Jump to content

Talk:Bleiburg repatriations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Chetniks BETRAYED by their western allies??

Representatives of the Chetniks, Ustaše, and Croatian Home Guard meet in Bosnia.
File:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg
Chetniks posing with soldiers of the German occupation forces during World War II in an unidentified Serbian village in occupied Yugoslavia

WTF Herr DIREKTOR?!? What's wrong with my edit which states that the allies abandoned the Chetniks (meaning stopped supporting them) due to their collaboration with the Axis powers? Tomifly (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I waited long enough. You can check Western betrayal for more detail ;) Tomifly (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Herr Tomifly, nobody "abandoned" let alone "betrayed" the Chetniks. The Chetniks were found to be collaborating with the Axis occupation in 1943. Subsequently, the Allies recognized the Partisans as the Yugoslav military at the Tehran Conference. By the Vis agreement (1944), the King of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government-in-exile also shifted their support to the Partisans. In other words, the Chetniks "betrayed" the King by collaborating with his enemies, and were accordingly stripped of their recognition. I recommend you educate yourself as to the facts regarding the Chetnik movement.
Furthermore, even if you were correct (and you are NOT), your completely biased sentence is not for an encyclopedia. I won't be drawn into a long discussion where I convince you of the obvious, read up on the subject matter in the Chetniks article pls. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable... You undo my deletion of the 'betrayal' part of the sentence and now you suggest that I should educate myself?? Article history proves me right and you can go on discussing my neutrality with all the Ustashe and Chetniks in your head or whatever...:roll: Tomifly (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh yea, I'm actually OK with omitting the whole sentence since the details on their role can be found in the Chetniks article. They were in fact supported by the Allies for quite a long time, but eventually abandoned due to collaboration with Germans and Italians. Tomifly (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chetnik movement collaborated, i.e. committed high treason, in other words, they were the traitors, not the "betrayed". Be sure that nowhere on Wiki will it be stated that the Chetniks were "betrayed" or "abandoned" by the Allies. The Allies were under no obligation whatsoever to the Chetnik movement, since both the Allied powers, the King, and the Yugoslav government had nothing to do with them at all. Quite the contrary, they were required by standing law to hand them over to the Yugoslav military. Read the Axis collaboration section of the Chetniks article for more information (you will find the scholarly sources are listed there as well). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Right... My English may not be perfect but if the Chetnik article states (Early activities): The British liaison to Mihajlović advised London to stop supplying the Chetniks after their assistance in the German attack on Užice (see First anti-Partisan Offensive), but Britain continued to do so.[1]
...then, and this is just my casual observation, the Allies DID support them and later (in 1943) stopped doing that when their intelligence confirmed the Chetniks did not really fight the Germans anymore (article on Chetniks, section Loss of support and final years). Whether it can be said that the Allies 'abandoned' Chetniks, it really is a linguistic technicality...

...both the Allied powers, the King, and the Yugoslav government had nothing to do with them at all.

The article Peter II of Yugoslavia, and scholarly references therein, disagree ;) Tomifly (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? :) Let me get this straight, you claim the Allies "betrayed" the Chetniks because they supported them at one time, and then stopped due to Chetnik collaboration (treason, if you want to get legal)?? Once again: we all know the Chetniks were supported at one time, and then that support was abolished. This is plainly NOT "betrayal" or "abandonment" in and of itself. In fact, the Chetniks lost their support because they betrayed the Allies. This is what the "World War II" section of the Peter II of Yugoslavia article states. I should know, I helped to write it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I claim that the Allies betrayed the Chetniks and this is obvious from the fact that my first edit was to delete the betrayal part of the sentence on Chetniks.
Perfect logic, Pt 1.
If, as you say, the Chetniks betrayed the Allies then, obviously, they previously had some kind of agreement between them and if they did then the discontinued support may be qualified as abandonment due to breach of contract or whatever we may wish to call it.
Good logic, Pt 2.
Btw., if, as you say now, we all know the Chetniks were supported by the Allies at one time then, naturally, your prior statement that the Allied powers had nothing to do with them at all, is not correct ;)
You are also completely wrong that the King Peter II and the Yugoslav government had nothing to do with the Chetniks! The government in exile appointed General Draža Mihailović Minister of the Army, Navy and Air Force and both the King and the cabinet tried to persuade the British and Americans to support them (only the British did till 1943).
Check Tomasevich's book, Chapter 8. Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; Stanford University Press, 1975 [1]
So, this is a very nice opportunity for you, young man, to educate yourself to some verifiable historical facts..;)
Enjoy.
Tomifly (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Faulting the British Royal Army

The Geneva Convention does not in any way excuse the British from their obligation, per the Hague Convention, to repatriate all Yugoslav citizens serving in Axis formations to Yugoslavia. The two things are obviously completely separate and do not at all contradict each other. The Geneva Convention grants the NDH military personnel POW status upon capture, and the Hague Convention obligates all Allied powers to repatriate those captured to Yugoslavia. All this is the most obvious, the most basic logic.

