Presidency of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, official speech for the celebration of "Giorno del Ricordo" Quirinal, Rome, 10 February 2007.
  5. ^ "Il giorno del Ricordo - Croce Rossa Italiana" (in Italian).((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)

False claim[edit]

The intro states that victims included: "ethnic Slovenes, Croats and Istro-Romanians who chose to maintain Italian citizenship". All Slovenes, Croats and others under Italian fascist rule were citizens of Italy, since Italy took over these areas following WWI, and were subjected to forced Italianization, so no one "chose to maintain Italian citizenship" in 1945, hence the claim is simply false. As Pupo notes, the tragets were not Italians for being Italian citizens, but mostly members of fascist forces, collaborators, etc., including Slavs. In fact many more Slovene, Croat, Serb and other collaborationists were killed elsewhere in Yugoslavia, than Italian citizens. And many Italian citizens, Slavs and Italians, in Istria, Slovene Primorska, Italian annexed Ljubjana Province joined the partisans Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pupo is not God. The statement you call "false" is supported by the attached sources, so you should stop making things up, genocide deniers. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted reliable sources. The official Italian-Slovene government commission makes no reference to genocide, nor ethnic cleansing, and notes that most of the exodus occurred after 1950. Italian forces killed probably around 60.000 Yugoslavs, in their aggression with their Nazi allies, in Italian concentration camps where tens-of-thousands of civilians were herded, in mass shootings of hostages, etc. So according to you that was a much bigger genocide. This article used to be extremely biased and one-sided, thoroughly violating NPOV. For example, on the historical background it went extensively all the way back to Roman times (why not go back to the Big Bang?), to make irredentist, imperialist "Mare nostrum" type claims how all this is Italian, yet the fascist interwar period and WWII did not exist at all, and suddenly history resumed in May 1945, and something starts happening out of nowhere.
Rome, the Venetian Empire and Austri-Hungary have practically nothing to do with these events, but WWI, the interwar period and WWII certainly do, and all those huge maps of the Venetian Empire, whose sole purpose seems to be to make claims that everything from Istria and Dalmatia, to Albania and Greece is still Italian, plus similar stuff, needs to be deleted, with perhaps a link to the history of Dalmatia Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the part you're contexting: The foibe massacres [...] refers to mass killings [...] against the local ethnic Italian population (Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians), as well the ethnic Slovenes, Croats and Istro-Romanians who chose to maintain Italian citizenship,[1] against all anti-communists, associated with fascism, Nazism, and collaboration with the Axis powers,[2][3] and against real, potential or presumed opponents of Titoism.[4] The type of attack was state terrorism,[2][5] reprisal killings[2][6] and ethnic cleansing against Italians.[7][2][8][9][10]
The Yugoslav partisans intended to kill whoever could oppose or compromise the future annexation of Italian territories: as a preventive purge of real, potential or presumed opponents of Titoism (Italian, Slovenian and Croatian anti-communists, collaborators, and radical nationalists), the Yugoslav partisans exterminated the native anti-fascist autonomists — including the leadership of Italian anti-fascist partisan organizations and the leaders of Fiume's Autonomist Party, like Mario Blasich and Nevio Skull, who supported local independence from both Italy and Yugoslavia — for example in the city of Fiume, where at least 650 were killed after the entry of the Yugoslav units, without any due trial.[11][12] As you can see, there are references for every statement. What's the issue here? A single Italo-Slovene cultural (not juridical) commission not explicitly stating nor denying it[a] doesn't delete all the other academics who stated it explicitly. Your daydream about "Mare nostrum" is totally inappropriate. No word has ever been said to deny the Italian Fascist barbarity, but a barbarity in a certain direction doesn't cover an equal barbarity in the opposite direction. Both are true, both happened, and that's why there are two big sections on further § Investigations and § Alleged motives. Fascist barbarity is a historical fact, like the partly coexisting anti-Italian barbarities (not just anti-fascist, as shown massacring the Italian anti-fascist partisan organizations).[11][12] History is a documented fact. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian-Slovene commission included 8 historians, 4 from each side, with the 4 Italian ones appointed by the Italian government, so it is completely false to say these carried no authority on the matter. I've also seen Italian articles that list Pupo specifically as the leading authority on the matter. I am certain I can find more Italian historians who do not call this ethnic cleansing, nor genocide, plus many more Slovene, Croatian and others. So clearly there is no consensus on this issue, and it is against WP rules to make such claims in the name of WP. Second, we're not talking about "equal barbarities" but much greater barbarities perpetrated by Italian fascists when they attacked Yugoslavia with their Nazi allies, invading Yugoslavia, grabbing big chunks of territory and annexing it to Italy, killed tens of thousands of Slavs, sent tens-of-thousands more civilians, women and children to concentration camps - i.e. killed and put in concentration camps all Slavs who dared oppose the Italian aggression and occupation. Per you and authors you quote, this is even greater genocide.
Third, I've seen absolutely zero evidence that Italians were expelled from Yugoslavia. Sources state the exodus happened mostly in the 50's, years after the postwar retributions, unlike for example the of Czechoslovakia, which suffered much less in the war than Yugoslavia, yet 3 million Germans were forcefully expelled by decrees of the rightwing Benes government, with tens-of-thousands killed. By contrast, sources state that following the retributions, the Yugoslav government first pursued a "Slav-Italian brotherhood" policy. Later tensions mounted because of the Informbiro split and disputes over the border, which included the 1953 fascist rioting in Trieste, with 3 Italian policemen plus 7 rioters killed (the only killings I'm aware of after 1945), Allied machine-guns on the streets, plus Italian government threats to invade Allied-administered "A Zone", leading to massive military mobilization on both sides, hardly conducive to good relations. Unlike Germans in central and eastern Europe, Italian-speakers were not rounded up and were not expelled, instead the 1954 Treaty signed between Italy and Yugoslavia gave them a right to opt for Italy, and historians state the fact this was time-limited also hastened the exodus. There was no forced "Slavicization" as there was forced "Italianization" during 23 years of fascist rule, when 100.000 Slavs fled, or per you, were ethnically-cleansed. Among other reasons for leaving, authors list propaganda coming from Italian sources to get them to leave and promises that they would be compensated by the Italian government for any abandoned property (at the time no foreigners could own any property in Yugoslavia, regardless of ethnicity).
So sources give many reasons for the departure. Yes, crimes were committed in extra-judicial postwar retributions in May-June 1945, as Pupo states, mostly against members and supporters of the fascist regime, yet many less than the number of Italians killed by Italian partisans postwar, many less than Slav quislings killed by Yugoslav partisans. But to ignore what precipitated that, and try to falsely present the Italian side as the primary victims, is same as trying to make Germans the main victims of WWII. In response to Italian media articles that showed this photo of fascist Italian soldiers executing Slovene civilians[13] and falsely claimed that this was an illustration of Slav "foibe crimes", one author wrote the following, similar to what others have also written: "This is the result of a long-term process of abusing historical actions and related systemic manipulations with parallel amnesia or denial of the crimes of fascism (in Abyssinia, Libya, the Soviet Union, the Balkans, also over the Slovenian population). The purpose of such actions, which otherwise is most clearly reflected in the exaggeration of the number of victims of massacres and deportations. In this case the Slovenes or the broader Slavs are depicted as a genocidal nation, and the Italians as victims of the so-called Slavocommunism"[14]. I'll dig up the references, but others have also written, that unlike Germany, Italy has never adequately reckoned with its fascist past, and the one-sided emphasis on Italian victimhood, falsely elevating the foibe to the greatest crime, is part of that (don't have the exact numbers, but dozens were tried in Italy for postwar retribution killings in Trieste and surroundings, all of them Italian citizens, but absolutely no fascist military leaders were tried for much greater crimes perpetrated in Yugoslavia, Greece, Ethiopia, etc.)Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please ensure your signature is dated stamped? Thanks. This is not how we operate on en WP. We do not choose one or a group of reliable sources because we think what they say is more accurate. We compare and contrast reliable sources IN the article. So, we say things like "According to X, Y and Z, the killings comprised, to some extent, ethnic cleansing. In contrast, A, B and C assert that they were mainly carried out as revenge against anti-communists." or whatever reflects what the reliable sources say. If a view on the killings was truly fringe when examined in the context of the range of academic perspectives, we might or might not mention it, while saying that it is not a widely-held view in the scholarship. If the discussion of motives is complex, examine it in a section of the article and just link to that section from the infobox rather than trying to summarise the various views in one-liners there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is why such things in intro paragraph need to mention that some claim this, others state that, instead of claiming, as it does now: "The type of attack was state terrorism, reprisal killings and ethnic cleansing against Italians". Other than reprisal killings, I do not see any consensus on this. However, I do not see how all the non-consensus views can be listed in the infobox, since there are a host of interpretations. At least a further 5 descriptions could be added under Attack Type in infobox, with citations of historians, certainly very different than claims of ethnic cleansing. Expulsions of Germans article does not put such claims in infobox, instead they are discussed in rhe article. Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sources
  1. ^ Tobagi 2014.
  2. ^ a b c d Konrád, Barth & Mrňka 2021.
  3. ^ Rumici 2002, p. 350.
  4. ^ a b Italian-Slovene commission.
  5. ^ Il tempo e la storia: Le Foibe, Rai tv, Raoul Pupo
  6. ^ Lowe 2012.
  7. ^ Bloxham & Dirk Moses 2011.
  8. ^ Ferreto Clementi.
  9. ^ (in Italian) «... già nello scatenarsi della prima ondata di cieca violenza in quelle terre, nell'autunno del 1943, si intrecciarono giustizialismo sommario e tumultuoso, parossismo nazionalista, rivalse sociali e un disegno di sradicamento della presenza italiana da quella che era, e cessò di essere, la Venezia Giulia. Vi fu dunque un moto di odio e di furia sanguinaria, e un disegno annessionistico slavo, che prevalse innanzitutto nel Trattato di pace del 1947, e che assunse i sinistri contorni di una "pulizia etnica". Quel che si può dire di certo è che si consumò - nel modo più evidente con la disumana ferocia delle foibe - una delle barbarie del secolo scorso.» from the official website of The Presidency of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, official speech for the celebration of "Giorno del Ricordo" Quirinal, Rome, 10 February 2007.
  10. ^ "Il giorno del Ricordo - Croce Rossa Italiana" (in Italian).((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ^ a b Società di Studi Fiumani-Roma, Hrvatski Institut za Povijest-Zagreb Le vittime di nazionalità italiana a Fiume e dintorni (1939-1947) Archived October 31, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali - Direzione Generale per gli Archivi, Roma 2002. ISBN 88-7125-239-X, p. 597.
  12. ^ a b "Le foibe e il confine orientale" (PDF) (in Italian). Retrieved 12 May 2021.
  13. ^ "Italian war crimes", Wikipedia, 2023-04-11, retrieved 2023-04-21
  14. ^ "dLib.si - Jože Pirjevec, Darko Dukovski, Nevenka Troha, Gorazd Bajc, Guido Franzinetti, Fojbe ..." www.dlib.si. Retrieved 2023-04-21.

