Talk:Ustaše/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

About User:ZA_DOM

Every time info on the alleged Ustase genocide of Jews and others during World War II, someone deletes it.Mbstone

STOP EDITING THIS PAGE PLZ I WILL GET TO THE GENOCIDE

Please fix your Caps-Lock key. That article isn't yours, so everyone can edit it. And don't edit by deleting, edit by writing NPOV text. If you don't want to do that, go away. andy 12:18, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

STOP EDITTING IT User:ZA_DOM

Congratulations, "ZA_DOM", your mindlessness has apparently succeeded in allowing the extreme Serb viewpoint to take precedence. Great work :P --Shallot 15:57, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Introduction

"At the time of their founding in 1929, the Ustaše were a nationalist organisation that is known to have committed violent acts."

How could the Ustase 'is known' for committing violent acts prior to their founding in 1929? It is illogical. Can some one pease change this?

The role of the Catholic Church

(1) The article, as written, is anti-Catholic. Was the Catholic church entirely pro-Ustase during the war? --Vicki Rosenzweig 15:05, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Certainly most Catholic believers were not pro-Ustase. But that is not what is written. Exact nature of connections with Catholic Church is explained in detail and if anyone draws conclusion that entire church was pro-Ustase it's his own. Nikola 20:19, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, even though we lead them to that conclusion, it's their fault if they make it! We're just innocently throwing around malicious insinuations! --Shallot 15:57, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you really saying that you believe that this article could lead anyone who reads it to conclusion that entire Catholic Church was pro-Ustase? If yes, could you explain why do you believe that? Nikola 17:59, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Of course it could, when it says "the Roman Catholic Church regarded the Serbs as renegades and a bulwark against Catholicism". Notice "the Church" (all of it) and "the Serbs" (all of them).

I used the phrase "Thorn in Vatican's eye" but someone changed it... anyway I don't see it different then saying "USA bombed Iraq" - it certainly doesn't mean that every American went there and dropped a bomb, nor that every American was supporting the action etc. I don't think that this could lead someone to think that entire church regards Serbs so, just as "USA bombed Iraq" can't lead someone to think that entire USA did so. Nikola 03:20, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Those two situations are not analogous. Not only is this hearsay about the Catholic church, it's also offensive to gobs of Catholics worldwide (who define the church just as much as any of the Vatican politicians who allegedly said such things), both at that time and now. --Shallot 14:48, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Serbs are westmost Orthodox nation and a lot of CCs attempts of catholicizing the Orthodox is directed against them; it is not a hearsay but everyday reality. And for the other point, I still don't see why would any Catholic be offended with "Catholic Chuch regards the Serbs as renegades" then any American would be with "USA regards the Serbs as renegades". Why is saying that for a church different then for a state? Nikola 08:31, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See, here you succumb to propaganda again. To consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy so opposed that they would try to convert each other is plain old backwards a thousand years after the schism and fifty years after the Ustashi forced conversions. I don't see where you are pulling out of these "everyday attempts of catholicizing". The churches repeatedly make efforts to talk about harmony and not conflict, but these kinds of attitudes will certainly incite conflict. --Shallot 12:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As long as there are living people who remember it, an event is not history. That forced conversions happened to our contemporaries. By "everyday attempts" I meant on efforts of spreading in Russia. Nikola 06:04, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You'd have to expand on that, I never heard of it. --Shallot 13:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Most neutral article I found is [1]. Nikola 08:14, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or "This was never condemned by the Catholic church", which is both a generalization and utter bunk (at the /very/ least, as of the current pope).

No, no. He didn't condemn it specifically.

Didn't condemn it specifically?! How else do you interpret his acknowledgement of crimes committed by Catholics, and praying forgiveness for them, in Banja Luka the other day? --Shallot 14:48, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Some Catholics commited some crimes..." is specific? The praying was seen as provocation by Banja Luka citizens. Nikola 08:31, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I guess if they can't accept the possibility that he was being honest, and instead take it as an insult (!), what is there to talk about? It says something about them, not the pope. --Shallot 12:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

First, it is not that sentence that is taken as an insult, but the fact that the prayer was held at the place of the massacre. The sentence, of course, is true and honest, but doesn't mean anything. It could mean that once there were two Catholics who stole someone's chicken. Nikola 06:04, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's a tad unreasonable to expect the pope to not generalize when he's holding a mass in front of a bunch of people. Like I said, if they don't want to take him in any way seriously, that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean that one must take their claims seriously either. --Shallot

Well, he overgeneralised. Nikola 08:14, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or "Stepinac's role in the movement was organising Ustaūe military clergy." which is another vicious misinterpretation and insinuation.

He didn't?

I suggest you read his quotes from http://www.hr/darko/etf/jews.html

He may have been cooperating with Pavelic's rogue government, but that's in line with the clergy's general opportunism (not unlike the SPC in recent times, they "go with the flow"). --Shallot 14:48, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Neutrality of these pages is well known. On the other hand, taka a look at http://www.pavelicpapers.com/documents/stepinac/ . Nikola 08:31, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And the lack of neutrality in those pages is certainly no less obvious. --Shallot 12:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Defenders allege he protected some Jews from falling into the hands of the Ustase and Gestapo, that he spoke privately of his displeasure to Pavelic and other Ustase leaders, refraining from speaking publicly for fear that the church would lose its influence altogether. Critics argue that after German and Italian attempts to rein in the Ustase failed, the Church was the only organ which could arrest the state terror of Pavelic, Budak, and Co, who considered themselves devout Catholics. Spoke out vehemently against Communism before Communists had even taken power, fully exhonerating the clergy of complicity in war crimes and atrocities in the NDH."

Any lack of neutrality is at least not obvious ;) Nikola 06:04, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

German and Italian attempts to rein in the Ustase failed? That's just non sequitur. The Italians had originally instated Pavelic and his original Ustase clique, and the Italian and German forces split control over the territory of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia with a line going northwest-southeast. The foreigners simply haven't had much reason to have their Panzers and whatnot control most of that territory when the Pavelic and Nedic quisling governments did it for them, and they waged war actively on other fronts.

Germans and Italians didn't want Croatia to spend energy on destroying Serbs while it was needed for the war, but it was not significant enough for them to remove Ustashe from power. Nikola 08:14, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And as far as the conflict between the Catholic church and the Communist party goes, this certainly seems to show that the communists had reasons to work against the church. Their trial against Stepinac was a pretty obvious farce, confirmed a few years later by the CP reps themselves.

The Church is certainly guilty for failing to actively rebel against the fascists. But blithely asserting that the archbishop "organized the military clergy" certainly doesn't do justice to the truth. --Shallot 13:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let's make page on Stepinac, then we could summarise it here. Nikola 08:14, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The list goes on and on and on. --Shallot 15:53, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, the list could not be that long as the article isn't that long ;) Perhaps it is the problem that connections with Catholic Church take as large part of the article - I wanted to write more about secular history but got carried away with other stuff. Would you help me with Slavic mythology? Nikola 03:20, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Shallot 14:48, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering, has the Catholic Church ever opened its archives to historians for research on the Ustase. I was rather disappointed when in December, 1997, the Vatican refused to open its archives regarding collaboration in World War Two because the records were, "too sensitive to be divulged." Has this changed since then, or are they still stonewalling us? --24.67.253.203

"Ownership" of the page

(2) No one person owns a Wikipedia article. As it says on every edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Vicki Rosenzweig 15:05, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The leaders of the church were in fact pro-Ustase. See, for example, Dedijer's book "Jasenovac", which provides a lot of evidence on the subject, including tons of photos of church leaders posing with mass murderers. While anti-fascists were excommunicated internationally, the genocide happened in direct cooperation with the Franciscans and in full knowledge of the Vatican.

While I agree that the Catholic Church is an organization resembling a corporation in its opportunism at times, there's another side of that coin, too: http://www.hr/darko/etf/jews.html

--Shallot 15:57, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I believe the person writing the above is not the same who has edited the page recently. In fact, "ZA_DOM" has repeatedly tried to hide facts concerning the genocide from the article.—Eloquence 16:27, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Well, those who want to know about Ustase now have one to study. Za dom - Spremni is Ustase greeting, their version of Sieg - Heil. I'll add that to article :) Nikola 20:19, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure that Sieg Heil was used in a question-response fashion? -- Error

No, but Za dom - Spremni could also be used by one person. Nikola 20:05, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Ustasha clergy list

The content from this section was moved to Talk:Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy, but that page was later deleted (cf. this and this).

