Page 263 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. V tišini spomina: "eksodus" in Istra. Koper, Trst: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Založništvo tržaškega tiska
P. 263
Summary
Regarding the issue of control over emigration, which can be expanded
to many other related indirect issues, historians have found that not a sin-
gle written source exists that testifies to the intentional ‘ethnic cleansing’
of the Italians from Istria. The attitude of the (local) authorities was con-
tradictory because in some places and in specific periods emigration was
encouraged, whereas in other places it was restrained. Oral testimonies
reveal confusion as well. According to testimonies, in some places Ital-
ians had to personally prove their loyalty to the socialist authorities by
encouraging other Italians to leave, while in other places the authorities
restrained people from leaving by turning down their applications. Obvi-
ously, the authorities’ attitude changed with time. After the Informbiro
dispute in 1948, when Italian communists became suspicious due to the
alleged support for Stalin, the tendency to encourage migration became
visible. This change was also noticed by those interlocutors who testified
about the shift from voluntary departure to forced exile and about aban-
donment of the idea of ‘Slavic-Italian brotherhood’ by prompting migra-
tion in the period following Yugoslavia’s annexation of Istria.
Among the many reasons for migration, the interlocutors stated a fear
of violent and indirect psychological intimidation. Fear of ‘foibe’ had a
strong impact, however, personal testimonies about acts of intimidation
were recorded by both the intimidated and the intimidators. Yet, there is
a difference between the Italians who stayed in Istria and adapted them-
selves to the new environment with time, given that the situation after the
Second World War slowly settled down, and those who migrated and their
memories remained ‘frozen in fear and time,’ probably in the period im-
mediately after the war which was characterised by major social upheaval.
Historians also point to the fear of retaliatory action in response to the
Italian warlike and fascist terror. Not everything relied on a national base,
as demonstrated by oral testimonies about the turn in social roles and
struggles for power in the local community, where the lower social class
took advantage of the turmoil to seek revenge and fight for social status.
Even if fear of violence, especially psychological, was perceived among the
interlocutors, it is in fact unclear who was behind that violence, whether
the government, the local authorities or merely revengeful individuals. Ac-
cording to the testimonies, it seems that those who were more hostile to
the Istrian Italians were people who had come ‘from the outside,’ as corrob-
orated by related ethnological research about the ‘exchange of population’
in other areas. It should be noted that the strained relations were only the
tip of the iceberg in a sea of many other reasons that had pushed people
261
Regarding the issue of control over emigration, which can be expanded
to many other related indirect issues, historians have found that not a sin-
gle written source exists that testifies to the intentional ‘ethnic cleansing’
of the Italians from Istria. The attitude of the (local) authorities was con-
tradictory because in some places and in specific periods emigration was
encouraged, whereas in other places it was restrained. Oral testimonies
reveal confusion as well. According to testimonies, in some places Ital-
ians had to personally prove their loyalty to the socialist authorities by
encouraging other Italians to leave, while in other places the authorities
restrained people from leaving by turning down their applications. Obvi-
ously, the authorities’ attitude changed with time. After the Informbiro
dispute in 1948, when Italian communists became suspicious due to the
alleged support for Stalin, the tendency to encourage migration became
visible. This change was also noticed by those interlocutors who testified
about the shift from voluntary departure to forced exile and about aban-
donment of the idea of ‘Slavic-Italian brotherhood’ by prompting migra-
tion in the period following Yugoslavia’s annexation of Istria.
Among the many reasons for migration, the interlocutors stated a fear
of violent and indirect psychological intimidation. Fear of ‘foibe’ had a
strong impact, however, personal testimonies about acts of intimidation
were recorded by both the intimidated and the intimidators. Yet, there is
a difference between the Italians who stayed in Istria and adapted them-
selves to the new environment with time, given that the situation after the
Second World War slowly settled down, and those who migrated and their
memories remained ‘frozen in fear and time,’ probably in the period im-
mediately after the war which was characterised by major social upheaval.
Historians also point to the fear of retaliatory action in response to the
Italian warlike and fascist terror. Not everything relied on a national base,
as demonstrated by oral testimonies about the turn in social roles and
struggles for power in the local community, where the lower social class
took advantage of the turmoil to seek revenge and fight for social status.
Even if fear of violence, especially psychological, was perceived among the
interlocutors, it is in fact unclear who was behind that violence, whether
the government, the local authorities or merely revengeful individuals. Ac-
cording to the testimonies, it seems that those who were more hostile to
the Istrian Italians were people who had come ‘from the outside,’ as corrob-
orated by related ethnological research about the ‘exchange of population’
in other areas. It should be noted that the strained relations were only the
tip of the iceberg in a sea of many other reasons that had pushed people
261
