Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 11 April 2008

Military history: European / Italian / World War II Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) World War II task force

Isn't that last paragraph a bit harsh? I'm seeing possible NPOV problems there.--Bedford (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified it. If you read the article from the IHT it explains quite clearly Italian "amnesia" about Rab and other fascist era atrocities. The npov tag should be removed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Concentration Camp?

To call this camp a 'concentration camp' is extremely biased and incorrect. Prisoners were held in similar conditions to prisoners of war, are prisoner of war camps called concentration camps? Of course not that would be stupid the same goes for this camp. The operators of this camp did not kill its prisoners like the Germans did, it was more of a jail. Starvation was a result of low food, people in Italy were starving as well - normal citizens there was a food shortage everywhere not just in this camp.

POV

As per the two editors above, this article was/is (if Alasdair has reverted it) extremely POV. It insults Italians with this "amnesia" ethnic attack and also there was something about Berlusconi who was only a child when this prisoner of war camp existed. - Gennarous (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is not POV. It is factual and well-sourced. Judging from your comment that "also there was something about Berlusconi who was only a child when this prisoner of war camp existed" you haven't even read it properly. If you have any proposed changes, please bring them to the talk page for discussion. Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not a NPOV, because its presented in a strongly anti-Italian, revisionist view. No it isn't, the numbers of deaths have no source for the, do not remove citation tags next to them until you have provided a source to back up your highly contentious claims. Do not remove POV tags when three people on this talk have said your write-up is POV. Silvio Berlusconi has absoutely no connection or relevence to this article, picking at random an out of context quote does not belong in an article like this. - Gennarous (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying get across is (as have two other users), the way you've twisted the article, it makes it sound like some sort of Holocaust, extermination camp, when its simply a prisoner of war camp. Things that exist in ALL wars when prisoners are taken, even the Allies took prisoners and put them in camps. These people were not systematically slaughtered, like in Nazi concentration camps where people were put into gas chambers, etc. The ones who died, did so because around that period (the early 40s) Italy and the things it controlled had started to crumble and was poorley organised, people died in Italy too of starvation from the country been ripped in half. The picture you're painting does not reflect reality, or neautrality. - Gennarous (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, if you have any proposed changes to make I am happy to discuss them here. Until then, I will ask you once again not to remove text that is peoperly sourced from this or any other article. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have said one thing, but done another, typical communist behaviour. I have provided discussion above, you have avoided discussing it completely in your reply. How is that "happily disscussing" anything, when you've point blank ignored it? Three people have told you that you are wrong, yet you continue. I will be removing your edits tomorrow when you are at school. Thank you. - Gennarous (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to the content, not the editor. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

wtf, do you even know what you're writing?! None of your edits make sense, you call the Partisans "civilians" ("terrorists") and then "POWs". Do you even know how outright stupid that sounds? I suggest you cool down, immediately, the rab concentration camp was not a POW camp as it contained Partisan combatants, suspected Slav anti-fascists, and other "enemies of the state".

It most certainly was an extermination camp, much like Jasenovac. --DIREKTOR 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it was an "extermination camp", the prisoners were not "exterminated" or put into gas chambers like Nazi camps. Some people only died for the same reason Italian citivens in Italy died, food supplies were short in Italy controlled areas. Under what logic are you using that Yugoslav Partisans (people who were actively trying to kill, attack, the Italian troops) could not be taken as prisoners of war? Do you know what a prisoner of war is? Were they prisoners? Yes. Were they engages in open warfare against the Italian soldiers? Yes.

I suggest the Eastern Bloc neo-Balkan nationalists control their emotions and stop trying to turn Italian articles into some sort of holocaustal Nazi articles, when that just simply isn't the truth of it and there are NO sources to back up claims. The Italian soldiers were not placing in these prisoner camps just any people who happened to be Slavic or something like that, this was specifically enemey forces who were trying to kill them in war. How these delusional neo-Balkan nationalists dare even try turn that into something as disgusting as what the Nazis did to everyday Jewish people is just offensive in any possible way.

I have provided sources about these so called Yugoslav Partisans prisoners and their well known actions of terror, mass murder and rape which even have articles dedicated to them on Misplaced Pages; Bleiburg massacre, Foibe massacres, 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka. When these prisoners were set free they returned to that terror cell as the "Rab battalion", commiting ethnic cleansing against Italians in the area as well as Hungarians. Click on the links of those "massacres" they comitted and try to explain yourself. - Gennarous (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your 'sources' (I won't even begin to discuss your opinions) perhaps we should avoid using Nikolai Tolstoy as a credible source. I'll point up a few choice quotes about his writing on Bleiburg, Yalta etc in an article by Alistair Horne about the Aldington v Tolstoy libel case:

"Trying to weave a way through the tangled cobweb of truths, half-truths, and downright inaccuracies woven by Tolstoy proved to be one of the longest and most arduous tasks I have ever undertaken as a writer".

