Talk:Foibe massacres

'How' were they killed?

The article doesn't seem to mention 'how' these people were killed. Unusual, since apparently there was particular savagery involved. Like they were supposedly connected to one another with barbed wire and thrown into the holes still alive.

The following quote is from the Wikipedia article called, "The Holocaust :"

"The murders took many forms: burning of live Serbs forced into churches; slaughter of Serbs by small death squads, often numbering only three, called "black threes", who rampaged by night through villages in which dogs were first poisoned. The squads filled foiba pits with still-living Serbs, often connected by barbed wire, and practiced extremely cruel methods of torture and execution such as gouging eyes and cutting salted necks. They also nailed guts of slaughtered victims to the roofs."

I have not idea how true that is or how it is sourced. But at least the article should mention how exactly these people died. Tragic romance 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the quote you just mentioned refers to the massacres perpretated by the Croatian Ustaše against Serbs in 1941. These are not the same as the main topic of this article, namely, the massacres perpretated by Yugoslav partisans against Italians (please read the lead again). Having said that, it is true that the text concentrates on the death toll and controversies surrounding these events, paying very little attention to the gruesome details of the killings - but then, there is an enourmous scarcity of data available for such details. This is probably due to the fact that these events were not so publicized as the Ustaše massacres, clearly for propaganda and political purposes, and that there was an intentional silence (some would say a "cover-up") pursued by both parts after the war. However, it would be interesting to draw a parallel between the 1945 Foibe massacres and the 1941 Serb massacres by the Nazi-backed Croatians just across the border and also making use of the Foibe, as no mention of such an interestingly similar event is made on the current text.

Neutral Point of View

This article does not excercise a Neutral Point of View. Blaming mass killings on events that took place years before them hardly reflects an unbiased opinion. I believe it is irresponsible and misleading to place Fascist in front of Italy in direct relation to events that ocurred when Italy was not ruled by a fascist government. This article should state more facts and less comentary. Bert-25 22:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

fascist, communist

Adjectives to be used sparingly. I restrained from editing Italy to fascist Italy, rather deleted the communist as adjective to Yugoslav partisans from the edit made by 213.140.22.75. Additional edits may be necessary to avoid name calling. Adjectives are to be used where they convey meaning or explanation. MGTom 23:58, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Original texts form Italian

For probably necessary improvement of the translation from La verità sulle foibe. Di Marco Ottanelli (other sources of quote may be available):

"Di fronte ad una razza inferiore e barbara come la slava, non si deve seguire la politica che dà lo zuccherino, ma quella del bastone. I confini dell'Italia devono essere il Brennero, il Nevoso e le Dinariche: io credo che si possano sacrificare 500.000 slavi barbari a 50.000 italiani".Benito Mussolini, 1920

Reference that this was in a speech in Pola is in some other text. May be worth a WikiQuote? MGTom 01:13, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Corrections

First of all, the number of people killed was wrong (1300 to 1500 where only the victims of the autumn 1943 - changed to correct one); second nobody is talking about HOW the Italian people were killed and nobody is mentioning about the fact that most Italians were killed just because they were not pro-communism. Also, nobody is -as usual- mentioning about the fact that some people were also moved to Stalin's goulags (of which most people seem to always forget to talk about). Just to close: in the mass killing there were also contless kids, some of them killed for no reason. Also, the Mussolini's quote in the beginning is misleading; as said before, the mass killing happened once war was finished and Italy was fighting for Ally forces.

The number was correct and it includes all victims, but only from the Slovenian area.

As for the statement that "most Italians were killed just because they were not pro-communist", it's only an opinion. Not necessarily wrong, but it's an opinion, not an established fact. Boraczek 20:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am looking for documents online - and all documents seem to indicate italians were killed even for being not communists (apparently this was due to a history of nationalist competition between Italy and Jugoslavia during the world war). Anyway, somebody says the number of IDENTIFIED people killed in the main 2 Foibe ( Basovizza e Monrupino ) is over 7000 - one sure thing is that we are talking about thousands...

Also, can you explain me how 500 square meters of bones (that is how it was calculated) on ONE foiba (basovizza) can be ony 1300 deaths?!?!? At least put "uncertain number".

As far as I know, there are much less than 7000 identified people. The estimate of 15000 seems to be very exaggerated, as it is bigger than the number of missing people. The "500 square metres of bones" is only a speculation. Anyway, even if there were 5000 victims and not 15000, it doesn't make the executions less tragic and less cruel. The matter is, as you observed, connected with the politics, but in my opinion many Italian historians are able to transcend their political convictions and objectively study the matter. Boraczek 12:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As regards the reasons of killing - I'm not objecting to the statement that SOME people were killed simply because they didn't support communism. I'm just saying that it is not proved that such cases were the majority. Boraczek 12:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note that you are writing now the lowest number possible EVER estimated - and that the 500 square meters is NOT a speculation but obtained simply by measuring the difference of the foiba depth. I dont know why you want to keep down the numbers like this (maybe because talking about 1300 people does not show up as the holocaust that was?) - infact I think you intentionally omitted the fact that official studies demonstrated victims were more than 10000. If the site you got the information of the 5000 victims was http://www.lefoibe.it/approfondimenti/dossier/03-foibe.htm (which is the only place I found Raul Pupo esteem), you did not specify that other historians specified around 16000 (as on the website).

Just another update - I noticed that you tried to keep the number down even on the italian wikipedia, I will put the number to thousands, that will do for both of us - i hope.

The lowest estimate I saw was "a few hunreds". So I didn't choose the lowest estimate, but the one which seems the most documented. I don't trust Internet sources too much, I prefer books as sources of information. If you've found any sincere and well documented estimate which is higher than 5000, please feel free to add it and indicate the source.

As for the size of the foiba, there are only two possibilities: 1) the bones have not been excavated, so we don't know how many they are and the estimates of their cubature is very uncertain (the size of the foiba is hardly predictable and you can never know to what degree it is filled with bones), 2) the bones have been excavated and there's no need to measure their cubature, as one can count them. Boraczek 13:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The size was calculated in 1939, before the mass killings. Here is the source : http://www.carabinieri.it/cittadino/servizi/primo_piano/Archivio/2005_03_022_speciale.htm - they are talking about 1500 victims only on Bosavizza's foiba. Also, to me 1200 IS hundreds.

It's good to learn about the details of measurement, thanks. However, it doesn't alter the fact that "500 sq m of cadaveres" is a speculation based on the depth of the foiba. Boraczek 16:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

About Pupo and the Italian-Slovenian studies, please read back what they already replied on it.wikipedia.org.

Italianization was a natural process in Istria over the time because the diferences betwin slavic, usualy workers , and italians, usualy high class citizen, work like a pressure factor.In this case every slvic who become rich people in fact become italian. By the other way italians were the symbol of culture (e.g. Renaissance)and normaly slavic people try be integreted into a herittage of roman imperium.Over the century the italianization was a peacefuly process that means was accepted and wanted by slavic.

