Jump to content

Talk:Independent State of Croatia/Archive 6

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

Pic of legionnaires

The pic of the 'legionnaires' is dubious, as the men in the foreground appear to be wearing the Albanian plisi hat. It seems unlikely that there were Albanians in the 'legionnaire' divisions or that they would have been permitted to wear non-Wehrmacht headgear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the Luftwaffe officers cap and has absolutely nothing to do with anything Albanian. More images of the legionnaires can be seen here. This can be easily verified by searching any of the multitude of websites and publications devoted to German WWII militaria. I'm not an expert, but it appears that the three men with silver piping on their caps are officers while the man on the right is an NCO.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not talking about the aircrew. I'm talking about the blokes with the machineguns over their shoulders.Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see. Forgive my confusion, that photo is actually from Bosnia so the soldiers aren't "legionnaires" in any sense (Bundesarchiv image descriptions have to be treated with a grain of salt). Judging from the period (sometime in the winter of 1943-44, it is likely the 13th Handžar division and those men are the Albanian recruits present in the division before their transfer to the 21st Skanderbeg division.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you're probably right. If this was a German unit, the Albanians should be fully equipped. I guess the most likely explanation is that they're collaborating Balli Kombëtar forces. The huge inaccuracy in the image description is somewhat bizarre though.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking Balli Kombetar myself. Very unlikely they were I/28 SS Handschar, mainly because of the lack of clear SS insignia and proper German equipment. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense about chetnik and ustashe colaboration!

Ustashe murdered over 700,000 Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and others but main number of these were Serbs during 1941-1945. It is monstrous to say that Cheniks collaborated in any extent with the NDH. Please keep in mind that chetnik formations were Serbs. So its ludicrous to say that chetniks collaborated with regime which murdered over 700,000 Serbs in Jasenovac concetration camp. Chetniks did have some agreements with italians regarding fighting ustashe and preventing futher ustashe slaughter of Serbian population. This information about collaboration is inaccurate communist propaganda which was aimed to discredit chetnik movement and put them in the same box with beastial croatian ustashe. During 41'-45 sources claim that more then 1,200.200 Serbs were killed in Croatia, Bosnia and in parts of occupied Serbia.

Please be aware that Chetnik movement is hailed to be one of the first guerilla anti-nazi organisations during world war 2. Chetnik general Draza Mihailovic has been awarded a Legion of Merit from the Congress of United States for his contribution against nazi Germany and saving of over 500 american pilots shot down by german forces. Wikipedia will lose prestige, if everyone can contribute inaccurate information, and lately i find alot of inaccuracies, even lies written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

so you say. This is an encyclopedia so bring your sources and we will discuss.Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A great example of the sort of propaganda that runs rampant in Serbia. One will rarely find beliefs so widespread that are so far from the facts as in the myths about the "noble" Chetnik movement. These sort of deep-rooted perceptions about the "brave national heroes" are very hard to dispel with sources.
Portions of the Chetnik movement that came into contact with the Ustase authorities did collaborate with them. The facts about this "collaboration between collaborators" are known to the very finest details. The Chetnik movement collaborated to varying degrees with virtually every Axis authority in occupied Yugoslavia, NDH included. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:JosipBrozTitoandGenKochaPopovitch.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JosipBrozTitoandGenKochaPopovitch.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JosipBrozTitoandGenKochaPopovitch.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New name

Can we name it: Kingdom of Croatia (1941-1945)? My reasons:

--Luis Molnar (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It was only a monarchy until the Italians capitulated in 1943 and its name as used by the governing body was the NDH. The titular 'King' never set foot on Croatian soil. WP:COMMONNAME applies here, as does WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Its debatable whether he really was even the titular king. According to some sources, he refused the title after the annexation of Dalmatia, and actually swore before his men never to assume the crown. -- Director (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the page back to "Independent State of Croatia" and nominated "Kingdom of Croatia (1991-1995)" for speed deletion, while there may be some controversy over the name at the moment given how wrong Luis Molnar (talk · contribs) got the dates I hope we can all agree the deletion is uncontroversial. --Thefrood (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed. And "Kingdom of Croatia (1941-1945)" would be no less ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I too think it would be better if the article name stayed as "Independent State of Croatia", as this leaves the exact form of Government and how it evolved open to explanation in the article. --Thefrood (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Replying to the OP - no, no, no, and irrelevant. Please do actually read some of these articles - the state's monarchical status was pathetic at best, and the modern-day constitution says exactly the opposite of what you said. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you seem to have a history in these botched renames - in July last year you moved the Serbian WWII article to "Serbian State" [1], which was summarily undone as well. Please, in the future, do think twice before causing more work for others. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Regarding the proposed merger of Italian occupation zone of the Independent State of Croatia and German occupation zone of the Independent State of Croatia - I support such a move completely. There's a bare-bones section in this article and the two separate articles are just stubs. If and when there's sufficient notable material to develop the articles that's fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the merger, after all, it wasn't an occupation zone, but only zone of influence, it's a big difference. --Wustenfuchs 01:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with that assertion, but we don't have to have that discussion now, we can do it after the merge. Strongly support. BTW, I think we could go ahead on this as it appears we are in fierce agreement about it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I supose we can move on with the merger... and Peacemaker, if you speak about my assertion, in Croatian literature only zone of influence are mentioned, no occupation zone, as ISC wasn't occupied territory, rather an, de iure, independent state. --Wustenfuchs 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We'll need to compare sources on that, I haven't had a chance to look at it as yet, but I will get to it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't rm sourced material please! Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but I think we shouldn't include Cohen as he didn't even delt with the administrative division of the ISC, but some Jews as I recall and mentioned those zones as occupational without explanation. --Wustenfuchs 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthem?