Report of the Italian-Slovene historical-cultural commission (in three languages):

  1. ^ "[...] endeavours to remove persons and structures who were in one way or another (regardless of their personal responsibility) linked [...] with the Italian state, and endeavours to carry out preventive cleansing of real, potential or only alleged opponents of [...] the annexation of the Julian March to the new Yugoslavia. The initial impulse was instigated by the revolutionary movement which was changed into a political regime, and transformed the charge of national and ideological intolerance between the partisans into violence at national level."[4]

Sections need to be removed[edit]

The historical background sections from Rome to Austrian Empire needs to be taken out. This is already covered in the Dalmatia article, and link can be provided. The Expulsion of Germans article should be used as an example, where the entire pre-WWI history is summarized in one paragraph, while considerably more space is given to the interwar period, and WWII. Also same as in that article and practically every other Wikipedia article, the Background section needs to go upfront to provide context, which is indeed the purpose of such sections Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start editing the article as described above, so that it starts resembling standard Wikipedia articles, instead of the non-confroming, disorganized mess it still is. For the time being, I will park copies of the full current background historical sections, up to WWI, in the Talk section, so if anything of this is missing in the Dalmatia article, it can be added there Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When making changes, you need to provide sources for new edits and content. Also when changing the wording of what was there. I believe @Peacemaker67: had brought this up about sourcing. For example when in the WWI section regarding 1920’s violence in Dalmatia toward Italians, you changed “by Slovene and Croat nationalists” to just “Croat nationalists” with out verification of a source. I would think it is meant that both in Istria and Dalmatia Slovene and Croat nationalists had enacted violence towards Italians as Italians did so to Slovenes and Croats. I am also curious the impact on and from Serb populations. Did they also partake against Italians/victim of Italian actions? I placed a citation needed tag as a cited source is needed to verify. I came across this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/carabinieri-stood-by-the-italian-state-and-the-slavic-threat-in-19191922/FEE9517940EB1EC16DCFB4F400491892 Regardless, why remove Slovenes nationalists? Also you removed ethnic cleansing from the info box however the intro still lists it with multiple citations. That’s conflicting. OyMosby (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back-up of existing sections

Back-up of existing sections

Early history[edit]

Via conquests, the Republic of Venice, between the 9th century and 1797, extended its dominion to coastal parts of Istria and Dalmatia.[1] Thus Venice invaded and attacked Zadar multiple times, especially devastating the city in 1202 when Venice used the crusaders, on their Fourth Crusade, to lay siege, then ransack, demolish and rob the city,[2] the population fleeing into countryside. Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders for attacking a Catholic city.[2] The Venetians used the same Crusade to attack the Dubrovnik Republic, and force it to pay tribute, then continued to sack Christian Orthodox Constantinople where they looted, terrorized, and vandalized the city, killing 2.000 civilians, raping nuns and destroying Christian Churches, with Venice receiving a big portion of the plundered treasures.

A portrait painting the fall of the Republic of Venice (1797): the abdication of the last Doge, Ludovico Manin

The coastal areas and cities of Istria came under Venetian Influence in the 9th century. In 1145, the cities of Pula, Koper and Izola rose against the Republic of Venice but were defeated, and were since further controlled by Venice.[3] On 15 February 1267, Poreč was formally incorporated with the Venetian state.[4] Other coastal towns followed shortly thereafter. The Republic of Venice gradually dominated the whole coastal area of western Istria and the area to Plomin on the eastern part of the peninsula.[3] Dalmatia was first and finally sold to the Republic of Venice in 1409 but Venetian Dalmatia wasn't fully consolidated from 1420.[5]

From the Early Middle Ages onwards numbers of Slavic people near and on the Adriatic coast were ever increasing, due to their expanding population and due to pressure from the Ottomans pushing them from the south and east.[6][7] This led to Italic people becoming ever more confined to urban areas, while the countryside was populated by Slavs, with certain isolated exceptions.[8] In particular, the population was divided into urban-coastal communities (mainly Romance speakers) and rural communities (mainly Slavic speakers), with small minorities of Morlachs and Istro-Romanians.[9]

Republic of Venice influenced the neolatins of Istria and Dalmatia until 1797, when it was conquered by Napoleon: Koper and Pula were important centers of art and culture during the Italian Renaissance.[10] From the Middle Ages to the 19th century, Italian and Slavic communities in Istria and Dalmatia had lived peacefully side by side because they did not know the national identification, given that they generically defined themselves as "Istrians" and "Dalmatians", of "Romance" or "Slavic" culture.[11]

Austrian Empire[edit]

Further information: Italian irredentism in Dalmatia and Italian irredentism in Istria

The French victory of 1809 compelled Austria to cede a portion of its South Slav lands to France, Napoleon combined Carniola, western Carinthia, Gorica (Gorizia), Istria, and parts of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Dubrovnik to form the Illyrian Provinces.[12] The Code Napoléon was introduced, and roads and schools were constructed. Local citizens were given administrative posts, and native languages were used to conduct official business.[12] This sparked the Illyrian Movement for the cultural and linguistic unification of South Slavic lands.[12]

After the fall of Napoleon (1814), Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia were annexed to the Austrian Empire.[13] Many Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians looked with sympathy towards the Risorgimento movement that fought for the unification of Italy.[14] However, after the Third Italian War of Independence (1866), when the Veneto and Friuli regions were ceded by the Austrians to the newly formed Kingdom Italy, Istria and Dalmatia remained part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, together with other Italian-speaking areas on the eastern Adriatic. This triggered the gradual rise of Italian irredentism among many Italians in Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia, who demanded the unification of the Julian March, Kvarner and Dalmatia with Italy. The Italians in Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia supported the Italian Risorgimento: as a consequence, the Austrians saw the Italians as enemies and favored the Slav communities of Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia,[15]

Austrian linguistic map from 1896. In green the areas where Slavs were the majority of the population, in orange the areas where Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians were the majority of the population. The boundaries of Venetian Dalmatia in 1797 are delimited with blue dots.