"...in it (The Minister and the Massacres) Tolstoy jeopardized what claim he had to be a serious and objective historian by his tendency to shape the facts around conclusions he had already formed".

"...his writing came increasingly to reveal a fanatical obsessiveness that was more Slav than Anglo-Saxon. Appalled by the injustice inflicted upon his fellow White Russians, and dedicated to the cause of seeing that it should be requited on a public platform, Tolstoy progressively persuaded himself that the repatriations had flowed from an evil conspiracy".

See http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-8313967.html
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which source would you prefer to use about the Yugoslav Partisan commited war crime the Bleiburg massacre? There seemts to be quite a lot in that article to choose from, though personally I don't see why Nikolai Tolstoy's source should be discounted. He is a real historian correct? I can't say I'm an expert on him specifically. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The specific reason why Tolstoy should be discounted is in the words of Alistair Horne above, who, unlike Tolstoy, is a real historian. Meanwhile, the 'source' you give regarding Bačka specifically does not say anything of the kind. It says "Although it is usually claimed by German historians (Dokumentation, 1961) that Yugoslav Germans were banished from Yugoslavia forcefully, this was not the case". Please go and read it, and then remove that link. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong part in that book for the second part, Backa should be highlighted in a bright yellow text. However in regards to the brutal Holocaust commited by the Yugoslav Partisans in Bačka against the Hungarians, I found a better source. So that one is sorted. As for Tolstoy/Horne thing, which source would you suggest using for that massacre in place of Count Tolstoy's scholary report? Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Will someone PLEASE explain why the killings in Bačka should even be mentioned in the article? What?, are you trying to somehow justify the mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of Slavic civilians in Italian-controlled Yugoslavia? --DIREKTOR 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The information provided is about the prisoners, the Yugoslav Partisans were the prisoners in this POW camp who were captured by the Italians. And when they were released they rejoined it and commited such atrocious acts, this is essential information to the article if we're to show a NPOV. Also it would be nice if you could curb unsourced accusations of "mass murder", since these prisoners, like people in Italy at the time, sadly died because of poor organisation and lack of availability of food. If you would undo your blanking of the article and read the sources provided on the subject, this is shown. On all of these talk pages, I have see your "clique" attacking Italians like on the Dalmatian Italians article, but providing nothing in the way of vertification. Vertification is what Misplaced Pages works on, not opinion and personal revisionism. Are you trying to apologise for the Yugolav Partians (the prisoners) by covering up entirely the crimes mentioned above?- Gennarous (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand you have proof that the Dalmatian Partisans held in the concentration camp were the exact same ones that committed the killings in Bačka? Your sources are also completely partial and unreliable in this matter, just because Italian troops were incompetent, does not mean they were incapable of mass-murder ("guitar-warriors", lol). (I would also love it if you didn't lecture me on the way Misplaced Pages works.) --DIREKTOR 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis' wholesale revert of sourced information

• 1) we don't removed sourced information on the prisoners (some of which are from books), when they are sourced from a book.
• 2) the first link from the old version this one is a dead link, it says "404 Not Available". Note Lomis seems to have WP:STALKed me here after his months of trying to attack Alessandra Mussolini. - Gennarous (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked an impartial Misplaced Pages Administrator to review the "NPOV" of your edits. You obviously are not even trying to maintain an impartial view, you are a radical anti-communist, not that this is necessarily a bad thing in itself, but this stance is highly influencing your judgment in this article.

As far as I can understand, you are:

1) Doing your best to relativize the suffering of thousands in a fascist concentration camp.

2) Trying to find excuses for the holocaust (The Axis powers committed the holocaust, not just the Nazis. Among others the Independent State of Croatia).

3) Describing Allied troops as "terrorists".

4) Making inconsistent edits on the whole, while adding unrelated information to present your own personal version of events.

Please stop and discuss each controversial edit. --DIREKTOR 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're accusations are wild.

1) No, I'm presenting a NPOV backed up with sources. Rather than the ultra Balkan nationalist POV "version". Twisting history to try and paint the Italians as "holocaustal" is wide revisionism.

2) This is clearly a gross personal attack of the highest order. Especially since on my userpage, I clearly have a box which says I oppose all forms of Nazism. This includes the Nazi Holocaust. May I suggest you read about what the Nazis tried to do in Napoli (where my family are from) during WWII? Hitler ordered to turn the city to "mud and dust". Nazism is as digusting to me as Communism and I would never defend or apologise for them.

