Jump to content

Talk:Bleiburg repatriations/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Photograph used

For a photograph used in this article the location is questionable as in some of the books the location and explanation was not near the Jasenovac concentration camp.

Photo in question is [1], used in section Background [2]. In a book Prva godina narodno-oslobodilačkog rata na području Korduna, Gline, Like, Gorskog kotra, Pokuplja i Žumberka, Zbornik III, Historijski arhiv u Karlovcu, Karlovac, 1971., 736/737. Location for that photograph is said to be in Lika, 1942.

In a catalogue book Katalog izložbe: Jasenovac, sistem ustaških logora smrti - Jasenovac, autor izložbe i kataloga: Mladenko Kumović, Novi Sad, 1994., 29. The location is said to be East Herzegovina, Summer of 1941.

More explanation at pages 38.-40. in book Jasenovac Fotomonografija, Nataša Mataušić, Spomen područje Jasenovac, Zagreb, 2008. ISBN 978-953-99169-4-5--Rovoobo Talk 08:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You probably want to raise this problem at commons:File talk:Ustasamilitia.jpg instead. We can easily replace the image in this particular article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
OK.--Rovoobo Talk 09:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another one

Joy, the photograph you just put in the article is also questionable [3]. It is from May 1945 and the victims are citizens of Sisak. It is not known who killed them as both Ustase (on 6th May 1945) and Partizans (on 19th May 1945) blamed the other for killings. See above mentioned book Jasenovac Fotomonografija on pages 20-23. Article in Vjesnik. No. 25, of 19 May 1945, page 5, says: Pogreb žrtava ustaškog terora u Sisku. It is said that the victims are mostly Croats killed by Ustase before retreating form Sisak in the night between 4th and 5th of May 1945. Quote from the book:

"Iz navedenog članka saznajemo da su noću, četvrtoga na peti svibnja 1945, godine, pri povlačenju iz grada ustaše ubile između 350 i 400 osoba iz Siska i okolnih sela (radnika, namještenika, žena i djevojaka, te 19 dječaka u dobi od 10 do 14 godina), uglavnom Hrvata, te izvjestan broj domobrana iz protuavionske bitnice u Jasenovcu koji su ubijeni zato, jer su u Jasenovcu bili svjedoci neviđenih ustaških zločina, te nekoliko domobranskih mornaričkih oficira kao bojnik Franjo Novak, nadsatnik Franjo Čič... Posljednja grupa likvidiranih ostala je ležati na obali rijeke Save." (that in italic is from Vjesnik article).

Ustase said on 6th of May 1945 that partizans killed them on their way into Sisak. Quote from the book:

"Državna krugovalna postaja Zagreb izvijestila je 6. svibnja 1945. godine da su prigodom ulaska u Sisak partizani ubili oko 400 građana. Zbog svega navedenog pri razmatranju ovoga događaja treba biti krajnje oprezan, a o krivnji ove ili one strane moći će se sa sigurnošću tvrditi tek u slučaju da se pronađu čvrsti dokazi o počiniteljima."

--Rovoobo Talk 09:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please review all the images on Jasenovac concentration camp like this and spare us this back-and-forth in the future? :)
In addition, please re-post this at commons:File talk:Odkritje trupel.jpg and get that fixed over there.
Despite the confusion, I'm inclined to keep the image because it still illustrates the utter disregard for human life and the bitter fighting that still went on in May 1945.
I'm also disinclined to believe the generic NDH statement. Even if it we call it a case of victor's justice, the second statement still has much less credibility than the first one.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes of terminology in article from repatriations to massacre

User:Teodanov88 has changed the terminology "repatriations" to "massacre", and when reverted based on the consensus discussion on this talk page, Teodanov88 has restored their edits. The use of the term "repatriations" properly explains that no massacre occurred at Bleiburg itself, they occurred in Yugoslav territory after repatriation. This is why the article was moved to "repatriations" from "massacres", along with the usual arguemnst regarding WP:COMMONNAME. I am restoring the consensus by restoring the terminology to "repatriations". Please discuss here if you believe this consensus should be challenged. Thank you, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Tolstoy, please

Tolstoy cannot be accepted as a serious author. His book was classified as a defamation and a distortion of the history and banned in the Great Brittain. Tolstoy is not a historian.