During the meeting of the Council of Ministers of 12 November 1866, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria outlined a wide-ranging project aimed at the Germanization or Slavization of the areas of the empire with an Italian presence:[16]

Her Majesty expressed the precise order that action be taken decisively against the influence of the Italian elements still present in some regions of the Crown and, appropriately occupying the posts of public, judicial, masters employees as well as with the influence of the press, work in South Tyrol, Dalmatia and Littoral for the Germanization and Slavization of these territories according to the circumstances, with energy and without any regard. His Majesty calls the central offices to the strong duty to proceed in this way to what has been established.

— Franz Joseph I of Austria, Council of the Crown of 12 November 1866[15][17]

Istrian Italians were more than 50% of the total population for centuries,[18] while making up about a third of the population in 1900.[19] Dalmatia, especially its maritime cities, once had a substantial local ethnic Italian population (Dalmatian Italians), making up 33% of the total population of Dalmatia in 1803,[20][21] but this was reduced to 20% in 1816.[22] In the 1910 Austro-Hungarian census, Istria had a population of 57.8% Slavic-speakers (Croat and Slovene), and 38.1% Italian speakers.[23] For the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia, (i.e. Dalmatia), the 1910 numbers were 96.2% Slavic speakers and 2.8% Italian speakers,[23] compared to 12.5% Italian speakers in the first Austro-Hungarian census of 1865.[24] Many of these Italian speakers were local Slavs who became Italianized due to Italian long being the only official language, and later returned to Slavic languages.[24] In 1909 the Italian language lost its status as the official language of Dalmatia in favor of Croatian only (previously both languages were recognized): thus Italian could no longer be used in the public and administrative sphere.[25]

Historians note that while Slavs made up 80-95% of the Dalmatia populace,[26] only Italian language schools existed until 1848,[27] and due to restrictive voting laws, which allowed only wealthy property owners to vote, the Italian-speaking aristocratic minority retained political control of Dalmatia.[28] They fought to keep Italian as the only official language, and opposed granting official languages rights to the Croatian language, spoken by the great majority of inhabitants. Only after Austria liberalized elections in 1870, allowing more majority Slavs to vote, did Croatian parties gain control. Croatian finally became an official language in Dalmatia in 1883, along with Italian.[29] Yet minority Italian-speakers continued to wield strong influence, since Austria favored Italians for government work, thus in the Austrian capital of Dalmatia, Zara, the proportion of Italians continued to grow, making it the only Dalmatian city with an Italian majority.[30]


When Italy took over the Veneto region, it sought to repress the language of the local Slovene minority.[31] In 1911, complaining of local Italian efforts to falsely count Slovenes as Italians, the Trieste Slovene newspaper Edinost wrote: “We are here, we want to stay here and enjoy our rights! We throw the ruling clique the glove a duel, and we will not give up until artificial Trieste Italianism is crushed in dust, lying under our feet.”[32] Due to these complaints, Austria carried a census recount, and the number of Slovenes increased by 50-60% in Trieste and Gorizia, proving Slovenes were initially falsely counted as Italians.[33]

After World War I[edit]

Although a member of the Central Powers, Italy remained neutral at the start of WWI, and soon launched secret negotiations with the Triple Entente, bargaining to participate in the war on its side, in exchange for significant territorial gains.[34] To get Italy to join the war, in the secret 1915 Treaty of London the Entente promised Italy Istria and parts of Dalmatia, German-speaking South Tyrol, the Greek Dodecanese Islands, parts of Albania and Turkey, plus more territory for Italy's North Africa colonies.

Goffredo Mameli
Michele Novaro
On the left, a map of the Kingdom of Italy before the First World War, on the right, a map of the Kingdom of Italy after the First World War.

After World War I, the whole of the former Austrian Julian March, including Istria, and Zadar in Dalmatia were annexed by Italy, while Dalmatia (except Zadar) was annexed by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Contrary to the Treaty of London, in 1919 Gabrielle D’Annunzio led an army of 2,600 Italian war veterans to seize the city of Fiume (Rijeka). D’Annunzio created the Italian Regency of Carnaro, with him as its dictator, or Comandante, and a constitution foreshadowing the Fascist system. After D’Annuzio's removal, Fiume briefly become a Free State, but local Fascists in 1922 carried out a coup, and in 1924 Italy annexed Fiume.

As a result, 480,000 Slavic-speakers came under Italian rule, while 12,000 Italian speakers were left in Yugoslavia, mostly in Dalmatia. Italy began a policy of forced Italianization.[35] which intensified under Fascist rule from 1922 to 1943. Italy forbade Slavic languages in public institutions and schools, moved 500 Slovene teachers to the interior of Italy, replacing them with Italian ones. All Slavic newspapers and publications were banned, while Slavic libraries were closed. The Italian government forcefully changed people’s names to Italian ones. All Slavic cultural, sporting, professional, business and political associations were likewise banned; minorities in Italy were left without any representation. Slavs were restricted from public sector empolyment. As a result, 100,000 Slavic speakers left Italian-annexed areas in an exodus, moving mostly to Yugoslavia.[36] In Fiume alone, the Slavic population declined by 66% by 1925, compared to pre-WWI levels.[37] The remnants of the Italian community in Dalmatia (which had started a slow but steady emigration to Istria and Venice during the 19th century) left their cities toward Zadar and the Italian mainland.

During the early 1920s, nationalistic violence was directed both against the Slovene and Croat minorities in Istria (by Italian nationalists and Fascists) and the Italian minority in Dalmatia (by Slovene and Croat nationalists). In Dalmatia hostilities arose when in 1918 Italy occupied by force several cities, like Šibenik, with large majority Slav populations, while armed Italian nationalist irregulars commanded by Dalmatian Italian Count Fanfogna proceeded further south to Split. This led to the 1918–20 unrest in Split, when members of the Italian minority and their properties were assaulted by Croatian nationalists (and two Italian Navy personnel and a Croatian civilian were later killed during riots). In 1920 Italian nationalists and fascists burned the Trieste National Hall, the main center of the Slovene minority in Trieste. During D’Annunzio’s armed 1919-1920 occupation of Fiume, hundreds of mostly non-Italians were arrested, including many leaders of the Slavic community, and thousands of Slavs started to flee the city, with additional anti-Slav violence during the 1922 Fascist coup,.[37]

The Trieste National Hall, the main center of the Slovene minority in Trieste, after the fire (1920)

In a 1920 speech in Pola (Istria), Benito Mussolini proclaimed an expansionist policy, based on the fascist concept of spazio vitale, similar to the Nazi lebensraum policy:[38]

Towards expansion in the Mediterranean and in the East, Italy is driven by demographic factors. But to realize the Mediterranean dream, the Adriatic, which is our gulf, must be in our hands. When dealing with such a race as Slavic - inferior and barbaric - we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy. We should not be afraid of new victims. The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians.