Non of the sources provided (on either side) attempt to present the Italian POW camps as "holocaustal" or "etermination camps". Unlike the Nazis who gassed millions of Jews, this isn't the case provided here. This is the opinion of extreme Balkan nationalism and history revisionist looking to slur so called "Italia irredenta" who they hate so much.

3) Bleiburg massacre, Foibe massacres, 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka. Please provide any proof of your wild claim that I called the Allies, France, Britain and the United States "terrorists".

4) you seem to be writing about yourself and the anti-Italians here. What is inconsistent? Inconsistent is you and a couple of your friends, wholesale removing vast chunks of heavily sourced information from an article because it doesn't agree with your hardline non-mainstream view. But you never provide anything in the way of sources to back your claims, ever. Thanks.- Gennarous (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1) No, to say that Italians had nothing to do with the 1.7 million dead in Yugoslavia is revisionism. Please try to be realistic. I have personally heard eyewitness reports of the burning of the town of Bol on the island of Brač by an Italian blackshirt punitary expedition. I have heard eyewitnesses speak (and read media reports) of a peasant mother and child executed by firing squad in the town of Supetar, after the child stole, and supposedly gave the Partisans, a bag of flour from the Italian gentleman's house she worked in.

I'm honestly still hoping we may be able to work together here.

2) This is not a personal attack as I only commented your edits, not your person (that's why they call it a "personal attack"). Please read up on personal attacks before making such accusations.

I agree (and I'm proud, in part) that Italians were certainly not nearly as responsible for the holocaust as the Nazis, but they aren't innocent of it. It is a well-referenced fact that Jews (for example) and other non-combatants were held in Italian concentration camps, including the Rab concentration camp (see references in text).

I assume you would agree with a movement that claims half of your country belongs to another (like the Italia irredenta)?

3) The Yugoslav Partisans are recognized as "official" Yugoslav Allied troops in November of 1943 by the Tehran conference, you don't appear to be very knowledgeable in the history of the Yugoslav front. (The USSR is also part of the Allied powers.) I repeat, you call Allied troops "terrorists".

4) You need to make up your mind as to whether the Partisans were soldiers or civilians, your text is contradictory.

--DIREKTOR 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

If I may, I'd like to offer some suggestions, not on the article content, but on ways to discuss the content...

The material in this article is obviously very difficult to write about in a neutral way. Even with the best of intentions, it is difficult for anyone to read about these events without feeling some sort of emotional reaction, especially if someone shares a personal link to any of the ethnicities or participants. I would recommend that all sides be aware of this, and do their best to be sympathetic to the difficulties involved, and to give allowances for what might seem like "kneejerk" reactions from other editors. Based on my reading of the discussions here, I see intelligent individuals who have different views, and are trying hard to discuss this matter with someone that they don't entirely understand, and perhaps don't entirely trust. But I feel that all the editors here are trying to edit in good faith, there is just some difficulty in communicating. So my recommendations are:

• Please try to focus strictly on the discussion of the article's content.
• Stay excruciatingly civil.
• Don't refer to each other, or which politics or ideology you think that the other may possess. Even saying something like, "I think you are <fill in belief system here>", though it might be meant as a statement of fact, could be taken as a personal attack. Just stick to the article.
• Don't refer to your own personal experiences. It tends to make you closer to the topic, and it's more apt to get emotions involved. Plus, if you "open" yourself with a personal anecdote, it can be that much more painful if it's not accepted graciously by the other side.
• As much as possible, keep discussions source-based. Instead of saying, "It's obviously true that <stuff>", say "According to <sourceA>, this situation is described as <stuff>."
• If there's a particularly controversial part of the article, it can help de-escalate things by temporarily removing it from the article and bringing it to talk for discussion. That method can reduce the sense of urgency involved in discussing something on a "live" article. If you feel the need to delete something from an article, moving it to talk instead of wholesale deleting it is often a "softer" way of dealing with things.
• Try, as an exercise, to avoid using the word "you" in your posts. Rewriting things in the third person can be a very useful way to keep emotional distance.
• Instead of looking at the article as a binary "either/or" on different viewpoints, try to see if it's possible to come up with a compromise wording that includes both sides, such as "There are varying viewpoints on <topic>. Some sources say <viewpoint A> and others say <viewpoint B>." That'll help the article to stay neutral.
• If it still seems impossible to proceed in a way that everyone is willing to accept, try one of the other steps in Dispute resolution. Request comments from other editors, post on a message board, or perhaps request a neutral mediator.
• Think about the above steps, and think about things you've already posted. If there's anything which you think could have been worded better and/or more gently, go back and change it! There's no need to keep harsh words on a page. The other person has already read them, and it does no good to keep the insult there -- indeed, it can continue re-opening the wound each time they see it again. So please, consider going back to old posts and removing anything which might be construed as angry or uncivil. Such acts are not one of weakness -- they will make you look like an extremely emotionally mature individual, and further, the removal of the comment can have an extraordinarily powerful effect on de-escalating a situation. It's worth trying.  :)