About "This plan ... was ... fulfilled in 1995"

It's a pity, but this article is still far from NPOV - but I guess that's the way it goes with such heavy topics, when hundredthousand of deaths are involved...

I deleted the sentence "This plan of an ethnically pure Croatia was finally fulfilled in 1995 when Croatia expulsed the Krajina Serb Orthodox population.".

Before anyone just puts it back, please reconsider: neither is Croatia finally ethnically pure (this is fact, there are ethnical minorities) nor has the 1995 war been part of a half a century old Ustasha plan.

Are you certain? Anyway, I have reworded it, it doesn't mention ethnic purity and doesn't say that plans are the same. Nikola 08:31, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Nikola, please be specific: am I certain about what? About Croatia being ethnically pure or about the half a century old Ustasha plan? And I see your rewording: "Such a plan is finally fulfilled in 1995 when Croatia expulsed the Krajina Serb Orthodox population."

About the second, I meant. Nikola 07:38, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The actual plan referenced includes the killing of a third of all Serbs, the conversion of a third of all Serbs to catholicism and more. As far as I know - maybe I am misinformed - the War of 1995 did not kill some three million Serbs (Wikipedia.de claims population of Serbia is more than 9 mio) neither one of three Serbs I met has been a catholic. I do not claim, that there was no military action in the Krajina 1995; I do not claim that there were not civilian Serbs dying during this actions

The plan refers to Serbs in Croatia. But I see my mistake now, true that there was no such a plan now. I think that current wording is OK. Nikola 07:38, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree, but it is much closer now.

Firstly, I have added to the article, that the pan refers to Serbs in Croatia, as you said.

In Independent State of Croatia, to be most precise. Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You're right, didn't think of that. If an Ustasha uses the term Croatia he means something entirely different than you or me or most of the people outside. Good point. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Let's cite and dissect: "Ironically, the Serbs were almost entirely purged from Croatia following the 1995 offensive Storm in the Krajina as if followed to the letter from 1941."

I don't think its ironic. It is rather tragic. But a NPOV encyclopaedia should omit both words, anyway.

"almost entirely purged": I don't regard 4,5% Serbs in Croatia as being "almost entirely purged". Yes, many did die, and much more did leave the country as refugees, but this still doesn't constitute "almost entirely purged".

4.5% then or now? Where did you get that figure from? Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From the 2001 General Census. --Shallot 11:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is also the number given by the CIA World fact book, and given in Demographics of Croatia on the Wikipedia. This 4.5% means now, then (meaning 1990 it was around 12%. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Including refugees that returned. Nikola 07:57, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

True, but not all of those are returnees. And it says something about the "purging". It was an organized exodus that was not actually related to the second world war but to the 1990s war, and correlations with the past could really only be used in scare tactics. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"the 1995 offensive Storm in the Krajina" - I am sorry, this part of the sentence does not make much sense. I think "the 1995 operation Oluja (Storm) in the Krajina" comes closer.

Storm is much more used in English. I'll change it to Storm. Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, didn't know that. Thanks. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

"as if followed to the letter from 1941". To the letter of what? The letter of the plan? Does this mean, we have some 200.000 catholic Serbs in Croatia nowadays?

Converted Serbs became Croats and don't consider themselves Serbs anymore. See also below about the plan. Nikola

Except that these 200,000 _do_ say that they are Serbs. And more keep returning every day, contrary to the ill will of both Croat and Serb extremist politicians. --Shallot 11:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Really? Converted Serbs consider themselves Croats? I am surprised to hear that. I thought, being Croat or Serb is ethnical, not religious. Is there any research showing this? Probably not, it would probably be not possible to find it out so soon after the 1990s war. But do you know of converted Serbs who consider themselves Croats now? And on the other hand, are there Croats who consider themselves Serbs now, let's say in the Serbian part of Bosnia? (Please, don't get me wrong, I am not disputing you're argument with an ironic remark, I am honestly surprised to learn that) --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and islamised Serbs and Croats consider themselves Bosniaks and so on... I really don't see why would people start considering themselves something else when converted or not reconvert when that became possible. Probably it's because those who didn't converted hate very much those who did. Historically Orthodoxy was weaker then Catholicism in Croatia and Bosnia, not being supported by the state, and if any Catholics converted to Orthodoxy it was in minuscule numbers (except perhaps through inter-marriage). Nikola 07:57, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And finally, mere facts don't constitute NPOV, and being POV does not mean being wrong. --denny vrandecic 14:02, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

- but I do claim that the connection implied in this statement is not a fact. This is why I deleted the rewording again, but I keep it here for archivieng reasons. --denny vrandecic 13:36, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Is he certain? What were you just saying about not giving the impression it's one large everlasting conspiracy? If you could just step back and decide what you are actually arguing for... --Shallot 12:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For the record, there was no conspiracy. If the plan was secret, circulated only among top Ustashian leadership, then there would be a conspiracy. But the plan was public, presented in public speeches - that is not a conspiracy. Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just saw what you wrote, and it's still incorrect and misleading -- Croatia did not "expulse the Krajina Serb Orthodox population" because they made a promise not to harm those who stayed (which was indeed honored by the army and broken by bands of criminals), and because there's now still of thousands

By the way, did some of members of those bands of criminals wore some strange leter U on their uniforms? Nikola 07:38, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I really don't know, but I think it is highly probable. But what would this imply? --denny vrandecic 14:02, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

That they were Ustashas working on the plan? Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't a term like Neo-Ustasha not fit better? I don't want to allow the Ustashas to build up a myth about themselves, their history and power being focused in one, decades old organization. They are not that brilliant. I think most of these people, who painted a U on their clothes, didn't do this because they were members of an Ustasha org, but because they could channel their hate and anger into a historically based, well known org, like trying to building up their own myths. It's similar in Germany: they are many groups using the swastika, and they all refer to the Nazis - but their link to them is usually weak and mere wishful thinking. They are usually people, who try to channel their own frustration, anger, fear into such a thing.

Thinking about it, would maybe a paragraph in the article with the title "Neo-Ustase in modern Croatia" or "Contemporary reception of Ustase ideology" be a solution? Here we could sum up the atrocities done in the 1990s, such things like Thompson and much more, without feeding the myth about a strong, decade old history? --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes, I didn't wrote it because I didn't knew much about it. In particular whether there are connections between today's remains of ISC regime and neo-Ustashas. Nikola 07:57, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The existence of a number of extremists does not imply that the whole nation and everything it does is part of some fascist grand plan. --Shallot 13:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Did I said it? Is this page about Croats or about Ustashas? Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

These generalizations make it sound as if it's about Croats in general. --Shallot 11:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's the same problem I have. If the Wikipedia was not NPOV, I'd write it myself, that the Ustasha were monsterlike slaughterers, compassionless killers, the worst of the human scum. And even keeping to the NPOV, we have to show the truth about them, who have killed 100,000s of people. But I want this article also to reflect clearly, that Croats and Ustasha are and have never been the same. They were Croats fighting the Ustasha. And modern day Croatia is not the Ustasha state. All informations that could lead to such conclusions shouldn't be part of an encyclopedia, I hope we do agree upon this. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Orthodox Serbs in those parts of Croatia (some of them stayed and some returned after the armed conflict was over), and even more of them in other parts of Croatia. And all the remaining refugees have (reasonably reliable) government guarantees that they can return, but various other issues (entrenched fear and economic conditions in the hinterland primarily) postpone their complete return. --Shallot 12:25, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Reasoning about the 1995 war is a totally other thing: but writing such a sentence in an article about ustasha ideology seems like just trying to connect modern Croatia to its darkest hour in history in order to demonize it. --denny vrandecic 00:20, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

It's a common theme among the Serb extremists. You'll get used to it. :( --Shallot 12:25, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't regard Nikola as a Serb extremist, just as having a certain POV, as do you, as do I. In order to make the best possible article on the Ustashe, we should try to overcome our POVs and merge them in an excellent article. I think if one day you, Shallot, and Nikola, and Igor, and me, and maybe some others, can say 'yes, this is the article I want on this topic' - then a great goal is reached. So let's keep on working on it, instead of calling each other extermists or anything. I'd appreciate it if you would take back this comment. --denny vrandecic 13:36, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

I consider the POV that repeatedly tries to bring modern Croatia in any sort of serious relation with the Ustase -- extremist. Ustashi and Chetnik ideologies are offensive to me and I consider it my civic duty to point out gross fallacies in them because that's the only way to ensure they don't harm anyone again. Take that as you will. --Shallot 15:11, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I certainly understand your point, and I follow it to a far degree. But I still think calling each other names does not help to calm down the discussion. That's why I made this note. --denny vrandecic 23:06, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

And, finally, we are discussing articles here, not the people writing it. --denny vrandecic 14:02, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

For those still reading these old comments - it should be noted that we now have separate articles about Croatian War of Independence and Neo-Nazism in Croatia. --Joy [shallot] 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

About the new links

Hi Igor, I don't have much time now, but a short question about the last link that you added, which is "Encyclopedia Citations About the Ustaša". Do you really think a link that, after clicking it, let us read a site showing in big blue shiny capitals "CROATIAN NAZIS THE WORST MONSTERS THE WORLD HAD KNOWN" does help anyone in calming down the discussion and getting to a common, encylopedic ground? Would you please either explain this link more, or delete it by yourself?