— Benito Mussolini, speech held in Pula, 20 September 1920

With Fascist Italy’s imperialistic policy of spanning the Mediterranean, Italy in 1927 signed an agreement with the Croatian fascist, terrorist Ustaše organization, under which contingent on their seizing power, the Ustaše agreed to cede to Italy additional territory in Dalmatia and the Bay of Kotor, while also renouncing all Croatian claims to Istria, Fiume (Rijeka), Zadar and the Adriatic Islands, which Italy annexed after WWI.[39] The Ustaše became a tool of Italy.[40] They embarked on a terrorist campaign of placing bombs on international trains bound for Yugoslavia, and instigated an armed uprising in Lika, then part of Yugoslavia. In 1934 in Marseille, the Italy-supported Ustaše assassinated King Alexander I of Yugoslavia, while simultaneously killing the French Foreign Minister.[41]

World War II[edit]

See also: Italian war crimes in Yugoslavia
Map of areas Italy annexed after the invasion of Yugoslavia during the World War II - Province of Ljubljana, Governate of Dalmatia and the area merged with the province of Fiume. Italy further occupied half of the Independent State of Croatia (below grey line), plus Montenegro and parts of Kosovo, Serbia and Macedonia (the latter annexed to Italy-occupied Albania)

Seeking to create an Imperial Italy, Mussolini started expansionist wars in the Mediterranean, with Fascist Italy invading and occupying Albania in 1939, and in 1940 France, Greece, Egypt, and the Malta. In April 1941, Italy and its Nazi Germany ally, attacked Yugoslavia. They carved up Yugoslavia, with Italy occupying large portions of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia, directly annexing to Italy Ljubljana Province, Gorski Kotar and Central Dalmatia, along with most Croatian islands, with the creation of the Governatorate of Dalmatia. Italy proceeded to Italianize the annexed areas of Dalmatia.[42] Place names were Italianized, and Italian was made the official language in all schools, churches and government administration.[42] All Croatian cultural societies were banned, while Italians took control of all key mineral, industrial and business establishments.[42]

Italian policies prompted resistance by Dalmatians, many joined the Partisans.[43] In response, the Italians adopted tactics of summary executions, internments, property confiscations, and the burning of villages."[44] The Italian government sent tens of thousands of civilians, among them many women and children, to Italian concentration camps, such as Rab, Gonars, Monigo, Renicci, Molat, Zlarin, Mamula, etc. Altogether, some 80,000 Dalmatians, 12% of the population, passed through Italian concentration camps.[45] Thousands died in the camps, including hundreds of children.[46] Italian forces executed thousands of additional civilians as hostages and conducted massacres, such as the Podhum massacre in 1942. On their own, or with their Nazi and collaborationist allies, the Italian army undertook brutal anti-Partisan offensives, during which tens-of-thousands of Partisans were killed, along with many civilians, plus thousands more civilians executed or sent to concentration camps after the campaigns.


No Italians were ever brought to trial for war crimes committed in Yugoslavia or elsewhere.[47][48][49] In 1944, near the end of a war in which Nazis, Fascists and their allies killed over 800,000 Yugoslavs, Croat poet Vladimir Nazor wrote: "We will wipe away from our territory the ruins of the destroyed enemy tower, and we will throw them in the deep sea of oblivion. In the place of a destroyed Zara, a new Zadar will be reborn, and this will be our revenge in the Adriatic"[50] (Zara had been under Fascist rule for 22 years, and was in ruins because of heavy Allied bombing).


Sources
  1. ^ Alvise Zorzi, La Repubblica del Leone. Storia di Venezia, Milano, Bompiani, 2001, ISBN 978-88-452-9136-4., pp. 53-55 (in italian)
  2. ^ a b Sethre, Janet (2003). The Souls of Venice. pp. 54–55. ISBN 0-7864-1573-8.
  3. ^ a b "Historic overview-more details". Istra-Istria.hr. Istria County. Retrieved 19 December 2018.
  4. ^ John Mason Neale, Notes Ecclesiological & Picturesque on Dalmatia, Croatia, Istria, Styria, with a visit to Montenegro, pg. 76, J.T. Hayes - London (1861)
  5. ^ "Dalmatia history". Retrieved 10 July 2022.
  6. ^ Hammel, E. A. (February 1993). "Demography and the Origins of the Yugoslav Civil War". Anthropology Today. 9 (1): 4–9. doi:10.2307/2783334. JSTOR 2783334. Archived from the original on 9 June 2010. Retrieved 23 April 2010.
  7. ^ "Region of Istria: Historic overview-more details". Istra-istria.hr. Retrieved 9 June 2016.
  8. ^ Jaka Bartolj. "The Olive Grove Revolution". Transdiffusion. Archived from the original on 18 September 2010. While most of the population in the towns, especially those on or near the coast, was Italian, Istria's interior was overwhelmingly Slavic – mostly Croatian, but with a sizeable Slovenian area as well.
  9. ^ "Italian islands in a Slavic sea". Arrigo Petacco, Konrad Eisenbichler, A tragedy revealed, p. 9.
  10. ^ Prominent Istrians
  11. ^ ""L'Adriatico orientale e la sterile ricerca delle nazionalità delle persone" di Kristijan Knez; La Voce del Popolo (quotidiano di Fiume) del 2/10/2002" (in Italian). Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  12. ^ a b c "Illyrian Provinces | historical region, Europe | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2022-07-11.
  13. ^ "L'ottocento austriaco" (in Italian). 7 March 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  14. ^ "Trieste, Istria, Fiume e Dalmazia: una terra contesa" (in Italian). Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  15. ^ a b Die Protokolle des Österreichischen Ministerrates 1848/1867. V Abteilung: Die Ministerien Rainer und Mensdorff. VI Abteilung: Das Ministerium Belcredi, Wien, Österreichischer Bundesverlag für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Kunst 1971
  16. ^ Die Protokolle des Österreichischen Ministerrates 1848/1867. V Abteilung: Die Ministerien Rainer und Mensdorff. VI Abteilung: Das Ministerium Belcredi, Wien, Österreichischer Bundesverlag für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Kunst 1971, vol. 2, p. 297. Citazione completa della fonte e traduzione in Luciano Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia. Dal Risorgimento alla Grande Guerra, Le Lettere, Firenze 2004, p. 69.)
  17. ^ Jürgen Baurmann; Hartmut Gunther; Ulrich Knoop (1993). Homo scribens: Perspektiven der Schriftlichkeitsforschung (in German). p. 279. ISBN 3484311347.
  18. ^ "Istrian Spring". Retrieved 24 October 2022.
  19. ^ "Istria" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 14 (11th ed.). 1911. pp. 886–887.
  20. ^ Bartoli, Matteo (1919). Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia (in Italian). Tipografia italo-orientale. p. 16.[ISBN unspecified]
  21. ^ Seton-Watson, Christopher (1967). Italy from Liberalism to Fascism, 1870–1925. Methuen. p. 107. ISBN 9780416189407.
  22. ^ "Dalmazia", Dizionario enciclopedico italiano (in Italian), vol. III, Treccani, 1970, p. 729
  23. ^ a b "Spezialortsrepertorium der österreichischen Länder I-XII, Wien, 1915–1919" (in German). Archived from the original on 2013-05-29.
  24. ^ a b Peričić 2003.
  25. ^ "Dalmazia", Dizionario enciclopedico italiano (in Italian), vol. III, Treccani, 1970, p. 730
  26. ^ Peričić 2003, p. 339-340.
  27. ^ Peričić 2003, p. 350.
  28. ^ Peričić 2003, p. 338.
  29. ^ "Beč kao magnet". mojahrvatska.vecernji.hr (in Croatian). Retrieved 2021-11-14.
  30. ^ Peričić 2003, p. 343.
  31. ^ Italian-Slovene commission.
  32. ^ "dLib.si - Edinost: glasilo slovenskega političnega društva tržaške okolice". www.dlib.si. Retrieved 2020-06-08.
  33. ^ "Zgodovinski pogledi na zadnje državno ljudsko štetje v Avstrijskem primorju 1910". Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa (in Slovenian). 2017-06-21. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  34. ^ Cattaruzza, Marina (2011). "The Making and Remaking of a Boundary – the Redrafting of the Eastern Border of Italy after the two World Wars". Journal of Modern European History / Zeitschrift für moderne europäische Geschichte / Revue d'histoire européenne contemporaine. 9 (1): 66–86. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2011_1_66. ISSN 1611-8944. JSTOR 26265925. S2CID 145685085.
  35. ^ Miklavci, Alessandra. "Diverse minorities in the Italo-Slovene borderland: "historical" and "new" minorities meet at the market" (PDF). Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  36. ^ "dLib.si - Izseljevanje iz Primorske med obema vojnama". www.dlib.si. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  37. ^ a b Patafta, Daniel (2004-07-02). "Promjene u nacionalnoj strukturi stanovništva grada Rijeke od 1918. do 1924. godine". Časopis Za Suvremenu Povijest (in Croatian). 36 (2): 683–700. ISSN 0590-9597.
  38. ^ Verginella, Marta (2011). "Antislavismo, razzismo di frontiera?". Aut aut (in Italian). ISBN 9788865761069.
  39. ^ Tomasevich 2002, pp. 30–31.
  40. ^ Tomasevich 2002, p. 33.
  41. ^ Tomasevich 2002, pp. 33–34.
  42. ^ a b c Tomasevich 2002, pp. 132–133.
  43. ^ Tomasevich 2002, p. 133–134.
  44. ^ General Roatta's War against the Partisans in Yugoslavia: 1942, IngentaConnect
  45. ^ Dizdar, Zdravko (2005-12-15). "Italian Policies Toward Croatians In Occupied Territories During The Second World War". Review of Croatian History. I (1): 207. ISSN 1845-4380.
  46. ^ Oltre il filo (Trailer), archived from the original on 2021-12-15, retrieved 2020-04-09
  47. ^ Italy's bloody secret (Archived by WebCite®), written by Rory Carroll, Education, The Guardian, June 2001
  48. ^ Effie Pedaliu (2004) Britain and the 'Hand-over' of Italian War Criminals to Yugoslavia, 1945–48. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Collective Memory, pp. 503–529 JSTOR 4141408
  49. ^ Oliva, Gianni (2006) «Si ammazza troppo poco». I crimini di guerra italiani. 1940–43, Mondadori, ISBN 88-04-55129-1
  50. ^ Petacco 1999.