I ASK FOR URGENTLY MODIFICATION OF THIS PAGE BECAUSE IT S CONTENT IS MALICIOS AND ANTI-ITALIN. In a few days i will provide you a lot of information for rebuild this article.I hope after this will be accurate and less slavophilic. By the way how could is posible to interpretate the reality in this kind?I think this is english wikipedia and it is better to respect the truth.For slavophilic mistification please use edition in croat or sloven language--proturism 05:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, provide evidence to your claims and we may just do something about it. If you feel that the Slovenian and Croatian wikipedias are slavophilic you can always go spreading your ideas to the Italian wikipedia, though (with no offence to the Italian wikipedia). edolen1 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not about the natural italianization, but rather about planned and forced italianization performed by the Italian government, which undoubtedly took place, as anybody who is familar with the history of the region knows. Boraczek 13:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Italianization a term used to describe a cultural change in which something non Italian, or not fully Italian is made to become Italian. In the context of twentieth century history, Italianization is the process by which the government of Benito Mussolini induced to use in public only italian language in all parts of Italy setting aside all other dialects or languages spoken in Italy, which due to divisive orografy history of invasions and lack of political union was profoundly divided in so many local dialects and languages (neolatin like Sardinian, Friulan, Ladin, Occitanian or non neo latin languages like German, Slavic, Greek, Albanian in small ethnic islands in southern Italys regions.

- The process assumed political relevance in two cases relating populations of border regions attracted by competing iper nationalisms: Slavic populations Slovenians and Croatians, on the border with Yugoslavia and Germans in Alto Adige / Sud Tirol, on the border with Austria.

- Trentino - AltoAdige /South Tirol was a bilingual society until the times of Maria Theresia sovereign of Austria (she published laws locally both in Italian and German) but became in XIX century solely of German language from Bolzano / Bozen northward, with the only exception of some valleys speaking Ladin ( a neolatin dialect related to the other 2 dialects of the neo-latin Retho-Roman language area: Grison and Friulan).

- After Austro German reunification (Anschluss) in 1939 Hitler and Mussolini reached peacefully an agreement on the status of Germans living in South Tirol: they could emigrate to Germany, or stay in Italy and accept their complete Italianization, which practically meant to learn and speak Italian in public and to Italianize their surnames if they looked German (not all were as a part of the German speaking population had ladin or mixed origin). As a consequence, South Tyrolen society was deeply divided. Those who wanted to stay ("Dableiber"), were called traitors, those who left ("Optanten", the majority) were called Nazis. Because of the outbreak of World War II , this agreement was carried on only briefly, and at the end of the war Italy acceped back all the Optanten.

- In Istria (Italian between 1918 and 1945) the italianization policy was resented by local Slovenian and Croatian minorities attracted by Iugoslavian nationalism.

- Both sides of the Adriatic where anciently populated by peoples of a language family whose sole descendents is today’s Albanian. It is the Illyrian group of languages, - one of those stemming from the indo-european languages. - The Illyrian is closely related to 2 other balcanic languages Traco-Phrygianian and Dacian. - Although not very far from Greek., must be placed at the same level of branches of the indo-european as all other main languages: Celt, German, Latin, Slav, Baltic, Greek, Hittite, Iranian (including Armenian and Tocarian), and Indoarian (including Hindi and Bengali). - The Illirians ( can be divided in Albanians, Dalmatians, Liburnians (coast between Fiume / Rijeka and Dalmatia) Histrians, Venetians (in northern Italy) but where of the Illyrian family even the Picenes and the Dauni on the mid Adriatic Italian coast and Iapigyans (in Puglia, Southern Italy). Except the Albanians, all became Latinized beginning from the third century b.c., 23 centuries ago.

- Once existed even 2 neolatin languages in the region, the Morlac and the Dalmatian, now disappeared, but mostly the neolatin population there spoke local dialects heavily influenced from Venetian dialect as the region was dominated for 8 centuries mainly by the Serenissima Venetian Republic.

- The Slavic peoples began to settle on the Adriatic coastal regions about 15 centuries after the autochthonous Illyrians and 8 centuries after the process of latinization of all the Illyrians except the Albanians, but since then consider those regions their permanent home. In so doing their colonization displaced and progressively replaced by demographic force the original latinized Istrians and Dalmatians in the countryside, but much less in the coastal cities. There often the process of assimilation of the minority (Italian ) to the majority (slavic) was spontaneously reversed. The Slavic element was mostly peasant, the Italians where mostly urbanized and more often literate, and so when a family elevated herself from peasant class or settled in the coastal italian cities found natural to Italianize her culture. At the time there was not so much nationalistic rivalry or cultural competition or possibility to compare. Venetian rule was equally appreciated by both Italians and Slavic elements in Dalmatia. Things changed after Italian independence posed a threat to Austrian rule and so the Austria began to favour the Slavic element as Slovenian and Croatian peoples were fully included in the Habsburg empire boundaries and let the Austrians hope in more interest in the conservation of the state.

- During and after first world war Italian and Slavic nationalism competed directly and so the Italianization policy was resented in Istria. Minorities associations and schools where not allowed, italianization of family names was discussed and sometimes encouraged (but not compelled even for italian state officials or dignitaries). - All Italy was under Mussolinian dictatorship, but even Yugoslavia was not a state dedicated to the respect of minorities and development of differences. The scarce representation of the croats in the state structures of the kingdom of Yugoslavia alienated parts of the Croatian population even if the Union of the Croats, the Serbs and the Slovenians had been originally just an ideal of the Croatian nationalists. - On the coast og Dalmatia some de-italianization and official slavization had already began: Some stone winged lions ancient symbols of the Venetian presence had been wiped out, local names of roads and localities had been changed in the cities and on the coast and history of literature and art had began to be rewritten declaring many artists Slavic, translating their names never used as such and appropriating their work although if written in Latin, or in Italian. Also Italian cultural associations and minority schools where not favorably looked upon. - History was rewritten and scientifically unfounded theories were circulated like: - That Slavic language is an evolution of Illyrian or that Slavic and Illyrian are very closely related, much more than other indo-european languages. - For this often is introduced the argument of the etymology of the name of Trieste (latin Tergeste or Tergestum) which is attributed to the Illyrian root TRG = market composed with the ending ESTE meaning city coming from the Proto-Venetian dialect of the Illyrian group. All this is correct (even if there are 2 competing etymological theories for the name Trieste) but is not correct that targ is a Slavic name. + - Yes, it is found in all yugoslavic languages, in Bulgarian too (still a south Slavic language) in Romanian too, but it is there from Illyric and Dacian and Tracian, not from Slavic! Counter proof is given by the lack of the term in the eastern Slavic group of languages: in Russian a market is rimok or ramok. In Polish (western Slavic group) the main term is rynek, not targ, which also exists, but is of more recent introduction, learned by contacts and trade with people from the Balcans - In every case the term is documented in greek and latin authors and in locally found epigraphs many centuries before the first Slavic people saw the Adriatic. This is enough if not i will provide you the rest of prove ,about 1000 pages :).It is obviously italians in Istria Dalmatia and Fiume are natives and the slavic people are guests.Bat like a owner of a house you have the problem with your guests What are you doing in this case? --proturism 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. We should be having this conversation in Cherokee or whatnot then. What with English being the language of the guests in America's house. Or even in some form of Celtic, seeing how Angles and Saxons were guests in the house of Britain. According to that train of thought, the Italians are misbehaving by not talking some form of Etruscan. Seeing as how the Italic tribes barged in on their rightful territories. Proturism, you seem like a reasonable and well-read person, but you have to admit that ancient tribe locations and movements have no real connection to nowaday's nation-states. Nor their languages. And you have to admit that saying that Slavs are guests in the lands of Itals is to put it mildly, amusing. Afterall, 1400 years have passed since. And I'm sure you realize that the italianization of the Slovenes and Croats in the first half of the 20th century was not always the peacuful, idyllic process you want us to believe it was. TomorrowTime 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article POV

Sorry this article is POV:

1. The discours of Mussolini is not connected clearly with Foibe, it seems to be a large program of use of "foibe" in this discours, but this is incorrect... if we read we can understand that Mussolini killed 500.000 slaves using the foibes.
2. In any case the use of foibe will be massive with Tito and not with Mussolini, this is evident in the incipit, but not in the following text.

