Institute IRRIS

IZVLEČEK Prispevek obravnava kako so države zaveznice (ZDA, Velika Britanija in Sovjetska zveza) v času druge svetovne vojne prevzgajale vojne ujetnike. Prikazuje načine prevzgo-je ter tudi načrte s prevzgojenimi ujetniki ob povratku v domovino. Uvodni del služi pred-vsem seznanitvi bralca s problematiko ideološke prevzgoje, nato pa avtorica, na podlagi dostopnih arhivskih virov, prikaže kakšen odnos so do tega vprašanja imele jugoslovan-ske oblasti ter kateremu sistemu so se najbolj približale. Ključne besede: prevzgoja, vojni ujetniki, ideologija, ideološka kontaminacija, ideološka dekontaminacija, druga svetovna vojna, Jugoslavija, Sovjetska zveza, Velika Britanija, ZDA RIEDUCAZIONE DEI PRIGIONIERI DI GUERRA TEDESCHI IN JUGOSLAVIA DURANTE LA SECONDA GUERRA MONDIALE SINTESI L'articolo tratta la questione di rieducazione dei prigionieri di guerra durante la seconda guerra mondiale, alla quale hanno fatto ricorso i paesi alleati (USA, Gran Bre-tagna e Unione Sovietica). Presenta i modi di rieducazione e i piani di ritorno in patria dei prigionieri rieducati. La parte introduttiva serve principalmente per far conoscere al lettore il problema della rieducazione ideologica. A seguire l'autrice, sulla base delle disponibili fonti archivistiche, presenta l'atteggiamento verso la questione da parte delle autorità jugoslave e a quale sistema esse si sono avvicinate. Parole chiave: rieducazione, prigionieri di guerra, ideologia, contaminazione ideologica, decontaminazione ideologica, seconda guerra mondiale, Jugoslavia, Unione Sovietica, Gran Bretagna, USA

TWO MONUMENTS IN MEMORY OF THE DEPORTEES FROM VENEZIA GIULIA AFTER WORLD WAR II IN THE GORIZIA PARK OF REMEMBRANCE

SUMMARY
Soon after the liberation of Venezia Giulia in May 1945, several arrests took part in the big city centres of the region, especially in Trieste and Gorizia. The representatives of the local Yugoslav authorities arrested numerous persons, among which there were prisoners of war, collaborators, people suspected of war crimes, political suspects and those who violated the Yugoslav occupation policy during the 42 days of their rule in the region. When it was clear that Yugoslavia would be forced to withdraw its troops from the territory, several people were relocated – today, those events are known as deportations. In the article, the author argues that this term is used incorrectly, since it does not correspond to the events from the historical or terminological point of view. Nowadays, these events are commemorated by two monuments in the Gorizia Park of Remembrance. The fi rst was inaugurated in 1960, followed by the second in 1985/86. The latter, the lapidary that bears the names of the 665 people allegedly deported from Gorizia, is historically much more disputed. The author of the article argues that the inscription on the lapidary is historically incorrect. However, so far this has not been argued by historians, who consider the lapidary the second carrier of Gorizia’s (Italian) identity, but do not question its historical adequacy.

With some exceptions, so far the postwar arrests and deportations from Venezia Giulia have not received much attention by Slovenian and Italian historiography. Especially rare are the studies regarding the Yugoslav viewpoint, which is probably due to the lack of sources. However, an in-depth research in the archives gives us some interesting material which can, to some extent, explain the Yugoslav perspective. Namely, in 1946, afraid that the Italian government will present the problem of deportees in front of the Paris peace conference, the Yugoslav authorities have started an investigation regarding the fate of the deportees. The scope of the investigation, conducted by Mirko Vratović, was mostly devoted to the question if the deportees could be found and, consequently, repatriated to Italy. The international community, especially the Anglo-Americans, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Vatican, have in fact handed to the Yugoslav government several lists of the alleged to be deported and claimed their repatriation. However, the results of the investigation were not of any help, since Vratović claimed that, in the given circumstances, it was not possible to understand who from the lists was really deported and who was a missing person as a consequence of war. Consequently, it was not possible to understand where and if they are located in Yugoslavia. As Vratović said, the first weeks after the liberation of Trieste were very confused and »a revolution in the full sense of the word!«. In the European context, the post-World War II retribution, mostly oriented towards the Nazis, their collaborators and the German population in general, was appearing on three levels: »people’s« revenge, repression of resistance movements and repression of state authorities. The postwar repression in Venezia Giulia, in this context, does not seem to be any exception. Nevertheless, this became one of the many contentious points of postwar bilateral relations between Italy and Yugoslavia, which the Italian government sought to resolve up to the second half of the 50-ies.