Need better sources[edit]

For historical postwar events multiple Italina newspapers and journalists are cited, including Italian Huffington Post, Republica, etc. While newspapers may be appropriate for current events related to foibe, they are extremely weak sources for historical facts, and better sources need to be found Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thhhommmasss I'm afraid the current head of the article is very poorly phrased and biased. It doesn't even mention the possibility of ethnic cleansing, while there clearly was bias against these ethnicities by the responsible forces. When I last checked, the Infobox also included "Ethnic cleansing (disputed)", which was much more appropriate than just not mentioning it. It's whitewashing.
We have to re-add those references, the introduction is not complete. Zerbrxsler (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intro to article already includes claims of ethnic cleansing as well as no ethnic cleansing. If you're thinking of infobox, there is no consensus on this. If someone puts in "Ethnic cleansing" in infobox, I will put "No ethnic cleansing", Killing of members of fascist forces, and other descriptions, since there are multiple reliable source who state these. As mentioned, since there is no consensus, it is best to leave this to body of article, same as in Explusion of Germans, even though the latter was much nore clearly ethnic cleansingThhhommmasss (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again massive background history[edit]

I had shortened the background historical sections, particularly pre-WWI, and put a link to Dalmatia where much of this is already mentioned. Recently this was reverted to the previous massive background history with an Italian nationalistic POV. This POV background section is completely different from similar sections in other Wikipedia articles, where the background section is much shorter. See for example, the Flight and Expulsion of Germans - it does not have long sections on Germanic migrations, Teutonic knights, the Prussian Kingdom which extended into present-day Poland, etc. (incidentally, per the Italian nationalistic POV promoted here, much of Italy is obviously German, Arabic and Spanish since it was for centuries under such rule (Lombards, Normans, the German-led Holy Roman Empire, Austria, etc), same as Dalmatia under Venice

I'd like to hear from other editors and Admins on wether the pre-WWI background section should be shortened. Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even the linked-to Dalmatia article suffers from such POV skewing. The Expulsion of Germans article and the point about former German held territories in what is now Poland are perfect examples you bring up. They don’t go into detailed and one-sided takes on German migration. In fact in the over 11,000 character edit, while claiming to “restore” sources and content they also deleted some. For example removing:
They retained local political control until 1870, when Austria expanded voting rights to more local Slavs. Croatian parties then gained large majorities in Dalmatia, advocating for unification with other Croatian lands,[1] while minority Italian-speakers opposed that, seeking first autonomy, later led by irredentists they sought union with Italy.
Meanwhile adding content in its place of Italian populations wanting to unify with Italian lands instead. I don’t know if the editor is aware they did this when editing. This come across as part of a pov push to justify the “rightful” Italian rule over these territories and other Slavic inhabited territories. This edit makes the section more pov than it was to begin with. Not sure if you looked into some of the content removed in this edit. There was room to add 11,000 characters of content but not enough room to maintain what was already there before this May 8th “restoration”. The previous version was more streamlined and to the point. Also the occupation map the user insists on doesn’t display the full extent of Italian occupation during WWII. Is it sourced? I would support a revert of this mass edit. Feel free to do so unless anyone objects. OyMosby (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Peričić 2003, p. 338.

POV-pushing by Est2021[edit]

I'd like to see some Admin intervention for the repeat POV-pushing by Est2021. In his latest edit, he repeated as a general view claims that Slavs were supposedly killed only because they wanted to maintain Italian citizenship, when at least a dozen historians I cited make no such claims (I had moved this claim to the second paragraph, indicating this is the view of some, for which he cites only one journalist, but he reverted it as a general claim)

He also repeatedly keeps changing my edits where I say historians "noted", to "argue", when in fact these historians provide extensive evidence for what they state - e.g. analyses of hundreds of victims that show that the vast majority killed were in fact members of fascist forces, and I cite specific data in the footnote. I make no claim that all victims were members of fascist forces, and the article states that victims included political opponents

He also deleted my edit where I cite many critics of the way the foibe are commemorated. And as mentioned before, he previously reverted my efforts to shorten the Background section, which is much longer than background sections in other Wikipedia articles. For example, the 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans article does not go back to Germanic migrations, Teutonic knights taking territory in the East, etc, unlike the long historical sections here. All this history is already covered in the Dalmatia article, and the main purpose of repeating same here, seems to be to make Italian irredentist claims, based on the Venetian Empire's conquests and rule over these areas prior to 1797 (as illustrated by the map at beginning of background section, showing Venetian Empire at maximum extent, overlayed by Slav-majority areas Italy demanded in 1915 to join the Allies in WWI, and also the borders after fascist Italy invaded and annexed parts of 99%-Slavic Dalmatia) Thhhommmasss (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent. The intro edit made it seem like the consensus was ethnic targeting and for avoiding annexation which ignores the plethora of sources stating the contrary. Both sides should be in the intro and infoboxich for a long time had the “disputed” note showing that there are ample sources stating the contrary. It was oddly censored and removed. It is POV to only state one side or exclusively Italian sources as somehow more important or relevant. Perhaps @Peacemaker67: could you chime in? Shouldn’t both stating sources and contradictory sources takes both be mentioned? Unless there is overwhelming consensus for one or the other? You deal with WWII Balkan topics so your insight would be appreciated. OyMosby (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthoritative sources[edit]

There are multiple references to unauthoritative sources, like the newspaper La Repubblica, as to what happened in 1945. The journalist Petacco and other similar sources also fall into this category. Better sources need to be found (i.e. reputable historians, etc,) and all such sources deleted. Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatia in the lead/scope issues[edit]