--Ilario 21:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the quote from Mussolini is out of place. Boraczek 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I made some major changes, but probably there will be still some problems, critical remarks and different opinions. I'd like to discuss the article with you. What do you think should be modified? Boraczek 14:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to include the matter of purported ethnic cleansing. I'm not sure if mine was the best way to do it. Your comments are welcome. Boraczek 10:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that Ilario's arguments (he placed the POVcheck template) have been met, and no further discussion ensued. Removing the template. --Orzetto 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Exodus

I'm putting the part about the Exodus below. And I suggest putting it in a separate article, as Exodus was not simply a part of the foiba killings. I only don't know what the name of the article should be. A help from a native speaker of English would be appreciated.

Exiles from Istria and Dalmatia

Economic insecurity, fear of further retaliation and the change of regime that eventually led to the Iron Curtain splitting the Trieste-Istria region, resulted in approximately 300,000 people, mostly Italians, leaving territories in Istria and Dalmatia. The inhabitants of territories that were under Italian rule since World War I according to the Treaty of Rapallo of 1920, later assigned to Yugoslavia by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947-02-10 and the London Memorandum of 1954 were given a choice of opting to leave (optants) or staying. These exiles were to be given compensation for their loss of property and other indemnity by the Italian state under the terms of the peace treaties.

On February 18, 1983 Yugoslavia and Italy signed a treaty in Rome where Yugoslavia agreed to pay 110 million USD for the compensation of the exiles' property which was confiscated after the war. By its breakup in 1991 Yugoslavia paid 18 million USD. Slovenia and Croatia, two Yugoslav successors, agreed to share the remainder of this debt. Slovenia assumed 62% and Croatia the remaining 38%. Italy did not want to reveal the bank account number so in 1994 Slovenia opened a fiduciary account at Dresdner Bank in Luxembourg, informed Italy about it and started paying its 55,976,930 USD share. The last payment was paid in January 2002. Until today Croatia hopes of a different solution of this matter and has not paid a dollar yet. The Italian side has not withdrawn a single dollar from the account yet.

Thanks Boraczek. Since no one did this yet, I place this in Istrian exodus. --Orzetto 00:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

Sorry, the bibliography is POV yet. I suggest to read the books (all books) and not only to judge them. Not all books follow political goals, but there are a 50% of books about foibe that are written by honestly and very good authors like Papo and Spazzali (they are university teachers). In this state, it seems that all books are bad and only wikipedia has the truth, but this truth is made on films, on general considerations and not on documents, on archivistic proofs. --Ilario 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I really can't understand how it could be POV to state that this is a debated subject and there are a lot of partisan books. GhePeU 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Many books have been written about the foibe, and results, intepretations and estimates of victims can vary largely according to the point of view of the author. Since many of the alleged foibe lie outside Italian territory, no investigation could be carried out during the years of the Cold war, and books could only be of a speculative or anecdotal nature. This is a lie. Pupo and Spazzali (for example) said, in their book, that the problem is not the number of killed persons, but the causes and the consequences, and these could be investigated. They have written a book with a lot of documentations (from Italy, from Allied part and from Jugoslavia) and not with speculative or anecdotal nature.

Since the topic was especially interesting for the extreme right, there is an overrepresentation of authors that can be traced to neofascism. Conversely, authors from the left wing of politics have maintained that the Foibe were either an invention (or at least an exaggeration) of the extreme right for propaganda purposes. This is incorrect, in Italy the left wing never has said that the foibe are an invention also because the foibe were admitted by Tito (Cernigoi is on the left wing, but she is not the left wing). In Italy also the catholic church accepts the foibe!

This introduction is very strange to persons who knows the books because the are s lot of books in the bibliography that follow a correct approach to the problem and not a political goal. This introduction seems to say: "Here there is a list a books but almost of all are incorrect and political conditioned, many of all are fascists or say novels or anedoctes. Don't read them". --Ilario 22:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The key is "can vary largely according to the point of view of the author", or "books could only be of a speculative or anecdotal nature". There is a possibility that veterans of Mussolini's army misrepresent the facts, and this is to be noted. It is not surprising that the Catholic Church accepts the existence of foibe, they did not exactly side with Tito during the war. Besides, I wrote that introduction after you reported my classification of book to the Village Pump; there, David91 suggested to write a generic introduction (at least it's what I understood he meant) to warn of the possible bias of some sources. The strangest thing of them all, you wrote pretty much the same in the Italian Wikipedia yourself (Google translation). By the way, I did not know that Pupo and Spazzali were university professors, this adds to their credibility. Will put it in.

(If I decipher you correctly: you want it mentioned that there are also properly written books, right?) --Orzetto 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are facts and the history?

Sorry, the 50% of article says about films, bibliography and links "we want deeds, not words". There are only link's reviews, book's reviews, film's blame, but where is the history, where are the facts? In any case the article is POV because "Current Influence in Politics" are based on personals considerations. The 75% of article is based on personal and one-sided considerations. --Ilario 10:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Then edit it. It would help your case if you actually provided instances of these "personal considerations", instead of generically accusing the whole article of POV. --Orzetto 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Following Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial:

• Bias: the article seems to have the foibe only a "manipulation" of right wing in Italy. This is not correct: National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe for example was accepted and celebrated by all wings in Italy, and also by President of Republic that is "neutral".
• Undue weight and POV forks: the foibe are a chapter very complicated and strongest on italian and slavian history, see italian it:Esodo istriano, this article don't analyze all faces of this situation;
• A vital component: good research: This article is based only on reviews of links, films, books. There are not facts, and the history is very short, it seems to be a censoreship;
• Fairness and sympathetic tone: there is a tone very strong on links, books, and films reviews.

There are also a lot of points, but these previous are enough for POV. --Ilario 10:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1. It seems to me it presents both points of view, those who believe the foibe killings were an extensive ethnic cleansing and those who believe they were minor episodes. The latter include a source (Cernigoi) that you used to hold in high regard yourself.
2. What would be these aspects the article does not analyze? Why should we include parts of "Esodo istriano" here, instead of writing a new article for that, like on the Italian Wikipedia? What is the "undue weight" and the "POV forks"? What do you mean by a fork anyway?
3. Wikipedia is not the place for research. We cannot upload actual concrete evidence, and we must rely on references. If you have references that disprove what is written, edit and reference it.
4. Any instances of this "tone"?