Was there an anthem? -- Director (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was 'Lijepa nasha domovino' but not officially promulgated as such. I might have a ref to it somewhere. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
G'day Wustenfuchs, do you have a ref for the anthem? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't saw your reply earlier. Yes, I have a source: Šuvar, Stipe. Svi naši nacionalizmi [All of Our Nationalisms]. Milić-Rakić, 1986. "Za neke je hrvatska himna „Lijepa naša domovino" sumnjiva, jer im miriše na hrvatski nacionalizam, a opet drugi su nesretni ako se ona ne pjeva. I s tim treba računati. Bila je himna i u tzv. NDH... [It was a hymn in the NDH...]" (p. 35) --Wustenfuchs 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Orange was the color of ceremonial uniform of the Military Police of the Independent State of Croatia

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "The orange combines the energy of red and happiness of yellow. Is associated with joy, sunshine and warmth. Orange represents enthusiasm, fascination, happiness, creativity, determination, attraction, success, encouragement and stimulation. Orange is the hot color, so it gives the sensation of heat, but despite this, it is not as aggressive as red. Increases oxygen supply to the brain, produces an invigorating effect, and stimulates mental activity. It is very popular among young people, effective in raising mental capacity as it stimulates conversation and creativity. "Source: Croatian daily Glas Slavonia, Osijek. Orange is the official color, was the dress uniform of the Military Police of the Independent State of Croatia, which is worn only on Sundays to go to Mass or for the State holidays. 78.2.73.149 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Culture section

The Culture section is currently a coatrack for a whole range of things, including education, the Croatian Red Cross, the Geneva Conventions, holidays (including religious ones), workers housing (although this is perhaps meant to represent architecture), as well as the media and sport. I suggest a look at Nazi Germany#Culture and that this section be trimmed, and the Red Cross info be moved to the Foreign relations subsection of the Politics section, where the Geneva Conventions are already mentioned. I don't really understand why the religious holidays are even there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation of NDH in various languages