The lead claims that Dalmatia was occupied by Italy when these foibe killings occurred. The Italians surrendered in September 1943, and withdrew from the parts of Yugoslavia they were occupying. And the killings occurred after that. So this is not correct. Dalmatia was abandoned by them under the surrender terms and was partly occupied by the Partisans for some time, then by the Germans when they recovered the occupied territory. The Germans then occupied the lot and part of it became the Operational Zone of the Adriatic Littoral, the rest was reclaimed by the German-occupied NDH. This article needs to properly explain the occupation regimes at the time of the killings, not make claims about the lands being Italian controlled when they were not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more important question is why is Dalmatia extensively mentioned at all in the article, since as far as I can see no foibe-related events are described in Dalmatia. Dalmatia had 2.8%, or a total of 18 thousand Italian speakers in the 1910 Austrian census, with Zadar the only city with an Italian majority. From what I've been able to find out, Italians who had moved to Zadar after 1918 and the Fascist administration largely all left after Italy's capitulation in 1943. Most other Italian speakers from Zadar left, or were evacuated to Italy, as a result of the heavy Allied bombing in 1943-1944, thus practically no Italians were left in Zadar at liberation. I have not seen any mentions of any foibe-related events in Zadar, nor in Split, which had a few thousand Italian speakers, nor anywhere else in Dalmatia. The heavy coverage of Dalmatian history going all the way back to the Romans and Venice looks like pushing an irredentist agenda in a Dalmatia with few Italian speakers, the same agenda pushed by the Fascists to occupy and annex Dalmatia, There is no similar historical coverage of Germanic migrations, Teutonic knights, Prussia, etc. in the article on the fate of a much larger number of Germans in post-WW2 Central and Eastern EuropeThhhommmasss (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on reflection, and having read Pupo’s conference talk a few times, it is clear that the scope of this article needs to be narrowed. He talks about two periods and one geographical area. September-October 1943 in inland Istria, and May-June 1945 in Venezia Guilia, specifically Trieste and Gorizia. Neither of these regions are remotely Dalmatian. He says the numbers of deaths in the first phase was 500-600, and in the second the most reliable estimates are 4K-5K, with estimates of 10K-12K “very high” and including dead and missing in combat, and 20K-30K as “pure propaganda”. So some serious scope reduction is needed here, unless other historians with expertise in the foibe are defining it differently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only basis for the inclusion of Dalmatians would be those who left Yugoslavia in 1918 and moved to Venezia Guilia. This could be mentioned in background, but shouldn’t be in the lead, because any that were targeted in 1943 or 1945 were targeted not because they were Dalmatian Italians but because of their activities during the interwar period and WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source queries[edit]

I'm going to list concerns about some of the sources being used here, as a result of discussions on the similar Bleiburg article. Feel free to chime in with responses:

Silvia Ferretto Clementi

Silvia Ferretto Clementi's website indicates she is an Italian politician who completed a political science degree (with a thesis on the foibe apparently), but it isn't clear if this was a masters or PhD equivalent. For the claims being made in the lead using her as a source, I definitely do not think she is a credible academic, and we need high quality sources, and preferably not ones that may have an apprehended bias. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tagged all citations to her as needing a better source. Absent any information about her academic credentials on this issue, I will look to remove them, except in the case of explaining how she was involved in bringing the events back to public attention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've established she was a National Alliance politician, the AN grew out of the fascists, and given fascists were many of the victims, I don't think it is sufficiently independent of the subject. The source is a link to a short footnoted "dossier" apparently written by her and published in 2005, when she was still a politician. It is pretty radical, and doesn't gel with the academic works like those of Pupo and the mixed commission, so I am going to remove it as it is likely subject to political bias, its academic status is unclear, and seems fringe and non-independent of the subject to me. As always, happy revert if someone can establish its academic bona fides and other reliability issues I've identified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, these have been removed for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Napolitano

Giorgio Napolitano was an (very eminent) Italian politician who was a qualified lawyer, and the citation is to a speech he made early in his presidency. There can be no sense that his words have been subjected to any sort of editorial checking for accuracy, so this is merely his opinion. It cannot be used as a source for the foibe killings being "ethnic cleansing", and I have removed it. This footnote appears to be a case of citation bombing to try to push a POV. Quality academics may well state they were "ethnic cleansing" but we cannot use Napolitano's speech to support such a claim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all but the one which translates his speech and the controversy it caused. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Red Cross page

I have been unable to resolve the dead link for the Italian Red Cross page via Wayback Machine. I will try it again a few more times, but if it hasn't been archived, it will have to be removed because it cannot be verified. I will however attempt to find something from the ICRC, because that would be better than the Italian Red Cross, due to the greater role in international humanitarian law. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I haven't been able to resolve this, so I' m deleting it as unable to be verified. Including anything that it is being used to support. Happy to reverse the deletions if someone else can find an archived version, but I'm just getting 404 errors going back years. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I haven't been able to find anything substantive on the ICRC website either. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, these are all deleted for now. As I say, happy to revise if someone has better web archive skills than me and can find a saved copy that says what the IRC is purported to have said about ethnic cleansing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thammy Evans & Rudolf Abraham (2013). Istria. Bradt Travel Guides

Yeah, nah. We are not using a travel guide as a source for this article. Deleting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tobagi encyclopaedia article Treccani

I note that the question of people wishing to retain Italian citizenship is solely cited to an online encyclopaedia. This is a tertiary source, and don't consider this a high enough quality source for this subject, as if it was the case, the intercountry commission or Pupo would have mentioned it. I will check those sources for a reference to it being an issue, but if it does not appear there, or no-one is able to put a high quality academic source to it, I'll be removing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, neither the commission or Pupo mention it, so I'm removing it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naimark (listed under editors Konrád, Barth & Mrňka 2021)

This doesn't even have page numbers, but the linked page 20 which is by Naimark, says the numbers range from one or two thousand to 20,000. He doesn't just say 20,000 as the article seems to indicate. I will try to find a copy and check what the book says about the killings and add pages, as presently this is very hard to verify. It is also attributed at least partly incorrectly, as Naimark is the author of this early chapter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Naimark gets these figures from Blozham and Dirk Moses, so this is rather circular and self-saucing, so Bloxham and Dirk Moses should be used as the source for these figures, not Naimark. I will look at Bloxham and Dirk Moses to establish exactly what they say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that Norman Naimark defines genocide differently from the Genocide Convention (he believes it should be extended to political groups and different classes, essentially), and his take on it may need to be provided as context for what he says about the foibe (which isn't much as far as I can tell, to be fair). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specific versus general sources

There are a number of otherwise reliable sources on the general subject of ethnic cleansing or genocide that are being given far too much weight here when there are specific scholarly sources focussed on the foibe that are available. A passing mention of the foibe in a general text on ethnic cleansing should be given a low weight on this article. A chapter specifically on the foibe in a more general book or as the subject of a journal article should be given greater weight, and the greatest weight should be given to academic quality book-length investigations of the foibe, especially those that have been carried out by joint authors or researchers from Italy, Slovenia and Croatia, or by scholars from uninvolved countries. At present, some of the first type are being used to support material that just isn't supported by the more specific sources. This gives them far too much weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity;

The weighting of sources needs to reflect the above if this article is to have any chance of meeting WP standards. This weighting also needs to be applied to the scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This recent Balkan Insight article bells the cat on the way Italian nationalists are treating this subject, and makes it clear that the joint Italy-Slovene commission report should be the basis for this article [1]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag[edit]

I don't know whether this article had a disputed tag on it before, but it should have one. Just a few hours looking at some of the sources for the ethnic cleansing claims shows that both Pupo and the Slovenian-Italian Commission (both highly reliable sources) agreed that it wasn't ethnic cleansing, but that the killings targeted people for political reasons, because they were collaborators and/or fascists etc. Balkan Insight, a highly reliable news source on the Balkan region, says that the ethnic cleansing narrative is being driven by right-wing Italian politicians. I will continue to examine sources and make edits until the article takes a NPOV and reflects the consensus academic position and identifies fringe views for what they are. As it stands the article is highly misleading, especially in the lead and infobox, but there are also extensive issues in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a POV tag as well, it is entirely justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Why on earth is the infobox image a photograph of a foibe used by a criminal gang to dispose of its victims, when the article is about sites used by the Yugoslav state to dispose of victims? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope reduction[edit]