Somebody used weasel words to imply that somehow because the NDH signed the Geneva Convention, the British were not obligated to repatriate them - thus effectively implying the culpability of the British Royal Army in the killings, something like: "even though the NDH signed the Geneva Convention its troops were handed over to the Yugoslav military". Clever, but not clever enough. OzCro, do I need a citation stating that the Geneva Convention (granting POV status) does not supersede the Hague Convention (repatriation)? Or does the fact that the two things are completely unrelated matter at all... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

I removed this text, the subject of an edit war. Get references and discuss the best version here.

version 1:

During that time, the Allied forces of DF Yugoslavia, the Partisans, summarily executed (for treason and collaboration) an unknown number of persons from the retreating columns of Nazi collaborationist forces previously in power in parts of occupied Yugoslavia. The columns were for the most part made-up of remnants of the Ustaše party of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (a fascist puppet state of the Nazi regime in Germany, established in occupied Yugoslavia) and the remnants of the Chetnik movement (a collaborating royalist force, consisting of ethnic Serbs and Montenegrins). The number of casualties has proven difficult to ascertain, with exact numbers being a subject of much debate. The events took place after the formal end of World War II in Europe, but at a time when hostilities on the Yugoslav front were still on, due to the goal of the local Axis forces to fend off the Yugoslav advance and to retreat towards the western Allies.

version 2:

During that time, the Allied forces of DF Yugoslavia, the Partisans, summarily executed an unknown number of persons from the retreating columns that were for the most part made-up of remnants of the Ustaše party of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (a fascist puppet state of the Nazi regime in Germany, established in occupied Yugoslavia) and the remnants of the Chetnik movement (a royalist force), but there were many civilians as well. The number of casualties has proven difficult to ascertain, with exact numbers being a subject of much debate. The events took place after the formal end of World War II in Europe, but at a time when hostilities on the Yugoslav front were still on, due to the goal of the local Axis forces to fend off the Yugoslav advance and to retreat towards the western Allies.

Happy talking. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pontificalibus, this article is extremely controversial, every week there's one Balkans nationalist IP making nonsense edits. Its a matter of course to revert nationalist IP edits. This is not a genuine content dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Then you can find some references to support your version of the above paragraph? It won't be so easy to change it to say something contrary to the citations. As it is now, with no references, it could be totally made up. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually the page just gets semi-protected when these sort of outbursts flare up, it should be semi-protected now as well. I repeat: this is not a content dispute, the IP does not dispure the factuality of the statements, but merely removes them because he does not like them. Let me illustrate (if you've noticed which text the IP removed): 1) "(for treason and collaboration)" The prisoners were retreating in a column of collaborationist units, the captured POWs were summarily (illegally) executed for - collaboration, certainly not for grand theft auto. 2) Yes, the military in those columns most certainly belonged to the Chetniks and the Independent State of Croatia, both collaborationist forces, not the Tibetan Royal Army. 3) The Chetniks were made-up of Serbs and Montenegrins, that too is as basic as it gets.
What is there to debate? The IP simply does not like the wording so he/she removed those part of the text that did not appeal to him, and then started edit-warring over the subject. I've mediated my share of disputes, and I know that the first thing one has to scream at the "bickering goons" is: gimme sources!! :) However, this is not a content dispute, its like the twenty-fifth IP edit-warring to remove facts he does not like. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This IP is also the only IP to edit the page this year.

Regardless of the previous history of the page edits, references are needed for the following statements. By having these references, the validity of this IPs changes would be self-evident.:

"the Partisans, summarily executed (for treason and collaboration) an unknown number of persons from the retreating columns of Nazi collaborationist forces previously in power in parts of occupied Yugoslavia."

- a reference here would show who the Partisans summarily executed, and what for.

" The columns were for the most part made-up of remnants of the Ustaše party of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (a fascist puppet state of the Nazi regime in Germany, established in occupied Yugoslavia) and the remnants of the Chetnik movement (a collaborating royalist force, consisting of ethnic Serbs and Montenegrins)."

- a reference here would show what the columns were made up from, and that they contained no civilians (if that was the case).

Also, this is clearly a content dispute, although you may think it involves disruptive editing it is not vandalism. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The general composition of the columns is well known. The vast majority were military, though they did have an unknown proportion of civilians. The military included the following: 1) units of the Independent State of Croatia, 2) units of the Chetnik movement (the movement was radical Serbian nationalist, and was indeed composed almost exclusively of Serbs and Montenegrins), 3) units of the Slovene Home Guard. These are all, naturally, Yugoslav Axis troops. In other words, collaborationist troops (collaboration in Yugoslavia was very, very widespread, perhaps more than anywhere else in occupied Europe).
"Who?" and "what for?" 1) Who? The POWs naturally, who else? That much we do not need a source for (but a claim that civilians from the columns were summarily executed should be sourced prior to inclusion). 2) What for? Again I do not see the logic of the question? They killed the POWs because they belonged to collaborationist formations, what else would they kill them for? Bad breath? (distasteful, I know, but I hope you take my point)
This info is not something to debate, its probably sourced in one of the references in the article already, and its so completely basic when talking about this issue that I can't imagine a discussion on this. You may have gained the false impression due to the relative obscurity of the subject matter, but from where I stand, its as basic as the color of the sky. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

  1. It is not correct to describe the document 'Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes' as having any connection with the European Commission. It was published by the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, in other words the Slovenian government, at that time led by Janez Janša, whose feelings and beliefs on these matters are well known. The event in Brussels in 2008 was held jointly by the European Commission and the Slovenian Presidency of the Council, but the briefing document was prepared by the Slovenian Presidency alone.
  2. The stuff sourced from Ferenc is wrong. Mitja Ferenc himself is no impartial source; he and Dežman have, as is well documented, spent numerous years running around the Slovenian countryside whipping up hysteria with their wild claims about secret graves and victims. The facts are that there are currently 581 sites that have been listed as worthy of investigation. Of these, at a few places, excavations have been completed, at some others, excavations are partially completed, but at the overwhelming majority, no work at all has yet been carried out at all. Therefore, it is possible that every site in the 581 could be a mass grave, or at the other extreme all of the sites listed where no work has yet been done could be empty. Nobody knows. It is all just wild speculation. As an example, we need look no further than Tezno, where 1,179 bodies were recovered in 1997, and Dežman gave ill-advised and highly emotive quotes to the media, mentioning a figure of 15,000 bodies at that site alone, that "It just might be that the greatest crime of the period following World War II will be uncovered in the mass grave in Tezno, one that even surpasses that of Srebrenica" [2] amongst other such stuff. Unfortunately for him and Ferenc, excavations at the site in the years since have uncovered not much of any substance at all. The stuff from Ferenc about 3,986 graves is something of a sleight of hand: the overwhelming majority of the 3,986 are graves of those on all sides of the conflict (from individuals killed in military action to the graves of villagers executed by the Germans in mass reprisals, of which there were many) who died during the war, not after it. Ferenc is trying to conflate all these numbers into anti-Communist propaganda.
I don't intend to edit war to change this stuff. I will, at this stage, leave it to the editors who put it there to correct it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I can express my comment just on first point. If you referred to the Council of Europe resolution 1481 of jNUry 2006, it wasn't voted under Slovenian Presidency. If you instead referred to the "Report on Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes" in 2008, it's important to underline that it was prepared on the basis of "The Berlin declaration" adopted on 25 March 2007 (under German presidency of UE) which moreover stated that "European integration shows that we have learnt the painful lessons of a history marked by bloody conflict". Altough even if the following hearing took place during Slovenian presidency of EU, it was written, related, and introduced by non-Slovenian authors, such as Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the European Commission for Justice, Freedom and Security. The hearing was sponsored by members Council of the European Union (January–June 2008) and the European Commission, whose chairman was (the actual) José Manuel Barroso, portoguese; the hearing contents and statements was accepted without any reserve by 27 Countries members of the Union. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think I may have been talking about Resolution 1481? Where did you get that idea? I was, obviously, clearly, specifically, by name, referring to the document 'Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes' which has recently been added as a 'source' to this article. By the way, 1481 cannot possibly have had any connection whatsoever with the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, as it is a resolution passed (although not by the required 2/3 majority) by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a body unconnected in any way whatsoever with the EU. Oops. Oh dear. The document we are referring to was prepared and published by the Slovenian Presidency. The hearing in Brussels was organised by the Commission and the Slovenian Presidency jointly. It is important to be clear about the differences involved and to bear them in mind. Let's please stay on topic and avoid muddle. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In fact, escluding the 1481 (IMHO also related), I clearified that I consider the "Report on crimes committed by totalitarian regimes" a pertinent link for this article. Moreover the Slovenian-friendly aspect of the hearing on crimes by totalitarian regimes belongs to your point of view: I just felt free to explain why it should be consider reliable, neutral and pertinent. I'm not the one who added the link, so kindly try to not be so rude. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the comments made by User:AlasdairGreen27 are POV.

Dear readers the information below is taken from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/events/events_2008_en.htm

European Hearing: "Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes" On 8 April 2008 a European Hearing entitled "crimes committed by totalitarian regimes" took place in Brussels. This was organised jointly by the Slovenian Presidency of the European Union and the European Commission around the two key issues of recognition of the crimes and reconciliation.

The aim of the Hearing was to contribute to attaining a greater knowledge of these complex issues and to enable an exchange of views between independent experts, representatives of national institutes and NGOs dealing with these issues.

Member States, Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the Council of Europe were also present.

Agenda PDF File 47 KB

Results: Memo PDF File 13 KB Introductory Speech of:

Finnaly, if you think that the source is unreliable please take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well hello everyone! :) Mind if I join in? (rhetorical question) Its "Sir Floyd & Theirrulez forever" it seems. Lets clarify one thing from the outset - this is a highly controversial, extremely serious issue. Not exactly Dalmatian (dog), if you catch my drift. Sources are high-quality only as defined by WP:SOURCE. This means:
  • published (preferably by a peer-review university publishing house)
  • unbiased (that usually means NOT the poor-quality unprofessional dribble from ex-Yugoslavia)
  • scholarly (i.e. written by professionals in the field, historians, sociologists, etc.)
If there is any doubt whatsoever that a source is not neutral on this - its not for this article. These events are the subject of innumerable junk publications in ex-Yugoslavia each making extravagant claims one way or the other, and each contradicting the other. Each offering "the real truth" of these events - when in fact we're not even completely sure they took place. Finding bodies in a zone of Nazi mass killings and anti-resistance reprisals ("1,000 Slavs for each dead German"), for example, is hardly "damning" evidence.
If there is a scrap of information that is not sourced - it goes.
If the information is sourced - do not remove it (esp. without discussion).
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we discussing about reliability of sources from Higher Institutions of European Community? Anyone can tell me if we are doing that? I would have something better to do, so if someone can answer me... --Theirrulez (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Theirrulez, I simply pointed out that you introduced something (1481) that is absolutely unrelated to the recent edits to this article, and asked for this discussion to remain on topic, namely the recent edits to this article. If you feel that is rude, then I am sorry you feel that way.
Sir Floyd, you are editing this and other articles to say that the document prepared by the Slovenian Presidency was the work of the European Commission. Please desist, as this is untrue.
Moreover, in the additional links you have provided above, the Commission deals with the hearing with the utmost caution. Typical of this are the remarks by Jonathan Faull, who is very careful to distance the Commission from what he refers to as "your hearing" (not "our", you'll note). He says "The initial challenge for the Commission and the Slovenian presidency was to gather you all here with your different points of view... The full detail of your debates cannot be summed up here... The aim of this Hearing was to listen, and it is too soon for me now to make comments on the ideas and proposals that some of you have put forward today... To avoid any misunderstanding, it is important to remember that the European Union cannot replace Member States in this task. As Vice-President Jacques Barrot stressed this morning, the European Union has very few powers in this area. The role of the EU is to facilitate this process by encouraging discussion, fostering the sharing of experience and best practices, and bringing the various players together... Many of the initiatives presented today are beyond the EU’s powers" and so on and so on. This is very explicit, especially in terms of the language usually used by the Commission.
Nobody is questioning the reliability of these documents. This is a red herring. The point, as I am sure you are aware, is that they are not what you claim them to be. Please address this issue forthwith. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You said, in poor words, that the hearing has not usual reliability of EU institutions, because that time Slovenia held the presidency? It seems a complex syllogism.--Theirrulez (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Where did I say anything of the kind??? I'm mystified. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read and notice the word jointly.

(taken from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/events/events_2008_en.htm)

Red herring, just thought this image would be appropriate ;)
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

European Hearing: "Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes"

Sir Floyd, the point I am making is that there is a difference between the briefing document prepared by the Slovenian presidency and the hearing, organised by the Slovenian presidency and the Commission jointly (although the Commission representative Jonathan Faull was very careful to distance the Commission from the content). Now, will you address this simple point or not? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the document:

  • Reports and proceedings of the 8 April European public hearing on “Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes, organised by the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (January–June 2008) and the European Commission. Notice the word Report, It is on the document itself.
  • You should say it was published by: Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union & etc. Issue addressed.

My citation on the article: European Public Hearing on Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes, organised by theSlovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (January–June 2008) and the European Commission. (As per document). I'll check my other ones and if they are not per document, I'll change them. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you were right about one thing, I did shorten it to European Commission (because the whole thing is to long). I've made the corrections, thanks, I'm impressed. Anyway sincerely, if you think the Report is a unreliable source please take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sir Floyd (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My friend, I'm not saying the report is an unreliable source. I have never said that. The question I am raising (and I thought I had been abundantly clear about this) is that the hearing was organised jointly by the European Commission and the Slovenian Presidency. The report on the hearing containing the views of contributors was, however, nothing to do with the Commission. It was the work of the Presidency. In no way can the views expressed in the document be interpreted as being the views of the Commission. Moreover, Faull works very hard to make this abundantly clear. I believe your recent edits adding this source are unclear on this point. In my first post in this section I promised that I would not edit war to change your edits. I am sure we can find a form of wording that we can all be happy with. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-wording

According to the European Commission...... change to According to the Report organised by the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union "Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes"....... What do you thing AlasdairGreen27? Sir Floyd (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to discuss prior your edit

@AlasdairGreen27: Can you let me edit this article without every single contribution of mine being reverted by you? I just changed two lines to offer to the reader a bit less POV statements about chetniks collaborationism. I don't think it's necessary to provide too many sources for choosing a less pov text. I would remind you there is a mediation regarding Draza Mihailovich -and The Chetniks and Bleiburg massacre as strictly related articles- so will be appreciable an effort in pursuit a more neutral approach. Please stop your edit-war if you can. - Theirrulez (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Once a proposed change has been reverted, it is for the editor who wishes to make the proposed change to justify it via discussion on the talk page rather than starting an edit war. I hope this is abundantly clear to you, as it is abundantly clear in our policies.
Now, regarding your proposed changes. The "sources" you use and claim to be "reliable" express the contrary position to your POV. For example, Petacco says of those fleeing (p. 85)"They had fought alongside the Germans and committed every kind of horror. Now the bill was due, and they hoped to save themselves by seeking asylum under the Allies". Specifically regarding the Chetniks, Petacco says (pp. 85-86) "They included collaborationist Chetniks, semi-collaborationist Chetniks (those who had agreed to fight against the Communists but not against the Allies) and diehard Chetniks still loyal to King Peter II and General Mihailović. Weapons in hand, the Serbians fell on the first houses they saw, sacking them and attacking the defenceless citizens. Many women were raped, and panic spread throughout Gorizia". And so on. Rusinow says (p. 10) "Hence the Chetniks adopted a passive attitude against the occupiers, which they always considered temporary, and determined to destroy the Partisans in the meanwhile. The first of these policies took them out of the anti-Axis firing line and the second gave them and the occupiers a common interest. Together they constituted the slippery slope which led the Chetniks gradually, piecemeal and almost always reluctantly into de facto collaboration with first the Italians and then the Germans against the Partisans.... Chetnik collaboration with the Axis further eroded their domestic support and, when it became known abroad, deprived them of that of the Allies". Now, Theirrulez, that you choose to start an edit war is bad enough. That you do so when you are - or should be, as I pointed it out to you - fully aware that your sources say the precise opposite to your personal POV is a disgrace. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As per policies you posted nobody can't own an article. And I didn't see anybody reverting my small modifications but you. I also remind you, that I asked for a comment in the Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic (see the diff) in which you are involved and from which I got a clear answer by some aother involved users [3], and by the moderator Admin who stated, after your usual request for sources, that it seems problematic to simply label someone as collaborator given that the collaboration was complex, sporadic and changeable [4]. Reminded it, I would note I post an explicit but reasonable request to you to let me improve the article despite your opposite view of the subject.
Regarding the surces added they fit perfectly what I modified. I demonstrated that even the most partizan and biased sources like Rusinow's don't give them the false label of collaboarationist without explain a deeper definition of what they was for real. You can't call the Chetniks a collaborationist movement. It's a tendentious statement. The Chetniks were firstly a royalist anti-communist force, fighting either against communist partizan and against Axis occupiers. Then in some fuzzy occasions it seems they prefer to wait or not to oppose Axis initiatives in order to gain advantage on the communists partizan.
All this explanations to let me do little changes in two lines of the article.. Are we sure is this the right way? - Theirrulez (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If you like I can revert you too?
  • 1) One (1) person reverting you is more than enough, and anyway you need to actually start edit-warring before more people can revert you.
  • 2) It also does not matter if you call your buddies in and they restore your edit as well, that's called WP:MEAT.
  • 3) And NO, we are not supposed to discuss prior to reverting you, its actually you who needs to start a discussion. Not only are you usually required to do so when you're reverted, you are often on some articles actually required to discuss an edit prior to inserting it. These articles have the {{Controversial}} tag. If you read it very very carefully, you'll notice it states "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them".
For the record, not only do you never EVER do any of the above - you ALWAYS do exactly the opposite. Also, you do not know what WP:OWN means so do not run around accusing people they "OWN" articles just because you think they do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR if you want to revert my modifications feel free to do that, nihil novi sub sole. - Theirrulez (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear old Theirrulez, I'm so glad you've read my above post and have fully understood it. Further Italian nationalist POV-pushing that is opposite to the above Wiki guidelienes will be reported. As will your continued and incessant meatpuppeteering & canvassing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It's always nice to be threathen this way. Just a doubt: how can Italian nationalism be related to this article subject? It doesn't seem a very related issue.. - Theirrulez (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

masacre

there were 500 000 civilians and 150 000 soldiers who were executed-i'm not saying that, but english soldier, who was there when it happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.57.82 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd love to add that to the article. Do you have a reliable source? --mboverload@ 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think he is referring to the British author John Corsellis, who served in Austria with the British Army (Red Cross), he wrote a historic book of those events, called "Slovenia 1945: Memories of Death and Survival after World War II".Link. The book was co-written with Marcus Ferrar who is a former Reuters correspondent. Marcus reported from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Sir Floyd (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Greater number of victims

there were 500 000 civilians and 150 000 soldiers who were executed-i'm not saying that, but english soldier, who was there when it happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.57.82 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd love to add that to the article. Do you have a reliable source? --mboverload@ 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims was very great

„There were 500 000 civilians and 150 000 soldiers who were executed, ", said one English soldier. (unsigned comment added by 93.143.57.82 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is right number, because nearly all profugees from teritory of Yugoslavia flied on West through Slovenia. If only in Slovenia were discovered victims over 100.000, was number of victims in whole Yugoslavia maybe twice or three times greater. (We think here only on victims owing to Bleiburg's extradition. In mass graves in Slovenia are discovered until 2009 over 100.000 victims from that period. Maybe was the number of extraded refugees (civilists and soldiers) between 300.000 and 700.000 men. In Slovenia are found mass graves on many locations: Teharje, Kočevski Rog, Huda jama (the newest) and many other locations yet. --Stebunik (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't: get a published scholarly reference pls (preferrably not from ex-Yugoslavia to avoid ethnic bias). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Much as it may disturb your narrative of victimhood, the majority of refugees from Croatia took the shorter, more logical route to Italy, and were accepted quietly by the Allies (soldiers from New Zealand, as I understand things) north of Trst. The main Ustaše phalanx left Zagreb on May 5 1945 and headed north through Slovenia. Nobody knows why they went north rather than west. Either way, they were heavily armed, sufficiently so to fight off and repel attacks by the victorious (and frankly bloodthirsty) Partisans all the way to Austria. The revisionist stuff about all these defenceless hundreds of thousands is wrong in terms of numbers and laughable in terms of composition. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
...and while I'm on, you can delete the nonsense you posted about mass graves in Slovenia. The number of bodies discovered in individual and mass graves that are linked to the killings in the late spring and summer of 1945 is under 2,500. How dare you diminish the historical record by throwing politically and nationalistically motivated lies around without a care for what is true and what is not. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well hy-dilly-ho Al, long time no read. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia the repository for nonsense? Why do we have to put up with posts and edits by every pro-Ustaše/Četnik nut in the world? Whoever conceived of this daft idea that a bunch of innocent sobbing victims could walk all the way from Zagreb to Bleiburg fighting the Partisans all the way? With what? Their tears? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. The silence from the Ustaše revisionists in response to my posts above demonstrates that it is game over. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not... necessarily, AP just got himself blocked for a week. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum gentlemen. As for your claim of 2500 dead, it is nothing short of ridiculous. At the Tezno site alone are located the remains of at least 10,000 people (conservatively). Even the Croatia president has accepted this. Is he an Ustaša revisionist? Of course we can't be 100% sure of these estimates unless we actually exhume the hundreds of mass graves in Slovenia, and the over thousand mass graves located all over the former Yugoslavia. With the Pahor government cutting off nearly all funding, this won't happen anytime soon (see: resealing of Barbara pit).--Thewanderer (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It will be very interesting to finally see actual evidence that the dead people in these graves were 1) actually killed in 1945 2) by Yugoslav troops, rather than earlier on by the Nazis, who, I believe, still do hold the record for mass reprisals and large-scale killings. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What is "nothing short of ridiculous" is all the wild speculation about the numbers of bodies claimed (or "estimated", as I believe is the most commonly used term) to be in these "hundreds" of mass graves. Thewanderer, I made no claim of 2,500 dead. If you read my post again, you will notice that it says, absolutely accurately, that "the number of bodies discovered in individual and mass graves that are linked to the killings in the late spring and summer of 1945 is under 2,500". This is incontrovertibly true. Regarding Tezno, what's this about "at the Tezno site alone are located the remains of at least 10,000 people (conservatively)". What's your evidence for this which you present as a statement of fact? The number of bodies discovered at Tezno is 1,179. These were discovered in 1999. No bodies were found during subsequent investigations which started in July 2007, something the media does not report as they are not supplied with the usual lurid press releases about it by Strovs, Dežman and Ferenc. Regarding Pahor, well, prior to him Janša was in charge for four years, for whom these matters were a much higher priority, but the number of actual graves discovered remained stubbornly low. We can suppose there are other sites yet to be discovered (everybody seems to agree on this point), and Prevalje is one such example of this. But playing guessing games about how many there are and how many bodies they may contain is unhelpful and always politically motivated. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We have fairly good estimates for the number of Jews killed in Eastern Europe, Serbs killed at Jasenovac, etc. despite these groups not being exhumed en masse. Why is a different standard used for another set of victims? I can produce dozens of local and regional lists attesting to the scope of people killed in Slovenia and in northern Croatia in 1945. Up to now no one has really synthesized these individual lists into a cohesive national one. This should finally happen once the Croatian Institue of History publishes its findings into WWII casualties. Regardless, historical record does not require the exhumation of every single single body to tell us that those people were in fact killed.
What you also neglect to mention is quite telling. How were those 1179 bodies found? Like most of the sites discovered in recent years: by accident. A construction company attempts to dig up some new road, and oops, runs into a few hundred bodies. You haven't provided any reference about the 2007 search (hopefully you will), but again, such exhumations require a relatively large amount of resources (which Slovenian authorities have yet to allocate) and fairly large amounts of times (this is essentially the work of archaeologists at this point, not known for their especially easy or speedy work). My estimate at Tezno is conservative because most published works provide a lower bound of 15-18,000.--Thewanderer (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Serious historiography does not take much heed of Croatian-published Croatian research and its political nonsense. I think, wanderer, that you should heed yur own advice: this is not a forum. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm simply replying to the points you've both brought up. No foreign author has ever done any research into the South Slav peoples without relying heavily on local sources. Up to now, they've relied on socialist historiography from quasi-historians who've provided histories for their local Partisan units, etc. Now we have detailed independently written histories of casualties from both sides, and this has slowly been making its way into every decent piece of Western literature.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, acclaim in peer review outside of Croatia would naturally establish a reputation of a study and set it apart from the others. In other words, a Croatian author published by Oxford under peer review, for example, would certainly be viewed as reliable - but merely being cited in a non-local publication would not do much. (This is a criteria sometimes used even in such non-political fields as medicine, albeit unofficially.)
If an objective person were to be asked what country would be under the greatest threat of publishing biased treatments of this issue - the answer would invariably be "Croatia". We should keep faar away from local sources published locally: you yourself have just admitted to the history of low quality and unreliability local sources are known for. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

Editor DIREKTOR, in trying to enhance the article, has obviously inadvertantly deleted large parts of the existing text, references and sources. Edit reverted so that DIREKTOR can have another go at it.Oz Cro (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

New edits

The latest edits are rather suspect. For example, I know from other sources that the British forces on the ground did certainly not have any orders to allow Yugoslav or Soviet or any other nationals to escape into their occupied territory. Protecting hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals would be contrary to the Hague Conventions (and previous agreements among the Allies themselves) - and may well have started a war. Besides, it is highly unlikely British forces would ignore or forget an order from the Prime Minister.

I must remember to give this article a thorough look when I get back.

Furthermore, I would ask User:OzCro to avoid rewriting sourced sentences such as the one in the lead (not to mention replacing them with dubious info). You left the reference, but completely reworked the text which it supported. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Which bit?Oz Cro (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why, the one I altered in my last edit :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I felt that adding the sourced Churchill quote would merely produce a compound sentence that would enhance the existing sourced Tito quote. My understanding is that both the new and original references remained attached to the subsequent compound sentence:) Oz Cro (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Tolstoy's 'impartial' evidence" is only criticized, and not at all actually presented

Obviously totally one-sided (negative) treatment of this author and his work here. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, saying there was no massacre at all is just very inhonest in the light of the recent mass grave exhumations. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a lot more complicated than that. Just for example, Partisans were slaughtered and buried all over Slovenia in 1943 in massive German reprisals. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And your source for the recently exhumed graves to contain the Partisan corpses? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the corpses are generally not identified. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The point is that much of the article is spent quoting criticism of the book not even saying what is the title of this book, not to mention its actual thesis. I know what the book is (The Minister and the Massacres), but you wouln't learn from the article (even "Tolstoy" was not identified before I've linked him). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Care to write it up then? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't read this book. My problem is with the totally one-sided approach here (criticism ONLY). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, if you feel the approach is one-sided, add the other side. :)
But please remember: the text there is SOURCED. You have not shown any indication of bias as yet. Do not add tags without grounds. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How is putting only criticism of the unidentified claims from an unidentified book as a way to advance some position ("there was 'no massacre', lol") "not bias"? Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. How is only criticism of some viepoint represented by a book, without presenting this viewpoint at all or even telling the name of the book, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" in this context? Go on, enlighten me. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And The Minister and the Massacres was just my guess. I've got it googled out using the author's surname, the only hint in this "unbiased" section. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Look, I don't care what you think. Professional criticism in and of itself is not "POV". In order for it to be "POV", you must show that its BIASED criticism, or do I need to spell this out for you? Post an alternate view, other than your own, or stop edit-warring! Your disruption is spiralling into a serious matter.
The section is sourced entirely, it is by the very definition you posted above - NOT POV. NPOV is determined by sources, Mr. IP, not by your silly "conclusions" above. I humbly suggest you STOP with this abrasive attitude here and now. This, I assess, would be a good time to stop making this personal. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't call me silly. Are both points of view - the book and its criticism, "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - represented "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias" in the article? Y/N. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Also don't confuse WP:NPOV with WP:RS, and just don't write things like making this personal, like if I were attacking you, instead of discussing the obvious cherry-picking in the article no matter who did it, citing and explaining the basic policies to you, but trying to to achieve a progress with all the users here (and this means not only you, hello, it's not your private property or whatever). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not confusing anything. NPOV is based on sources. For example, you yourself have here asserted that the book is one view, while its criticism is another. This is your own opinion. As long as the text is sourced and sourced well it is not "POV". The section could certainly be expanded, granted, its missing info (I did not write it). However, the fact that its missing information does not automatically make all those sources and what they say "biased" in and of themselves, which seems to be your suggestion. Am I getting through? I can only repeat: add the missing information, instead of a tag that gives the appearance that the scholars and sources quoted in the section are biased.
I did not call you "silly". I called your conclusions "silly". That is mostly because you've done your best to antagonize me with your highly abrasive attitude. As I said, you are making this "personal" ("go on, enlighten me", etc.), to be frank that can't end well for you Mr. IP. I had already apologized for any past grievances. I hope you shall stop. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliability criteria for citable sources – are they consistent across the text?

A change that I recently made to this article was reverted, and filed under "Balkans political nonsense" by another editor. I added a quote by the history professor Jerca Vodušek Starič, taken from the document "Crimes commited by totalitarian regimes" (2008). There was debate on the talk page about whether this publication constitutes a reliable source or not. If I understood correctly, the consensus converged toward 'yes' as I see this document was ultimately cited among the sources in the article. If so, the whole article should be consistent with respect to how we treat this document – what would be the rationale behind allowing some parts of it to be cited, and others not?

Having strict criteria on what constitutes a reliable source is commendable, however being strict is not the same as being unrealistic. If, as editor @DIREKTOR suggested, we were to throw out each source written by anyone from ex-Yugoslavia and a priori assume they were politically motivated, wouldn't we have to exclude data of Hrženjak and Žerjavić? Not to mention Brajović, for whose claims one could reasonably expect to be heavily biased; after all, he was an officer in the offending army.

In conclusion, if there is a good reason why the quotation from the scholarly work of Vodušek Starič on the number of Bleiburg victims should not be allowed, please elaborate. Many thanks. Jiqinum (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I dare say Balkans are usually treated as something of a "special case" with regard to teh reliability of sources. The additional criteria is applied to the place of publication, not the author's home country or ethnicity. Sources published locally, though "scholarly", are somethimes rejected as the Balkans are teeming with political and nationalist publications without any real academic value (e.g. all Serbian scholars will say one thing, all Bosniak scholars will say the exact opposite, etc.). With this in mind what I would like to ask you is the following:
  • Has your source been originally published in ex-Yugoslavia?
  • If so, has it been published anywhere else?
  • Has it been reviewed by the scientific community, and can you post some reviews?
In any case, we shall have to be careful not to introduce these figures as the "one accurate one" among the listed estimates. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason why numbers claimed by a professional historian published in a publication sponsored by the Slovenian government and supported by the European Union and European Commission (here's the link to the complete publication in pdf) would qualify as "Balkan nonsense". Actually the only argument against it is Direktor's prejudice against locally published sources. I reverted the removal of that particular citation and unless you can find someone (preferably a professional historian) discrediting the veracity of that particular document OR the credibility of Jerca Vodušek Starič it stays in the article. Timbouctou (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just to do the same, but my revert possibilities had been restricted by now (because of direktor, who else). This was another incredible case of direktors blind reverting (by "blind" I mean he even didn´t checked the source, or he just don´t care), with additional prejurative edit summary (!) FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
@Fkp. You were restricted because of your edit-warring, I can't make you break 3RR, you can only od so yourself. Its good to see your apologetic denial of crimes perpetrated by persons of Serbian ethnicity is restricted only to the Chetniks.
@Tim. I was not aware of the EU support, and that is basically what all I wanted to see - outside recognition. I am indeed prejudiced against local sources, and any Wikipedian worth his salt will take with great care anything published around here. Communist propaganda, and later war propaganda, have done a good job towards discrediting our esteemed experts through mutual contradiction in virtually every controversial subject. Would you take a Yugoslav-era publication as a reliable source on this issue? In effect, there are now two or three seperate contradictory histories existing simultaneously in the Balkans. Most of what one publishes on a difficult subject is likely to be contradicted by the other. You know this, Timbouctou.
@Jiqinum, the formulation of my edit summary was rash and uncalled-for, had a rough day :), please accept my apologies. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. "Any Wikipedian worth his salt" will look at a source before dismissing it. You - by your own admission - called it "nonsense" without bothering to check where and when and by whom it was published (and it all says on the front page had you bothered to Google it, plus it was referenced). I call that sloppy at the very least.
  • 2. We have a policy for dealing with contradicting reliable sources - it's called WP:DUE. It says that "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" are to be given space in the article "in proportion to the prominence" of their viewpoints. So even if we knew the figures in any source about Bleiburg were off (which we can't possibly know anyway) we are not supposed to automatically reject the source in question if it represents a significant viewpoint (in this particular case the differing histories told by historians all over the region do represent "significant viewpoints"). In fact, we are actually supposed to include it and we are actually obliged to do so per WP policy. Timbouctou (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Timbu, but this is just too much to be left just like that. @DIREKTOR, as much as I struggle to understand what anything you said to me in your previous comment has to do with the issue here, would you please be kind to present evidence of my suposed "apologetic denial of crimes perpetrated by persons of Serbian ethnicity"? Bear in mind that asking for sources or evidence is not denial, however, I challenge you to present even 1 diff where I alegedly did that. Please, otherwise you should remove your serios (offensive) statement about me. FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've admitted I was wrong, you were right, I was rash, rude and out of line. The text is in the article, I am fully in agreement with that, if someone removed it, I would restore it. Now, lets all now take Timbouctou's advice and stop beating the hell out of this poor deceased horse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article, the attack you made against me, or both? FkpCascais (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Background

This section looks like WP:COATRACK. What has Jasenovac got to do with Bleiburg? The section would give an overview of the historical context, but all it does is contain two large chunks of (unreferenced) quotes from a German commander speaking of the murderous nature of the Ustaše regime. It's as if the Bombing of Dresden contained a section talking about Auschwitz, illustrated by someone's contemporary remarks how Nazis are psychopaths. What has that got to do with the topic of the article? The only way this could be in there is if somebody claimed that Bleiburg was some kind of retribution for Jasenovac. Did somebody claim that? Timbouctou (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(WP:COATRACK simply does not apply, this article overwhelmingly discusses the Bleiburg massacre directly.)
Historic context is absolutely paramount for these events. We simply must elaborate on the war in WWII Yugoslavia, and in doing so, we cannot really avoid the history of the NDH since it is the NDH troops that are the victims here. The section is not there to "balance out" any crimes, it is there to cover the context of events (i.e. WWII Yugoslavia). Dresden and Auschwitz, for example, do not have any direct links. On the other hand, had some of the prisoners in Auschwitz previously commited wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, that woud certainly warrant mention.
While I would oppose removing any data, I do grant, however, that the section should be expanded in order to provide a more rounded introduction into the historical context. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you imply that you have knowledge of individuals who had been involved with Jasenovac to have been killed at Bleiburg? Also, how does that reflect on the motives of the perpretrators? Did anyone from the partisan side ever say that Bleiburg was related with Jasenovac or that they were looking for people responsible for Jasenovac at Bleiburg? And I said the section reads like WP:COATRACK, not the article in its entirety. Also, on what grounds would you oppose the removal of unsourced direct quotes such as the ones by Horstenau? Timbouctou (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(I know, WP:COATRACK cannot apply to a section.) Lets keep the discussion focused: we need a background section, and it must cover the NDH.. I grant that the section focuses mainly on NDH crimes, but that should be altered by adding other aspects of the WWII Yugoslav context, not by removing the ones that are already there. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was the section looks like its only existence is to talk about something unrelated to the article topic. I don't care whether WP:COATRACK applies here - the fact of the matter is it purports there's a connection between two things which do not seem related to me (and I have yet to see a source contradicting my opinion). If you think the section needs to be expanded than please start expanding it. In the meantime - can you offer any sound reason against the removal of unreferenced direct quotes by Horstenau? Not only did Horstenau talk about something which may or may not be related to Bleiburg - but his statements also may have been made up for all we know. I tried filling in refs for those quotes but Googling for those exact quotes only yields forums and wiki mirrors. Oh and btw the absence of any mention of Simo Dubajić and his claims is concerning. Timbouctou (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
All of WWII Yugoslavia is related to the article topic - as the background. Quite strongly related, imho. As I said, the section covers only some aspects of the necessary background, thus potentially creating the subjective impression you describe. This should be amended, if you feel it necessary, by simply adding the other aspects of the background - certainly not by removing that which is already there. I would do it myself but I am busy enough as it is trying to make certain Chetnik ethnic cleansing is not white-washed over.
As for the quotes, I just noticed their reference is missing. Quite unbelievably someone removed the sources. I added them ages ago and I quite carefully listed the source. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of victims

If find the lead highly POV by not giving any estimate or mentioning the number of mass graves etc. The source cited for "unknown", while otherwise reliable, is from 1975, way before it was possible to accurately ascertain such events. Tito was still in office back then. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

2010 AP story reproduced in Jerusalem Post. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bleiburg_repatriations/Archive_2&oldid=1258061686"