The article deals with the question of numerous lists of person, who were alleged to be deported by Yugoslav troops from Venezia Giulia region in the aftermath of World War II. During the last years, the interest regarding the lists and numbers of those people has significantly increased. In the first part of the article, the author explains the diplomatic conflict between Italy and Yugoslavia, focusing on deportations and the international circumstances directly affecting the problem. In the second part, the author exposes numerous lists of persons, found in the archives of Italy, Slovenia, Serbia, Great Britain and USA, with the aim to show how difficult and long-term analysis would be needed in order to get a fairly reliable list and number of the deportees. The author reveals also an important investigation, conducted in the second part of the 50-ies by the Italian Institute for National Statistics (Istituto Centrale di Statistica). The secret investigation, which was conducted by the General Commission of the Government for the territory of Trieste (Commissariato generale del Governo per il territorio di Trieste), chaired by the former major of Gorizia Giovanni Palamara, ended in 1959 proposing the following results for the region of Trieste, Gorizia and Udine: death for several reasons after the arrest – 645; deported and repatriated – 1239; deportees who have not returned – 1982. To conclude, the author explains the problem of deportations and numerous lists from a diplomatic point of view, explaining that the international circumstances and the Yugoslav post-war expectations had a crucial impact on the issue of deportations and resulted in a very cold, if not ice attitude towards the problem and towards the numerous inquiries regarding the fate of the deportees.

The paper discusses the role of mediator assumed by the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Yugoslavia in the solving of controversies between Italy and Yugoslavia in relation to Italian prisoners of war and deportees from the region of Venezia Giulia. The research is based mainly on unpublished (archival) sources and previous studies about Italian POWs and deportees in Yugoslavia. The paper presents so far unknown activities of the Delegation in favour of these prisoners, and some (political) context that conditioned and influenced them. Ever since the spring of 1945, the operation of the Delegation was severely compromised by activities (not) performed by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the benefit of Partisan prisoners of war and Yugoslav civilian internees during the Second World War. As a result, the Yugoslav leadership nursed a grievance against the Delegation and met its activities with much reservation. Despite the Delegation carrying out its mission correctly – i.e., inspecting camps, delivering correspondence and aid to prisoners of war and civilians - doubts were cast upon its action by all parties involved. The delegates, in fact, never visited all Italian prisoner-of-war and deportee camps, and were faulted for it by the Delegation in Italy and thereby, indirectly, by the Italian government. Eventually, the lead Committee in Geneva became suspicious, too, which prompted its decision to send one of its principal delegates, Georges Dunand, on a special mission to Yugoslavia with the delegate in Italy, Pierre Colombo, following him to Belgrade soon thereafter. Nevertheless, neither of them reached any considerably different conclusions than those arrived at by the Delegation itself. The latter properly performed its tasks and tried to conduct skilful humanitarian diplomacy as required by the circumstances. It should be noted that the hostility of the Yugoslav leadership to its activities and the political nature of the issue of Italian POWs and deportees in Yugoslavia actually prevented the Delegation from wielding a greater influence on the solution of this problem.

The paper deals with the issue of protection of civilians during armed conflict. 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, which raises new questions about the future of civilian protection in time of war. The paper opens with a presentation of the development of international humanitarian law during the 19th and 20th centuries; i.e., the beginnings of international laws aimed toward civilian protection. The milestone is the year 1949, when the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war was adopted, the first convention to apply to persons not immediately involved in the conflict, with the aim of preventing them from becoming war victims. By doing so, the International Committee of the Red Cross expanded its activity to the non-organised masses of civilians, giving rise to new challenges. Despite the adoption of the Convention, the share of civilian casualties in time of war continued to increase, reaching as many as 90% of all war casualties by the 1990s. As a result of this finding, two Additional Protocols were added to the Convention in 1977, with the explanation that international humanitarian law would thus become more universal and adaptable to modern conflicts. But although the two Protocols further expanded the field of activity and the protection of civilians, the increasing trend of civilian casualties did not slow down. Therefore, in 1999, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1265, condemning the intentional targeting of civilians and attacks on objects protected under international law, and calling on all parties in conflicts to end such practices. However, in its 2019 report, the secretariat of the UN Security Council notes with concern that “the state of the protection of civilians today is tragically similar to that of 20 years ago.” The author of this paper observes that the existing international law related to the protection of civilians during armed conflict does not require a thorough renovation, rather the willingness of all parties in conflicts to respect the existing protection provisions. The fundamental challenge of the 21st century is therefore succeeding in having the conventions and protocols of the existing international humanitarian law ratified by all countries involved in armed conflicts, and, particularly by introducing an efficient system of punishment and raising awareness regarding the immunity of the civilians, ensuring that this law is actually abided by. The Campaign for the Universality and Effectiveness of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) system has in recent years proven successful in pursuing this goal, and its example should be followed by an awareness campaign for the immunity of civilians in time of war and, thereby, for the ratification of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.