Why is necessary to include Italian and German? See the Soviet Union as an example. And second, why should we use SC insted of Croatian? --Wüstenfuchs 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I find the translations in Italian and German unremarkable. The NDH was a creation of the Germans, and was occupied by both countries. I'll leave Director to respond re hr vs sc. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but why is that matter? NDH's position towards other countries is insignificant regarding the translation. --Wüstenfuchs 20:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Once again, it just reflects the political reality, I fail to see why including those translations would be controversial. It underlines the nature of the state. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets not get into just how completely this state was controlled by the Germans (in their half) and Italians (in theirs). This was a German puppet state and an Italian protectorate, it even had an Italian "king" (sort of). The addition of these languages is relevant in view of the fact that the state was an extension of these two states. And Serbo-Croatian is there because there were a whole lot of non-Croats living there. -- Director (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were, but that isn't the point... take Estonia for example. Also consider the new grammar implemented in 1941. --Wüstenfuchs 05:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that the official language of the NDH was Croatian, however that is a separate isue from what language tag we use in the text, especially in the lead. The sh tag seems most appropriate there. But that aside, do you accept the argument regarding the German and Italian? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes. But let us go back to the SC. It's not more appropriate. It's not just about this language being official, every signle document was writen in Croatian, people learned Croatian in schools etc. No matter were those Serbs, Germans or Hungarians, they were all citizens of the NDH, except the Jews. Also, it's about part of Croatian history. Serbs or Bosniaks don't pay much attention to the NDH in schoolbooks etc. And if we go by what language people speak then we should use Serbian and Croatian etc, even though Croatian only should be used. --Wüstenfuchs 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
What absolute nonsense. It's honestly difficult to believe someone would write a comment like that. Are we supposed to bow to the Croatian fascist policies that were present at the time? ...or accept the ridiculous notion that this part of history is exclusive to only Croats and that it is not in the interest of non-Croat pupils of former Yugoslavia? Again what rubbish. Articles like Brazil have "Portuguese" in the lead not "Brazilian Portuguese" likewise Mexico does not have "Mexican Spanish" in its lead, but rather "Spanish". The reliable sources of linguists are clear on the language matter there as they are here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not nonsense. You know well the problem with SC. It's not like British or American English, the things are more complicated then that. Still, see Estonia and the Soviet Union as an example. And yes, don't label other people and their edits as fascist... you, PRODUCER, won't accept fascist policy by any means while writing on Wikipedia, what are we talking about here? I believe that majority of people that lived in the NDH speaks either Croatian or Serbian, adding SC is rather a political move. --Wüstenfuchs 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances did I call any editor or their contributions fascist. You brought up its officiality as an argument and I simply recalled that policies in place at the time were based on Croatian fascism which is factually correct. My justification on Serbo-Croatian is on linguistic lines. On the other hand the addition of Croatian and indeed its supposed existence is purely political. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not political... who lived on the territory of the NDH, Croats and Serbs. Those two speak Croatian and Serbian not Serbo-Croatian, this represents a problem. Adding SC is actually political. Besides officiality, Croatian was used on its whole territory, in schools, courts, hospitals etc. No matter if NDH's regime was fascist or communist, Wikipedia is about facts. Internationally recognised or not, the state, de facto, existed and used Croatian language, widely. Once again I'll mention that none of those people that lived on the territory of the NDH speaks Serbo-Croatian. I know what lingustis say, and the thing is it's disputed and highly controversial. --Wüstenfuchs 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Wustenfuchs, I understand your point of view, and it is this view that actually kept me from realizing this is the most logical language entry.
1. The lead language entries include relevant modern-day languages, whereas the historical native official name is in the infobox.
2. As this state included vast numbers of Bosniaks and Serbs, it concerns Bosniak and Serbian history as well. hence we would need to list the Serbian and Bosnian languages.
3. Wherever its necessary to list all three standards of the Serbo-Croatian language, its logical simply to include the Serbo-Croatian language as such.
4. Finally, this state was an extension of the German and Italian states. It was a protectorate of Italy (like Albania, for example), and a puppet state of Germany. As such it is relevant to include the languages of the puppet-master states as well, thsi state being a part of their history as well.
At the risk of repeating what has been said about a thousand times on the relevant talkpages: there is no dispute whatsoever among linguists and the scientific community in general regarding the fact that Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are registered standards of a single language. This view (as far as the Croatian language is concerned) is only "controversial" in Croatia. -- Director (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
And yet DIREKTOR, you have a problem there. Bosniaks speak Bosnian/Bosniak language, in which we have a wrong translation. It's Nezavisna država Hrvatska, only "nezavisna" and "Hrvatska" use capital letters. It's the reason why I brought up 1941 grammar etc. --Wüstenfuchs 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you are alone on this one, Wustenfuchs. Language templates on these articles are a constant irritation and it would be must better if everyone agreed to a neutral position on them and kept the national variety for the info box. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
We can use standard Serbo-Croatian capitalization, Wustenfuchs. Bosnian (like Croatian and Serbian) isn't really a language as such, and does not require a separate entry next to Serbo-Croatian. -- Director (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Problems I see here:
  • (1)The state did not use Cyrillic text.
  • (2) "Serbo-Croatian" as a title of the language did not exist then, the language from 1918 to 1929 was referred to as "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" and after 1929 "Yugoslavian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the title adopted during Tito-era Yugoslavia. Furthermore the state was led by a Croatian ultra-nationalist, anti-Yugoslav, and anti-Serb movement, so why would the language authorized in its territory be referred to using either the existing Yugoslavian-originated terms "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" or "Yugoslavian"?
  • (3) the use of the languages of German or Italian are dubious. If and only if through Italy's protectorate agreement with Croatia that involved an official Italian king ruling Croatia and through the agreement's statements of cultural and economic connection between Italy and Croatia, can it be considered that the Italian language would be a language admissible in the state, due to Croatia being de jure identified as within the sphere of the Italian Empire. Outside of that, there would not be justification, as the government of the NDH wrote its documents in Latin Croatian/Serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian/whatever you want to call it.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit and reversion regarding Cyrillic text

User:TRAJAN117 has made what I consider a controversial edit, mainly around the use of Cyrillic in the infobox for the native name, changing the nature of the government in the infobox, removing the Lutheran Church and Islam from the religion field and translation of the anthem into Cyrillic. TRAJAN117 has also changed the link for the field "Prime Ministers" from List of leaders of Independent State of Croatia to Prime Minister of Croatia, effectively equating the NDH with the current state of Croatia. I reverted this edit on the basis of good faith, and asked that TRAJAN117 bring these matters to talk. He did not do this, but instead reverted my reversion. Given that the use of Cyrillic was in fact banned in the NDH, and that Volksdeutsche and Muslims continued to practice their religions undisturbed, I am beginning to suspect that TRAJAN117 has a particular POV to push here. This is reinforced by the link change to the current Prime Minister of Croatia article. I am reverting TRAJAN117's edits on the basis of the above discussion, which TRAJAN117 should himself have initiated per WP:BRD and my message on his talkpage here [2], which he immediately deleted. Please engage in discussion here without reverting. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aimone initially rejected the crown over Dalmatia, but he later accepted when pressured by Italy's King Victor Emmanuel III but never moved to Croatia to rule

I am adjusting the intro because it is missing the fact that in spite of Aimone's initial rejection of the crown, Aimone did accept the crown after Italy's King Victor Emmanuel III pressured him to do so, but never moved to Croatia to rule. Thus he did legally accept the position, but he never took up residence in Croatia to actually exercise it. The source for this is the following: reference #45 of Fascism's European Empire: Italian Occupation during the Second World War by Davide Rodogno.--R-41 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Bosniaks

NDH regime targeted Bosniaks? Citation? That's completely wrong - Bosniaks were considered as Muslim Croats and held important positions in NDH government, army and ustasha military. Check out Croatian subarticle on NDH relations towards Bosniaks (named like that in 1993). --Povjesnicar (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Italy

Also small part of todays Italy was part of NDH (f.e. Trieste was in NDH as Trst) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.180.227 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Word "poglavnik"

Word "poglavnik" was NOT coined by Ustaše. It was recorded in 19th century (maybe even earlier) in similar meanings (chief, leader, headman...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.250.17 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Influence of Nazi Germany - false data

In this paragraph you have two german sources which are labeled "citation needed". How does someone know exact citation from report, but doesn't know where he/she took it from? It more looks like quote from some Serbian or Yugoslavian book, than real report.

Gestapo report, even if exists, probably is not true. Evidence, testimonies, and documents revealed and published in last two decades show that Ustaše regime punished so called "wild ustashe" for crimes against orthodox. They were called "wild ustashe" (translated from croatian), and Ustashe Government had no control over them. In this 1999 documentary made by Croatian Radiotelevision (HRT), about events in small place called Srb, and massacre over Croats, including frying catholic priest like a pig on a stick, a document (serbian propaganda) is shown at 16:48 (youtube video). It is in latin, written by Serbs. It says that Croats have tortured and brutally killed 382.000 Serbs. That propaganda material is very simmilar to Gestapo report. But reality is that after the war, no one ever brings that up. They bring up 700.000 victims in Jasenovac, some of them went even to 1.400.000... Now number of victims is ESTIMATED to 70.000, but in reality only a little bit over 400 skeletons were found. So we in Croatia have two major sources of documents. One is Serbian and communist propaganda that justifies slaughter they made, and the other is documents and testemonies that show otherwise. However, many documents from Independent State of Croatia were taken to Belgrade, and are still there. (Neither of those sources denied crimes, but they vary in numbers). Reality is also that Croats didn't have such army or weapons to carry out execution of 300.000 people in such short time. And if Croats were able to do that, there would be no more Serbs left. Demographic research also show that this was impossible. Enemy (Serbs) were well armed and their massacres in 1941 unstoppable. Only crimes that can reach hundreds of thousands were those made by joined foreces of Yugoslav partisans, serbian chetniks (many joined partisan movement), ordered by communists. It took them more than one month of exterminations when the war ended. So how did Croats massacre 300.000 Serbs at the beginning of the war, if Serbs were well armed, and croatian defence forces still in beginning? Makes no sense, not even Serbs in Croatia today mention that, and there is no evidence what so ever to support that claim.

General's report, if true and if exists, is probably also based on propaganda. There was no slaughterhouse in Croatia that they could have found upon their arrival, because Croats did not have army or weapons, and Serbs ruled Croatia until it's "liberation" (German occupation) in 1941.

If there is no citation to support such claims, I recommend deleting this propaganda.

(Please keep in mind, english is not my native, and I don't want to change something on my own, while you can do it much better than me.)--Zekoslavac (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Languages issue again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since no one responded to what I posted before on the discussion on the languages issue, I am cutting and pasting what I said, for people to look at.

Problems with the current languages used in the intro and infobox:
  • (1)The state did not use Cyrillic text.
  • (2) "Serbo-Croatian" as a title of the language did not exist then, the language from 1918 to 1929 was referred to as "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" and after 1929 "Yugoslavian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the title adopted during Tito-era Yugoslavia. Furthermore the state was led by a Croatian ultra-nationalist, anti-Yugoslav, and anti-Serb movement, so why would the language authorized in its territory be referred to using either the existing Yugoslavian-originated terms "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" or "Yugoslavian"?
  • (3) the use of the languages of German or Italian are dubious. If and only if through Italy's protectorate agreement with Croatia that involved an official Italian king ruling Croatia and through the agreement's statements of cultural and economic connection between Italy and Croatia, can it be considered that the Italian language would be a language admissible in the state, due to Croatia being de jure identified as within the sphere of the Italian Empire. Outside of that, there would not be justification, as the government of the NDH wrote its documents in Latin Croatian/Serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian/whatever you want to call it.--R-41 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you are confusing two things. The first is the official language (which was Croatian and is in the infobox). No-one is arguing that Cyrillic was used in the NDH, in fact it was outlawed in order to further marginalise the Serb community. The second is the question of which current languages it is appropriate for the article title to be translated into in the lead. They are two very separate issues. The most appropriate current language for translation is Serbo-Croatian, in both its scripts. As far as Italian and German are concerned, the state wouldn't even have existed without them. The Italians and Germans also effectively occupied their respective zones, in fact the Italians excluded NDH forces from large areas for considerable periods of time. On that basis they are both appropriate. I don't see the problem. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
1. On Wikipedia, Croatian is Serbo-Croatian, so its in the lede as well as the infobox (which is kinda obvious from the identical name). These are not two different languages. And yes, Serbo-Croatian did exist before 1945, except under a different name ("Yugoslav language", "Serbian or Croatian", etc.).
2. The translations in the lede are not supposed to reflect official historical use, they are there to assist modern-day readers with relevant translations, not provide historical information on official languages and such. Usually the official native name(s) as used by the former country is displayed in the infobox.
3. It has been established that the state was a protectorate of Italy (hence Italian) and a puppet state of Germany (hence German). I suppose one might argue for the removal of these languages (i.e. that is the only debateable issue), but I myself see them as relevant and useful. -- Director (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The Italian language perhaps can be shown in the infobox because the state was officially a protectorate of Italy in accordance to the Treaties of Rome of 1941. However there is no evidence of official use of the Italian language by the state, nor is there evidence of official use of the Cyrillic version of Serbo-Croatian by the state, nor German. There was no agreement with Germany that declared the state to be officially within its control. The issue of usefulness is disputable - since this is an English language version of Wikipedia, how does including a German translation of the name of the state help here? The translation that should be included is from its root name in its original language. If Italian was an official language of the state via its protectorate status, then that should be included. Beyond those two circumstances, it does not help English readers to see other translations, the readers can clearly read that the state was under de facto control of Germany. German-speaking people can find this material on German Wikipedia with that translation.--R-41 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with adding Italian as an official language. What source do you have for that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I will not try too hard to explain, because it seems impossible for people in Western Europe to understand that Serbian and Croatian are not the same language. That name was imposed. If you want to imply that Serbian and Croatian are one and the same language, then why don't you just call it Croatian? Why Serbocroatian? Do you even know what is THE ONLY reason for such name? To show that Croats and Serbs are brothers, and that we are same nation. There was a lot of violence over croatian language, and many changes, to make it as more simillar to serbian as possible. So in here, in Croatia, language was named "hrvatskosrpski" (croato-serbian), and in Serbia it was named "srpskohrvatski" (serbo-croatian). So, if you continue to claim that it is the same language, you should look in history, and in literature, where you will realise that language can only be croatian. Then you should say that Croats speak croatian, and Serbs speak Serbocroatian. That would be more accurate. Also, you should keep in mind, that wikipedia sources for such stupid claims about our language are sources that no one in Croatia takes seriously, including university professors. No language expert, no one. In eyes of most Croatians (sadly not all), Wikipedia in English sometimes looks really stupid, and we laugh a lot when we read some stupid claims about us, and sources you use on en.wiki. Also, one more thing. It doesn't matter what language we speak. We write totally different, and Wikipedia is about writing and reading, not about talking and listening. Serbian is mostly understandable, also Slovenian, Bosnian, and Macedonian to some point, but... Reading Serbian is something totally different. Not only because of cyrilic. But because the way they write. But I'll let someone else try to explain, because I have a feeling that it will be just a loss of time. It will not help you to understand, because your mind is already made, and stupid references will support your claims... How ignorant people can be... Anyway, in every article about Croatia, there should be no serbocroatian, or cyrilic. PS - no, cyrilic wasn't forbidden to further marginalise Serbs. Because before that Serbs were not marginalised at all. Croats were. By pro serbian rulers. In heart of Croatia. After over 20 years of occupation, Croats had enough cultural and language devastation, too many murdered croats, and claims that Croats are only Serbs that were converted to catholicism. So whoever said that cyrilic was forbidden to further marginalise Serbs is - WRONG. --Zekoslavac (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

Partisan Resistance >> The Partisan commander, Marshall Josip Broz Tito, was half Croatian, half Slovenian.


not in order of; half Slovenian half Croatian. (Primarily) As he was born in Croatia of Croatian father with Croatian surname,(secondly) mother Slovenian [1]

References

  1. ^ Josip Broz Tito Wikipedia

Nazorin (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sing! 07:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

NDH wasn't Nazi puppet state, it was Independent state. Educate before writing lies. 78.3.125.219 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't independent (except in name), there are multiple reliable sources that call it a puppet state. Sadly, some continue to push this nonsense about it's so-called "independence". It was essentially occupied by the Axis throughout, and couldn't have existed without their support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement in the article is nonsense

The following statement is in the article: "Military forces from other Axis powers, including Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria made few gains during the invasion."

That is nonsense, Italy controlled the entire Adriatic coastline of what was Yugoslavia, Hungary took a large portion of Vojvodina, and Bulgaria took Vardar Macedonia. These were not "few gains". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.74.119 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV and significant whitewashing

There are significant issues with NPOV and whitewashing in this article. I have tagged the article and will shortly commence detailing issues in each section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain what is being whitewashed? Where do you stand? 173.56.116.63 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Do go ahead, Peacemaker. -- Director (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Failure to mention Croatian Civilian deaths in NDH

"The number of Croats killed in the NDH is estimated to be approximately 200,000, either by the Croatian fascist regime, as members of the armed resistance, or as Axis collaborators"

- Bogoljub Kočović (2005). Sahrana jednog mita: žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji [Burial of a Myth: World War II Victims in Yugoslavia] (in Serbian). Otkrovenje. ISBN 978-86-83353-39-2. Retrieved 18 October 2011.

- Philip J. Cohen; David Riesman (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 106–111. ISBN 978-0-89096-760-7. Retrieved 17 October 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't seriously doubt that very many Croats died, but those are pretty weak sources. One is a local source, the other is Cohen, who's been discredited. Does Cohen cite someone? -- Director (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Kočović being local does not make him weak, and Cohen has not been discredited. He has been criticised in some quarters, particularly Serbian ones, but on balance the non-Yugoslav academic reviews are fairly positive. Re-read the article, which has recently been thoroughly rewritten. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well alright.. go ahead, Jackie... -- Director (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Jackiechan321 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Yugoslav republic"

What is a "Yugoslav republic?" --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

clearly a typo. I've replaced it with kingdom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity

Howcome Orthodox Christianity is not even mentioned in the infobox? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Orthodoxy was the highly contrived "Croatian Orthodox Church", and I'm not aware of a source saying it was an official religion of the NDH. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 Do we only include official religions? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
So far as I know, yes, that is the consensus for nations. Not only that, but Serbian Orthodoxy was called "Greek Eastern" or similar things in the NDH. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 Was Islam official? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Five navboxes?

This article has a completely ridiculous five navboxes appended to the bottom, some of which are completely unnecessary given the existing content of the article. I propose removing the Fascism navbox because the Fascism portal box is already in the article, and the Collaboration in World War II Yugoslavia navbox because the NDH organisations within it are already linked in this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent State of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

it's working. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Independent State of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

Just remove references to socialism in the economy sector, Croatian socialism is name for a form of fascist corporatism. Thank you.

5.39.131.112 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

This is an article from Croatian wikipedia https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatski_socijalizam the tearm "Croatian socialism" is describing a form of fascist corporatist economic system of NDH created by Ustša regime, it is not related to socialism that you are linking to.

5.39.140.67 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What is the requested change? There's no wikilink to socialism in any of the uses of "Croatian socialism" in the article. /wiae /tlk 23:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

On the section about economy, there is a wikilink connecting "Croatian socialism" with socialism. I want to point out that "Croatian socialism" is not related to ideology known as socialism like the page is linking to. "Croatian socialism" (Croatian: Hrvatski socijalizam) is the term for fascist corporatist economic system createt by Ustaša regime in NDH during WWII. Here is the page on Croatian wikipedia about "Croatian socialism": 

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatski_socijalizam

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

On the section about economy, there is a wikilink connecting "Croatian socialism" with socialism. I want to point out that "Croatian socialism" is not related to ideology known as socialism like the page is linking to. "Croatian socialism" (Croatian: Hrvatski socijalizam) is the term for fascist corporatist economic system createt by Ustaša regime in NDH during WWII. Here is the page on Croatian wikipedia about "Croatian socialism" https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatski_socijalizam


5.39.128.209 (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Done /wiae ★ /tlk 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Independent State of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent State of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Independent State of Croatia. 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) 15:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section has eight paragraphs. A maximum of three to four paragraphs are ideal at best, I am sure with exceptions, but there needs to be some cleanup to narrow this down to a better summary lead. Otr500 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is too much information there, I just think some paras should be combined. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit. I would suggest moving the final paragraph to somewhere in the History section, or combining the last two paragraphs. Barakokula31 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


More or less

I have to agree, in fact there seems to be something missing. According to the article, in the Partisan resistance section, there is content "The Ustaše's genocidal onslaught on its minorities provoked mass movements of resistance...", and I would think this an important aspect of the article and it would seem deserving mention in the lead. I suppose I should have stated the lead needs some consolidating. Otr500 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of view

""When compared to the republican borders established in the SFR Yugoslavia after the war, the NDH encompassed the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its non-Croat (Serb and Bosniak) majority, as well as some 20 km² of Slovenian (villages Slovenska vas near Bregana, Nova vas near Mokrice, Jesenice in Dolenjsko, Obrežje and Čedem)[26] and the whole of Syrmia (part of which was previously in the Danube Banovina)." Syrmia was part of Crotia until 1918. Muslims of Bosnia wer Croats at the time. There were Muslims in Ustashe party and Ustashe elite forces. Also ortodox people of present day Croatia and Bosnia became Serbs only because Serbian ortodox Church got jurisfiction over them. If Party of rights managed to establish Croatian Ortodox Church in the 19th century they would express Croatian ethnicity. Wikipedia is full of por Serbian anti Croat bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.249.16 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

N.D.H.

From Stjepan Hefer, Pavelić's successor:

In a few years we will be a German province; N.D.H. will stand for Neue Deutsche Heimat (June 1942)

in Ivo Vukcevich: CROATIA 2: LUDWIG VON GAJ OPPOSES CROATIA’S HUNGARIAN HERITAGE Xlibris Corporation, Jul 18, 2013 page 100 --109.92.171.133 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Independent State of Croatia. 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) 05:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Independent State of Croatia. 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) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Independent State of Croatia. 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) 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Serbs, Jews and Romani extermination was one of main consequences

Serbs, Jews and Romani extermination was one of the main consequences of the establishment of NDH, which constitute one aspect, albeit most important, of this entity nature, and is characteristically genocidal. If article creation and editors activities eventually succeeded to obfuscate this aspect, meanwhile creating two small paragraphs under main section "Demographics", few more paragraphs under main sections "Racial laws" and another main section "Politics", all that gives-away tendency to masking it, while subtly beating around the bush with focusing (barely) on laws and politics. Main section "Racial laws" is insufficient, it deals with explanation of laws. Same with main section "Politics" which deals with politics. Consequences of these laws and politics missing completely and that is astounding. Consequences of four years of genocidal laws and politics not only warrant, it cries for creation of main section "Consequences" (or whatever title), under which these consequences are going to be grouped at one place, not scattered around various subsections and sparsely described, and than properly described in detail with proper neutral and reliable sources in references.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Puppet state" vs "client state"

The first and third cites on the article describe it explicitly as a puppet state.

Here [1] it is explicitly called a puppet state.

Here [2] in discussion of puppet states "mention must also be made of the so-called 'Independent State of Croatia'".

Unless cites are forthcoming to say otherwise, it seems clear that "puppet state" is the term we should use. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is better described as an Axis quasi-protectorate, per Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Since this, frankly, is an issue of potential that terminology has in sense of influence to change the perception, all terminology that comes into consideration should be handled with care - regardless of which term has more numbers of mentioning, all of them are used in one time or another, by this or that author; we should adhere to our moral and ethical standards and be sensitive while choosing - so that sheer rhetoric won't create notion that its establishment and nature is only a consequence of WWII, that it existed only thanks to coercion and brutality of Nazi force, and so on and so forth, which can be seen as societal absolution of all of its representing polity intent and responsibilities.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Watch, Helsinki (1993). War Crimes in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 978-1-56432-083-4. Retrieved 23 April 2008.
  2. ^ Raič, David (2002). Statehood and the law of self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-1890-5. Retrieved 23 April 2008.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

Category:Fascist states, recently added, is unnecessary and should be removed, the client states categories (which are subcategories of Category:Fascist states BTW) already cover it, futhermore, client states are not added to the aforementioned category, they are only added to the client states categories, and this has been the case on Wikipedia for quite a long time. -- 191.34.239.200 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

It seems another user has readded Category:Fascist states, it should be removed for the same reason it was before, since the NDH was a client state, it is already covered by those categories, which are subcategories of Category:Fascist states. -- 179.182.143.147 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Nithintalk 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Category:Fascist states is unnecessary, the NDH was a client state, and thus, it's already covered by the client state categories, thus, it should be removed. -- 186.213.56.40 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Promijenite od Serbo/Croatian u Croatian. 46.188.146.143 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is not the place for nationality feuds (especially not without reliable sources). In addition, your request should be IN ENGLISH and not in Serbo-Croatian. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Zara

@Peacemaker67: isn’t Zadar the contemporary name in English Wikipedia? I read the article which states both names. OyMosby (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Zadar is what it is called now (and since 1947). Zara is what it was called then, so that is what we use. That is what I mean by contemporary. It was part of the [Province of Zara]], a province of Italy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha, thought by contemporary you meant present day. Should we have (Zadar) in parentheses so English readers will be more familiar and since the linked article is titled Zadar? Up to you. OyMosby (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I often put (modern-day Fooville, Fooia) after a town that has changed names, so you could do that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Roger. Though wasn’t it referred to as Zara and Zadar at the same time depending on the language used?OyMosby (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The people that owned it (the Italians) called it Zara. So that is what we go with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You mean owned at the time? Before it wasn’t as it was given to Italy by NDH. I’ll insert the (today Zadar) as you recommend. OyMosby (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Quick question, during occupation of part of another country (example Poland), is the occupiers (example germany) native tongue typically used? For future reference. OyMosby (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't "given to Italy by the NDH". It was allocated to Italy in 1920 pursuant to the Treaty of Rapallo between Italy and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Noted. It was territory not occupied but willingly given by the Kingdom SCS as part of a treaty. Thanks for explaining. I thought somewhere NDH government ceded some areas to Italy whether willing or pressure wise. Got confused. ThanksOyMosby (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
They did, in the Treaties of Rome (1941). But that didn't include Zara, which was already Italian. Although Zara was incorporated into the resulting Governorate of Dalmatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Ever think of becoming a professor online? I’d pay to learn. The amount you know of this part of the world is astoundingOyMosby (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Naming may depend on many whereabouts. Just answering on what you especially asked, if the former Polish territory became part of Germany, and/or German administration/official language was introduced, than very likely German (Polish) form would be followed.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC))
Yes, sorry I missed that point. For example, in articles set prior to and during WWII, Gdańsk is referred to as "Danzig (modern-day Gdańsk, Poland). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I get it now. It was something I always wondered but it makes perfect sense. Thanks all!OyMosby (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Map displayed is wrong for the Belgium-French borders

Militärverwaltung in Belgien und Nordfrankreich exists at the time so Belgium does not have its modern day borders at 1943. 175.136.147.92 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Mark justino hurka (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I edit because the anthem of Independent State of Croatia is actually the anthem of croatia I want the anthem to be the anthem of kingdom of Yugoslavia so it looks like in the 1900’s

I don't really understand your comment. My understanding is that it is the same song, but some lyrics were changed. Exactly what do you propose changing, and do you have a reliable source for what you wish to add? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
it’s the same anthem I just wanted the Yugoslav one the lyrics may be different but the song is the same

Mark justino hurka (click to talk to me) 12:28, 24 September 2021 (WIB)

The sound file that was there actually had the current lyrics included. I have therefore removed the sound file as it is inaccurate. It would also be inappropriate to use the Yugoslav one, as the lyrics would again be different from the NDH one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
ok

Mark Justino Hurka (click to talk to me) 07:53, 24 September 2021 (WIB)

"They also targeted Bosnian Muslims"

Look idk okay maybe later on this happened, but from what I remember, at first, the NDH, albeit working with the Nazis on this, had many Bosnian Muslim units, these were active in going after the Serbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.53.200 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Also, I believe you are factually inaccurate. I strongly believe that the State of Croatia would have taken their opportunity to have them all wiped out. CheeseInTea (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Query re: deletion

A comparison of the NDH with other genocidal regimes from Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions has been deleted as undue. It is far from undue. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions (now Politics, Religion & Ideology) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by T&F. What on earth about this information is supposed to be undue? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I had thought at the time it was undue for the lead due to it being only one source attributed to one person. Also I think I recalled you yourself a while ago on the Genocide of Serbs talkpage questioning the reliability or validity of promoting the factoid in an article but I guess it was concluded reliable. Maybe I misremembered? And it was about the Ustashe regime operating in NDh where this article was more focused on the puppet country in general. It makes sense for the article in general of course. This was my logic at the time.
It was also put in by a banned user some months ago back in October when super active, who would engage in personal vendetta edits which made it seem more questionable. But you make a fair point about the strength of the source and the strong accreditation to the author and I will put it back. You would have been right to revert per based on your explanation. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I also clearly wasn’t thinking straight that evening. The more I think about it now, the more I realize it was unfair edit on my part that would be whitewashing. Apologies all. OyMosby (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

NDH status

What's not clear? A self-proclaimed creation that was not recognized by the allied countries. It was not declared by the assembly of the banovina of Croatia and some countries did not have diplomatic relations with the NDH? Savasampion (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Map

Didn’t Italy own some of Croatia’s western lands? Why does the map show all of it under Croatian control? 165.234.101.96 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we maybe change the part about Tomislav? It’s incorrect.

It was not the Italians who demanded a king, it was actually the Ustaše . They wanted a king in order to resemble the medieval state of Croatia, hence why he was dubbed “Tomislav II”. Ante Pavelić believed by drawing on this historic parallel his government would have more legitimacy. 173.64.109.178 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What is your reliable source for that? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
“And so on the 18th May of 1941 in the Quirinal Palace before the high representatives of the Italian government and the ruling family, the Croatian delegation came before the Italian king Victor Emanuel III. Pavelić and Kvaternik read their speeches in which they spoke of establishing Croatia (named Kingdom of Croatia in international treaties) and the Crown of Zvonimir. The peak of the enthronement was the moment when the Poglavnik of the Kingdom of Croatia (Independent State of Croatia) Ante Pavelić asked the Italian king Victor Emanuel III to designate a member of his family to become the new Croatian king.”
from
https://kraljevsko-vijece.wixsite.com/hkrv/post/80-years-aimone-tomislav
(many other sites say something to similar effect, that it was Pavelić and his delegation that requested a member of the House of Savoy to become king.) 173.64.109.178 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
In addition, the Wikipedia article on “Tomislav II” also corroborates this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Aimone,_Duke_of_Aosta
Just want to get this right. 173.64.109.178 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_State_of_Croatia/Archive_6&oldid=1228777621"