Talk:Independent State of Croatia/Archive 2

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

anon adding "quisling"

Please do not add "quisling" to the top section without a source (or explanation on talk). Thank you. // Laughing Man 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is in the article itself and on this very talk page. As well as in the Ustashe talk page as well. The "Indepedent State of Croatia" was clearly a nazi puppet state formed by the nationalist quisling organisation with the help of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis. If you aren't acquainted with the basic facts and with this subject then remove yourself and stop removing valid content from the article I am adding. --89.172.201.73 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Not quite - you see, the Independent State of Croatia's members were not national traitors & collaborators - the entity itself was formed by an Ustasha Army which invaded the Kingdom of Yugoslavia together with the Axis invasion force and then established itself on this territory, proclaiming an independent state - in which, at first, they enjoyed support of masses (allegedly majority) of its (ethnic Croat) inhabitants. As for was the NDH really a puppet state so harshly controlled by the other Axis - that's disputable. The NDH enjoyed more self-government and was more aligned to the Nazis than Vichy France, and yet there is no mention of "quisling" or any such things on that article at all. --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I some aspects, the NDH was as Quisling government, as it was never able to sustent itself without the help of Nazi German (which occupied the northand east of NDH) and Fascist Italian (which occupied the south and west of NDH) armies. The map in the articles shows this.--MaGioZal 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945)

Hi,

I’m suggesting merging this article with History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) article because personally I do not think they should be separated — during all the existence of WWII Croatian satte, Bosnia and Herzegovina was included inside it. So abviously all that happened inside the current territory of BiH happened in NDH, too.--MaGioZal 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1941–1945)#Merge_with_Independent_State_of_Croatia_article PANONIAN (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Chetn… ops, PANONIAN, you do not own any of these articles.--MaGioZal 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am from partisan family. Second: you did not answered my post. Third: calling somebody a chetnik only because he is a Serb is big insult based on racist prejudices - I believe that purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a place where every racist of this World can express his opinion...there are other web sites for that. PANONIAN (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
“Chetnik”, “Partisan”, “Serb Radical” or anything like that aren’t races, so I simply don’t feel myself racist. I even believe that there are many good Serbians (like Nataša Kandić) in this world.--MaGioZal 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you call somebody "chetnik" only because you read that his native language is Serbian, then it is clear that you are racist (no matter what you feel). PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not call you of anything by the language that you talk, but by the positions you defend.--MaGioZal 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? And what position that might be? PANONIAN (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I oppose any such merge. The NDH article is about a government, not a general history of the area it governed. Clearly a great many events occured in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina which were not directly related to the puppet government. For example, the article mentions atrocities committed by Chetniks against Bosniaks -- what does that have to do with the NDH? Eleland 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
But the article doesn’t talk just about the government, it talks also about the area it controlled — in fact, the Independent State of Croatia was a Axis-allied and Axis-dominated country between 1941 and 1945, as the same way as Serbia and Slovakia at that time.--MaGioZal 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? Your proposal for merging is simply not logical - following your logic we can also merge England article with United Kingdom article simply because England is part of United Kingdom, and both mergings are totally ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that in case of England it is a formal part of the United Kingdom; in the case of Bosnia, it was a not formal admnistrative unit of NDH (even because the former frontiers of the Kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenes were already dissolved in Banovinas by the time of the invasion of the Yugoslavia by the Axis); it was entirely located inside the NDH as an integral part of a unitarian country.--MaGioZal 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I can show you that even this "formal/informal part argument" is not valid: compare New England and United States of America articles. So, since New England is not an formal region, should we merge this article with United States of America? PANONIAN (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Puppet state

I just added a few references to the NDH being an Axis puppet state as well as adding a few sentences from the strategic point of wiew. It is necessary for people to understand the greater military needs that played a great part in the creation of the state. DIREKTOR —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Misleading cut & paste

Removed the following note on the Ustasha policy of persecution:

http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/tucker/hh367/OgnyanovaArticle.pdf. In fact, the roots of the Ustasha ideology can be found in the Croatian nationalism of the nineteenth century. The Ustasha ideological system was just a replica of the traditional pure Croatian nationalism of Ante Starcevic. His ideology contained all important elements of those of the extreme Croatian nationalism in the twentieth century. Starcevic’s writings reveal an attitude similar to that of the contemporary Croatian nationalists: Frankovci at the beginning of the twentieth century and Ustashas in the 1930s.

because the next line in the document that was excluded from the document talks of the idea of indpendent statehood & not persecution:

Mainly this is the idea that all political, social, and economic problems were subordinate to the national one and would be easily solved once national emancipation and statehood had been achieved.8 Ustasha’s ideological system contained some new elements that distinguished it from its predecessors and made it eclectic.

iruka 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that information could be re-integrated into the article, as long as it's clear this is the particular POV of apologists and not objective fact. Sadly, some people have tried to "rehabilitate" the Ustasha in recent years.
Eleland 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The death of Pavelić

Ante Pavelić did not die "of the old age". He was 70, maybe not you young, but it is hard to say "of old age". In the article about Pavelić it stays: Pavelić died on December 28, 1959, at the German hospital in Madrid, reportedly from complications of a bullet in his spine.