Despite the issue of Italian prisoners of war during the Second World War receiving some significant attention, the fate of those prisoners held by the Yugoslav state has not yet been thoroughly examined. This is largely a consequence of the lack of sources, which is also why this issue has been treated superficially in the literature. The present article aims to fill this gap, focusing in particular on the repatriation of Italian prisoners of war held in Yugoslavia after the Second World War. Employing material from archives in the UK, Italy, Serbia, Slovenia and Switzerland, the author will reconstruct the process of repatriation by delving into international diplomatic circumstances and Italo-Yugoslav relations, as well as the political and ideological dynamics which affected the fate of those prisoners. The study will also provide a count of the number of Italian prisoners of war in Yugoslavia, which up to this point has been unclear.

Despite the issue of Italian prisoners of war during the Second World War receiving some significant attention, the fate of those prisoners held by the Yugoslav state has not yet been thoroughly examined. This is largely a consequence of the lack of sources, which is also why this issue has been treated superficially in the literature. The present article aims to fill this gap, focusing in particular on the repatriation of Italian prisoners of war held in Yugoslavia after the Second World War. Employing material from archives in the UK, Italy, Serbia, Slovenia and Switzerland, the author will reconstruct the process of repatriation by delving into international diplomatic circumstances and Italo–Yugoslav relations, as well as the political and ideological dynamics which affected the fate of those prisoners. The study will also provide a count of the number of Italian prisoners of war in Yugoslavia, which up to this point has been unclear.

The article discusses individual and social consequences of captivity in the case of Italian prisoners of war in Yugoslavia, emphasizing the fate of those who were interned in Slovenia (most of them were the so-called deportees from the Julian March). Based on available memoirs, archival sources, and oral testimonies, the article aims to understand if and how the experience of captivity affected prisoners' social and family life and their reintegration into society after returning home. Since these memories in the early years and decades were often pushed into oblivion, the article also highlights the importance of oral history and empathy in dealing with traumatic events and starting writing trauma instead of writing about trauma.

The article addresses the issue of memory and oblivion in socialist Yugoslavia after the Second World War, with a special focus on the case study of the Borovnica camp in Slovenia. The prisoners in the camp were arrested during the liberation of Trieste and the Julian March (they were the so-called deportees from the Julian March). After the camp was shut down it was gradually destroyed and a settlement was built on its foundations. Local people who lived in the immediate vicinity have memories of this time, but have never spoken publicly about what happened there. This paper analyses the memory and oblivion of the Borovnica camp over a long period of time, from the end of the war to the present day. The memory of the camp is placed into the broader, Yugoslav and European context of the culture of remembering and the “amnesia of national experiences”, as defined by Tony Judt. During our research, we found that already during the camp’s operation, a regime of fear was established over the locals, through which the guards tried to prevent any assistance to the prisoners, while at the same time silencing rumours. This fear persisted even after, since in the years and decades that followed, the camp and what took place there were not, or only rarely, spoken about. The silence was partly due to the general desire that prevailed throughout Europe to forget what had happened, but mainly due to political pressures and fear of the regime, as well as the fear of disrupting relations within the local community. As a result, despite the change of socio-political circumstances after 1991 that favoured narratives that contradicted the previous official narrative of pure partisan struggle, the camp remained largely unspoken about even then. The article thus shows that breaking collective amnesia is not a unilateral process. In
addition to the favourable socio-political circumstances, the desire and need to break the silence must also arise within the community that has had oblivion imposed upon it. In 2021, the remaining foundations of one of the barracks were cleared and they are now evidence of a camp that now has a story and a history. Although some people are still reluctant to talk about this time, it can be said that the memory of the Borovnica camp has become an integral part of the local collective memory. The question remains how many similar situations and cases of post-war amnesia still exist in Slovenia and elsewhere in Europe.

The article proposes some methodological reflections on doing oral history in borderland areas, starting from the case study of the Slovene-Italian borderland. It elaborates on some mistakes and difficulties the author has faced when conducting interviews in the Slovene-Italian borderland. She reflects on various challenges and obstacles, from language to terminology and conflicting collective narratives. She concludes that, as in any oral history project, as well as in borderland areas, it is important to create a relaxed atmosphere that allows for an open discussion of issues of the shared past. In a space often full of conflicting narratives and memories this is not always easy, and it is probably easier for those who are several generations distant from the events. However, the key elements of such an interview are creating an atmosphere of mutual respect and honesty and especially to (patiently) listen to the narrator, without judgement.