And just after I put the disputed note in, why did you actually delete all the comment saying which parts are disputed? Would you mind putting them back in, or explaining why you did the deletions without any comment?

It is hard to work with someone if the rationale behind his actions is just to be guessed. --denny vrandecic 23:06, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

OK, so Nikola deleted this link. Lets get to the next one: Dinko Sakic's portfolio. Here we are greated with a cheerful "Our accusations that the New Independent State of Croatia is not different from its World War II namesake should not be taken lightly. The case of Dinko Sakic illustrates it quite well."

If you have any more objections on the links, please say them all together so that they could be discussed faster. Me, personally, haven't seen any of the links except for Pavelic Papers. That particular probably should go to Sakic's page when one is created. Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Me neither. I hoped that the ones who gave the links would take a look at them, think about them and then choose how to proceed. I am not looking forward to check half a dozen links, to be honest, and simply have not the time right now... --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Again I ask, should this be linked from a NPOV encycklopaedia without further explanation? Or should this link just be deleted?

I hope, Igor will return to this discussion. He is working on the side, he knows about Talk pages, so it seems he is ignoring this discussion on intent, which makes it hard to work together with him. --denny vrandecic 14:02, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

Well, don't be so harsh, I answered all the points, he probably simply agrees with me. Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to be harsh. Finally he did answer a question I had in another talk, and explains it just as you do. But still, his working style doesn't help in cooperation. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Denny's suggestion for a plan

I'd like to undispute this page as soon as possible again. And if we can reach common ground on this topic, we can reach it surely everywhere.

My suggestion: The most active persons right now on this article seem to be Nikola, Igor, Shallot and me. If anyone else wants to join us, it would be great! Therefor we four try to reach consensus about the text, and afterwards we defend its tone and content in a reasonable way. That doesn't mean we will just revert any changes made to this page afterwards, we just try to defend the reached neutrality.

I take the following for granted:

• the article should be NPOV. This is Wikipedia policy
• simply writing down facts does not mean NPOV - NPOV contains also the style of presentation, the space needed for the given facts, the tone of the text, and so on. This is also Wikipedia policy
• in this special case, our goal is neither to demonize Croats, nor to hide the truth about the Ustasha crimes. But knowing that emotions are still high on both sides, as there have been too many crimes commited by Croats and by Serbs on each other in the past century, and that today still many live who were victims of such crimes, we recognize the difficulty on writing this article
• Still: we want to know the truth and make it known to the world. And if we can't find a way to solve this issue, how can we ever hope for peace in the real world?

Taken this for granted, we should go through the article step by step, heading for heading, and discuss the disputed points here one after the other. I have started with the heading, and am awaiting your suggestions. As soon as no one complains, let's move the disputed notes down from the top of the article to each and every heading and then start to work on every chapter.

Come on, let's work together!

I am a Croat, and I have worked together with Serbs and Bosnian Muslims for 15 years, even while our People were slaughtering each other, peacefully, and never suspected them of any evil. Maybe that's why I am so optimistic that we will reach consensus here. I have cried when Djindic died, I am happy, that Milosevic is trialed, and I am sad, that Tudjman won't be. It would have helped to dig up the truth about what happened. --denny vrandecic 18:47, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Reworded heading

I prefer the rewording, because it says now that the Ustasha were put in charge by outer forces.

OK, that's just what I said a bit below, but I think that is should be noted that they hadn't appeared out of nowhere, they existed more then ten years prior to caming to power. I also removed 1945, they weren't removed from power by German Nazis ;) Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:) Very true. Who actually did remove them from power? My knowledge on this is weak, sorry... --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Communists... Nikola 07:57, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the quote, whoever found it, though we should enter some informations on the Wiesenthal article, to show the trustworthiness of the organziation, and its background, without forcing the reader to recherche that for himself.

Wiesenthal center is well known, don't think it is neccesary. Nikola 05:41, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Wiesenthal link is good, I agree (Danny: notice a link in [1] after that statement).

However, that is not the only Jewish accord of the events. There also people like the Jewish Virtual Library and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which talk about lesser numbers at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/Jasenovac.html , namely:

"Further research on the victims of the Ustaša regime in Croatia during World War II is necessary to enable historians and demographers to determine more precisely the number of those who perished under the rule of the Independent State of Croatia."

"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac."

Which is to say, they're all estimates with relatively unknown degrees of reliability. This needs to be explicated because we don't want to give an impression of toying with numbers, it isn't proper for an encyclopedia. --Shallot 11:39, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, is the current solution better? I moved it to an own paragraph, and discussed the problem. The introduction would probably need some rewording, though. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the 600,000 to 1 Mio number?

Dr. Bulajic speculated up to 700,000. Dr. Jovan Rašković (a populist Serb psychiatrist/politician of the early 1990s) pushed it up to 1,500,000 in his speeches. --Shallot 11:39, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All else of the heading is I think, OK, I would accept it. If no one complains or changes the heading any more, lets move the disputation note down, OK? --denny vrandecic 18:47, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Symbols

Good change, Nikola. I really like the word "Symbols" much better than "Insignia", the old one sounded so grand and had a too much positive connotation. --denny vrandecic 16:29, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks :) Nikola 07:57, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Changes by Nikola

Now, about my latest changes:

the so-called - in English 'the' doesn't means 'the only one', like that no other state of Croatia then ISC could be independent, rather that that was the only that was named so. I think that so-called is already implied in 'the'.

I think it needs to be explicitely "so-called" because that particular state of theirs was hardly independent. It would be extra if there was a page where the link goes, but there is none so we have to explain it here. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

terrorist - they were conducting terror but not terrorism; they were not terrorist organisation in modern sense of the word.

It's from the Simon Wiesenthal Center description contains that, I think it's fair to assume that it will be understood properly. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Image - image of a victim should be in Victims paragraph, its down enough anyway.

tens -> hundreds - most estimates say hundreds.

I agree, it was a thinko on my part: I wrote "Jasenovac and elsewhere" but only calculated the number from Jasenovac. (It's an honest oversight, I had no intention to downplay the number.) --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Red Army and Partisans - at least that's what we were taught at school :)

Catholic Church introduction - this had the most sense of anything I could think of.

I still think that the initial paragraph is too assumptive. I see the point of the other change; I initially grouped the two disputed sentences together so that there is a single dispute note, but two are fine, too. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Orthodox considered Croats - well known.

Stepinac exhonerating clergy - from Pavelic papers

It seems to me that he simply "watched their back", responded to assertions with assertions (if we're referring to the same statements, that is). It's pretty clear that they had no proof of him doing anything wrong when all that the political trial could accomplish was house arrest. And Đilas later confirmed the same. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Disputed parts - later

Nikola 07:57, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Shallot's wail, oh well :)

I see Igor is continuing to spill bile in the page. Oh well. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Denny's break

Just wanted to say that I have to take a break for three or four weeks from Wikipedia, I have urgent work to do on my master thesis. Sorry! I will return then and try to catch up, but so long, have fun, and a good cooperation! -- denny vrandecic 20:50, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Endangerment and its consequences

Nikola says: I don't think that Croatian desire for independence was /particulary/ endangered in Yugoslavia, more then in Austria-Hungary

I just used the word particularly to explain the most direct link -- the Ustase came to power relatively quickly after the royal dictatorship. It is true that Austro-Hungary also had particularly oppresive periods (Rauch, Hedervary, ...) but as it happens, none of them happened to be followed by such an insane retaliation. This is mostly due to different historic circumstances but some of it can definitely be attributed to the royal dictatorship itself. --Shallot 20:30, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Since Croats entered Yu on their own free will Yu was not obliged to grant them independence and hence could not endanger it

Actually, that is factually incorrect. The elected Croatian Parliament never voted on the joining of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the People's Council of the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes did that instead). Prior to that, the Parliament had a say in various state-related acts, so this was something of a precedent. The Yugoslav idea certainly had support amongst the populace and the political elite, otherwise the Yugoslav Committee would never have been formed, but that particular Yugoslav state was explicitely opposed by the main political party of the Croats at the time.