I also corrected the edition Argentina-Spain. It was true that he went to Argentina and then to Spain.

In another part of the section I also made reference to the Bleiburg massacre, becuse it is necessary to mention it as the event marking the period directly after the end of the NDH. Jasra 12:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Population

The whole section is not supported by a valid reference.--72.75.47.110 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Population data are more or less OK. Census of 1931 for territory which will become Independent State of Croatia is:
Croats 547,949 (Bosnia) + 2,480,000 (Croatia) + 117,000 (Syrmia) = 3,144,949
Serbs 1,028,139 (Bosnia) + 633,000 (Croatia) + 210,000 (Syrmia) = 1,871,139
Muslims 718,079 (Bosnia) + 4,000 (Croatia) = 722,079
This is last census data before 1948 so nobody know 100 % exact population number in 1941 but this is close enough. --Rjecina (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
For 1941 minority estimates are 2,100,000 Serbs, 750,000 Muslims and 30,000 Jews. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 edits

The sockpuppeteer Standshown/Stagalj reverted my recent edit allegedly because I provided no references. He seems happily oblivious of the fact that the material he restored (his own?) equally has no references. Specifically he has restored text which describes Ustaše as racist, terrorist saboteurs. They well have been, but at least one of these terms is potentially contentious/POV and would need references if it was to stay in. He also restored text - again without citations - which states that the Ustaša "conquered" BiH. I can find no source that supports this view and this view is contradicted by two earlier statements in the same article. (Standshown/Stagalj has not bothered to "correct" these earlier "mistakes".) In this case I have simply deleted an erroneous and unsupported statement, and I don't need to give a citation for that.

I would argue that my own version is more robust and does not need specific citations. I described Ustaše as fanatical Croat nationalists, a description surely beyond argument, to the extent that Ustaše themselves could hardly quarrel with it. I have described the Ustaša as an "insurgent" movement, again beyond argument since the term is a reasonable derivation from the English translation of its name. And I have said the movement was "ultimately genocidal" since, whatever its policy was at inception, it certainly embraced genocide by July 1941 and probably sooner. I have not bothered with a citation for this because the very same paragraph includes the notorious pronouncement by Budak, which fits almost to perfection the definitions of genocide as determined by Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word, and by the UN. It is surely more useful to say the regime was genocidal than that it was racist or terrorist in character, particularly since it is almost impossible to reach consensus about when the term "terrorist" is legitimate.

I didn't mention in the note covering my initial edit that I also deleted a comment that had been included with one of the footnotes. A Wikipedia footnote is not the place for a discussion forum.Kirker (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Stagalj reverted the edit explained above, claiming it to be POV. It was in fact an honest stab at being NPOV and I think most people would see it that way. Even if it IS in some degree opinionated it is less contentious, and more easily defended, than the language to which Stagalj has reverted. (But then he does his wholesale reversions without any serious attempt to explain them anyway.) The text I removed from a footnote was NOT a reference but a gratuitous and unattributed opinion. As it stood, it was also completely meaningless.Kirker (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic map

Here's a good demographic map of NDH: http://velisarajicevic.tripod.com/Image287.jpg We should draw it up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Education for the Uneducated

First off - Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic was a "Poglavar" of an Independent Croatian state - he was a statesman, not for his Ustase - but to his Domobrani, his Legionnaires, and obviously the people which lived in his country. When we talk about J.F.K we refer to him as an American president. Croatia has had Kings, and now Presidents, and they have all earned their title, just as Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic had earned his.

Dr. .... no that was actually NOT just his honoric? (haha that's not even a word) 'proper' title. He had a PhD in law from the University of Zagreb, and was a "Dr." long before he became head of state.

Pavelic was a Croatian statesman and had a PhD in Law, giving a man his proper title is what he deserves - not necessarily glorifying him - more so, NOT giving him a title would be degrading him - which is even then NOT NEUTRAL.

Unfortunately, today "Fascism" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Fascism (even as outline in the wiki definition) is used today to simply denounce a political party or a state. You can give "Fascist" titles to nations which openly considered themselves fascist i.e Italy, Spain etc. The Ustasa movement was not established as a "fascist movement" and Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic did not consider himself a fascist - which he himself outlines in his own book "Strahote Zabluda" which was written and published prior to NDH.