And good luck. This topic is a really tough one, you have my sincere best wishes. --Elonka 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks , Elonka, I'm sure we'll all do our best to follow Wiki guidelines. However, without pointing any fingers I fear that the uncompromising attitudes displayed thus far may very well turn into an edit-war. We are in serious need of unbiased Admin mediation to prevent that escalation. If you yourself are not able or interested in getting more involved in this (admittedly small) matter, I wonder if you could otherwise help out with that problem? --DIREKTOR 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Further editing

Before any further (uncompromising) edits are made, I'd like to make it clear that, while one should always add new information, the current text and wording of the article are thoroughly and exactly referenced. In other words, this text is direct from reliable sources and should not be altered or brought into different context (as per Wiki regulations). None of us sinister "anti-Italians" wrote this stuff, its basically copy-paste, and I think it should not conform to the personal needs of any of us involved editors. --DIREKTOR 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the main problems with the version suggested by Gennarous:

• frequent use of derogatory words and phrases for many involved factions that apparently offend the editor for some reason (among others the local Allied forces). Some examples:
  • "...were the so called Yugoslav Partisans, a Communist terrorist organization..." (the Yugoslav Partisans being recognized as legitimate Allied forces),
  • "...prisoners of a communist concentration camp from..." (Goli otok being a maximum security prison for convicted criminals.)

• frequent addition of words and phrases used to relativize referenced info unfavored by the user. Some examples:
  • "It is claimed that the camp held around 10,000...",
  • "Another 800 prisoners from Rab allegedly died later...".

• additions of offensive, unreferenced (incorrect) info. Some examples:
  • "...the Yugoslav Partisans and formed the Rab battalion, going on to commit atrocities mentioned in the above section.",
  • "...this was not an extermination camp, like some of the Nazi camps, this was merely a prisoner of war camp..." (the user appears not to be sure whether the Partisans were terrorists or soldier prisoners of war.)
  • "...the Eastern Bloc lack of development and standards of human life which it is still trying to recover from." (Yugoslavia was obviously not even in the Eastern Bloc, and its citizens enjoyed higher standards of living while it remained intact, than they do today.)

• additions of unrelated info on atrocities committed by the Partisan faction, that do not have anything to do with the concentration camp specifically and deteriorate the neutrality of the article (the numerous atrocities committed by the Italian faction not being included).

With all due respect I must surmise that the User:Gennaro appears to have some agenda against (or for) one of factions involved and is not striving towards an NPOV article. --DIREKTOR 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dirketor, I feel the last paragraph you've wrote to me there is non needed and goes against what Elonka has advised to be a good way. In an effort to fix this situation, I will partake in Elonka's advise by not calling the athiest people here the "C" word or the "B N" words. But you must also do the same by assuming good faith.

I will review some of the things you suggested, putting its number and Proposed Change, if I have a note I will put N).....

1)"...were the so called Yugoslav Partisans, a Communist terrorist organization..." (the Yugoslav Partisans being recognized as legitimate Allied forces),

PC) "...was an organisation calling itself Yugoslav Partisans, a Communist military formation opposed to and in open warfare with the Axis forces..."

2)"...prisoners of a communist concentration camp from..." (Goli otok being a maximum security prison for convicted criminals.)

PC) see below

N) I feel this is a double standard. When the Italian Fascists put people in prison camps its a "concentration camp". But when Yugoslavian Communist dicators do it, its a "maximum security prison for convicted criminals". If we are to remain neutral, perhaps "prison camp" is best.

3) "It is claimed that the camp held around 10,000...",

PC) "Newspaper, the International Herald Tribune has said that the camp held around 10,000...",

4) "...the Yugoslav Partisans and formed the Rab battalion, going on to commit atrocities mentioned in the above section.",

PC) "...the Yugoslav Partisans and formed the Rab battalion; the Yugolav Partisans later went on to commit various atrocities against several groups, which has been called ethnic cleansing by some outlets, this includes the Bleiburg massacre, Foibe massacres (which notable was enacted against ethnic Italians in the Balkans) and the 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka."