In general I'm not sure why you consistently erase the link between what royal Yugoslavia did and what the Ustase did. I would like to believe that it was all just product of some random variable, or temporary insanity, or whatever, but evidence rather clearly suggests that it was not -- they did what they did believing that they were doing it in response to what was done to them in the KoY. Regardless of the fact we can all agree that they went overboard, and then some. --Shallot 15:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not erasing the link, since there was no link stated. Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia. It didn't enter Yugoslavia with a contract saying that it will exit after some time. Saying that "independence of Croatia was endangered by Yugoslavia" is as nonsensical as saying that "independence of Florida is endangered by the US" or "independence of Chechnya is endangered by Russia". If Croatia was independent and Yu wished to conquer it, or if Croatia was a part of another state going for independence and Yu was taking actions which would hinder that, then such a sentence would make sense. Nikola 08:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually that was _desire for_ independence, not actual independence, as it says in the text. We can call it autonomy in more factual terms. --Shallot 13:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Do you want to say that Yu was endangering Croatian desire for independence? This is even more nonsensical than previous. Croatians have got autonomy by creation of Banovina Hrvatska. Are you trying to say that dictatorship reduced privileges of banovinas? Nikola 04:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Banovina Hrvatska was only created in 1939, twenty years after the creation of the kingdom, and by that time it was too late because the Nazi-induced war was imminent. Before 1939, the banovine weren't organized in a manner that resembled ethnic structure (or the historic subnational entities) and the Croats were discontent with that. They felt that the kingdom of Serbia wasn't sensitive enough to their requests as a nation, Radić made such remarks as early as November 1918, even before the deal was done. This prolongued frustration over national issues is essential in understanding why the Ustase movement had been formed at all (and knowing what needs to be done so that it never happens again). --Shallot 10:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They weren't, but so goes for ethnic structure of Serbs or Slovenes. Croats were not worse off than anyone else.

In the national sense, they were. Before, they were split up between two Austro-Hungarian crownlands, Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia, and I believe they were majority (>50%) in both lands that were called with their old historic names. The new banovine reduced their majorities to pluralities (<50%) and used generic names that couldn't be associated with the nation. Further, regardless of the majority the HSS would win in the elections in their native banovinas, they could never influence state politics because the People's Radical Party was (almost?) always stronger than them on the Yugoslav level, and their government in turn prosecuted them for being republican. And all this prior to the royal dictatorship, let alone the things that happened later... --Shallot 18:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course, Ustashas (and others) used that for fuelling their actions, but it cannot be said that they were right about it.

Of course not. It simply deserves mention as something that's relevant to the history of the Ustase; we can avoid passing much judgement. --Shallot 18:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even if that could be said, Yugoslavia was still not endangering Croatian independence, for the reasons stated above. I'm not against mentioning all this in the article; please, suggest a rephrase. Think about your last sentence a bit more. Nikola 06:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll see if I can muster up some bullet-proof verbiage. --Shallot 18:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mir Harven's warning

Ova će stranica biti potpuno promijenjena u bliskoj budućnosti-recimo, 2 tjedna. Na znanje i ravnanje.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

Nece. Nikola 06:56, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Bit će, bit će, gegulence. Vaša su laprdanja jednako solidna koliko i obrana ĆAO Srajine.

M H

Bas da vidimo.

OTOH, it seems that I am just dreaming this. How could we talk when 30% of Croatian and Serbian dictionary is different, as you say it is? Nikola 22:09, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Swedish and Danish speakers talk without problems of communication at colloquial level. The same with Hindi-Urdu, Bulgarian-Macedonian, Czech-Slovak, Malay-Bahasa Indonesian, Turkish-Azeri,........

M H

Etymology of the name

He He He :)

doesnt the name come from "ustanak" as in "uprising" as is thier "goal" making the croatian nation rise up or something?

Clarification of extreme bias

The neutrality of this article is disputed. "appears extremely biased. My parents were victims of the Nazis and their collaborators, yet I prefer that an encyclopedia present an historical treatment of an historical event." GCW

Could you please point out what you mean? --denny vrandečić 13:17, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Filipovic's first name

Err, there also seems to be some confusion whether it was Miroslav Filipović or Tomislav Filipović... --Shallot 01:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is fixed in his article now. --Joy [shallot] 30 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Earlier copy and paste

I should note that a lot of the text in earlier versions in the article, to some extent preserved in the current one, was copied and pasted from this page at the Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance. --Shallot

Dispute of the greeting

User:GeneralPatton, what is disputed about za dom spremni!? That it's similar to sieg heil!? I honestly don't see how someone could say that it's not conspicuously similar... --Shallot 12:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About the latest commit: it is true that the slogan "za dom" doesn't have to be exclusively related to the Ustase, but I don't know of a single person who in the modern times doesn't see a link between that greeting and NDH. You can call it a product of propaganda, but it is now a fact that everyone who doesn't want to be seen as a sympathizer doesn't use it. --Shallot 11:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It’s just simply not true that “Za Dom!” is some kind of a fascist salute. Its like saying “Gutten Tag!” is a Nazi greeting, it simply is not. “Za dom!” is still an extremely popular greeting in the northeast and south of Croatia as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, it has nothing to do with fascism, and all to do with patriotism and love of the homeland “domovina”. Calling it exclusively fascist is insulting.

You're right that it's not exclusively fascist, but it sure isn't "good day" either exactly because of the Ustase. --Shallot 18:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A bit of an update to this - Ivan Zajc's 19th century song U boj, u boj contains 'za dom, za dom' in the chorus. Albeit, that doesn't detract from the argument that this patriotic cry was hijacked by the Ustaše. --Joy [shallot] 18:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how Nikola and Igor would feel if I started doing the same things, they are doing here on the page about the Chetniks, which is in its current state is exceptionally sanitized while the page on the Ustasha, and almost any other Balkans related topic holds a stong Serb-radical nationalist bias. Trying to implicate that Croatians/Americans/Bosniaks/Albanians/(Insert current Serb enemy nation name, that is to blame for everything, here) are some kind of genocidal nations, while Serbs are the perpetual “victims”. All of this while Karadjic, Milosevich, Mladic and Chetniks are represented as some kind of moderate European leaders, and the article on Srebrenica is almost blaming the Bosniaks for “earning” the massacre Serbs did to them. Historical revisionism at it's worst. And this is all done by just two persistent guys… I wonder why other users let them do it and get away with it.--GeneralPatton 02:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is true that many pages are whitewashed and/or biased, but that does not imply that we should do the same with this one. The accusatory phrases that you inserted are not encyclopedic material either. --Shallot

Greeting+Goldstein+whatever

Nikola Smolenski said:

You shouldn't have bothered

No. We (including you) have agreed on this a long time ago and there is no reason why it should be changed

What exactly have we agreed on? You are mass-reverting, and we've discussed various issues at various lengths... I don't see why we should not provide further explanation regarding victim number controversy, or further explanation on the greeting. Removing material will just be seen as censorship and incite further edit wars. Or, for that matter, what possible reason is there to remove the link to the German Wikipedia page?! --Shallot 10:34, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

As you have just said, various issues at various lengths. I don't see why we should not provide further explanation regarding victim number controversy, or further explanation on the greeting. I, however, do see why should we should not state twice that the number of victims is not known, tell that 1.2 million figure is "mythmaking" while avoiding to call 30,000 figure, say, "holocaust denialism", give nearly anonymous Slavko Goldstain more credit then Simon Wiesenthal's center, avoid telling that ZDS was used as Sieg - Heil, or lying that it is used without connections to the Ustashas.

The removed paragraph doesn't restate that the number is unknown, it elaborates the controversy. The

language was slightly biased toward smaller numbers, but that can be easily fixed. I hardly think

Actually, the fact would be restated three times:

1. Exact numbers of victims are not known, only estimates exist
2. Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely
3. The number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp and the Usta?e-induced death count overall is a fiercely contested issue

I think that two times is enough. Even the numbers in that paragraph are already in the above quote from the US holocaust memorial museum. It doesn't add anything to the article, except biased language. Nikola

Fair enough. --Shallot

Goldstein is nearly anonymous, look him up and you'll see that he's (locally) almost universally recognized as a symbol of anti-Ustasa sentiment and someone who has been involved in these matters as well.

I thought that you can distinguish between neutrality and propaganda. Compare:

1. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs
2. Slavko Goldstein, a prominent Holocaust historian, himself a Jew and a survivor of the Holocaust, now the head of the Council of the Jasenovac memorial area, puts the number at about 70,000 - 90,000 and definitely below 100,000.

What now, should I write, "According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, one of the world's most famous centers for examination of the Holocaust, founded by Simon Wiesenthal, KBE, world's most prominent Nazi opponent, himself a Jew and a survivor of the Holocaust, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs". Do you want the article to look like that?

I would have no problems with facts presented in a neutral manner. We could even have a list of all estimates:

• Slavko Goldstein: X
• Simon Wiesenthal Center: Y
• That historian: Z

We could even devote an entire paragraph to elaborating which estimates could be the most valid. But I refuse to work on a text which is 10% facts and 90% propaganda. Nikola

That's a valid point of view, but not a prerogative. From what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, as long as the propaganda has useful data points, the latter need to be preserved after the former is removed. Random collateral damage (like that de: link) is also frowned upon. *shrug* --Shallot 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The new paragraph doesn't omit that "za dom spremni" is compared to "sieg heil", it says that explicitely. The accusation of lying about the connection is pointless -- you can say that it is almost universally understood as pro-fascist but if someone who uses it says that they don't mean it as pro-fascist, there's no reason to automatically conclude that they're dishonest. (Frankly I'm also disinclined to believe it, but that's still no reason to outright censor it.) --Shallot 19:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It compares it with "Heil Hitler", which is incorrect.

Oh, right. Well, anyway, potato-potatoe. :) --Shallot

Regardless of that, yes, the phrase is so widely seen as pro-fascist that there is every reason to conclude that if someone who uses it says that they don't mean it as pro-fascist, they're dishonest. Nikola 08:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that is an opinion, not a fact. --Shallot 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the German Wikipedia page because I haven't seen it. I am returning it now. Nikola 15:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Merz's Eagles

I vaguely recall that someone had removed (or otherwise did something to) that mention of Ivan Merz and his "Croatian Eagles" saying they weren't equivalent to Hitler Jugend. I googled now and found that this association was founded by the said Merz in 1922, and he died in 1928. Later this organization became(?) either "Ustashe Youth" ("ustaška mladež"?) or "Crusaders" ("križari"?), not all of the sources agree. Another person, Ivo Protulipac, is mentioned in relation to the Ustaše and "Crusaders". Overall I wasn't able to see anything even resembling something wrong done by Ivan Merz and nothing concrete that would link his organization to Hitler Youth. The organization during the war was described to have a similar religious program to the Ustaše but without any details. In short, it seems that this guy Merz's name is being dragged through the mud for no apparent reason. --Shallot 18:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, the question is what were Eagles' goals as well, but until something substantial is found it could be watered down, for examle, to "proclaimed beatification of Catholic priest Ivan Merz. This was protested because he was the founder of the Croatian Eagles, an organization which later (though after his death) became Usta?e version of Hitlerjugend." Nikola 07:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find a single reference to exactly what this Association had in its statute or did that was wrong, esp. the one under Merz. I think one site said that it was "radically Croatian", with a negative connotation. That can mean just about anything. I will remind that integration of church and nation isn't an offense per se, in fact the same thing happens with the Serb Orthodox Church. One site that described Merz's beatification in a positive light said that he was a theologian and that he participated in some "Church renewal movement". That can also mean just about anything. --Shallot 12:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's what I said. We don't (ATM) know what were White Eagles doing, but we know that Merz's beatification was protested (rightly or not) because he founded them. Nikola 06:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to answer to other things but have no time; let's settle one thing at a time. Nikola 08:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I edited this reference on 3 Aug 2005. Firstly, Ivan Merz was not a priest but a layman. I added his vital dates and a date of foundation of the Eagles. I also deleted the association with the Hitlerjugend, because it's historically incorrect. I did lots of reading on the subject, but currently don't have time to write more about it.

It's me again. In short: Ivan Merz was one of the founders of the Eagles, the catholic youth gymnastic society, similar to Falcons. The guy was strictily religious and died in 1928. He was beatified, probably justly. In 1929 the king banned all gymnastic societies except the Falcons, so the Eagles transformed to the Crusaders. Same leadership (president Ivo Protulipac), same people, no more gymnastic, but more courses on various religious and social issues. In the 1930s nationalistic line became stronger. In the end of the 1930s Ivo Protulipac was pushed from the leading position, and archibishop Stepinac took control and placed Crusaders under the umbrella of the Catholic Action. No relation to Hitlerjugend whatsoever. Ivo Protulipac then founded a new organization, Croatian Hero (Hrvatski junak), which was, in fact, militant youth organization, but there is no enough research about them. In 1941 many Crusaders were enlisted in regular army or Ustashas, some of them joined Ustasha Youth, which was the only official youth organization, mandatory for all children. At the end of the year 1941, the Crusaders made an effort to dissociate themselves from the Ustashas, so the membership had to chose where they would be active. They wanted to keep narrower religious agenda. As for Ivo Protulipac, he was completely passive during the war - no connection to Ustasha. he was killed by a Yugoslav spy in Trieste in January 1946. Some of the Ustasha were members of the Eagles when they were young in the 1920s (Dusan Zanko). some of the members joined Ustasha or supported NDH. Some didn't. E.g., Zivko Kustic was Crusader. There is no organizational connection. Is this enough? Please read: Prlenda, S. (2004) "Young, Religious and Radical: The Croat Catholic Youth Organizations 1922 - 1945", in: John Lampe and Mark Mazower (eds) ,Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of Twentieth-Century Southeastern Europe (CEU Press), ISBN 963-9241-82-2. (It's me. I'm too lazy to register) Live long and prosper. - Sept. 15, 2005

Church stance throughout history

Ever since the Great Schism of 1054, the Catholic Church regarded all Catholic Croats and Serbs as Croats and all Orthodox Croats and Serbs as Serbs and tried to catholicize as many Orthodox believers as possible, either by forcible baptisms or by heading (or forcing) them into Union or Uniatism.

It's one thing to connect the Vatican with the Ustase, that's a period of 4 to 16 years, and during the 20th century. But the above spans ten centuries and the claim is accordingly exacerbated in impact, so surely there's few dozen references to support it? --Shallot 18:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence could be confirmed by, for example, [2] ;)

It seems worthy of noting that the term Uniatism doesn't have an article... --Shallot

Modern support

The neo-Ustaše, however, didn't and don't have grass roots support among the Croatian people. The right-most parties, like the Croatian Party of Rights, are most commonly associated with Ustašism and they have the support of a few percent of the population. (This part is particularly disputed.)

What exactly is disputed about this? What other way is there to interpret the lack of HSP's election success other than lack of support for the extremist ideas that separate them from other right-wing parties in .hr? --Shallot 18:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"neo-Ustaše, however, didn't and don't have grass roots support among the Croatian people." The fact that they are not suitable for the parliament doesn't mean that they are not supported. Nikola 07:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You do understand what the term "grass roots" means, right? The elections are an indicator of how many people at the local level support a party. When the Ustase-related parties can't manage to win a plurality, let alone a majority, in the vast majority of election units in Croatia, how can this indicate that they have any noticable amount of support at the local level, or otherwise? Especially if you consider that rightist voting body generally votes more in .hr. --Shallot 11:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Monasteries as bases

Some Franciscan monasteries were used as Ustaše bases. (This part is particularly disputed.)

I presume this is the only part of that paragraph that's disputed. In order to remove the dispute notice, can someone quote an example? --Shallot 18:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Will try to find something. Nikola 07:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have to look very far: Petrićevac. Nikola 06:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've followed up on this and the Franciscans have copies of documentation stating how Miroslav Filipović was expelled from the order (and the monastery, presumably!) after his massacre of February 1942. The external link is in his article. --Joy [shallot] 30 June 2005 16:05 (UTC)

More dispute notices in the Neo-Ustase section

In the 1990s, modern independent Croatia was formed and Croats and Serbs again waged war. There was no official connection between the Ustaše ideology and the new government that made the country independent of Yugoslavia. President Tuđman had controversial views on the topic, claiming that the Ustaša state was indeed an expression of the Croat state tradition. (This part is particularly disputed.)

This is disputed in both ways, I guess. It is disputed that there was no official connection and whether there is unofficial conection and in which degree.

Well, then someone should elaborate exactly how these connections are instead? We already state a bit below that the diaspora provided a lot of support for the new party in .hr and that part of them must have been pro-Ustasa. I sincerely doubt that any more substantial link can be stated without it sounding like propaganda. Maybe if someone heard a HDZ official say something about the Ustase? No examples are provided. --Shallot 11:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess that Tudjman's views are also disputed. Nikola

I don't think the above summary is incorrect. He explicitly said that in his book (the same one where he put the total victim count at 125,000 IIRC), and was subsequently lambasted for it in the media. I don't believe he ever went any further than that, if someone has another example they should quote it. --Shallot 11:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dinko Šakić, one of the commanders of the Jasenovac concentration camp, was tried in 1999 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Croatia has been cooperating with the ICTY in the legal prosecution of all war criminals. The government is also making an effort to return all refugees to their homes. (This part is particularly disputed.)

"Croatia has been cooperating with the ICTY in the legal prosecution of all war criminals."

Well, has it not? Both the leftist and the rightist government have been handing out documents and indictees to the ICTY, and there's currently a single indictee that is unaccounted for compared to dozens in detention. The ICTY and EC opinions in 2004 seem to concur that .hr has been cooperating. --Shallot 11:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and especially "The government is also making an effort to return all refugees to their homes." Nikola 07:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the fine numbers I laid out in Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina. I don't think it can be disputed that the gov't is making an effort, I phrased that so ambigously because I wanted to avoid passing judgement on how they're doing it. --Shallot 11:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about this is disputed? Rationale? --Shallot 18:48, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

HSS participation

Cooperation between the HSS and the Ustaše is claimed to have lasted well into the war.

This is also unsubstantiated. I remember I had added "is claimed to have" into that before, and nobody ever picked up on it... --Shallot 20:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The photo with the head

The photo seems to come from here... [3]

But much of this material "documenting" the "butchery" of Pavelic, Artukovic, et al should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of it is Titoist propaganda (Tito=the guy who was essentially responsible for the murder of 250,000+ Croats at Bleiburg). A number of the photos in that site appear to be retouched, particularly the one of two Ustashi (members of the youth branch, it appears) purportedly preparing to slash a Serbs throat and collect the blood in a bowl. The dagger in the hand of the boy at left and the bowl held by the one on the right do NOT appear genuine- and the lad at center who's about to "have his throat slashed" doesn't appear too out of sorts over the fact.

The picture of the "Ustashi" decapitating someone with an axe- that's no Ustashi; he is clearly wearing the uniform of the Waffen-SS (in this case, one of the Karstwehr units).

Lots of material on Ustashi horrors to be found on the web, and I don't trust one-tenth of one-percent of it. Source is often the Serbian government, and look at how decently THEY treated people under their control from 1991 on!

Another interesting thing about the photo with this description:

"Ustashi cutting the throat of one of their Serbian Orthodox victims. Notice now a Ustashi holding a vessel to collect the first spurt of blood and thus prevent their uniforms from being blood stained. The brutal crime - one of many - took place near Cajnice in 1943."

The "Serbian Orthodox victim" pictured appears to wear the same uniform as those "cutting [his] throat"!!! Just appears that he isn't wearing his cap.

Each image that is wrong should be removed from the article, and each image without a license should be removed from Wikipedia. The upstream site at least properly references the original work they're from (last published in 1990 AFAICT, so well within copyright protection), but the images uploaded to Wikipedia (esp. the mass upload by User:Wertq1) don't even do that, which even strains the fair use provisions... --Shallot 11:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That site hardly seems to be an objective and reliable source, take the below pic from their frontpage for example:

[4]

Its a propaganda site. It preaches that there is this whole anti-serb, neo-nazi world conspiracy that is being run "by american cowboys". It is deeply worrying how much this article resembles this propagandistic site. --GeneralPatton 04:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, we established that ages ago... see above --Shallot 11:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Numbers

"Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs",

Those are old numbers based on doctored Yugoslav statistics, new and impartial research paints a different picture…

C. Michael McAdams ( a specialist in Croatian studies and is Director of the University of San Francisco's Regional Center) in his recent book Croatia: Myth and Reality says following:

"The exact number of war victims in Yugoslavia during World War II may never be known due to fifty years of intentional disinformation by the Yugoslavian and Serbian governments, Serbian exile groups, and others. However, it is likely that approximately one million people of all nationalities died of war-related causes in all of Yugoslavia during World War II and that as many as 125,000 Serbs died of war-related causes in Croatia during the War."

I advise you to look up his book so that some of this misconnceptions can become a bit more clear.

Check out following link for more information [5]

--GeneralPatton 04:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not impressed by this "specialist's findings". He was a property manager and never held any academic post at that university. Simply read his biography to see how much credibility this man could earn at all! He is a mere primitive propagandist - ready to distort the truth the way it suits him and those who hired him as an "independent expert".--Oesterling 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It is nevertheless indicative that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has copied this number, they're an important institution in the field. There's plenty of other numbers on the page so anyone who can read will notice that some numbers are off, on their own accord. --Shallot 11:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Although I can't escape the impression that it looks like random number tossing. 500K over there, 250K over there, 250K over there, a nice little million... Has anyone contacted SWC regarding that web site of theirs? --Joy [shallot] 11:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Principles of the Ustase Movement

The whole paragraf is directly copied from [6].

We should probably note what the original page says, that it's a text by Ante Pavelić written in 1929. Given that we already summarized parts of it in our text, perhaps we should simply summarize the rest and point the external document, it seems too long. --Shallot 11:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that the website it is copied from is run by a serb emigrant organization, associated with the serbska mreza site previously discussed, thus the heavy bias present and attempts at demonizing the Croats, for example, by massive repetition of word Croatia with negative associations.

That doesn't have to imply that the exact content that is copied is incorrect. The page also says it's from a private collection so someone should probably verify that it was indeed a publically distributed pamphlet and not something covered by copyright (a triviality, but still). --Shallot 11:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the text to Principles of the Ustase Movement now. --Joy [shallot] 23:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Threats by Nikola Smolenski

[[7]] In a summary of his edit [User:Nikola Smolenski] wrote this "(External links - (hit save accidentaly) That link wasgrossly inaccurate. But if someone persists in having it, I have some grossly inaccurate links as well)"

• He removed the link without specifying what he feels was inaccurate about the Herceg-Bosna link. It seems to me he is trying to suppress the Croat as well as unbiased view on things.
• This is really worrying since he is threatening to post a link to information he knows to be "grossly inaccurate".

--GeneralPatton 22:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

What was "Serb nationalist" about what you just reverted, GeneralPatton? Ambivalenthysteria 00:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They do that all the time, that is, decide that some semi-random change was "unacceptable" and then keep reverting to some other semi-random version until the sun don't shine. --Shallot 08:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are again comparing me and him. Nikola 02:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because you are all reverting and not bothering about collateral damage! I mean that both in a technical and a philosophical sense. Sure, GeneralPatton makes stupid exclamations and posts silly diatribes at the same time, but two wrongs don't make a right. --Shallot 10:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

It's been two weeks now with no comments at all, so I don't much see the point of leaving this protected. I'm unprotecting it in the hopes that various parties can get along this time. Snowspinner 15:25, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

papal nuncio; lack of condemnation

The [papal] nuncio was even briefed on the efforts of conversions,

This needs context to establish that this "even" is necessary. Did the nuncio just get/listen to the report? Did it happen throughout the war? What did the said nuncio have to say about it? --Joy [shallot] 22:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

and the pogroms were never condemned by the Catholic church.

This needs corroboration, or elaboration of what is actually meant. AFAIR, it's plain wrong as is. --Joy [shallot] 22:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stepinac

Stepinac is accused of supporting the Ustaše, organising Ustaše military clergy and exonerating it of complicity in war crimes and atrocities.

These accusations need to be corroborated, but at Aloysius Stepinac first and then summarized here. --Joy [shallot] 22:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links categorization

This categorization is somewhat futile. There's little in the way of outside view when many pages are written in a completely partisan manner, compiling sources from the inside so to speak... --Joy [shallot]

section order

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Victims section is extension of the introduction, we made it as introduction would be too large if all numbers are mentioned in it; so, it should go right after the introduction

This means first Victims and subsection Concentration camps, and then History and the rest. This was then reverted by Ambi and GeneralPatton.

Nice company indeed. Concentration camps perhaps could be separated, but as I said, if number of victims can't fit the introduction, it has to be right below it. Nikola 00:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

General practice, as far as I've seen, has been to have the lead section, then history, then whatever else. This fitted the previous section order of the article. I understand the concerns; I just think it detracts from the article at present. Ambi 00:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. It was the first section since forever, GP moved it after the history. Nikola 00:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this was a normal page we could try summarizing the victims section in the lead section, but that would turn out pretty silly here. <sigh> Unless of course you would be amenable to leaving out actual numbers in the initial mention and just have it say that they pursued a campaign of terror against the Serbs, the Jews, the Gypsies and Communist Croats? --Joy [shallot]

Don't see what difference would that make. Even if that is put into the lead, the number of victims still has to be stated. Nikola 00:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But we *don't actually know* the number of victims, and this is a major source of controversy with respect to the subject. On that account, it deserves a separate section, but I am almost certain that if we put one number or scope in the lead section, it would only become a flamebait. --Joy [shallot] 19:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And this is exactly the reason why I am advocating to have a section, which explains the controversy in detail, after the lead. Nikola 10:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm also not happy with having "500K dead, or so!" (for the uninitiated, see here, here and here as to why) and a disputed picture of a beheading at the very top of the article. Encyclopedia articles don't exist to shock and awe. --Joy [shallot] 12:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On my setup (800x600), the image doesn't even begin to appear on the second screen, and the head is on the bottom of the image. So much for the very top.

Compared with the length of the page, it's at the very top. And in absolute terms it's not far, just below the table of contents. --Joy [shallot]

It might be on the top in the source, but that could hardly be said for the article. And, yes, but the ToC does exist, and people do actually have it on their screens. Nikola 00:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I don't see how is the image disputed - someone disputes that it's beheading of a priest?

Yes, GeneralPatton commented about it above. --Joy [shallot]

Yes, he claims that the image should not be used because it is also used at another web page together with other images for which he claims to be inaccurate. As you would say, do'h. Nikola 00:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, no, not really a comment worthy of "d'oh", his rationale that the image is not authentic is not all that implausible. A murky image from a murky web site isn't exactly reassurring to begin with... --Joy [shallot] 19:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, no, it is entirely implausible. Stating that something is unauthentic because one instance of it could be found on some place together with other (allegedly) unauthentic things is entitely implausible. It as someone saying that "Wikipedia article on U.S. Navy is biased because article on USAF at the same site is biased." Second is unproven, first would be incorrect even if second would be proven. Nikola 10:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And if 500,000 is on the top, 25,000 is eight lines below. Nikola 00:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't make the whole number meddling thing right, really... --Joy [shallot]

Well, at least he isn’t claiming there were 2 million Ustase victims, like he did back in June, [8]. Funny thing is he kept insisting on those numbers, getting into revert wars, only to remove them by himself in the end. Maybe it’s not coincidental he put out those numbers just days after writing "I have some grossly inaccurate links as well". GeneralPatton 02:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW the Wiesenthal stuff was first added in the early days of the article in this edit which was basically a cleanup of some anonymous semi-vandalism. The Victims section grew onto it as soon as Denny added more sources, which was before we had a noticable history section.

Thinking about it, it seems that Independent State of Croatia and Ustase could be merged, and their history sections moved/rewritten into a more generically named article that would then become part of the History of Croatia series. --Joy [shallot] 12:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think that it's a good idea, given that there are separate articles on, for example, Nazi Germany and NSDAP, North Korea and Korean Workers' Party, etc. and that Ustase existed before and after NDH. Nikola 00:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Nikola on this one, I think. Ambi 00:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You think that you concur, or you concur because you think? ;)) Nikola 00:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They did, and I know about the precedents, but we don't actually have all that much to say about the Ustaše outside the context of the NDH, and the pages end up repeating themselves. We have a comparable set of factoids (and external links) here, at the NDH page, and at the Jasenovac page, and goodness knows how long before the pages about Pavelić, Luburić etc will get all that duplicated in them as well.

The few paragraphs about the Ustase before 1941 could be an intro section in the NDH page, and the few paragraphs after 1459 could be a legacy section. --Joy [shallot] 11:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that true for every political entity closely connected to a movement closely connected to a group of people? Even if the articles are to restate same facts, they should be told from different viewpoints. Nikola 00:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much difference with respect to encyclopedic content in the different viewpoints one can take when talking about the Ustaše. Their actions between 1921 and 1941 were minor at most (at least AFAICT), and all mentions of them after 1945 revolve around what they did during WWII.

When I said POV, I refered to such differences as "NDH was ruled by Ustashas" vs "Ustashe ruled the NDH" (and bigger ones, but I hope you understand what I mean). Nikola 10:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If anything, we should eliminate much duplication (and reduce much workload in reverting anonymous vandalism) by better integrating content. --Joy [shallot] 19:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree, their actions before 1941 are notable if only for sake of explaining how they came into power, and their actions after 1945 must be mentioned somewhere, and NDH is just not the place for it.

Perhaps a first step towards this could be splitting the history into three section: before, during and after coming to power. Then the second section could be compared to history of NDH. Nikola 10:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the racial origin of the Croats, etc

For more details about the recent anonymous edits, please see User talk:85.224.177.65.

I'm reluctant to wield the axe since they aren't entirely off base, although the main point (that Croats aren't Slavs) is IMO entirely incorrect. That they are changing this paragraph only proves that the POV check warning is still well-deserved, the phrasing in it is slightly too colorful to be neutral... --Joy [shallot] 13:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of article

I understand many don't have a keyboard with š, but the letters below the edit box are there for a reason... what about changing the name of the article to Ustaša (since normally singular is preferred for article titles)? Orzetto 18:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not customary to include this diacritic not native to English in titles. The forms 'sh' are quite common elsewhere, I was tempted to move it to use that instead before... --Joy [shallot] 23:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After the UTF8 conversion, this article also followed suit, but it's never late to reconsider using "sh". --Joy [shallot] 30 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Today User:PZFUN mistakenly went ahead and changed many of the sh instances into š among the links. This should not be done without consensus. --Joy [shallot] 16:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

marking April 10 at St. Jerome's

the Illyrian College of San Girolamo in Rome which to this very day marks April 10th, the birthday of the Ustaša state

Can someone confirm this? I somehow doubt it. If anything, "this very day" is too vague. --Joy [shallot] 22:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lacking any confirmation or hint, I'm dropping this accusation. --Joy [shallot]

demographic data

The vojska.net stats includes numbers from 1931 and 1948 censa, listing ~633000 and 543795 Serbs in Croatia, respectively. In other words, there were over 89,000 Serbs fewer after WWII. Can we get an equivalent comparison for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina? That way the demographic loss statistic would be put in a useful context. --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An article by Vladimir Žerjavić from 1998 includes these numbers (number of Serbs, in thousands):

                                B & H      Croatia     Srijem       Total

Official census 3l.3.1931.      1,013          622        155       1,790
Official census 15.3.1948.      1,136          528        165       1,829
Difference:                   +   123        -  94       + 10      +   39

It should be noted that in the year 1946/47 Serbs emigrated within federal colonisation action to settle on the abandoned property of Germans in Vojvodina: 94 thousand from B&H and 60 thousand from Croatia, and that 75 thousand Muslims in census 1948 declared themself as Serbs.

--Joy [shallot] 14:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"How the Catholic Church united with local Nazis to run Croatia during World War II"

Regarding the new link to http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/stepinac1.htm - I didn't read it completely, but some things are apparent from a partial reading: it's very propagandist, uses weaselly language, and doesn't really care about the occasional overly malicious insinuation.

It rants a lot about clerical cooperation in 1941 and to lesser extent in other years, without recognizing the possibility that the Church did not have diabolical tendencies when they supported the new government. There are a number of quotes from newspapers like Hrvatski Narod which is explicitly stated to be an Ustasha newspaper, so it can't really be indicative of an official Church support for the Ustashe. There are quotes where support is expressed for the idea of independent Croatia and the Ustashe as (obviously) the main protagonist, but without saying anything about their Nazi ideology. There are some quotes from priests that actually do reek of Nazism, but those are actually few, and drowned among the rest which reek of propaganda, so the effect is lost.

It can also be wrong, which can be attributed to the fact it's outdated or that it's just plain wrong. Quote: Of the 80,000 Jews in Yugoslavia, 60,000 were killed, the great majority in Croatia. Actually, the Jewish sources state around 32,000 Jewish deaths from NDH, and many weren't killed in (the Independent State of, the oft-forgotten prefix) Croatia but were instead transported to Nazi Germany and killed there. So that can't be a great majority, just a plurality. Granted, not a particularly important error, but it hints at the overall bias.

So, anyway. Just another in a long line... --Joy [shallot] 16:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This articles Bibliography is mostly vehemently Anti-Catholic writers who are not very respectable historians. Until I edited it used terms like "Uniatism" that could not have been Catholic policy because the word was invented in anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox circles. I was very tempted to link to an earlier version of this article on the Anti-Catholicism page.--T. Anthony 13:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

Would please add http://www.hrvatskiustaskipokret.com to the links? HolyRomanEmperor 17:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Simply the fact that so many unchecked and/or uncheckable information has accumulated in this text is a strong reason to dispute it's neutrality. So many different numbers are a psychological game confusing any averagely intelligent or averagely interested reader, not to mension it is an offense for all those who died. Even though those people are dead it doesn't give us the right to play with their lives in this fashion. Some pictures also look like work of propaganda and are unacceptably insinuating, especially for a scroll-over viewer. The article itself is oversized which gives it another unwanted connotation in a matter of importance. IMO, best would be if someone would make a completly new article. I can't do it myself as I feel not informed enough. I do understand this suggestion is a bit too much to ask, it is only an expression of my personal opinion of the quality of this article. - 25 September 2005

What I added was after a bit of sleeplessness. I was trying to add another side some, but I think it angered someone. I'll try to tone it down a bit. (However the article I saw did need some balance and more mainstream scholarly support for its assertions. That my additions got it listed as NPOV I don't think says much about them.)--T. Anthony 23:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The anon states that the article has many unchecked information, but never states what that information is. Many different numbers are, unfortunately, necessary though I agree it's insulting. Also, the anon doesn't say which pictures look like work of propaganda. The point about article being oversized is a joke.

BTW, Anthony, you are completely missing the point about Uniatism. It does not equal forced conversion. Nikola 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay you're right that what it actually said was "were related to the policy of the Roman Catholic Church known as "Uniatism", which consisted of Catholicizing as many Orthodox believers as possible, by means of re-baptism or by entering into Union." However the Catholic Church often wanted to convert as many of any group as possible. The article didn't explain why a term that exists nowhere else, at Wiki or even in any scholarly source online, should be used. Or why/how the Catholic Church's policy with regards to Eastern Orthodoxy was different then it's response to anything else. The statement was simply out there with no explanation. It simply is a policy of the Catholic Church because the writer said so. Considering the term was never used in the Catholic world, except to respond to irate Orthodox Christians, I don't see any evidence it was a policy. So I changed it, and I'm quite glad I did. If you want to use the term, you should find sufficient support for doing so. Otherwise I might as well state that the Russian repression of Ukrainian Greek Catholics was De-Uniatization, or any other word I want to invent.--T. Anthony 14:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

And in case you ask I'm aware the term "Uniatism" dates to nineteenth century Russia, but as a word itself it is not in English dictionaries or much else. When you look for uniate at Wiki it states the term itself is now deemed an insult and even in some Russian Orthodox circles it is now considered such.--T. Anthony 15:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that this page should no longer be concidered "controversal". Right? HolyRomanEmperor 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute; wait a minute... where did the "a third to kill; a third to convert and a third to expell" go??? HolyRomanEmperor 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it should be returned. Nikola 22:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

They got their asses beat

They got their asses beat and handed to them by the Partisans! What a wonderful experience, should keep the "Ustase" fans in check since they were too weak for a united yugoslav people.

>Well said - the Ustasha never were more than fascist thugs. Without the help of the Germans they wouldn't have won a single battle. I don't understand how people can support an army that, even though supplied by the Germans, was outclassed by a resistance movement that, compared to them, was underequipped and mostly untrained.

USTASHE FICTION

Upon reading the Ustashe page i was in shock how Wikipedia has let this sort of editing go on. This is clear vandalism and work of fiction by someone. My guess is the editor is Serbian and has some issue against Croatians and is clearly using this page as a vehicle to push propaganda. The article is very negative and anti croat.

---

First it should be said

1. Ustashe were a minority of Croats who were mainly from Bosnia and Hercegovina region.
2. Majority of Croats Partizans including Tito fought against them and the Nazis.
3. Ustashe would have numbered only 10,000 max.
4. Ustashe hated and sold Dalmatian Croats to Italy.
5. Ustashe didnt kill many Serbs but did assist the Nazis of the killing of Jews.
6. The number of Serbs killed can and has never been proven (as its fiction), so why even mention this Serb propaganda. Serbs have always inflated the numbers as use in anti croat propaganda. With little or no fact to back these numbers up why are they even mentioned in the article.
7. Ustashe and Ante Pavelic were puppets on a long string which included most of Europe including Serbs.

I have nothing against Serbian people and most would agree the Ustashe page is abit one sided and very anti cro Evergreen Montenegro1 03:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Iam Montenegrin myself and know what Serbs get up to on the net.

Theres nothing anti-croatian all is true. Croatians in the WWII were Ustases, most of the population accepted that. You killed and that's it.

    ^^^ LOLZ gotta love those serbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.46.200 (talk • contribs) 

93K minus overall

User:Purger said Sensless claim about number of Serbs in Croatia removed

Can you elaborate, please? --Joy [shallot] 21:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

http://www.vex.net/~nizkor/hweb/people/e/eichmann-f/transcripts/Sessions/Session-046-05.html <--- It doesn't work. --85.204.31.123 07:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, an neither does http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/Ustashe.html --85.204.31.123 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: pro-Ustase/pro-Catholic POV on this page

TO ALL WIKIPEDIANS:

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

216.194.2.22 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Robert. Got another new IP address? To all Wikipedians; Be eternally vigilant of Robert's POV edits! - Ali-oops^✍ 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with:

The Ustaše (often spelled Ustashe in English; singular Ustaša or Ustasha) was the Roman Catholic Croatian World War II-era government (recognized by the Vatican) in charge of the Independent State of Croatia in which they pursued Nazi policies.

It is the truth. The Ustase was entirely Roman Catholic in nature and was recognized by the Vatican (see Ante Pavelic page re meeting with Pope).

To all my fellow Wikipedians out there -- watch out for Demiurge, Ali-oops and the rest of the censors/lackeys who are determined to impose their own POV on this page. 216.194.59.87 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Robert - if you quit obsessing/attacking other editors and tried to work in collaboration with them, you'd do so much better. Oh, and quit using various IP addresses to revert to your POV. You're just being abusive - Ali-oops^✍ 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

comments from 82.114.73.166

TO ALL CROATS: 

Please admit the fact that you were same and maybe worse than Nazis during the Second World War. If you don't believe the number of 700 000 victims of Jasenovac Concentration camps,mostly Serbs, than check the number by names of the victims since they are avilable to everybody. Your research can even go farther,check their origin. That's history,but sometimes nobody can't hide from it. And it was not so long ago so that the prooves can get lost so easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.73.166 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 May 2006

Please be careful when you post message to all Croats because majority of us believe there was genocide in Jasenovac (that makes me puke) and big part of Croats was involved in Anti-fasist movement during the WW2 with partisans. Thank you. Jakiša Tomić 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

this is ridicilous......this person is reffering to the list of Jasenovac victims that contain names from the whole Croatian vilages, and such last names as Pavelic, Luburic and such.....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.138.97 (talk • contribs)

To Serbs

To say 700,000 Serbs were killed in Jesenovac is Serbain POV and a grose mistake. The so called tally ranges from 100 to 20,000 to 700,000 to millions...depending on which Serb politician is talking. Serbs use Jesenaovac as a politicial and motivational tool to insight hatred of Croats among Serb people. Like I said why does the figure range from 100 to 1 million, this clearly shows some Serbs are not telling the truth and inflate the figures. Sure Serbs were killed by Ustashe forces but many of the ones killed by Ustashe were actually Croatian who didnt want to join them. Its a little known fact and well overlooked, that Ustashe did kill many Croatians especailly in the region of Dalmatia.----------- To be fair in Jesanovac around 10,000 Serbs were "maybe" killed. Even if not proven this figure would sound correct according to records of misssing persons. Some of the missing could have escaped and others might have died of hunger. ----------------- One also has to remember the Serb Chetnicks were not innocent...they killed a huge number of Croats and some say the same amount if not more. Yet nobody is blowing that trumpet to the Serbs.---------- In the recent Balkan war Serbs killed a great deal of Bosnians and Croats well over 20,000. This can be be proven due to modern technology.---------- Blieburg in WW2 was also a place were kids, women and some Ustashe were killed by Partizans ...figures range in approx 20,000.------------------

In the end eye for an eye ...looks to me all sides have done something to the other. I think the Serbs need to look at both sides before judging anyone.

---

I think this needs to be left in the past...look to the future people...war no matter where is ugly and innocent people die.... If one can say we are all Slavs and we can understand one another in language...why are we even fighting...

Evergreen Montenegro 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)