This contribution explores the story of Angelo, an Italian Second World War veteran who, after experiencing war and escaping captivity in Yugoslavia, finally reached Trieste in 1946, where he met his future wife. It took him nearly 15 years to heal from his harrowing wartime trauma. Between 2021 and 2023, while collecting oral testimonies, I interviewed his son Sergio and grandson Ruben. The central subject of those interviews was the war-time period and the fairy tales that Angelo used to tell his son (and later his grandson) in the evenings, inspired by his war experiences. By recounting his war experiences in a metaphorical and child-friendly manner, these tales were not only imaginative and captivating for the child, but also served a profound purpose: they were (1) a way to communicate his memories and experience to the following generations; (2) a means to cope with his experiences and past; (3) a tool to socialise and educate his son, transmitting moral norms, social memories and preparing him for life in society.

The paper discusses the role of mediator assumed by the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Yugoslavia in the solving of controversies between Italy and Yugoslavia in relation to Italian prisoners of war and deportees from the region of Venezia Giulia. The research is based mainly on unpublished (archival) sources and previous studies about Italian POWs and deportees in Yugoslavia. The paper presents so far unknown activities of the Delegation in favour of these prisoners, and some (political) context that conditioned and influenced them. Ever since the spring of 1945, the operation of the Delegation was severely compromised by activities (not) performed by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the benefit of Partisan prisoners of war and Yugoslav civilian internees during the Second World War. As a result, the Yugoslav leadership nursed a grievance against the Delegation and met its activities with much reservation. Despite the Delegation carrying out its mission correctly – i.e., inspecting camps, delivering correspondence and aid to prisoners of war and civilians - doubts were cast upon its action by all parties involved. The delegates, in fact, never visited all Italian prisoner-of-war and deportee camps, and were faulted for it by the Delegation in Italy and thereby, indirectly, by the Italian government. Eventually, the lead Committee in Geneva became suspicious, too, which prompted its decision to send one of its principal delegates, Georges Dunand, on a special mission to Yugoslavia with the delegate in Italy, Pierre Colombo, following him to Belgrade soon thereafter. Nevertheless, neither of them reached any considerably different conclusions than those arrived at by the Delegation itself. The latter properly performed its tasks and tried to conduct skilful humanitarian diplomacy as required by the circumstances. It should be noted that the hostility of the Yugoslav leadership to its activities and the political nature of the issue of Italian POWs and deportees in Yugoslavia actually prevented the Delegation from wielding a greater influence on the solution of this problem.

The article addresses the issue of memory and oblivion in socialist Yugoslavia after the Second World War, with a special focus on the case study of the Borovnica camp in Slovenia. The prisoners in the camp were arrested during the liberation of Trieste and the Julian March (they were the so-called deportees from the Julian March). After the camp was shut down it was gradually destroyed and a settlement was built on its foundations. Local people who lived in the immediate vicinity have memories of this time, but have never spoken publicly about what happened there. This paper analyses the memory and oblivion of the Borovnica camp over a long period of time, from the end of the war to the
present day. The memory of the camp is placed into the broader, Yugoslav and European context of the culture of remembering and the “amnesia of national experiences”, as defined by Tony Judt. During our research, we found that already during the camp’s operation, a regime of fear was established over the locals, through which the guards tried to prevent any assistance to the prisoners, while at the same time silencing rumours. This fear persisted even after, since in the years and decades that followed, the camp and what took place there were not, or only rarely, spoken about. The silence was partly due to the general desire that prevailed throughout Europe to forget what had happened, but mainly due to political pressures and fear of the regime, as well as the fear of disrupting relations within the local community. As a result, despite the change of socio-political circumstances after 1991 that favoured narratives that contradicted the previous official narrative of pure partisan struggle, the camp remained largely unspoken about even then. The article thus shows that breaking collective amnesia is not a unilateral process. In addition to the favourable socio-political circumstances, the desire and need to break the silence must also arise within the community that has had oblivion imposed upon it. In 2021, the remaining foundations of one of the barracks were cleared and they are now evidence of a camp that now has a story and a history. Although some people are still reluctant to talk about this time, it can be said that the memory of the Borovnica camp has become an integral part of the local collective memory. The question remains how many similar situations and cases of post-war amnesia still exist in Slovenia and elsewhere in Europe.