I had already shortened the first 2 Background sections, Ancient Times and Austrian Empire, which are largely irrelevant here, and in any case the same history is already covered in articles on Dalmatia and elsewhere. Est2021 reverted my edits, I suggest we go back the shorter version. Here's the diff: Foibe massacres: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it certainly needs trimming, but it will have to be done manually again, as I have changed a whole lot of stuff outside those sections since then. If you could just trim back the old history and leave the WWI-WWII period, then I’ll look at that part. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat what I said before. I think the map showing the Roman and Venetian Empires, and 1915 Treaty of London proposals, needs to be deleted from the Background section. This is the same as if the article on the 1940's Greco-Italian War started off with a map of Roman and Venetian Empire holdings in Greece, plus Treaty of London promises of parts of Greece to Italy. I.e this would just repeat fascist imperial claims to Greece, which they used to justify the Italian invasion/occupation of Greece, same as such a map is used in the Foibe article to repeat such claims, which were used to justify the Italian invasion/occupation of Dalmatia, along with other parts of YugoslaviaThhhommmasss (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about anything pre-WWI. Italian irredentism during and after WWI is relevant background, and any maps of the Treaty of London remain relevant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss and Peacemaker67: The Austrian edict of 12 November 1866 is extremely relevant for the context, and you Thhhommmasss deleted it again on 14 October 2023 (19:32 UTC). I'm going to restore it again. The next time I will consider its deletion pure vandalism. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021 Then the forced Austrian Germanization of Slovenes is extremely relevant to the article, and I will add a ton of info on that, and if you delete any of it, I will report it as vandalism Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss: Go ahead, try. This childish attitude won't take you anywhere. But since you already mentioned me in multiple talks without ever tagging me, ping me next time. I can't wait. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of pointy editing behaviour going on here. This is a controversial subject area, and disruptive editing is very much frowned on in such areas. The Austrian section is already way too long, and editors are adding more... Please refrain from adding more until you can write more succinctly and summarise the history more concisely. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: You requested me to shorten the Austrian section and I did, but now Thhhommmasss is expanding it again with POV statements like The local populace, italianized under Venice, reverted back to Slavic languages, assuming against any source that Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians were just italianized Slavs, not ethnic Italians, and that Slavic languages were their natural state. Please, revert this idiocy. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021: So per you "scope reduction", i.e. your scope expansion, is only OK if it is partial and biased, by quoting weak sources like media articles on historical issues, while deleting the academic sources i cited (e.g. Croatian Academy of Sciences). Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss: I'm not expanding anything, I restored the previous status quo version (that doesn't need consent) and shortened it on Peacemaker67's request. You're the one deleting sources (e.g. about Dalmatian Italians) and making unsourced POV nationalistic statements. You're not the one deciding the scope of this article, and if I wanted, I could restore the previous status quo version of the page, before any controversial edit of yours, going back months or even years if needed. But I don't want. Stop this confrontational attitude of yours, or I will. If you want an edit-war, I'd just need to restore the status quo version and report the multiple clownish threats you made in edit summaries and talk pages (examples below). You'd be gone, deleted, obliterated. Have fun. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. «Also if term "exterminated" is used for killings in Rijeka, I will start using extermination for much Italian war crime»
  2. «If exterminated is used here, I will use extermination for much greater number of Slavs killed by Italians, and throughout the Italian war crimes article»
  3. «Then the forced Austrian Germanization of Slovenes is extremely relevant to the article, and I will add a ton of info on that, and if you delete any of it, I will report it as vandalism» (just above)
and so on. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nationalistic viewpoints on both sides, this article should rely almost entirely on academic quality sources from outside the countries concerned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Not both sides. I never denied nor deleted anything about Italian bad actions, I just restored the timeline: after millennia of Roman and Venetian citizenship, there was a forced Slavization of Italians, followed by a forced Italianization of Slavs, followed by an ethnic cleansing against Italians and pro-Italian ethnic Slavs. Just simple like that. Both Slavs and Italians did horrible things. Yet this article is about the foibe massacres, ethnic cleansing against Italians, not about Italo-Slavic relations, so requesting me to shorten a section about anti-Italian actions and then adding unrelated unsourced POV nationalistic statements like the one quoted above looks way out of scope. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: The sources Est2021 uses are very poor. He cited an AFP wire source, i.e. a non-academic newspaperman writing on supposed Dalmatian demographics in the early 1800's, which in turn cited zero academics, and furthermore the source was falsely cited, since it does not say that 30% of Dalmatians in the early 1800's were Italian-speakers. Other media sources are cited in the article, like La Repubblica, for what supposedly happened in 1945. Such low-quality citations and everything related to them should be immediately deleted, and only academic sources allowed for historical facts. Television personalities and journalists-turned-"historians", like Petacco and Tobagi, should also be immediately deleted for any claims of historical facts (although they and other media sources may be relevant for present-day controversies). Furthermore, the Franz Joseph citation is a primary source, and when some context is provided, as per the second citation of same, it is in a book about the forced Italianization of the South Tyrol, and such context needs to be included. Est 2021 is POV-pushing the notion of anti-Italian discrimination under Austria, while I have seen zero academic evidence of discriminatory actions in Dalmatia or Istria. On the contrary, there are academic sources that show that Austria employed Italian-speakers to rule Dalmatia, and local Italian authorities sought to suppress Slovenes declaring themselves as such, in Austrian censuses in the Julian March. The contextless, primary-source Franz Joseph citations have been plastered all over - in the Foibe article, where it is entirely irrelevant to Italian-Slav relations in 1943-1945, as well as in the articles on Dalmatia and Istria. Such violations of Wikipedia rules need to be addressed (btw, I've been unable to confirm this citation - on page 279 of the second cited source, no such words are found, and a Google search of the cited words finds them only plastered on various instances and copies of Wikipedia) Thhhommmasss (talk)
There is obviously a fundamental problem here. This is not about Dalmatians. The foibe relate to Istria, as I've mentioned above. The public investigation and wider academic consensus says that the vast majority of the people who were thrown in foibe were killed due to their fascist actions, not because they were Italian per se. At present this article has far too wide a scope and it needs severe trimming. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had cut the pre-WWI stuff to 2 paragraphs, while providing links to the Istria and Dalmatia articles, and then Est 2021 started expanding it, with his poorly-sourced, clearly biased take. To start with, we need a decision that what Franz Joseph said in 1866 has zero to do with Italian-Slav relations in 1943-1945. That whole long quote needs to go. Same with things like Austria removing Italian as an official language in Dalmatia 1910 (when there were 2.8% Italian speakers in all of Dalmatia), not to mention your point that the Foibe was mostly confined to Istria. I think the only relevant info from Austrian times is the 1910 census data, which sets the stage for post-WWI stuff Thhhommmasss (talk)
@Thhhommmasss and Peacemaker67: I did not expand anything, I never added anything to this article, I just restored pre-existing content you had deleted. If the forced Slavization of Italians would not matter here, then the following forced Italianization of Slavs and other fascist actions would not matter as well, because they're intertwined, action and reaction. You can't start with a reaction without mentioning the actions that preceded and caused it. Reactions always follow actions. If you delete the forced Slavization of Italians, the following forced Italianization of Slavs has to be on the same plate, as well as every other fascist action. I don't want the fascist faults to be deleted, so you better keep what ignited them. That's the timeline. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Est 2021 and Peacemaker67: That is false, you only selectively restored content that you wanted, while deleting content from the same section, and with your latest revert, you again deleted well-sourced content I had added the previous day to the section. I'd like to see the Admins take some action here, to put an end to this highly disruptive behavior. I'd also like to hear from the Admins what relevance does a long citation of Franz Joseph in 1866 have to Foibe in 1943-1945. Would long quotes of Fanz Joseph in the Czechoslovakia in WWII article make any sense? How about me adding to the WWWII in Yugoslavia article background on Rome's bloody conquests of Illyria, Venice's raising of Zadar and its other wars of conquest in Istria and Dalmatia plus, then making Italian the official language in areas with large Slavic majorities, Austria keeping Italian as the only official language until 1883 and using Italian speakers to govern Dalmatia, etc.? Or in the article on WWII Italy, background how Italy was part of Greece and Byzantium, Germanic kingdoms, the German-led Holy Roman Empire, Muslim kingdoms, Norman Kingdoms, Spain, France, Austria-Hungary, etc. with clear implications these still have claims over Italy. This is getting to be a total farse Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss: Are you kidding or what? I already answered your questions. You're the one who added tons of info about the forced Italianization of Slavs and other fascist war crimes to justify the foibe massacres. That's a cause for sure, but we also know for sure that antifascists and children were targeted as well by the Yugoslavs. Moreover: nothing can justify massacres, on any side. Btw, yet you added those infos and I don't mean to delete them, so we have to explain why they did so. The forced Slavization of Italians caused the forced Italianization of Slavs, which caused the ethnic cleaning. Causes and effects. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians like Pupo and others, directly link forced Italianizatian, fascist rule and Italian war crimes to Foibe. None of them mention Venice, Franz Joseph and Austria making Croatian the official language in 1910 as in any way related to that. So again you are pushing your POV, and again I ask that Admins put an end to these repeat, gross violations of Wikipedia rules.Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The background should only include background that the key sources in the foibe provide. On en WP we follow the sources, not our own ideas of what the timeline was. I’d like to know what Pupo and the joint commission provide as background. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 and Thhhommmasss: In fact, that's not my own idea, the sources are on the page, even if you deleted some of them, e.g. Treccani, the most important historical and cultural institution in Italy, or Napolitano, the communist Italian Head of State who had been allied with the Yugoslav partisans and had been as senator part of parliamentary commissions that analyzed the history of the foibe massacres. Meanwhile, Thhhommmasss added nationalistic and unsourced POV-pushing statements likes The local populace, italianized under Venice, reverted back to Slavic languages, that needed a revert. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cited Pericic in a scientific article by the Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences, who cites contemporary Dalmatian-Italian and other sources that the majority of Slavic speakers in Dalmatia at the start of the 19th century were Italianized Slavs, and that once majority Slavs were granted equal language rights by Austria and allowed to have schools, much of the Italianized populace reverted to Slavic languages. At the same time, for historical facts about the 19th century, Est. 2021 cites an online website of the Italian Light Athletics Federation. This is what I mean by gross violations of WP rules. He also cites the online article by someone identified only as Writer (at something called IEMed, which seems like nonprofit for current Mediterranean issues), for supposed facts on Istria's population in the early 1900's and centuries before, and he manages to cite this wrong, since article does not state Itailan-speakers made up 50% of all of Istria (in fact, Est 2021's sentence implies Italians made up 50% of Istria AND Dalmatia, an even greater falsehood). Instead, the IEMed article states they constituted at least 50% only in cities on Istria's west coast. Citing present-day, very-biased politicians from one side, regarding supposed historical facts 80 years ago, is yet another RS and NPOV violation, otherwise let's then cite a whole bunch of Yugoslav, Slovene and Croat politicians on 1942-1945 history. Also, I do not see how Petacco, a journalist who wrote film scripts and mainly worked on television, and has been criticized in his approach by historians, qualifies as a RS Thhhommmasss (talk)
If you have valid reasons why you challenge my deletion of a source, then put your argument under the source in the appropriate thread above and we can discuss it. If we can't reach a consensus, then we can always take it to RSN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Empire[edit]