For details, see

1. The Cost of a Reputation: Aldington Versus Tolstoy : the Causes, Course and Consequences of the Notorious Libel Case by Ian Mitchell, Edition 2, illustrated, reprint, Publisher Canongate Books, 1998

2. Investigative Reporting: A study in technique by David Spark, CRC Press, Nov 12, 2012

Nikolai Tolstoy argued for years that they were victims of a conspiracy involving Harold Macmillan, at the time British minister in the Mediterranean, and a young brigadier Toby Low (who became Lord Aldington). In 1989, Aldington was awarded 1.5 million in libel damages against Tolstoy.

3. A Looking-glass Tragedy: The Controversy Over the Repatriations from Austria in 1945 by Christopher Booker, Duckworth Publishers, 1997
This book content is summarized in a review saying

This book also tells the extraordinary story of how an exhaustive investigation into the events of 1945 finally revealed just how all those previously-published accounts had turned history upside down. What happened in Austria was tragic. But there was no conspiracy. Macmillan's role was irrelevant. Many "massacres" described in lurid detail never took place. As Booker describes how the story of the repatriations came to be presented in such a distorted fashion, his book turns into a study of people's willingness to cling on to a "make believe" version of history, even when all the facts have proved it wrong.

In the 12.Bleiburg: The Massacre That Never Was chapter Booker stated that Tolstoy's evidence for this massacre having taken place came from three 'eyewitnesses' whom he quoted at length from interviews conducted when he was writing forty years later. Further, Booker says that there is only nine official documents in the British Army archives none of them having any trace about possible massacres happened in Bleiburg or even deep inside the Yugoslav territory.

Bottom line, heavily discredited Tolstoy is not an author to be referenced. In the same line there are newspapers' articles, 'testimonies' producing the "make believe" version of history multiplying and repeating Tolstoy's distortions of the WWII history.

Keeping all these "make believe" versions only discredit the article. --96.255.39.69 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Which exact reference to Tolstoy do you think should be removed? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I see, independent on the original request, Tolstoy is disqualified legally and scholarly as an author. All his books are garbage and shall not be referenced in this article.--216.54.171.18 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, did you read the article to see where we reference Tolstoy, and if so, which of these are inappropriate and why? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again? Who is the person you are talking to? There are four places where 'we' (who are the 'we', may I ask you?) referenced Tolstoy, inappropriate for this author is not a historian and his books are garbage rejected by scholars.--216.54.171.18 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of people watchlist this article and have contributed to it. Clearly Tolstoy is going to be mentioned in this article, largely because of his book. An article on this subject would be incomplete without mentioning him. You need to specify what sentence it is that you object to. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an anonymous user has edited the parent post... in any case, all of this seems to be repeating things that are already documented in the article, which in turn links to the book article that has further details. I'm still not sure what exactly you want to be changed. Are you saying we should omit mentioning the entire Tolstoy controversy? It seems like something relevant to the story, particularly for British readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
My view is that the Tolstoy controversy it integral to this article and must remain. It is impossible to mention it yet not reference Tolstoy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

lead section use of the term murder

In the lead paragraph, the term "murdered" is NPOV, and may actually detract from the point that some wish to make, namely, that there were killings conducted outside any legal framework. We are speaking, to a large extent, about fascists and captured Axis troops, not about somebody getting randomly mugged in the street. We can simply say "killed", or, if this seems insufficiently judgemental, "extrajudicially executed".