N) the war crimes of the Yugoslav Partisans are very well sourced and historically vertifiable. It is important to note this. The Rab battalion was part of the Yugoslav Partisans,after been put into Italian prison, and the same people had been part of the Yugoslav Partisan forces before been put in prison to, so they are linked to it in the same way that any Nazi Germany battalion are part of the general Nazi Germany activies.

5) "Another 800 prisoners from Rab allegedly died later...".

N) this sentence is in regards to people who allegedly died when moving camp. I put allegedly because it had no source (unlike the International Herald Tribune source for the figure of 10,000 held in the camp altogther). For such a controverisal topic, we cannot put something like this without a source for it. If it can be STRONGLY vertified I do not have a problem with the line staying without allegedly.

6) "...this was not an extermination camp, like some of the Nazi camps, this was merely a prisoner of war camp..." (the user appears not to be sure whether the Partisans were terrorists or soldier prisoners of war.)

PC) kept the same

N) you have presented that the Yugoslav Partisans were indeed some form recognised by the Allies, to fit with the compromised change suggested above in 1) from "terrorist organisation" to "military formation". It is reasonable to call the Yugoslav Partisans who were put in this prison by the opposition they were in warfare with (the Italian Fascists) prisoners of war.

7) "...the Eastern Bloc lack of development and standards of human life which it is still trying to recover from." (Yugoslavia was obviously not even in the Eastern Bloc, and its citizens enjoyed higher standards of living while it remained intact, than they do today.)

PC) "...the lack of development and standards of human life which it is still trying to recover from." (Yugoslavia was obviously not even in the Eastern Bloc, and its citizens enjoyed higher standards of living while it remained intact, than they do today.)

N) IMO that is just in the details, you corrected a mistake at the front, but anyway it was still a Communist government, and that part of Europe since coming out of it, is viewed as the same standard of the rest of former-communist countries on that side of Europe (Eastern Bloc) by most media. Underdeveloped quality in the same ways as Albania, Romania, etc.

8) additions of unrelated info on atrocities committed by the Partisan faction, that do not have anything to do with the concentration camp specifically and deteriorate the neutrality of the article (the numerous atrocities committed by the Italian faction not being included).

N) I disagree in the strongest possible ways. We need information on who the prisoners were and what they were up to/went on to do. This is essential when writing about crime and criminals. It would be like writing an article about Richard Ramirez and not mentioning the fact that he was a serial killer. What the Yugoslav Partisans (which these prisoners were part of) did to people, including Italians (which is especially revelent, in this context) must remain to put across an inclusive NPOV. If you are able to provide solid, sources information on "atrocities committed by the Italian", in relation, then please feel free to provided such vertified and heavily sourced information)

I have attempted to remain extreme civil through this writing in an attempt to sort this issue, which believe for a passionate person like me, can sometimes be hard. I look forward to hear what you have to say about the suggestions above. - Gennarous (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly support DIREKTOR's remarks.

• I think it is very important to remember that this article is about Rab concentration camp, not the whole Yugoslav front in the Second World War. To discuss the whole front and who did what is probably inappropriate when what we want is a good article about Rab concentration camp. However, if the consensus view is against me, then we should, of course, include atrocities (alleged or proven) committed by both sides. The article may become fairly lengthy, but we have that option. If so, I can suggest we start with this, which is a photo of a Partisan whose head the Italians paraded through his home valley in Slovenia as a "warning" to others in 1942: .

• Rab was not a POW camp. Anything but. To keep it simple, let's start with Elvira Kohn's extensive testimony. Is it being suggested that she was put into this camp because she was a Partisan? That's odd, as she herself rather believes it was because she was Jewish.

• I'll leave my remarks there for now. Thank you for reading them. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that the quotes I've made were just examples, there are usually more phrases and sentences of the same sort in the text. We can't sort them all out in the talkpage, what I was aiming at is that you might agree in principle so that we may improve the text with new information without such remarks.
Let's go through the points:

• 1) I can't understand why you must insert phrases such as "calling itself" or "so-called", they are unencyclopedic and make the text appear biased. I think you may agree that "calling itself" and "so-called" are virtually the same in the undertone. The Partisans were also not a "military formation", they were a large resistance movement consisting of many military formations. Brigades, divisions, corps, and field armies.

• 2) You may see that as double standard, but Goli otok simply wasn't a concentration camp. You won't find a single source to confirm that stance, if Goli otok was a concentration camp than so is Guantanamo :).

• 3) The figure is reliable as it is supported by other sources (see refs).

• 4) I am not going to turn this into a general discussion on various crimes of the WW2 Yugoslav front, god knows there are many (I'd say a lot more by the Axis than the Allies). The crimes of the Partisans in general are IRRELEVANT to this text, we can't turn this article into a list of WW2 crimes of all the factions involved (Italians having their share as well). What I actually meant was that the Rab Battalion did not commit any crimes, and they are the subject of this article. The sentence suggests that these prisoners went on to commit these crimes.