The Italian-Slovene Commission doesn’t mention Franz Joseph, instead starts in 1880, with rising nationalism on both sides, compounded by the coastal/Italian vs. inland/Slavic split, and class divides. Italy suppressed all local languages, impacting Slovenes in Venice province. In the Julian March, under Austria, Slovenes started asserting their language and political rights, which local Italian authorities, until then the ruling elite, repressed. Slovenes resisted Italianization and had a more favorable view of Austria (but only in the Littoral, elsewhere Slovene nationalism focused on resisting Germanization and Austrian rule). Slovene-Italian relations deteriorated further during WWI, as Italy demanded areas with large Slovene and Croat majorities, to enter the war on the Entente side. This parallels what Pericic writes for Dalmatia, where the Italian-speaking minority retained political power, keeping Italian as the only official language. Things changed when the Austrian Empire lowered property requirements for voting, allowing more poorer strata to vote, leading to victories for Slavic parties in 1870 in Dalmatia, and equal rights for Slavic languages in 1883.

I’m going to rewrite the Austria section to reflect this and delete the Franz Joseph quote. Population data from the 1910 Austrian census on ethnic composition of Istria and Dalmatia, should be retained

Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the basis on which we are including Dalmatia. There are no foibe in Dalmatia. What evidence is there that Dalmatians were killed and thrown down the foibe? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of media sources for historical event[edit]

The intro cites only 3 media sources for this claim that victims were thrown alive into foibe

The term refers to some victims who were thrown alive into the foibe.[1][2][3]

I have not seen any such claims of people being thrown alive in Pupo and Baracetti. I would like the Admins to present their views of use of media sources on controversial historical events from nearly 90 years ago Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thhhommmasss You requested reliable sources, and I added them. Your sources not mentioning this does not mean this did not happen. There is zero concern or controversy about the fact that people were through alive into these holes, as far as I'm aware. I also saw that you again modified the introduction section, continuosly over weeks adding more content that more and more neglects the fact that a major part of these killings were unarmed civilians, of them is not even sure if they all were anti-communists, hence the strong allegations of ethnic cleansing by historians. With your argumentation towards not mentioning this in the introduction at all, one could also dispute that it was reprisal killings. At the moment this article absolutely does not accurately represent the fact that this was a massacre against largely unarmed, unrelated civilians, motivated by - the reason why does not matter - ethnic hatred. Revenge killing is morally not acceptable. Zerbrxsler (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zerbrxsler I cited reliable sources, i.e. Italian and other historians, for everything I wrote. Find and cite reliable sources for whatever you claim, that is how Wikipedia works, it does not work by convoluted arguments that just because historians do not state it, it does not mean it didn't happen. Regarding citing media articles on historical events from 80 years ago, I think it is only justified if the article is quoting a RS, such as a historian, regarding the subject, and then only to quote what this RS stated. Newspaper reporters are not experts on history from 80 years ago. I did not quote any Slovene or Croat newspaper reporters on historical facts, nore some Czech or Japanese reporter on what happened in Istria in 1945, unlike the Repubblica, AFP and the NYT articles that are solely cited for the above claims. The only other area where I believe media articles can be cited here, is on present day controversies regarding these issuesThhhommmasss (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I see that the AFP story as its "reliable source" quotes Italian-Argentine director Maximiliano Hernando Bruno, since the article is about a film, an acted drama, supposedly about the events. Let's then for historical facts on WP cite articles about Hollywood movies Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Foibe, oggi è il Giorno del Ricordo: cos'è e perché si chiama così". La Repubblica (in Italian). GEDI Gruppo Editoriale. 2021-02-10. Retrieved 2021-10-19. La ricorrenza istituita nel 2004 nell'anniversario dei trattati di Parigi, che assegnavano l'Istria alla Jugoslavia. Si ricordano gli italiani vittime dei massacri messi in atto dai partigiani e dai Servizi jugoslavi. [The anniversary [was] established in 2004 on the anniversary of the Paris treaties, which assigned Istria to Yugoslavia. We remember the Italians victims of the massacres carried out by the partisans and the Yugoslav services.]
  2. ^ "In Trieste, Investigation of Brutal Era Is Blocked". The New York Times. 20 May 1997. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  3. ^ "Italy film recalls pain of forgotten WWII massacres". France 24. 22 November 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2023.
Categories