"Murder" is a term with precise legal definitions, some of which (e.g. [[4]]) simply do not fit the deeds at hand. That said, I am not implying that what happened did or did not constitute murder (let alone that it was lawful); it is just that we should use neutral terms whenever possible. Feketekave (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, the two elements of the offence of murder are a guilty mind and a guilty act or omission (causing death intentionally or through reckless indifference). I assume no-one is suggesting they weren't killed intentionally. In any case, we would be calling it what the reliable published sources call it. Can you provide some reliable published sources that refer to them as "extra-judicial killings"? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The term "extrajudicial killing" is used in Wikipedia itself, in the Bleiburg article. The term "extrajudicial execution" is used in, for example, [[5]] to refer to similar and closely related events in Slovenia (which are clearly condemend in the source). No doubt it has been used for the specific event at hand as well; I am just providing what a quick google search provides immediately. Feketekave (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Using WP as a source is WP:CIRCULAR. If we look at a small sample of the academics, Ramet uses "slaughtered" and refers to them as "exterminations" and "massacres", Tomasevich uses "killings". My view is that Ramet's descriptions are unencyclopaedic, "killings" is NPOV and in accordance with WP policy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Very well; let us keep "killings". Shall we keep "exta-judicial" or not? Feketekave (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we'd need sources for that, Tomasevich doesn't call them "extra-judicial", it's a bit new-age and "weaselish" if you ask me. There is no rush, I think we should wait until Joy (and any other interested editors) chips in, to ensure we have a robust consensus. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this suggestion, other than to engage in whitewashing? What actual problem are you trying to solve? What actual English readers care about the intricacies of German law with respect to this article? This article describes mass, unlawful, intentional killing of people, and the subsequent controversy involving coverup by the perpetrators. That is called "mass murder" in plain English. Sidestepping such fairly simple and clear terms that unambiguously identify the topic of the article requires a modicum of reliable secondary sources expressly avoiding the use of such a term while explaining how they are doing so out of a desire for neutrality, not arbitrary assertions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW Tomasevich uses the terms massacred, destroyed, annihilation, mass terror, etc when describing these events. I'm not sure how any of these would be seen as more neutral than murder. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is one of neutrality. If a source uses non-neutral language, then that is indeed a reason not to use the same language as it does. I agree with Peacemaker67's suggestion ("killing"), though I would have nothing against adding that this was an action undertaken outside a judicial procedure. We are not talking about the death of random people walking down the street, but about the killing of individuals who, in many cases, could have been indicted within a legal framework, and were not. Feketekave (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the appropriate course of action would be an RfC to build a reasonably robust consensus. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Feketekave (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, there is talk in sources of summary trials being organized at this time, yet, executions carried out after such trials aren't the bulk of the topic of the article. Rather, it is the executions done in the death marches, with no attempt at putting anyone on any kind of a trial, as well as the subsequent coverup. The context is important, of course, and I'm sure the bulk of our readers will hardly shed a tear seeing that Ustaše militia was destroyed in these events, but the mass killing of likely thousands of other people whose status as war criminals was anything but certain - is still plain old mass murder. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That's an opinion, and I share the view that the killing of Ustashas was not a great loss to humanity, however, the decision about what wording should be used would be best resolved by an RfC, which will hopefully give us a broader consensus than the three of us are likely to achieve. Given Feketekave raised the issue, I suggest that Feketekave should lodge it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Joy in that the fact that there were deaths outside any sort of quasi-judicial framework is noteworthy - it is indeed what was very controversial for many; this is precisely what I was aiming at by "extra-judicial". Let us lodge an RfC, but perhaps we should first make sure that we actually disagree. Feketekave (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
So far as I am concerned they were "killings". If you have reliable sources for "extra-judicial", which is a weasel word IMO, and Joy and you agree. then fine. If you don't agree on wording, or there are not RS to support the proposed wording, then an RfC would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with just "killings". Feketekave (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

repatriations

Repatriations? What a pervously disgusting "euphemism" for slaughtering countless thousands of families. Still on war, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.177.58 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Leinz and Graz

These Cossack "repatriations" really have nothing to do with the Bleiburg repatriations, except that they occurred relatively close in time and geography, and I suppose under the same overarching attempt to restore the millions of displaced people.

It is important that the reader understands that these people were handed over to the Russians, not the partisans.

The Lienz repatriation was 2,479 soldiers, mainly officers. The Graz repatriation was larger, 40,000 Cossacks, at least a significant number civilian.

It is therefore not sensible to call the Lienz repatriation the "main" repatriation. It may be that it was more brutal, and it may be that the outcome for those handed over was worse (though Beria was fond of genocides). The word "main", however, is not apposite.