--Orzetto 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag as no specific POV findings have been presented for over 10 days. --Orzetto 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

About the movie: The hearth in the cave

The Italian Social Republic's soldiers were presented as merciful and altruistic, whereas the Yugoslav partisans were presented as ruthless assassins and rapists, the main charachter among them fixated on taking back the son he had had from an Italian woman he raped years before.

That is a complete misuderstanding of the movie. The italian soldiers in the movie are from the dismissed Royal army. At the time Italy had already surrended to the Allies. (Most of the soldiers would actually decide to fight against the Nazis). In this movie there are no soldier of the puppet Nazi/Fascist occupation state called "Italy's Social Republic".

About the whole movie, I agree it does not make a good job in describing the events. However it has the merit of being the first film in 60 years to address this issue. I don't think it is that NPOV. Not all the italians characters are good guys (example: the rich snob family) and there are positive slovenes as well. Here and there, the caracthers try to explain the motivation of the harsh of tito's partizans (sentences like "after all they have suffered under the fascim rule, they don't make distinction between italians of either sides" are repeated few times). After reading an interview with the director, I think he did not want to be NPOV, simply the subject is still too hot for making a film that is not a documentary. --Paolopk2 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Extreme POV

As for this:

"The killings of 1943 were mostly spontaneous and were a reaction to the Italian pre-war and war crimes, such as concentration camps, political repression, forceful italianization and nationalistic repression of Slavs exercised by Italian fascist regime in the previous decades."

It's strongly POV, and actually smells to Milosevician Newspeak. It's like saying that the Rwandan massacre should be only attributed to Tutsi 'exploitation' of poor little Huttus who out of the blue 'reacted' with a 'spontaneous' bloodbath. Clearly the actions perpretated by an organized band of combattants couldn't be fairly termed 'spontaneous'. Actually to be honest, the whole writing seems disputable. Who has been writing these so-called 'objections', after all? As they stand, these supposedly 'diverse-view' parts are clumsy and overly assertive, to say the least. For example, undoubtedly, the Fascist repression may have had a negative impact on neighbouring territories (And certainly the short-lived German Nazi occupation was far, far worse) but we must make sure that one mistake does not serve as excuse for another. In an informative-descriptive text (or a so-intented one) you simply cannot provide ground for an explicit justification of war payback, let alone with factual inaccuracy and weasel words! E.Cogoy 01:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly the actions perpretated by an organized band of combattants couldn't be fairly termed 'spontaneous'." Killings of 1943 for the most part were not perpetrated by pre-existing organized bands. After the armistice and the collapse of the Italian administration, Italians who where identified as representants of the Fascist regime were often killed by both common citizens and partisans, without preceding planning. GhePeU 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The text should be corrected but in the 1943 the actions was only perpetrated by local people, but during the 1945 the action was not only an action executed by partisans and the architect was Tito because his aim was to catch Trieste and to eliminate all opposants. These last acts are all documented. --Ilario 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart the disputability of these issues, the basic problem - and main point - is that the general tone here is quite conniving, and not only on this short excerpt. E.Cogoy 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how the tone could be different. It is true that during the Fascist regime Slav peoples living in Italy were persecuted, it is true that when the war broke out thousands of civilians were deported in concentration camps where many of them died, and it is true that in the newly acquired territories Italian Army and Fascist militia's reprisals where devastating. These facts don't excuse the killings, but at least make the killing of 1943 more comprehensible. By the way, this kind of actions occured in every occupied country at the end of the war (in Italy as well, among Italians), and the collapse of Italian administration was a comparable event in the eastern territories. GhePeU 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, it wasn't only Tito, but all the leaders in the Communist Party, starting with Kardelj, who had those objectives in mind (don't forget that not only fascists were persecuted along with their families, but also many individuals whose only crime had been not to support the 'great' Tito.) No wonder Milosevic sprang from the same organization, about fifty years after their debut in genocidal warfare. The moral line between them and the Nazis isn't just thin, it's non-extant. That's why it doesn't make sense to thrash Fascism while subtly condoning their opponents, no matter how equally brutal. Texts dealing with these issues have to be completely exempt of such inconsistencies. Now, it's not a matter of countries or of common people (who had historically been peaceful in this multiethnic borderland), it's an issue of irresponsible leaders and murderous states fueling violence under the excuse of class-struggle, payback against 'traitors and fascists', etc. E.Cogoy 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"it wasn't only Tito, but all the leaders in the Communist Party, starting with Kardelj, who had those objectives in mind", "No wonder Milosevic sprang from the same organization, about fifty years after their debut in genocidal warfare", "The moral line between them and the Nazis isn't just thin, it's non-extant. That's why it doesn't make sense to thrash Fascism while subtly condoning their opponents, no matter how equally brutal".

It seems to me that you are trying to push your POV, that is all but neutral. I'm going to remove the tag. GhePeU 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing my POV, after all, if I were, I'd have changed the article in order to skew it toward such a POV. I haven't done so at all. I'm deliberately presenting one view in this very talk page, and you should present yours, so that we can get to a consensus, improve the article and eventually remove the tag only when there's no possible controversy left. That's how we should deal with controversial matters. It's all too easy to be self-righteous about neutrality when there's no profound debate. E.Cogoy 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put the POV tag back for a simple reason: the user who removed it was registered as an anonymous IP. In case it's somebody's sockpuppet, please come out and use your real account name when doing this, just to be fair with the other users. E.Cogoy 10:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to me to be NPOV now, and no-one's done anything to it for a couple of weeks, so I'm taking off the tag. Mgekelly - Talk 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Added two references. There are two books which I've read to integrate some parts of this article. --Ilario 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've made a mistake. --Ilario 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

valid sources

Lets try to keep further sources in English. We all know how people from this area are quite passionate and will try anything to get their own POV in. Sites like lefoibe and others are not valid sources, especially if they have "donate" and "buy" buttons, as this usually suggests that there is a political party who is using the story to get votes. That being said, neither are sites from anywhere around that area. Acedemic journals and other peer reviewed literature should be used to ensure that this pages sticks to NPOV. --Zivan56 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Il cuore nel pozzo

I am returned in this article and I can see that never is changed about this film. Sorry... We should analyze history and we don't be a cinema's critic (as article in Vanity Fair?). What think the media is a problem of media, and it should be analyzed in the dedicated article of film. This approach is POV because we are analyzing only a film (and a "bad film") and, contrarywise, we don't analyze all other good films which represent these events. Sorry... history, only history, objective history and not opinions through a film. --Ilario 20:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree! That fucking pulp fiction was considered a trash movie by everybody in Italy. It is not part of foibe subject. --Giovanni Giove 10:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There were Italian civils in the Foibe massacres?