• 5) There is a source:

• 6) Yes I agree, it would be reasonable to call Partisan prisoners POWs. However, the camp was not a POW camp, and it held more than Partisan prisoners. The difference between civs and Partisans was very hard to distinguish at the time, so the Axis tended to kill and imprison everybody they suspected. There were also Jews in the camp. In short this camp was simply NOT a POW camp, according to all the sources we have here.

• 7) Yugoslavia is considered a "socialist" state. It was also by the most prosperous and by far the most liberal of the socialist European countries. It did not conform to Moscow, it had a very close relationship with the West and was the founder of the non-aligned movement. Also, you should know that the standards of living from the SFRY are still unsurpassed by the non-socialist republics that emerged after the collapse of communism. While what you say is true for Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Bulgaria, it does not apply to SFR Yugoslavia.

• 8) Once again, crimes were committed by all sides in the Yugoslav front, with the Partisans certainly being one of the lesser participants in the slaughter that took place there (circa 1,700,000 Yugoslav dead, compared to 389,221 Italian). Let me be clear on why I do not think Partisan crimes need to be mentioned in the article:
  • If you add only the Partisan crimes than the Italian and Axis crimes must be added to maintain NPOV, which ends up turning the article into a huge list of various massacres and mass killings that took place.
  • You have absolutely no proof or source to confirm that the Rab battalion went on to commit any war crimes, whatsoever. You perhaps view the Yugoslav Partisans as a smaller movement than they were: the Yugoslav Partisans were a force of up to 16 army corps organized into 4 field armies numbering over 800,000 men by 1945 when the crimes were committed (a battalion is a force of several hundred men). (see:)

--DIREKTOR 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Direktor, in just about all of those replies, you put forward opinion, most of the time without vertification. Where you have said "see refs", you haven't shown a specific link which I have requested, more than once. The refs (many of which I introduced) do not contain such things otherwise, I would not request them. The reference #5 is just a mirror of an older version of this article, Misplaced Pages can't be used as a source for Misplaced Pages. Also Josip Broz Tito was a communist ruler and had membership with various communist organisations and is described as so in his article; the BBC says "Marshall Josef Tito formed Communist Yugoslavia in 1945".

At the moment, you seem entirely unwilling to recognise that the Yugoslav Partisans did anything wrong at all, lets not kid ourselfs, this isn't an Anne Frank story, its warfare, harsh on both sides. I have attempted to incorporate both sides by proposing more neutral wording in regards to the Partisans, yet you have yet to move at all on what these people have done to Italians, Hungarians, etc. This cannot be acceptable and is not a way to draw a conclusion on this dispute if you're unwilling to see other sides. You can't have it just one way, both sides have to be shown for a NPOV.

AlasdairGreen27 do you have an article link in English to go along with the picture? I think it probably has potential if true, but I'm not sure just a "picture" without an actual article/writing is able to be used as reference? - Gennarous (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated note; this link in the further reading section is dead and says "this page cannot be found". So I'm going to remove it from the list. - Gennarous (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest any changes that contradict with sources. Let's keep this simple:

• Addition of a list of various crimes committed by the Partisans violates WP:NPOV, is unrelated to the specific topic of this article. The addition of a far longer list of Axis and Italian atrocities would be impractical to say the least, but would be required. The Rab battalion committed no crimes. (btw, I dare say I may know more than you about Partisan crimes, I am also aware they happened. I didn't deny them and I do not understand why you keep making these assumptions.)
• This article is about a concentration camp, it wouldn't make sense to write an article about a concentration camp that goes easy on the guards. Please understand: whether the majority of the deaths in the camp were due to Italian incompetence or intention is irrelevant as the persons held there were held there against their will. They are the responsibility of the "jail-keepers" in either case.
• Finally, refrain from using derrogatory terms and/or a relativistic approach towards the deaths that occurred there.
  

This is not working as none of the arguments I've written above were actually answered. You also do not appear as though you are going to make any concessions here and you just appear to have cut the discussion short by simply imposing your version. We need to find an Admin that's willing to arbitrate here, I'm sure you agree? --DIREKTOR 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Unless mister Napolitano has a degree in history and is an expert in the field, I dare say his personal opinion is of no consequence, irrlevant and further deteriorates the NPOV of the article. --DIREKTOR 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an admin who is arbitrating here, Elonka. What you mean is "an admin who will unbashedly allowed a POV which excludes the Italian view entirely". Do you know how Misplaced Pages works? Attribution. Giorgio Napolitano is the President of Italy, the claim was attributed to him with a reference. Some of the statements about figures are made by the International Herald Tribune, so its attributed to them.. The BBC called Yugoslavia a Communist government, so its attributed to them. Attirubtion makes things clear and is how a NPOV is achieved.