The Lienz repatriation is sufficiently well documented not to need a citation, though one would do no harm.

There was a comment asking how "they" got from Blieberg to Lienz, to Graz. I removed that comment. There are no assertions that anyone was present at any two of these events, let alone all three.

I hope this explains my edit here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

The Russians have nothing to do with the Bleiburg repatriations, except that they were also repatriations. They went from another country to another country (neither of which were Yugoslavia), and were subjected to entirely different arrangements when they were returned. I see no reason why WP should conflate the two, and it just serves to confuse and complicate an already complicated situation regarding Yugoslav repatriations. This just repeats the nonsense in Tolstoy's The Minister and the Massacres, which is utter nonsense, and has been widely reviewed as such. Tolstoy peddles nonsense that denies the reality that the leaders of these people chose their fate by allying themselves with Nazis in the forlorn hope that they could return to their homeland as victors. They committed horrendous atrocities as Nazi collaborators, and turned a blind eye to (or were complicit in) the atrocities committed by the Nazi's and their collaborators. They gambled and lost, and now they want pity? The real world doesn't work like that. Their treatment was genocidal, but their decisions and actions preceded the outcome. Their fantasies were forlorn. Very sad for many families, but their leaders made the decision to follow the Nazi's, and their families paid for it. No place in this article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
So you propose we remove the entire "Related repatriations" section? Or just the Cossacks? If the latter should it be placed in the "See also"? section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
The Lienz confusion was because that other article used to say something different - never mind that. But, overall, it's important that the reader understands, and what we have here doesn't actually help with that. I'm guessing the fate of the Cossacks is mentioned here because they were part of the outgoing columns. If they weren't, then you need to say so in the article. If they were, it's reasonable to explain what happened there, and it's unreasonable to claim that information on how a huge number of people materialized in places so far away is not something worth fixing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Operation Keelhaul in "terminology"

I didn't read Epstein's book but I don't understand why mentioning Keelhaul Operation, which happened in 1946 in Northern Italy...--Shivanarayana (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's tag it for verification. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it appears it was tagged {{failed verification}} in June 2012 - removed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Google Books preview indicates the book has a Bleiburg section pp. 73–98, and then a separate section on 'The American "Operation Keelhaul"'. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

'put the entire force at risk of death if captured'

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, the referenced source is linked and available online. Why did you not consult it? It says:

Sumanutost i sljepoća ustaškog režima možda je najbolje vidljiva iz odluke od 13. siječnja 1945. godine koju je potpisao sam Ante Pavelić. Tom odlukom se do tada razdvojene komponente - Ustaška vojnica, Domobranstvo i Hrvatsko oružništvo (ukupno oko 280 000 vojnika67) spojene u jedinstvene Hrvatske oružane snage-HOS. Tragičnost te odluke leži u činjenici da je dobro poznata praksa na jugoslavenskoj strani bila da se zarobljeni ustaše strijeljaju po samom činu njihova zarobljavanja dok se sa zarobljenim domobranima koji ne bi htjeli pristupiti u partizanske redove postupalo tako da bi ih se skinulo u donje rublje u znak poniženja i poslalo njihovim kućama. Tom je odlukom Pavelićev režim zapravo većinu zarobljenih domobrana osudio na smrt i time značajno pridonio razmjerima bleiburške tragedije.

Google Translate says:

"Delusion and blindness Ustasha regime was perhaps most evident in the decision of 13 January 1945, signed by himself Ante Pavelic. This decision by then separated components - Ustasha soldiers, Domobranstvo and Croatian Constabulary (a total of about 280,000 vojnika67) merged into the Croatian armed forces-VOC. Tragedy of this decision lies in the fact that the well-known practice in the Yugoslav side was to be captured Ustasha and fro through the very act of their capture until the captured Home Guard who would like to join the ranks of partisan treated so that they stripped to their underwear as a sign humiliation and sent to their homes. This decision Pavelic regime in fact most of the captured domobrana sentenced to death and thus contributed significantly to the extent of the Bleiburg tragedy."