Yes, there were. Also Italian civils were killed. It's confirmed in the testimonies (consult i.e. Pupo), at least there were some employees in the statal offices. Yugoslav part said that these civils were transfered in concentration camps, in any case they have never said that the civils were untouched. --Ilario 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributo

Mi esprimo in lingua italiana perchè è quella che meglio conosco e mi rivolgo a chi intende questa lingua. Penso che Ilario e Cogoy possano dare un valido contributo a questo articolo. Cogoy in precedenza hai evidenziato in neretto la frase che si riferisce ai primi infoibamenti del 1943 definendo tale frase faziosa: difatti avevo aggiunto una frase per specificare che gli storici hanno differenti opinioni ma utenti faziosi hanno rimosso la frase da me aggiunta. Dunque Cogoy se vuoi puoi modificare tale frase in articolo e se utenti faziosi rimuovono la modifica, poi li possiamo allontanare con ripristini ripetuti. Ilario se vuoi modifica come preferisci in articolo: sono pronto a sostenerti con eventuali ripristini. Purtroppo gli utenti faziosi disturbano quindi ho invitato alcuni amministratori a bloccarli.--PIO 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PIO, converse in ENGLISH. This article does not concern only Italians. DIREKTOR 09:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Crimes in 1943-1950

Foibes involved the worst species of human beings. Many Italian women, old men and children tried to escape from Yugoslavia. They were over 350,000 and wanted to live. Many thousands of them, unarmed people, civilians or simply families, were robbed, raped and then killed by Tito's soldiers. I am not speaking of WW II. I am speaking of 1943-1950, when an anti-fascist friend of mine saw with his own eyes the victims of the slaughter, and was obliged to fight Tito's partisans because of their violent crimes. Norma Cossetto was 24 years old. She was blocked, tortured, raped by 17 Tito's men. Then she was assassinated. Many children were decapitated in front of their mothers. Tito was a criminal and racist of the worst kind. France, UK, and the USA knew about the foibes, and they did nothing to stop those criminals. It was a massacre of innocent people, especially children and women. Tito was unpunished and considered a hero of war. This is a shame. --Jack 18:22, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC)

And a happy Valentines day to you too, Jack. Now, get some reliable written sources for those claims and they can be included in the article. Otherwise, you're not really helping with the article here. For every account such as yours, a counter-account of thousands and ten thousands of simple farmerms, fishers, craftsmen and yes, even clergymen in the Slovene and Croatian seaside who just wanted to live and speak their own language but were instead persecuted simply for being "Slavs" for twenty years by the brutal and merciless fascists who were never tried for their crimes eventhough they were nothing more than cowardly killers and rapists is bound to spring up, and that's not bringing the discussion anywhere, now is it. War is hell. Atrocities happen. On all sides. Tito was considered a hero of war because he happened to fight on the winning side. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to endorse the war crimes of either side. I'm just saying, the job of this encyclopaedia is not to point fingers. There's plenty of guilt to go around on both sides - but the people to get hurt on both sides were usually guilty of nothing more than being the nationality they were. It's sad, but the aim of this encyclopedia is to write in a detached, historical way. TomorrowTime 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Norma Cossetto was not an innocent student killed by barbarian partisans. She was the daughter of an fascist leader from Višnjan. She was the leader of Fascist youth at the local level. --Anto 12:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An excerpt for your reading

From the article “This is Yugoslavia” at Time Magazine edition from June 4, 1945:

“It is also true that the Yugoslavs have carried on a reign of terror since they hit the place. Starting with a housecleaning of alleged Fascists, they have executed several hundred people and have jailed many more, including leaders of the Liberation Committee. It is a certified fact that during the early days of the occupation the darkened streets echoed the muffled sounds of shuffling feet as the Yugoslavs deported hundreds of Italians under cover of night. They have set up their own civil government and still refuse to recognize the authority of our A.M.G.”

Well, it seems like there was a hint even at that time in the mass media that events related to the ethnic cleansing of Italians from Istria/eastern Veneza Giulia were happening. If you want to include this reference into the article, feel free to do that.--MaGioZal 13:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Nova Gorica documents

I cancelled the phrase assertng that the 15o individuals listed in the "Nova Gorica Documents" were supposed to be "only a tiny fraction of the victims". The source quoted for such affirmation (Paolo Rumiz) isn't exactely a reliable one (Rumiz is a journalist, mostly known for his "original" views, and not very scupolous when dealing with facts; about this, see Bojan Baskar's book Dvoumni Mediteran, section II., analysing Rumiz's "orientalist" and quasi-racist views). Viator slovenicus 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Amico sloveno, mi rivolgo a te in italiano poichè intendi questa lingua e io ho problemi con l'inglese: dunque vuoi rimuovere una frase. Contesti una frase ma hai rimosso un intero periodo con informazioni documentate, allora vuoi rimuovere anche il collegamento? Non consideri attendibile Paolo Rumiz e citi Bojan Baskar che secondo te è attendibile. Allora io ripristino le informazioni e tu nel testo puoi citare il libro di Baskar possibilmente segnalato con un collegamento. Anzichè rimuovere puoi aggiungere informazioni citando le fonti di libri e autori: per completezza della voce più libri e autori son citati, meglio è. Hai fonti sul numero di vittime? Allora citale nel testo ma non rimuovere informazioni! LEO 16 June 2007

A Gentle Reminder

Please note that since the fojbe are NOT on Italian territory they should be spelled "fojbe"! To spell them "foibe" is insulting and will not be tolerated. (Also, these are holes in the ground, ffs, don't use capital letters, learn to spell in English, thank you.) DIREKTOR

DIRETTORE, you are a vandal! LEO 12 July

Look, Lave, would you like me to write about Trieste as Trst, about, Roma as Rim and so forth. You have to face the fact that the Fojbas are NOT ON ITALIAN TERRITORY and never will be, so that they must not be written in your beautiful language. I can speak Italian fairly well (and love it), hell, I am from an old Dalmatian Italian family by ancestry (notice we did not leave Spalato/Split), so believe me I'm not biased on a national basis, but I read this article and can see plainly it is pointed towards irredentist sentimens. There is much frustration and POV here, rooted deeply in the modern Italian desire to reinforce the claim on Dalmatia and Istria. The foibas were not the cause of the Istrian exodus and it is riddicuous to say so. Are you not aware that this was the second world war, there were people being massacred (Bleiburg massacre, Jasenovac, etc....) everywhere, innocent people won't leave their homes and everything they hold dear just because some people they never heard of were allegedly (then the killings were mostly unknown then) killed somewhere in the wilderness. Besides, have you heard of the Giuseppe Garibaldi Partisan division? Tito had nothing against Italias particularly. I know I am playing the devil's advocate here, but believe me I am only trying to show both sides of the matter, it is not that simple as you would have it.

Please bear in mind that Italy killed many, many people in Dalmatia as well. Here's a typcal example: people were protesting for having signs written only in Italian in their home town (Split/Spalato), where less than 10% spoke the language. They were rounded up and publicly shot in the city Pjaca (piazza). Note that we Dalmatians used to be proud of our Italian heritage. The War ended all that.

Let's compromise

Look, instead of this constant edit war, let's try and reach a consensus. Please initiate a civilised discussion. This is the only way for this article to finally become NPOV. Your PERSONAL ATTACKS are not working, I am not a vandal. You are the only one who has breached Wikipedia rules. My edits are not vandalism, but neither are they non-negotiable. I am a sensible guy trying to make this article NPOV. I will not pursue the matter of the insult if you agree to a conversation. None of my edits must necessarily stay this way. Just a minute, though, can you speak English? DIREKTOR

One important thing: It was stated in the older version that the Yugoslav army "entered" Dalmatia. This is ludicrous as it implies that the Partisans invaded Dalmatia and that Dalmatia was an ancient "multi-ethnic borderland". This was untrue for at least a hundred years before WW2, as there were very small numbers of Italians actually living there at the time. Also, more importantly, Tito's actual hedquarters were on the island of Vis, in Dalmatia, and Split, it's capitol was the provisional capitol of Yugoslavia for a while. It is irredentist to say the partisans "entered" Dalmatia: they were there from the start of the resistance movement and it was Yugoslav to begin with. Italian actions, in fact, turned the population very strongly towards the Partisans.

fojbe on Google: about 1,590 English pages. foibe on Google: about 19,800 English pages. Including the English version of a Slovene government site. So please cut this nationalist crap and keep foibe because foibe is the common word used in English, as for Wikipedia policies. PS. Florence, not Firenze, Venice, not Venezia, Padua, not Padova, Rome not Roma, Genoa, not Genova, Mantua, not Mantova, Turin, not Torino, Milan, not Milano... should I continue? GhePeU 23:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mi esprimo in italiano poichè ho problemi con l'inglese; ho segnalato l'utente croato DIREKTOR a un'amministratrice che dovrebbe controllarlo ma sto tizio continua imperterrito a vandalizzare articoli e provocare in questa discussione! Qualcuno può avvisare un amministratore per bloccarlo? LEO 13 July

I refuse to converse in Italian on English Wikipedia, how can you call me a vandal when you can't even read my work? You have personally attacked me and went unpunished, I did nothing but attempt to make the article NPOV! What are you even doing here, man, you can't contribute here! All you are here for, it would seem, is to attack people who are trying to improve the article. Go deal with your irredentist issues on other sites.

All right, all right, the "fojbe" thing was a bit much, I agree. I will correct this But I see things like "Venezia Giulia" instead of "Julian March" and I assume it applies to the foibe as well. People like LEO just insert Italian words in an English encyclopedia.

One important thing: I am NOT a nationalist! I'm disgusted by the very idea! It's just that one cannot help but feel patriotic after reading an aticle so thouroughly POV against one's countrymen. The Partisan side deserves to pe represented, it has a legitamate POV in this matter. The fact that Italians outnumber ex-Yugoslavs by 3:1 is well represented in the article. Please note: I have nothing against Italians (if anything I'm "pro-Italian") and am not biased in any way towards this article.

Once again, I invite opposed parties to list (preferably by number) their grievances so that we may resolve them one at a time. Just undoing edits is getting us nowhere fast. Lighten up, people! :) DIREKTOR

Well, you're obviously right, every article is open to modifications and quickly reverting is the worst thing one can do when he read something different. I'm sorry for my overreaction, I shouldn't edit when I'm sleepy. GhePeU 07:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have overlooked some of the "foJbas", sorry... I realise I'm playing the "devil's advocate" here, so I'd like to make it clear that I'm not trying to justify mass killings. It is my goal to put them in the context of the time and to provide an insight into the Yugoslav point of wiew. Example: to kill 5000 people today would have an impact like the 9/11 attack or something, it could change human history, while during WW2 1 700 000 people died in Yugoslavia alone. A crime is always a crime, it CAN NOT be justified, however, it's motives can be explained. Which I think is an important aspect of the whole event. DIREKTOR

LEO, you will be banned if you continue

LEO, you are not capable of contributing to the ENGLISH Wikipedia. This is the last time I will attempt to contact you in a civil way. If I fail, I'm going to the ADMIN next to see what can be done about you. We cannot have illiterate, non-registered freaks just reverting everything. Once again: I AM NOT MARRIED TO MY EDIT, all I propose is we discuss these changes like normal people. Preferably in the English language. Your posted "Warning" is riddiculous, because: so you cannot ban anybody, you are not even registered and you are the one behaving like a VANDAL, by reverting everything without engaging in civilised debate. If I do not hear from you (in English) and if you continue to undo everything. YOU are the one who is going to get banned. DIREKTOR

You are a troll. LEO

WOW, how did you manage to write that? Musta took you days... By the way, do you even know what that means? Hai qualcosa contra i Croati, fascista? Tu piace la RSI? "DIRETTORE"

DIREKTOR 13:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please

I am asking to block this article. This is a war edit. I don't understand why this contribution has been rollbacked [1]. It's a fact. DIRECKTOR I'm formally asking to investigate on your contributions. You are in any case POV and you are taking a personal battle. --Ilario 12:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not POV, at least not more than LEO. As for my outburst, I am sorry, I'm no nationalist, it's just one cannot help but feel patriotic when one's country is so blatantly attacked as it was in this article and by that LEO, he obviusly considers Slavs "barbarians". I am merely trying to bring the other side's perspective into this, most one-sided, article in the interest of NPOV. LEO, on the other hand, will not (or can't) initiate a discussion. He simply reverts all day long. He didn't contribute a word and is very violant and insulting. A personal battle? How can you start a personal battle with someone who does not understand you? I am merely protecting my contribution from violant IP disruption. The Admins have twice been forced to semi-protect articles because of him. He is personally involved to a very deep level. Please do not let your nationality biase you in this matter. DIREKTOR 13:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you has changed a lot this article and you can edit, he cannot. The NPOV vision says that in this conflict any vision must be present. The different vision MUST NOT BE CANCELLED. You can add your vision but the opposite vision msut be remain INTACT. Remember... who want to cancel he is confirming in this cancellation that he is saying the false. --Ilario 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should definitely add at least a few lines mentioning Napolitano's statement and the reaction from Croatia and Slovenia. This caused a significant diplomatic incident which was widely reported in the media, so finding a reputable source for it should be easy. And frankly, regardless of Leo's behaviour, I can't see why someone would try so hard to ignore this incident and remove any mention of it from the text. If the statement is sourced and the context is provided, what's the problem? It was Napolitano who said that, not the editors of the article. There is a difference.E.Cogoy 13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, DIREKTOR seems to have removed a reference to a second hypothesis concerning the motives for the massacres (the idea of a "political purge"), which seems equally unjustifiable to me. The only problem with the earlier version of the text was the lack of specific references, which could easily be fixed.E.Cogoy 13:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, take a look at LEO's talkpage, I have ivited him despite the semi-protection to discuss the issues (also read the Let's talk section, ffs). He does not respond in any way so I fight him, I have no choice. 1) Napolitano, with all due respect, is no scientist and the president of Yugoslavia said there were no killings. We should put him in as well then. 2) who want to cancel he is confirming in this cancellation that he is saying the false It is NOT that simple. We cannot both put in our versions if they contradict. 3) The political purge hypothesis is scientifically untrue, and very insulting, find me an UNBIASED (non Italian, non ex-Yugoslav) source that mentions actual evidence and I will concede. It was a purge though, but a purge of the RSI fascist dignitaries and their supporters (that murdered counless Yugoslavs, in concentration camps(!), punitary expeditions etc...) That much is known for certain, the rest is speculation. You cannot place speculation in the encyclopedia, at least not so insulting and uncorroborated speculation. (example: as far as we know they could have killed everyone with a mustache, but that is not known, it IS known that they killed fascists, please note that there was an Italian division in the Partisan ranks) DIREKTOR 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<Pointless trolling removed --Isotope23 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)>

errr, what? :D you crack me up, ya know that? DIREKTOR 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR 23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable

The behaviour of DIREKTOR is unacceptable! I never modified in article ZAGREB in ZAGABRIA like as BASOVIZZA in BASOVICA modified by DIREKTOR! This flamer edit and others irritated me, Ghepeu -22:55, 13 July 2007 Ghepeu (Talk | contribs) m (21,326 bytes) (rev shameful vandalism)- and Clap unlogged with IP 87.8.235.141. I agree Ilario and E.Cogoy about this non-sense undid revision that is the same undid revision against me before -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!)- but I in this version included a point of view inserted by DIREKTOR: unacceptable behaviour of non-sense revert and multiple reverts! DIREKTOR is in contradiction with himself because added this POV sentence However, the exodus, which reduced the Italian population of Istria and Dalmatia, started in before the killings were widely known, and was motivated for the most part, not by the objectively unrealistic fear of ethnic cleansing (Tito, in fact, had an Italian division within the Partisans), but by the desire of the Italian people to live in their own country, far away from communism but removed reference Terrore comunista e le foibe that explains exactly this motivation! Foibe and exodus mainly were by ethnic cleansing plan ordered by Tito for many Italian historians and fear of communist dictatorship was an other important motivation too: in fact 30.000 Croatians, Slovenians and Serbs moved to Italy. DIREKTOR can insert some points of view in section [Slovenian and Croatian view] but removing declaretion of Napolitano is flamer action! You can read user talk:Isotope23#Propaganda: DIREKTOR if you are communist stop propaganda in your edits! LEO 20 July

My appologies for the Basovizza thing I thought it was in Slovenia SINCE YOU KEEP WRITING CROATIAN CITIES IN ITALIAN (Zara, Spalato, Pola)! I think Zagreb is the only city you DIDN'T actually write in Italian! ITALIAN SOURCES ARE BIASED (just like ex-Yugoslav ones) SO DO NOT BRING THEM IN THE ARTICLE! For every Italian ref that says this was ethnic cleansing I can find you 10 Yugoslav ones that say it wasn't. The foibe massacres were not very well known, and the Allies (not just Yugoslavia) offered the Italians to stay or go as they pleased. Some opted to go, some (like my family) opted to stay, this is riddiculous! you cannot just bring in your nationalist right-wing authors as reliable refs on this matter! 5000 people is not ethnic cleansing btw, I think we Yugoslavs are pretty knowledgeable in the matter, it does take a little more than that. Also it is well known that for something to be ethnic cleansing you have to FORCE people to leave. It is well known that this was not the case. Italians left of their own accord, mostly for economic reasons. DIREKTOR 09:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DIRETTORE, what's a patience! Am I fascist? Am I democratic? Am I anarchist? Am I liberal? Do you know? 5.000 Italian people killed by ethnic cleansing plan ordered by Tito or 20.000 Italian people killed: do you know? You are a communist admirer of dictator Tito and for your propaganda you made only disruption in many articles! You are a problematic editor! LEO, 20 July

The fact is, caro amico, I DO know you are a fascist, aren't these your words from my talkpage: "The FASCIST ITALY was great" (with all the stress in the right places, I may add)? It is also fact that you don't know wether I am a communist or not. But let us correct that immediately: I am NOT a communist. I know that the ITALIAN best estimates say 5000 people. Our estimates are much lower, and no one in his right mind that knows anything about the history of the conflict will say the casualties were 20 000. By the way, "Pippo" (:D LOL), how dare you call Rijeka "Fiume", Zadar "Zara" etc... on Wikipedia? You did not answer that. I am also proud YOU would consider me a problematic editor, "mr. Orlov". DIREKTOR 20:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Problematic DIRETTORE, you are in total confusion about editors who rightly undo your flamer edits! You see initial numbers of IP; in Istrian exodus are three different editors: my IP is 151.33, other editor is 4.231, other editor is -18:58, 18 July 2007 209.215.160.114 (Talk) (8,792 bytes) (real history cannot be erased by fanatics like "direktor of lies" !)-. Nikita Orolov in talk:Istrian exodus is an other editor with initial IP 82.55 and these editors I don't know where they are from: sure Nikita Orolov is not Italian! Comments about fascism in your talk are not mine! -Chi cazzo è Pippo?- translate -who kurazo is Pippo?- About names of towns I did nothing: you are in deep confusion! Your points of view about number of killed in massacres and command of Tito were discussed a lot in this page, -talk:Istrian exodus- and -talk:Tito-: now stop!. You consider ridiculous number of killed in democide-Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000-: this number is product of studies by historians! Oprostite DIREKTOR, are you historian, dobro? LEO, 21 July

First of all, I DO NOT care who you are, but amazingly you have the same (riddiculous) spelling mistakes. Second, i am not an idiot. Third, I know what cazzo means, but I don't know what is a "kurazo" (kurac, my friend, kurac, if you insist on being vulgar,). Four, 1,700,000 are the OFFICIAL numbers, ALSO BY HISTORIANS. They are somewhat doubtfull, I agree, but they ARE official (both estimates are huge, 3 times that of Italy at least). Five, you are using several IPs (modulating), that I know for certain. DIREKTOR 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Do you know how many historians issued different numbers on WW2 casualties in the Yugoslav mess? Some say there were no foibe massacres, and that those are PARTISANS! many partisan uniforms and SLAVIC id papers were found in the pits. that is FACT. I am not so STUPID as to believe anything I read by "historians", LAVE.

You are always in confusion: correct word is -ridiculous- not -riddiculous-! Do you know my many IPs modulating? Ah, ah, ah, ah: I laugh at you DIRETTORE because you are a ridiculous lier! You are not idiot but you are a flamer in your POV edits! About historians you consider negationism like as negationists of Srebrenica genocide: in fact you accept points of view of negationist and criminal historians who make propaganda for denial of foibe genocide! Problematic and negationist DIRETTORE, your lies and propaganda disgusting to me! LEO, 22 July 2007

All right, Pippo, I am going to let you stew right now, I do not have any more time for children trying to get off on sites they cannot hope to normally participate in. I have had enough of your insults and pointless incomprehensible chatter. Once again you ridicule me for one letter and cannot put a normal sentence together, once again you think I do not know who you are and once again I have attempted to reason with you. Why don't you log in? or do you miraculously have the same "technical difficulties" as that vulgar fascist that continuously insults me and other Slavs. You have the same mistakes in spelling Pippo, you and Orlov. DIREKTOR 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Also, both of you insist on calling me DIRETTORE, something uniquely arrogant.

DIRETTORE, I correct my last post and you do not remove like as a flamer child! Stop your non-sense actions against me! Stop bark against Italian army: Italian soldiers are actually in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo against massacres and ethnic cleansing made by Slavs! Augusto Sverzutti from the Action Party and Licurgo Olivi from the Socialist Party are two of many Italian antifascists killed and put in foibe by Tito: user Clap studied and reported to you! DIRETTORE, you don't know history, you are ignorant flamer! LEO, 26 July 2007

Italian soldiers are not in Croatia (THANK GOD!). Italian soldiers did not do any fighting whatsoever in the Yugoslav wars. The Dutch saw more action. BRING ME AN UNBIASED SOURCE CONFIRMING THAT ITALIAN PARTISAN STUFF AND YOU CAN PUT IT IN AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. I obviously know more about ITALIAN history than you my, troll friend.

DIREKTOR, I added reference Terrore comunista e le foibe and I restore after your disruption! I agree Ilario, E.Cogoy, Clap and LEO: you have not consensus and edit obstinately! A part of your edits was accepted by other users but you continue edit war after your post about compromise: which compromise if you continue in edit war? You are a negationist: this is evidence! Negationists are in Italy too: publishing house Kappa Vu, inserted in section bibliography, spreads books of Italian communist negationists then Italian points of view are different and contrasting; sure negationist communist supposition is marginal! I am not militarist and loathe your message against Italian army in my talk: do you like war?PIO 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Relax PIO, and Read this carefully: A TERRIBLE CRIME WAS COMMITED. MANY ITALIANS WERE KILLED BY THE PARTISANS. I am not a "negationist", I will merely not let you blow this out of proportion. The numbers of victims were certainly below 10,000 (most level headed ITALIAN historians set the figure at 5000) and many of them were Yugoslavs and Germans, in any case this cannot be called ethnic cleansing. Many of the Italians certainly were RSI fascist supporters, responsible for many Yugoslav CVILIAN deaths (much, much more than Italian deaths, this is well known). And finally, if you would like to talk about negationism! why did the Italian government not extradite the Italian war criminals? They were (together) responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS. No, I am not exaggerating, check the numbers, (as I frequently point out) Yugoslavia had 1,700,000 casualties, easily for times that of Italy. WHY WERE THEY NOT EXTRADITED?, if you would like to discuss negationism... That is why I find it disgusting that Italians want to blow out of proportion this crime, that is PUNY compared to the Italian ones commited over a period of four long years (concentration camps, punitive expeditions against whole villages and, indeed, towns, etc...).
Oh, I absolutely adore war. Are you going to declare war on Croatia now? Where would you go during feragosto then?
As I keep saying: ONLY NON BIASED (NON-ITALIAN, NON-YUGOSLAV) SOURCES CAN BE ALLOWED IN SUCH HEAVILY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.
I reached no compromise with anyone, SINCE NOONE DISCUSSED ANYTHING. DIREKTOR 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my next edit I remove DIREKTOR's POV words and refuse edit warring because if DIREKTOR revert again I will request for mediation then arbitration. Related administrators I report list of editors trying to stop DIREKTOR's POV edits since 16:21, 2 July 2007, when he started:

• 1 IP 84.221.66.244
• 2 LEO, unlogged
• 3 Clap, unlogged
• 4 Ghepeu
• 5 Ilario
• 6 Bramfab
• 7 AdBo
• 8 Nickel Chromo
• 9 PIO, unlogged.

Dear administrators do you think are they few users???? Administrators you even can read this message: in first sentence We can always use support against radical Serb (četnik) and (especially) Italian theses in Wikipedia all you see DIREKTOR's hostility against hypothetical Italian theses. In DIREKTOR's user page all you see dictator Tito's image with sentence This user strongly supports Tito's views on the unity of the Yugoslav nations and nationalities. Evidence: DIREKTOR support an ideology then is not neutral. PIO, 13:03 14 September 2007

This will not go uncontested, PIO. If it does come to another edit-war, should you do not file for mediation, I will. How you managed to scrap together all those poor people (most of whom confronted me on different matters, or later agreed with me, none of whom share your radical POV) is not my concern. I appeal once more to your sences: do not start an edit-war.
This is my proposal: let's none of us touch the article for now. I suggest you list your grievances with the current wording and then we can try to reach common ground, step by step. What do you think? DIREKTOR 19:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another matter: When I asked that user to help, I clearly stated I want him to assist against RADICAL Italian theses. Not all Italian theses (that would be kinda stupid wouldn't it?), maybe you missed that point? DIREKTOR 10:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New version discussion

DIREKTOR I have just read your sorry in my comment: I accept but your behaviour is very dubious. Your proposal is reasonable: let's none of us touch the article for now. This is list of my grievances with the current wording:

• IX or 9 Korpus included communist Italian combatants: how many were? In article no data
• foibe killings of Italian people in 1943 were made by communist Italian too, in article no data
• Estimates range from between 2,000 and 15,000: minimum of murdered was about 5.000 for important historians
• the Germans, the Italians and their Slavic collaborating allies (the Chetniks, the Ustaše and Domobranci): Chetniks were not allies but fought against strangers and communists under Tito's command
• in whole article is not a citation of Bleiburg massacre that was in connection with purge of foibe planned by Tito and communists
• in whole article is not a citation of Italian Communist Party under Togliatti's command that was ally of Tito.

I know that other related discussion is in RfA-Dalmatia. PIO, 17:55 15 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.91.201 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok:

• The 9. Korpus (9th Corps) did not have Italian Partisans (that were part of the Partisan forces). The reference to the Italian "Giuseppe Garibaldi" Partisan Division was meant to show that the Partisans were not an anti-Italian movement.

• Sure, the deserters/defectors (after the capitualtion) were likely to behave violantly. I'm not particularly against this but it would be good if you had a source, do you?

• I agree. Most acclaimed Italian historians round the number up at 5000, that's true. We can state that, but estimates do range between 2,000 and 15,000 and it shouldn't be removed (even though it is unlikely the very lowest, and the very highest estimates are true, they stil exist don't they?).

• Chetniks were a collaborator movement. They were even at Bleiburg with their Ustaša allies. They recieved ammunition, supplies and weapons from the Italians (until 1943) and the Germans.

• What does the Bleiburg massacre have to do with the foibas? it is not interconnected in any way. These are two seperate and completely different war crimes. There is no evidence of a grand master plan by Tito that would include both the Bleiburg massacre and the foibe massacres. Here's the thing, it is impossible to prove this and it is not very likely, and without proof (sources) we cannot let it in Wikipedia.

• What was Togliatti's connection with the Yugolav front? Did his units participate in some way?

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I have sources for all points but are in Italian language and in books: you read my old comment, my sources crack you up? I know that you understand Italian language then is useful this link of it:Norma Cossetto: in this article you read Dopo l'8 settembre 1943 Norma Cossetto fu vittima dei partigiani jugoslavi e italiani dell'Istria.PIO, 16:12 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.88.231 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please answer by points (*), thats the only way to discuss an issue this complex.
While I respect Italians I am not prepeared to accept Italian or (ex-)Yugoslav sources as valid in this matter, here is why: the two often contradict, and they are more than often biased.

The Net is mostly English and it is a BIG place, so I relly doubt it will be too hard for you to find reliable sources. Do you realise that for every Italian source you find, I can find a Yugoslav source that contradicts it? I think it is best to keep away from all that... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is not simple to find reliable sources in English language and is important to wait opinions of other users. My question is: needs to remove all references in Italian language?PIO, 15:58 25 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.92.119 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the foibe

The "Origins of the foibe" section is vague. The English translation is bad and the title "origins of the foibe" is very vague. Do you mean geologically, or otherwise? The current title can only be used if you are discussing them as geological features. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean the first usage of foibe -for massacres. And that was Italian invention! Some better name??--Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to say that usage of foibe(that were natural pits!!) in massacres was not invention of Yugoslav partisans. This source shows that foibe were used for that purpose muc time before ww2. I did not mean that Italian have been digging out them. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)