Your little friend Alaisdar (and the obsesive wiki-stalker I have aquired in Lomis) just wholesale removing this sourced information, aslong with more neutral wording discussed above and also adding in not only the non-formated style of references, but dead links which have been presented as not working at all is not going to solve things. Lomis should just eject himself from this entirely since his sole aim is to violate WP:STALK - Gennarous (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understood, Elonka only makes sure no one starts edit-warring or insulting people. Perhaps I wasn't clear: I'm talking about someone who would be willing to actively mediate the dispute and get into this matter. --DIREKTOR 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how you are against Berlusconi's statement, and are supporting Napolitano's. --DIREKTOR 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Changes by User:Gennarous

I think its time to start to talk about concrete parts of the article. The current proposal by User:Gennarous is the following: . As I do not agree with most of his changes, I would like to discuss this major change here before you edit it here on the talk page. Gennarous, is that ok for you? lomis (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, simply imposing your version is not the way to discuss matters in disputed articles. It's the way to start an edit-war. --DIREKTOR 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

btw Iomis, you wouldn't happen to know anyone willing to arbitrate in concentration camp-related articles? (awesome quote by White:) --DIREKTOR 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't - I am only rarely active here on the English Misplaced Pages. I think Gennarous should be reported for WP:3RR, though. Thanks for the White quote :) lomis (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPP

I have entered a request for page protection on this article at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection - AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, I'm afraid that your edit at WP:RPP is incorrect. You wrote "Alasdair has introduced mirror websites of Misplaced Pages, as a source for Misplaced Pages". I did not add that link. See . Thank you in advance for correcting your error. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for 48 hours. I just logged on, but am extremely disappointed at recent events. I am still reviewing everyone's behavior and may take further actions, please give me some time to get caught up. In the meantime, everyone please be on best behavior. --Elonka 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV variation which AlasdairGreen has removed

Just for those keeping score, this is the NPOV version, with newly introducted neutral wording which was a compromise form the old with sources, with attribution which Alasdair has vandalisingly removed. The heavily disputed version which he authored and has inserted is not only the same POV complete lack of any Italian view at all, but it also includes deadlinks, mirrors of Misplaced Pages as a reference despite been told that this is not acceptable, even by another editor on his talk and the same old, coverup of ethnic cleansing issue, a statement which now has a reference from the Italian President. So here is the version anyway, so the neutrals can see what he has done and covered. - Gennarous (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article

The Rab concentration camp is a name used to desribe one of 24 Italian ran internment prisons in which captured prisoners of war from opposition Yugoslav Partisan forces were placed in during World War II. It opened in July 1942 near the village of Kampor, on the Adriatic island of Rab. The camp was disbanded after the Italian government made an armistice with the Allies in September 1943.

Prisoners

The main prisoners of war held here, were members of an organisation calling itself the Yugoslav Partisans, groups of Communist military formations opposed to and in open warfare with the Axis forces, who were interned after been captured. The Yugoslav Partisans also went on to commit numerous brutal massacres and war crimes including mass murder and rape once given free reign in the following years, such as the Bleiburg massacre where 50,000 were killed, the Foibe massacres against ethnic Italians (innocent civilians) which lead to the Istrian exodus which President of Italy Giorgio Napolitano has desribed as a holocaust and ethnic cleansing. The Yugoslav Partisans also butchered thousands of Hungarians at the 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka.

History of the prison

Newspaper, the International Herald Tribune has said that the camp held around 10,000 prisoners housed in tents, the same newspaper has said that Slovenians and Croats were in one area (the core of the Yugoslav Partisans) and Jews were held in another, though the Italians treated the Jews better, providing them with radio, newspapers and more food than the Partisans. However this was not an extermination camp, like some of the Nazi camps, this was merely a prisoner of war camp to house enemey forces (recognised officially as part of the Allies) who had attacked Italians on the battlefield and been captured, as well as villages strongly accused of providing support for the Yugoslav Partisan army.

By this time Italy as a whole was having problems and had shortages of food in areas it controlled, home and abroad people suffered from starvation, especially in regards to bread shortages; the International Herald Tribune has said that 1,200 of those held in the camp died from starvation as well as the weather conditions. It is claimed that another 800 prisoners} from Rab died later when they were relocated to other Italian prisoner of war camps such as Gonars and Padova. Many prisoners who survived until September 1943 and were still strong enough to do so re-joined the Yugoslav Partisans and formed the Rab battalion; following the war the Yugoslav Partisans as a whole would go on to commit numerous attrocities, including ethnic cleansing against Italians in the Balkans with the Foibe massacres.