Using terms such as "terrorists" etc is humorous and clearly shows that the article is not neutral at all.

After all, Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic himself put an end to "Divlje (wild) Ustase" in Herzegovina in 1941, and even sentenced Jasenovac camp guards to death for their mistreatment of inmates. To lable him as a terrorist, and all Ustase as terrorists is nothing but Serbian/Yugoslav propaganda. In the modern world, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and in the modern world, we can be realistic enough to know that not all soldiers of any nation are war criminals. If a Croatian peasant who took arms up for his country in 1941 is a 'terrorist' then every soldier who has ever taken up arms for his/her country is a terrorist. Ustase/Domobrani etc fought for what they perceived to be an Independent Croatian state, they did not go off conquering other states etc

OH - and may I add something for User:Joy the NDH was not only recognized by the Axis, it was recognized by 32 nations - last time I checked - that is many more nations then that of what made up the Axis. As for "historians" labeling the NDH as such - where do you think they got this information ? Many of these citations are prior to 1991 - meaning much of these historians were receiving their information from communist Yugoslavia - which has tainted Croatia's history in almost un-fixable ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC) AP1929 (talk)

Yes he has earned title poglavnik in way in which Quisling has earned title primeminister and Jozef Tiso has earned title Vodca. He has learned bootlicking art. --Rjecina (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Rjecina Listen, Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic was greeted with great enthusiasm and initially the Croatian people as a LARGE MAJORITY accepted him as their new leader - Macek and his HSS even urged their support to follow Poglavnik. President Tudman was elected by the Croatian people, and if within his term he made mistakes, and many of the people started to 'dislike' him, it doesn't matter, they still put him where he is and that is that. AP1929 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Rjecina Once again, thank you for deleting my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AP1929 said "haha that's not even a word" because someone wrote "honoric" when meaning "honorific". It might be better if he stopped such sneering while he continues to use words such as "lable" and to write nonsense such as "they have all earned their title" - as though they had just one title between them.
To say that Pavelić earned his poglavnik title is simply ludicrous. Apart from a week or two of euphoria in April 1941 he was never supported by more than a small minority of Croatians. Throughout his political career he was always eclipsed by Radić and Radić's successor Maček, who both had far greater popular support. He came to power only by default when Maček declined to form a government. Even then he was dependent on a deal between Ribbentrop and Mussolini. Hitler at that time just didn't rate him. Maybe Pavelić does bear comparison with Tuđman - but at least Tuđman started off by getting elected.Kirker (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Kirker

Small minority of Croatians ?! Do you have any idea how many Croatians there were in NDH ?! Ustaska Vojnica had over a hundred thousands soldiers, not to mention the PTS, Hrvatsko Domobranstvo (which was much larger), Ustaska Mladez, The thousands of Croatians in the Croatian Legion fighting on the Eastern front... To say that a 'minority' of Croats supported Poglavnik is ridiculous ! Do you know how many HSS 'soldiers' became Ustase ?! Dr. Vladko Macek himself co-operated with Poglavnik - not to mention some of the most notable HSS figures became Generals in NDH - which is outlined by Luburic AND Macek ! The people who did not support Poglavnik were communist Croats (which were a small minority), Yugoslavs, and Serbs ! Over a million people FLED from NDH in May of 1945 - why ? Because they DIDN'T support Dr. Pavelic ?! Not to mention how many of these people left their families behind, not to mention the amount of Domobrani/Ustase who stayed behind and gambled with their fate - not to mention the mass transfers into Partizan army in late 1945 - why ?! Because these people believed in communism, brotherhood and unity ? Because they didn't support Pavelic ? No. Because they saw the dream was coming to an end, and wanted to save their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Take a look at (simply) the amount of Croatians that migrated to: Canada, Argentina, and Australia in 1945. You think they left because they had no support for Dr. Pavelic ?! AP1929 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Independent State of Croatia

I think that we need use this sources [1] [2] in article , because they very good to explain reasons for creation of Ustaše, creation of Independent State of Croatia and hate towards Serbs. First is showing Albert Einstein thinking about Croat situation in Yugoslavia and second is speaking about killing of Croat parliament members in Yugoslavia.--Rjecina (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't resentment a better word. Murder of Milan Sufflay may have had an effect on certain Croatian emigration and certain university circles but on masses - hardly. As for Stjepan Radić is concernd there is imaginable that peasants as well as workers and "urban" population would be horrified by that blatent murder and feel deep resentment towards Puniša Račić and Cincar clique that "controled" the Crown and the King himself but "hate towards Serbs" and coming from you seem like an over reaction and not objective historical analysis. Ordinary Serb peasants (and workers and "urban" citizens) were not affected with this but the represion aparatus like (Serb majority in police, post office, railroad, judiciary, army, state and local officials ..................................................................). The list could be as long as you want. -- Imbris (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008 edits

Rjecina's recent changes remove significant referenced content and in some cases mislead. For instance some readers would now infer that the delegates who visited Alexander in 1918 had some kind of legitimacy, whereas the council that sent them was unaccountable to anyone, and was in no sense representative of opinion either in the south Slav states generally or in Croatia. My version did make clear that Croatian interests and rights were over-ridden in Belgrade, but it is going too far to say Croatia had enjoyed protected autonomy for 800 years, as there had been periods of serious oppression by Hungary and the Dual Monarchy (hence Jalačić's campaign etc). Also, if the background section goes back to WW1 (and I agree that it should) it is important to make the point that attitudes and behaviour among many Croats and Dalmatians, initially at least, was influenced by concern to stop Italy getting its hands on Dalmatia.

The document Rjecina references in respect of Radić's murder is interesting, but to be acceptable we need to know where it was published and when. If those details can be added then it should certainly be included. But I would argue that it should be added to the account of the murders as I had drafted it, which reads well and is well sourced.

I would suggest the background section does need to take serious account of Maček's views, whether or not other views are cited. Maček became Radić's closest aide. Radić's was unquestionably the voice most representative of majority Croatian opinion, and Maček succeeded him in that role.

I do accept that of Rjecina's changes/references are valid and I hope he will agree to apply them to the article as I had redrafted it. I would be willing to tidy up the English if necessary.Kirker (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirker you need to make simple decision:
Do you know Croatian language or not ?
Reason for question is that you use source on Croatian language like confirmation of your statement !
This source [3] clearly speak that delegation sent from Zagreb to regent Alexander must respect 10 points.
  • 1 Organization of new state must be decided by National Assembly od Serbs, Croats and Slovenes with 2/3 majority of votes. This constitution assembly must happen 6 months after end of war.....
  • In the end constitution assembly has happened in 1920 and it has voted for new constitution with 50 % + 1 vote.
I will not write about other points because they are not in dispute.
In rewriting I have missed part "protected autonomy". This has not been writen by me :)
Can you please tell me reason for deleting New York Times of May 6 1931 . I am really interested to hear why ??
Your reverts in part of article Establishment of NDH I will revert because your edit has been clearly POV. Can you please explain me how you know that Ustaša guard is standing between bodies of Serbs in Jasenovac. Not even US Holocaust Museum do not know this fact. You need to inform USHM about that :)
You are having internet book on english language which clearly speak about Maček september events.
You have returned false statement about Rapallo contract because he has given to Italy Istria and islands. Not Dalmatia !!!
In Yugoslav Dalmatia there has not been Italians (or there has been very small number).See demography data--Rjecina (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
About Rappallo see article Treaty of Rapallo, 1920 . Must of edits in article Independent State of Croatia has been made by banned user and all statement which are confirmed by obscure books will be deleted :)--Rjecina (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
1) Croatian/Serbian: I can read slowly an ijekavian version of these languages which is used in BiH. I can usually cope ok (but even slower) with Croatian. The grammar is similar to that in BiH but the vocabulary can defeat me, as that is sometimes different - particularly in work written since 1990s. If you are referring to the Šišić reference, I waded through that with a student from Bjelovar in April last year.
2) At first I didn't understand your point about the two-thirds majority needed in the national assembly but do now. If you put that back in, I will tidy it up. Or I can try to say it, and you can change it if I am wrong. I don't think it contradicts anything that is there now?
3) The newspaper cutting does not seem to have any indication that it is from NYT, May 6 1931. If I have overlooked something, sorry.
4) Re Dalmatia: Using the "undo" button meant that some good points were lost. I intended that they should go back in. I thought this would be easier than editing your version. I've now gone back and done some more work in that section. Maybe you will think it is ok now, or at least better.
5)Again I agree with you about the photo caption. In fact I don't like to see those pictures used, and I have deleted them from Wikipedia articles a couple of times. In most cases I don't think the USHMM or anyone else knows the history of those photos or can say with certainty where they were taken. And some have obviously been faked.
6) Lastly I never intend to be POV one way or the other, but if I am, I must rely on others telling me! Kirker (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We both agree that parts of article Background and Establishment of NDH are neutral. My only problem is that background part is having too much lines.--Rjecina (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Initial period

I will write here important points for this part of article so that you can use it for writing. This points are:

  • We agree that first 5 lines can stay ?
  • Proclamation of laws for protection of state. In this law from 17 April is clearly writen that anybody who "offend" or try to "offend" Croatian nation will recieve death penalty. This law is legal base for latter killing of anybody (law is on http://www.crohis.com/izvori/ustzk.pdf )
  • First antisemit law of 18 April 1941, but you must now forget that there has been antisemit laws even in Kingdom of Yugoslavia and this has been only continuation of policy (source ofr antisemit laws in Yugoslavia is Ivo Goldstein:Jews in Yugoslavia 1918-41 )
  • Antisemit laws of 30 April 1941 where it is clear difference between members of Aryan race and others ( law is on http://www.crohis.com/izvori/ustzk.pdf )
  • Law about religion conversion of 3 May 1941 ( law is on http://www.crohis.com/izvori/ustzk.pdf ). This law will become more clear after Mile Budak ( minister of education ) famous speach on 2 July 1941: "We will kill one third of all Serbs. We will deport another third, and the rest of them will be forced to become Catholic"
  • Creation of concentration camps. All will be closed until 1942 and prisoners will be send to extermination camp Jasenovac.
  • Creation of Chetnik forces and Partisans (Yugoslavia) on NDH territory. Creation of First Sisak Partisan Squad on 22 June 1941. This day is today national holliday in Croatia.

I think that this is enough for initial period. --Rjecina (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina do you think the whole of the second paragraph, as it stands now, should be deleted? Your points about the legislation are fine, but I think something should be retained about army structure, strength and equipment as it was at the launch of NDH. These details don't seem to have sources at present, but I think I can find some. The reference to Dalmatia can go in the following section. Kirker (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Army of Independent State of Croatia

I think that it will be best for us to create this new part of article where we will write anything about army. For this part we will use site ( http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/independent-state-of-croatia/ ) and other similar sites. Your thinking ? --Rjecina (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In October 1944 there has been 17 regular divisions [4] --Rjecina (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's already some articles on individual branches and units, which should help: Croatian Home Guard, Navy of the Independent State of Croatia, Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia, Crna Legija, Croatian Armed Forces.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A separate section would make sense, maybe with the heading Military strength. No doubt those articles mentioned by Thewanderer should be consulted but I would favour Vojska.net as the primary source. (That website has been redesigned by the way, and the active link is now here [5].Kirker (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We all agree that there will be separate section for Army (name of section is not important).
In my thinking we need new sections:Crimes (maybe under name Jasenovac), Church, War (maybe 2 sections War 1941-43 and 44-45). Your thinking ? --Rjecina (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1) I am intending to have a go at rewriting the "initial period" section along the lines you (ie Rjecina) suggested.
2) I am completely against dealing with the crimes of the regime under the heading "Jasenovac" for two reasons. First the atrocities at Jasenovac, grotesque as they were, have often been wildly exaggerated, and in any case it is difficult for historians to be sure about exactly what happened there. Second, many atrocities - quite literally dozens - took place completely outside the camps system, in towns and villages and there has been a tendency for these to be overlooked because of the emphasis always placed on Jasenovac. I am not sure that "crimes" would be appropriate either since the word has legal significance (ie it could be argued that crimes are for courts to determine). I would be OK with "Atrocities" but that might be too contentious as well. Kirker (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Like sources for atrocities (or other name ?) we will use internationally accepted sources: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449 (USHMM), http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Jasenovac.html (Jewish Virtual Library) and maybe Yad Vashem center. If you ask why only maybe Yad Vashem center reason is that they are having problem with numbers. They have accepted Serbian claims about 600,000 victims of Jasenovac [6] , but they are still using international accepted numbers (more or less) for total victims number in NDH which is 500,000 [7]. --Rjecina (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(We have finished up talking about more than the Army in this section, but never mind.) I suspect Rjecina has put his last two references the wrong way round. Either way, Yad Vashem (like Simon Wiesenthal Centre on which it has sometimes relied) is not a sound source. The figure of 600,000 is way too high; the other figure, 500,000 in total, might be OK. But there are better sources, for instance the book "Hitler's Pope" which has a chapter devoted to Croatia. The author, John Cornwell came up with figures (slightly lower) based on analysis of many other estimates.
I'm not sure that we should have a sub-section within "history" headed "Racial (or Racist?) legislation." It would be best to put the new material into "initial period" and move the present stuff in that section to a new section called "Military strength" which need not be under "History." Or.... if the new sub-section stays as it is, it should be moved out of the "history" section. Kirker (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

About army we are having agreement so I have stoped to talk (write) about that. About legislation maybe best thing will be to use section name from Nazi Germany. In this article name is Racial and social persecution and because of that I have given name to section Racial legislation. When we speak about sources for section about crimes we agree that best will be USHMM and Jewish Virtual Library ? Maybe this section of article we can call Racial persecution ? --Rjecina (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea re "Racial persecution," which again need not be under "History." But I don't think we should put too much faith in the Jewish sources. Even the USHMM has been far from objective about NDH, especially during the Clinton years. Those sources should be used, but others should be too. Don't forget that there is a fair amount of documentary evidence around, for instance the trials of Artuković and Dinkić. Also there were huge Nazi crimes in NDH. (They played a leading part in the assault on many thousands of civilians around Kozara/Prozara during the offensive of June-July 1942.) We must try to be precise in dealing with atrocitiies, citing specific incidents where possible, as so much of the stuff that's been written is unsubstantiated and even fanciful. Kirker (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid adding false references

The ref name="Atlas of World War II, David Jordan and Andrew West" does not supported the added text. Please avoid damaging credibility of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.157 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The source (I didn't even actually include in the article) shows the extent of Partisan control of the NDH during the war. But you must be interested only in the parts of the text that concern upholding the "honour" of the Croats/Serbs or what not, am I right? (a rhetorical question) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The 'source' is non-existent. So - you are a primitive liar. Any seriuos editorial board would automatically exclude you from contributing anything. But this is Wikipedia - a 'source' disqualified as a valid one by many universities and other academic instittutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.187 (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism in this article

This article is a veritable battleground of various nationalist views. On the one hand we have the standard edits by Croatian neo-nazism affiliates, on the other we have nationalist Serbs (Croatian or not) that are trying to depict the Partisan movement and its formation as a Serb uprising in the NDH. The widely known facts remain, however:

  • The Independent State of Croatia is the definition of a puppet-state, and one would be hard pressed to find a better example of one. Yet, because of the various NDH-nostalgic (to say the least) IP editors this must not be stated.
  • Up until the winter of 1944, Croats formed the majority of the Partisan detachments (brigades). Only when Serbia was liberated with the assistance of the Red Army in November and December 1944, and the Chetnik movement de-facto destroyed, did the area become an important source for recruitment (of inexperienced units) for the Partisans. Up until that point, excluding the Užice Republic, Yugoslavs of Serbian nationality formed a minority in the ranks of the resistance. This is military history of the Yugoslav front. This is not an attempt to belittle the Serbian contribution to the war effort, it is an attempt to bring to light a well known fact that has lately been suppressed on Wikipedia out of nationalistic/political reasons.

Needless to say, I will find sources for these facts within a few days at the latest. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So, everythnig above comes from the Tudjman's Wastelands of Historic Reality. Germans were clear - most of partizans' ranks were the Serbs. What kind of credibility has this man is seen above where I discovered that his 'source' is non-existent.


The following are links to the exact number of NOVJ units per Federal Republic (and autonomous region):

- Bosnia and Herzegovina (33)
- Croatia (48)
- Macedonia (23)
- Montenegro, Boka and Sandžak (8)
- Slovenia (23)
- Serbia (31)
- Kosovo (9)
- Vojvodina (14)


- Bosnia and Herzegovina (59)
- Croatia (72)
- Macedonia (20)
- Montenegro (14)
- Slovenia (29)
- Serbia (41)
- Kosovo (6)
- Vojvodina (36)


Furthermore, it is obvious that units from the territory of the so-called Independent State of Croatia constitute more than half of the fighting strength of the Yugoslav Partisans. It thus cannot be biased to state that the Axis attempt to pacify the area by creating a false sense of independence failed. (At the time Serbs formed around 13% of the population of what was to become FR Croatia.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For my part I have no quarrel with "puppet state" which is what it was. But no-one can deny that the term has a pejorative aspect, no doubt intentionally, whereas the more general term "client state" is relatively neutral. For that reason I thought we could stick with the general term rather than the particular, at least until the present squabbling dies down. Re Croats in the partisan ranks, again I have no quarrel with that, but I haven't time to go tracking down references at present and it's surely best to leave the point unstated until it is sourced (otherwise it just becomes another hostage to fortune in the nationalistic warring). As a general point I would say print sources are better rather than websites because they are more durable. There are exceptions of course, among which vojska.net is a notable example. Kirker (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term "puppet state" has a pejorative aspect, however, be that as it may, it is also a more accurate term to describe the exact condition that state was in. It is not a profane expression, nor is it necessarily an insult. I for one feel no particular need to go around insulting countries, but I do not like it when text is altered and generalized on account of some people who find more accurate expressions disturbing.
Considering vojska.net, the site is a very accurate and unbiased source of information. It merely deals with cold hard facts (military history) which makes it less POV than Wikipedia, one might say. Anyway, I'm glad we agree on this issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So, everything above is in full accordence to Tudjman's Wastelands of Historic Reality. The truth was said by Germans - most of the Tito's partizans ranks were the Serbs. How much credibility has this person is visible through his/her attempt to offer a non-existent 'source' - to support nonsense claimed by him/her stubbornly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.187 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what Tuđman wrote in his book, I certainly didn't read it nor do I intend to. There is no need to insult my credibility as I am not using it in support of my edits. I'm using reliable references, and being so fond of them I suggest you get some too. "The Germans" said only that Serbs were the most important source of recruits at the time when that text was written, nothing more. Furthermore, this statement is not based on any objective intelligence report, but appears to be a personal approximation. And even if this was the official stance of the Nazi intelligence services in Yugoslavia at the time (which it is not), this would not prove anything due to the faulty nature of Axis intelligence that was gathered on the Partisans as a whole, throughout the war.
What exactly are your objections to the presented evidence, Mr. IP? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, DIREKTOR. Sort your references out. Of three recent ones, two don't work at all and the third is just a list of partisan detachments with not a word about their constituent elements. I won't argue with your petty insistence on "puppet" rather than "client." You must regret that your favoured term didn't exist when Edmund Paris wrote "Genocide in Satellite Croatia." Who on earth could have guessed what sort of a state he was talking about with that description? LOL Kirker (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as simple as it seems, apparently, as all the references I posted yesterday work perfectly (5/5). If they didn't work, then the site might be experiencing temporary technical difficulties, try again. "petty insistence"? I resent that, I rather found the unnecessary shift to "client state" petty. I think you'll find "puppet state" is a more frequent term, not to mention more accurate and less generalized.
The list, of course, does not have the exact demographical composition of each and every detachment, but it does clearly state from which federal unit the soldiers came from. What's the problem Kirker?, I hope we have no disagreements here, I was merely reacting to the provocative post by the IP. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me that introduced "client state," but it proved to be less contentious than "puppet" state, hence I tried to put it back. I wonder which particular aspect of NDH's status you feel to be short-changed by that terminology?
The problem with the list of detachments is that the geographic locations of those detachments say nothing about the proportions of Serbs and Croats. Such a list doesn't begin to justify an assertion that "Croats, not Serbs, formed a majority...." To repeat (and I assume this was what "153.39.144.187" meant by non-existent sources) the other two links don't work. (Those numbered 25 and 29 at present.)Kirker (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I clearly stated that approximately 13% of what-was-to-be FR Croatia's population were Serbs, of which a large proportion were massacred and/or detained in concentration camps in the starting months of the War (in Yugoslavia). It is highly irrational (i.e., nationalist) to state that the Croatian brigades and detachments were formed of Serbs. I suppose Slovenian brigades were actually Serbian, as well? Now I'm not saying you support that view, I'm just a little annoyed by the lengths some people would take to defend their nationalism-inspired (indoctrinated) point of view.
Concerning "puppet"/"client", the "petty" change was made to "client" for no apparent reason other than to "appease" pro-NDH editors. Accuracy must not be sacrificed for "political" reasons, especially when the state fits the puppet-state profile so fully and obviously. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Two of your links are still broken. If you can't fix them I'll be happy to delete them. The one that does work in respect of parisan demographics lists, for instance, 101 detachments in Croatia and Slovenia and 100 in Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina. (We are talking about the "Partisan movement" here, right?) Considering we don't even have respective strengths for the various detachments,I don't see how any of this resolves anything. Maybe there is better evidence in those broken links, if you can get them to work. Concerning NDH's puppet/client status, you would be closer to Wikipedia ethos if you assumed that the less emotive term was adopted in good faith. I would still be interested to know what point is left unaddressed by the "client state" definition.Kirker (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


LINK 1: http://www.indopedia.org/Independent_State_of_Croatia.html
Works fine.

LINK 2: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/independent-state-of-croatia
Works fine.

LINK 3: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Puppet_state_-_Accusations_of_puppet_states_since_1900/id/4692221
Also works, but the text seems to have been edited. I will remove it, its redundant anyway.

LINK 4: http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/brigade/
Works fine.

LINK 5: http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/detachment/partisan/
Works fine.

The vojska.net links work perfectly, besides, you don't think I just invented all those numbers do you?! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Indopedia reference is not valid. Along with having no references and the fact that anyone can edit it (although it actually only has a grand total of 1 edit!), the Independent State of Croatia page is an exact copy/paste of this article from 2004.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spiritus Temporis link also cites Wikipedia as its reference and seems to have ripped most, if not all, of its content from this article. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a valid reference, so a site which has simply copied the info is not valid either. You now have no reliable "puppet-state" references.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The references I listed were merely to show that the state is known as a "puppet state" far more than a "client state" (I found them in exactly 30 seconds). We all know that "puppet state" and "client state" are de-facto synonyms, and the "puppet state" phrase is FAR more common and must thus be used. Like I said earlier, just Google it. I mainly listed these particular references in the text as a method of preventing IPs from reverting the thing (before the article was protected). In the future Thewanderer, I would like you to actually wait for the response before reverting, as this is the best way to start another stupid edit-war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thewanderer, do you intend to respond? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I could chip in sgsin in the meantime, Direktor. First, the respective strengths of Serbs and Croats in the partisans. I am quite familiar with vojska.net and rate it very high. If Ivan said Croats outnumbered Serbs in the partisans until 1944 I would accept that without question. But as far as I have been able to find, he hasn't said that. To understand the problem with broken links, click the first of the two endnote reference numbers that appear at the end of the penultimate paragraph in the "uprising" section. It goes to an endnote which shows as a hyperlink. Click the hyperlink. Repeat the same exercise with the endnote reference number at the end of the first paragraph (same section). In both cases the links fail. Proper referencing is particularly important in this case since your text challenges referenced text immediately above it. (I am fully open to the likelihood that what you have said is accurate.)
Regarding NDH puppet status, there is no "must" about it. Neither have I seen convincing evidence that "puppet" is the term that has been most widely applied to the state. Certainly in the 1950s and 1960s "satellite" was frequently used. "Client state" is a perfectly understandable, and the only shortoming you have found in it is that it is not pejorative. If that's more important to you than consensus, leave "puppet" in, as I can't be bothered any more. Kirker (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, your sources were obviously unreliable, so I deleted them. I personally think you should've known better than to use them. I left puppet state in the intro with a fact tag. I left "client state" in the infobox because that's a blanket term, until you can find a valid reference. I am not interested in revert warring, but finding verifiable info.
I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems that Client state is the most general term, and Puppet states are a subset of those. They are not equivalent.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Of course I should have known better, and I did; I told you I only placed the references in the text as a temporary means of preventing IPs from reverting. I don't really see why you guys are so against the "puppet state" phrase.
I repeat, "Client state" is used incredibly rarely to describe the NDH, as can be seen on Google. Generally, the state is known as a puppet state, and the term is much more used than "client state" which is less accurate. You will be hard pressed to find any state that better fits the description "puppet state", with Germany actually dictating the composition of the cabinet as well as the organization of the internal security forces (see text). Puppet state was initially used, but was later removed to accommodate POV IPs.
Like I said, its silly to go searching for references on what amounts to word games. The state is known far more widely under the phrase "puppet state", and this is the main reason why it should be used. "Client state" is less accurate, less widely used, and is only here to appease POV IP users.

Concerning Croats and Serbs in the Partisans. I'd first like to make it clear that I'm not pushing this due to some indoctrinated belief of mine. I actually thought Serbs formed the majority due to their larger population and the involvement of Croats in the Domobranstvo and Ustaška vojnica, I didn't believe it when told otherwise. But the Vojska.net reference clearly states that a significant majority of the Partisan units were formed in the territory of modern-day Croatia, at that time possessing a 13% Serb population (a large number of which was detained in concentration camps at the start of the war). In order for the Serbs to actually form the majority of the Partisan forces, this 13% would have to form around an unrealistic percentage of the Croatian detachments. I seriously hope no one here is going to believe that 40 or 50% of these were Serbian.
Furthermore, it is a historical fact that Serbia was unfertile ground for Partisan recruiting for the majority of the war, as it was under strong German and Chetnik control after the collapse of the Užice Republic. Only when the arrival of the Red Army in late autumn of 1944 facilitated the Partisan takeover did the area suddenly become a source for a large number of raw recruits. While Croatia, and especially Dalmatia, was under the control of the relatively incompetent Ustaše and Italians, with large parts being ceded to a foreign power. Resentment for the Italian annexation in particular made Dalmatia a source of recruits.
This (and more) is why I do not believe an explicite source about Partisan nationality is required. It is also likely not to exist at all, given the Partisans lack of emphasis on the nationality of their troops and the fact that they were a relatively disorganized guerrilla force much of the war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrible English in Racial legislation section

Could someone please improve the wording in the Racial legislation section? I don't want to attempt to fix that section because the English language is so butchered that I'm not 100 percent sure what all the sentences are trying to convey. Spylab (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_State_of_Croatia/Archive_2&oldid=1190233299"