Even if you just depend on the raw machine translation you can tell that there is no improper synthesis here - our article merely tempers the claim than the source makes in a way that makes it less contentious (the source uses the language "sentenced them to death" which seemed overly emotional to me). Neither the referenced source, nor the text of the article, actually say that "280,000 collaborationists were executed". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Fake battle of Zagreb

DELETE!

"In early May, Zagreb was defended by parts of the 1st Division of the Army of NDH and the 41st and 181st German Divisions, deployed along the unfinished fortified "Zvonimir line" between Sveti Ivan Žabno and Ivanić-Grad. The fierce battle with the 1st Army (of Socialist Yugoslavia) lasted from 5 May to 8 May. The 7 May was the single bloodiest day in the 1,240-day long history of the 1st Proletarian Brigade, with 158 killed and 358 wounded in the fighting for Vrbovec"

No, Zagreb was left undefended. Ustashi propaganda. As well as article doesn‚t clearly stated this was the last Axis column NOT to surrender and continue WWII (Lohr couldnt give command to Pavelic since there was no command - Denitz capitulated) Also, it doesn‚t cleary state Ustashe took civilians as kind of "human shield" - they evacuated the city and no, it was not a civilian flee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#Final_operations "On 7 May, Zagreb was evacuated, on 9 May"

In fact, Ustashe column was lucky not to be immidiately killed by British, since it was Axis armed force AFTER the end of war.

178.221.71.180 (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

recently removed content

A cursory Google search will allow readers to verify most of what User:Eldumpo and User:GiantSnowman had just removed. Just because someone happened to sprinkle inline citation tags over an article at some random point in time that doesn't actually mean anyone should follow up with an indiscriminate removal of information at some other random point in time, and then harp on it like a broken record, with no effort spent on actually improving the relevant aspects of the article.

Specifically:

The aftermath of the repatriations was a taboo topic in Yugoslavia, and the public and official commemoration of the victims, whose numbers remain unconfirmed and vary wildly depending on the ideology of the reviewer, would only begin several decades after the events.

This was an intro sentence. It's not contentious, and I have no idea why it would need a citation per WP:LEAD.

Petar Brajović, a Yugoslav general who participated in the battles around Bleiburg, claims in his book 'Konačno oslobođenje' ("Final Liberation") published in 1983, that the Ustaše did not suffer serious casualties during capture, adding that artillery was not used. The work affirms that a total of 16 Croatian soldiers were buried in the local cemetery.[dubious – discuss] It has been estimated that 30,000 soldiers (including 6,000 Chetniks) and 20,000 civilians were also captured by the Partisan 3rd Army.
Franjo Tuđman, who subsequently became the first President of Croatia, in his controversial 1989 book Horrors of War: Historical Reality and Philosophy, estimated the total number of killed (Ustasha, Chetniks and Slovene collaborationists) at between 35,000 and 40,000.

Because these sentences are mainly about published books, there are clues to verifiability within the text, so any claim that all of this is so unverifiable to be topic of summary removal is moot at best. We needed citations there in order to be sure we're talking about the right ISBNs and whatnot, and to make it simpler to check that the sources were not being egregiously misrepresented, sure. The single dubious tag could very well be a phrasing issue - it's possible this could be fixed simply by replacing the word "affirms" with "claims".

Whoever posted these tags failed to explain them. (At least I can't find any mention of Brajović, Tuđman, or taboo topic on this Talk page.) The removal of this information is unexplained. I am at a loss at why we're not having an actual informed discussion about any of this text, as opposed to this bureaucratic nonsense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If information is not directly cited it has the potential to be challenged/ removed, and an editor does not need to state why they are doing that (obviously 'sun in the sky' type comments should not be queried, but the text in question does certainly not fall into that category). One of the tags had been in place for more than 6 years. Eldumpo (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's that easy to verify, then please do so. Re-adding the unsourced content is not constructive. GiantSnowman 09:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Removing context because of some unexplained potential is not constructive.
Once again, the point of WP:V isn't to declare everything as "potentially challenged/removed", it's to declare everything unverifiable as such.
And what does 6 years really mean when we're talking about a book from 1983? The book was 27 years old at the time of tagging.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Change article name to "Bleiburg Massacre"

The term "Bleiburg Massacre" has far more google results than "Bleiburg Repatrations" (about 14,000, compared to about 2,000). It is the term used most commonly in publications. As such there is no reason why the name should not be changed. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

NO. Massacre is inherently a POV term, reserved for genuine massacres which are reliably sourced and don't range in number from 16 gunshots to 50,000 or more deaths, depending on bias of sources. Suggest IP editor (73.20.33.105) read this entire talk page. Quis separabit? 21:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh please. "16 gunshots"? How much more disingenuous could you be? The sources agree that at very least, 10,000 were killed. This certainly qualifies as a massacre. When the term "massacre" is used to describe these events 7 times as often as "repatriations", perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is Wikipedia with the biased point of view? But I know how things are at Wikipedia, it is rare to see change, the ideological directive remains the same. And the pride of the editors who invest emotionally in their viewpoints and refuse to yield an inch of ground, is a huge problem. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"The sources agree that at very least, 10,000 were killed" -- uh, no, they don't. The reference to "16 gunshots" was a reference to what an Ustase "courier" claimed he heard, and which is included in the article, if you bothered to read the article. I was not claiming only 16 died as a result of the repatriations -- "from 16 gunshots to 50,000 or more deaths, depending on the bias of sources" is what I wrote. The number and makeup of fatalities (i.e. civilians v belligerent) remain wildly disparate and contested. Perhaps we should refer to the Nuremberg massacre as well. (@73.20.33.105 –– interesting how you popped up with no other edits to your IP to make your first priority changing an article name, before making a other contributions.) It's legit, I guess, but a tad odd. Quis separabit? 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in Wikipedia editing for years. My IP address changes on its own so that is why I have no edits. I've dealt with your kind enough to know that this argument goes nowhere. You know what you implied with your first comment, and now you are implying that these Croatian soldiers and their families are politically comparable to the upper Nazi hierarchy. I will waste no more time arguing with that kind of foolishness. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda sensed your bias. As far as "Croatian soldiers and their families are politically comparable to the upper Nazi hierarchy", any Croatian "soldier" who was not a Partisan or serving the Allied forces in some way was an Axis operative, and, in this theater of the war, certainly the equivalent of a Nazi. That's an historical fact and geopolitical reality. If you can prove I am wrong, I will apologize. Quis separabit? 18:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This article's title is a bias parading as neutrality. Come on, now. What's the "cut-off" on counting as a massacre? Is anyone on Wikipedia going to edit the title of the Bangka Island massacre to something "NPOV" because it's 'only' about 80 deaths? 125.253.47.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Bleiburg repatriations/Archive 3#Requested move for the background on the current title. If you want to move this article, I suggest you start a new RM. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

NDH persecution of minorities

Why is it important to this event? Is it used as an excuse for this crime? Every country had nazi puppet goverment and persecuted minorities. Serb chetnics killed Croat and muslims in attempt to create Greater Serbia, and Partisans also committed crime during the war. So why are Croatians always depicted as monsters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.250.176 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@188.252.250.176: Because the slaughter of between 300,000 and 700,000 people, in league with Nazi Germany, and with the support and/or assistance of the Roman Catholic church, should be seen for what it was. You may be ignorant of it or want to forget it but that's no matter. You should contribute (if you don't already) to Stormfront, which has a large Croatian contingent. I was just visiting (without the need to register) and came across a user calling himself "Ustasha No 1"). I think you'd be more comfortable and accepted there. Quis separabit? 14:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bleiburg repatriations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bleiburg repatriations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bleiburg repatriations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Tomasevich quote and others

Tomasevich's quote in the article is cherry picked. For example, Tomasevich also wrote in his later book "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945" that "The annihilation of most quisling troops captured at the end of the war – which is a fact – was an act of mass terror and brutal political surgery, similar to that practiced by the Ustašas and the Chetniks earlier in the war." So which one should be in the article? One of them, both or none? I mostly tend to leave out such quotes from articles I edit. Tezwoo (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support removal of the quote - I think that Tomasevich's works are not exemptional sources because they are often biased toward pro-communist Yugoslav position and because they were authored by a person whose main field of expertise was the economics not history. Surely there are much better sources to be used than his biased outdated works. In this case, Tomasevich quote may mislead readers to believe that communist killed Ustaše, Chetniks and other groups immediately after WWII mainly as an act of revenge, on behalf of the victims. Nothing is further from the truth. The communists were always extremely pragmatic. They killed them because they saw them as an obstacle in their efforts to seize the control over Yugoslavia. Only the last part of Tomasevich quote present real motive for this massacre: "...the Ustaša leadership wanted to put its troops at the disposal of the Western Allies for possible use against Yugoslav and other Communists". If it is necessary to present some quote which would summarize the point, I propose to find some better source which further elaborates the real motive. The current quote should be removed.User:Antidiskriminator/signing template--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of the quote, and support inclusion of additional quote it is not "cherry-picked", it reflects an academic view about the effective inevitability of these killings given the circumstances. Quotes such as this help the reader to understand the context in which these killings occurred. I would support the inclusion of the additional quotation as well. The second quote actually says that these killings were an act of "brutal political surgery" which is essentially what Antid is saying when he says that they were obstacles to communist control. T just compares these killings with other killings carried out by others, which were also brutal political surgery to get rid of opponents, whether they were Serbs living in the NDH or Muslims in eastern Bosnia and the Sandzak. Also, it is not an exceptional claim, so it doesn't need an exceptional source. Mind you, T is an exceptional source given the reviews of his work. Antid's views on Tomasevich aren't based on scholarly reviews (which are positive), they are based on his demonstrated personal biases, and should be dismissed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Failure to gain wikipedia consensus: Tomašević refers to the communsts' mass killing of prisoners of war as an understandable and inevitable act of mass terror. He uses the phrase 'easy to understand' and 'understandable'. (diff). Peacemaker67 failed to gain wikipedia consensus for this kind of (I think disguisting) justification of mass killings (diff) what makes any act of terror "understandable"? and to whom? too reliant on Tomasevich's opinions. Multiple editors object relying on Tomasevich's opinions.
    • Not an academic view: There is, of course, no prevailing academic view that mass murder of prisoners of war (and civilians that accompanied them) is easy to understand, understandable and inevitable. I am against misusing wikipedia in the 21st century to present this kind of disgusting justification of mass murders committed by communist as an academic view. The academic view is of course incorporated in international conventions. None of them justifies mass murders.
    • Personal biases: I think that it is quite clear whose personal biases are problem here. Not mine. Tomasevic's opinion based on his demonstrated personal biases should be indeed dismissed. His POV is refuted by consensus of mankind about the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war reached decades earlier in Hague and Geneva.
    • Exceptional: The notion that implies that communist mass murders of prisoners of war (and civilians that accompanied them) is understandable, inevitable and easy to understand is no doubt exceptional one and can not be cited by Tomasevic. I think that it requires not only multiple exceptional sources (I doubt there is any of such) but also a wider community consensus reached at wikipedia. Only then this quote of Tomasevic should be restored to the article. Until then it should be removed.
    • This is the last comment I will write in this discussion. I think I gave fairly clear explanation about my closing statement here and I don't have anything else to add to it. Everybody are of course free to disagree, but I don't think anybody can expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this as long as they are dissatisfied with my closing statement. All the best.User:Antidiskriminator/signing template 2/2 comments--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
      • So now you present a "closing statement"? Sheesh. You have completely failed to read the meaning of Tomasevich's observation in its context. It may be that English not being your first language places you at a disadvantage with comprehending sources in English, because otherwise you just appear to be being obtuse. You are conflating Tomasevich's observations about the inevitability of the "brutal political surgery" of these massacres with him condoning or excusing them. Nowhere does he do that, or even imply it, and it is a complete misrepresentation of him to suggest it as you do above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of the quote, and support inclusion of additional quote, nothing more to add on what Peacemaker67 already said. As written in a book I have read some years ago, there would be no Bleiburg if there was no Jasenovac, one is the reason or the cause to the other.--Tuvixer (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of the quote, and support inclusion of additional quote I agree with PM67 and Tuvixer. Nothing more to add. 23 editor (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bleiburg_repatriations/Archive_4&oldid=1136569014"