Since the war

In 1953, a memorial was built to Edvard Ravnikar's plans - the memorial was ironically errected by prisoners of a communist prison camp from the nearby island of Goli Otok, which existed during the time of repressive communist reigme of Josip Broz Tito.

When historians compare the prisoner of war camp to others during the war, they have said that "By the murderous standards of the second world war, Rab was only a footnote of evil" However, since being allowed into the European Union, some Balklan nationalists have used it to form an anti-Italian propaganda, this is though in the extreme minority of the population as much bigger events have happened in the Balkans since that time, such as the insertion and then fall-out of an authoritarian Yugoslav state which the BBC has described as a Communist government, causing what is some sources call a third world environment, with lack of development and standards of human life which it is still trying to recover from compared to the Western Europe.

One of the prisoners in the camp was Anton Vratuša, who went on to be Yugoslavia's ambassador at the United Nations and was Prime Minister of Slovenia (1978-80), and Elvira Kohn described her experiences at the prison in some detail.

References

1. "The Bleiburg Massacre". Serendipity.li. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. ^ ""Foibe" Massacres raised in Answer to Croatian President Mesic's Claims". The Annotico Report. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "Italy and Croatia reopen old war wounds". Guardian.co.uk. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. "Fifty Thousand Hungarian Martyrs: Report about the Hungarian Holocaust in Jugoslavia 1944-1992" (PDF). Hunsor.se. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Wolff, Stefan. German Minorities in Europe: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Belonging. University of California Press. ISBN 1571817387.
6. ^ "Survivors of war camp lament Italy's amnesia, Pt 1". Thomas Fuller: IHT.com. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. A photo of the camp: http://ww2panorama.org/images/96.jpg
8. "Christmas in Italy 1943". BBC.co.uk. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/rab.jpg
10. "Rab, Hrvastka / Croatia, 1953". Oris.hr. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
11. "Images of Rab". Caratacus.co.uk. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
12. "Survivors of war camp lament Italy's amnesia, Pt 2". Thomas Fuller: IHT.com. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
13. "1953: Marshal Tito makes historic visit to London". BBC.co.uk. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
14. "Third World definition". ThirdWorldTraveler.com. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
15. "Elvira Kohn". Centropa.org. 8 January 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Further reading

• Milač, Metod M.: Resistance, imprisonment and forced labor : A Slovene student in World War II. ISBN 0-8204-5781-7

I don't see why you added this, people can just go to the history screen... --DIREKTOR 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably not helpful to copy the entire article to talk. Then again, it's a fairly short article so is not extaordinarily harmful. I do still have to admit some confusion though about the edit-war. Is it really your opinion that all of Gennarous's changes are bad? Is there anything worth keeping, or can someone suggest some compromise wording that might satisfy both sides? --Elonka 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to this article

Gennarous, I have read posts in various places today saying that I and other users are vandalising this article, removing excellent sources etc so I think perhaps the problem here needs further clarification. The central problem is as follows. Your main claim - entirely, completely unsourced - is that this was merely a camp where Partisan prisoners were held; they'd attacked the Italians on the battlefield and been captured. If there was anyone else at the camp they were incidental to the central role of the camp to house Partisan POWs. Is that a fair reflection of your belief?

Now let's be absolutely clear. You have entered this claim without a single source. Not one. Ever. Then you have used this claim as a basis for strong denunciations of the Partisans, adding material with sources about their (alleged) atrocities.

You have proceeded to add various posts at various places saying that I and other users are removing your well sourced material and that we are therefore just vandals. However, the truth of the matter is that
a) your main claim that Rab was just a POW camp is completely unsourced.
b) Your main claim is untrue.
c) Your main claim is contradicted by all of the available material about Rab.
d) All of the material you adding about Bleiburg etc etc is simply an attack on the Partisans.
e) All of the material you are adding is irrelevant to Rab concentration camp.

Let's be clear: your main claim is unsourced and untrue. You follow your main claim with lots of material (sourced) about the Partisans. But there is no connection between what you are trying to do and what this article is about.

This article is about Rab concentration camp. Please stop. Why don't you go and start a new article about Partisan war crimes? Many thanks for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it is impossible to ascertain whether the prisoners were starved deliberately or not, in either case it is irrelevant as it is the responsibility of the Italians to keep them alive. (Though this perspective is somewhat warped, they should not have been jailed in the first place) --DIREKTOR 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Stub-Class Italian military history articles
• Italian military history task force articles
• Stub-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles