Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 5 July 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives:

• Archive 1 (2003-to-May 2006)
• Archive 2 (May-to-December 2006)

Quisling organization in 1929?

The introduction states that the Ustase were a quisling organization during WWII - and that does seem to be the basis under which they gained and held power. But then it said they were a quisling nationalist organization at the time of their founding in 1929. I deleted that second "quisling" because that could not have been the case in 1929, when Hitler was four years away from being appointed Chancellor (note: appointed, not elected). It looks as though they were a nationalist organization at their founding, which gained power solely because of their willingness to be and value as quislings. If I'm mistaken, please explain. --Davecampbell 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along?

I just waded through the discussion page above to see if anyone had talked about the changes I was about to make (see "quisling" above) and was shocked to see the venom being spewed. Let us not use profanity. Let us not assume things about the ideology, ethnicity, hygeine or parentage of other posters, based on the fact that we disagree with what they say. "Bullshit" is not an argument. Regardless of the explicit plea at the top of the page, only one cross-link reference appears above, and that's to a tangentially related event.

And through it all, I see legitimate points being posted on both sides, which if stripped of the acrimony could make for an interesting discussion - the kind of interesting discussion that makes Misplaced Pages such an outstanding resource, aside from its goal, and the goal of all Wikipedians -- to make all human knowledge freely available to all humans, everywhere. At least, that's what it means to me... --Davecampbell 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

At least let's try

In the archived discussions from 2006 there was some serious intent to reach consensus on the Misplaced Pages entry under discussion, which is what these talk pages should be all about. I would urge those contributing here to confine their efforts to improving the article, whether by deleting or amending text or by adding references to reliable external sources.

The article as it stands is commendably well balanced, thanks largely to contributors who seem now to have deserted the project. No doubt it would still benefit from further editing, additional information and more references to external sources. But that is true of any Misplaced Pages entry. Does this one really need, still, to have a disputed tag at the top? In order to return all our thoughts to the article itself, I'm going to remove that tag. Anyone who disgrees is free to restore it, but it would be more constructive just to improve the entry.Kirker 11:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture discrepancy...

The Waffen SS picture is in colour, and seems to be filmed...Is that accurate? All the propaganda films I know of are in black and white. Is this real? 24.218.57.174 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Genocide?

I have a question concerning the massacres on the Serb population during WW II because I'm writing a paper on this topic:

Are these massacres committed by the Ustasa regime on the Serb population during the Second World War recognised by the United Nations as genocide? If you have the answer, please site the reference!

Thanks a lot

Thomas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas vanh (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe they are, the victims are referred to as casualties of the war.

Actually, it is. But note that "genocide" was UN-sanctioned after WWII. --PaxEquilibrium 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pax, do you have sources on your claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusich (talk • contribs)

Rewrite this article and use a non-Serb and non-Croat historian to do so!

While many facts stated in the article are true, the article is very onesided and should include both sides of the story.

Since neither the Croats nor Serbs can agree on what is true and what not, I suggest a deletion of this article and to have it rewritten by a non-Serbian and non-Croat historian...preferably someone with no ties to either country...a Chinese or Indoesian person for example.

The article as is, is not worthy of the Misplaced Pages standards. Lusich 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. We don't delete articles just like that. Improve it, better. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-Serbian, non-Croatian sources

This article should not be deleted, as it carries no contravercy whatsoever. The American Institute for Balkan Affairs confirms the exent at which the atrocities in Balkans were commited by the Croat Ustasha, as do many western scholars in regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Millex (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Current Status

I would like to add a point that hasnt been brought to light in this recent discussion. Many people are attacking what is said in this article and that is fine, but no one is taking a middle ground. When you want to prove who did what, hold up the different versions of history to what the current status of the country is now. Croatia is developing economically very fast, there are minorities from many different countries moving there, and they have passed laws banning hate symbols. In the mean time the Serbs are not developing economically. They kill each other and their government officials in the streets. Serbs are leaving Serbia to come to Croatia for jobs. And the CHETNIK symbols are part of their NATIONAL FLAG!! Seems their pride of a greater Serbia is slipping away. Who committed the acts of Srebrenica? Yes Croatians were accused of genocide as well, but no one is looking at the scale of genocide. Gen. Gotovina of the Croatia army was arrested for genocide and war crimes that amounted to less that 50 people. While the Serbs, with television crews watching, raped and murdered city after city. Sometimes with helpless UN troups watching. If you want to know which history to belive, look at what they have done recently and you will know what is right. Im not saying Croatia is never wrong, but the Serbian media has spent the time from after World War Two until now decrediting all Croatians because for the main part, they were the second largest group in Yugoslavia and a major political rival. The NDH (Independant state of Croatia)did some very horrible things, but it was also the first time in a long time Croatia had any type of national identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.102.131 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

My say means something...

I am the grandson of the brother of Major Rafael Boban, "the evil man". Is there anything evil about loving your country? Believe me I don't think its OK what my grandfather led. Although you Americans and all countries pinpoint stuff like this to cover up their own actions. Anyone here ever heard of "march of death"? No? It's a little story about hundreds of Croatian soldiers who surrendered to the British in WWII. They were led back back to Croatia by foot, anyone who fell would be shot on the spot. Britain knows any soldier who surrenders is not killed and led to a prison for a later trial. Getting back to the point what we did was bad, but in all non-facist, non-racist sentence I have to say, Gypsies aren't wanted or needed in ANY country, Serbs were cowards who would be killed just like a Croatian soldier would be killed,. So in all I don't justify killing. But in the end its a war. Don't expect flowers and nice things to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.36.236 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is war. A croatian agression by their fascists called Ustashi on their serb minority, just like nowadays. Ustashe are the deepest evil mankind can produce. Nothing on earth can be hated in such a manner like croats can hate serbs. And the product out of this haterage are Ustashi. In no other concentration camp the inmates where murdered with more bestiality than in Jasenovac by the Ustashi. That is a fact, although not known to the wide public nowadays.

Ok... so what's the point of this post? There's a lot of acrimony, particularly from the Croatian camp, on this page. My personal history is that my family was split on it and my grandfather was captured by the Nazis while some of his relatives went into hiding in Argentina. I understand the fervid patriotism involved in doing these unspeakable things, but they are pretty low. Then again, pretty much every conflict between Croats and Serbs ends in a crime against humanity? I actually found the article relatively balanced, since Ustase did in fact side with the Nazis to make ground on an ethnic conflict that predates the war. Maybe if someone could put this article in that broader context it might satisfy critics. Odd little story an uncle once told me: After Ustace were first comissioned by the Nazi army to kill as many partisans as possible. The officers came back with several bags of ears: men women and children. The Nazis were actually a bit disturbed by how gleeful they were about the job. Probably apocrypha, but the point is that the entirity of Yugoslav conflict has been especially cruel and violent. These guys were part of it.

So what Religion were they?

Was the Ustase Muslim- or Prot, I know I saw they they were affiliated with the Catholic church but I found it incredibly hard just to find a easy answer from ther article. Maybe who wrote this could clarify it!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AustinFoley (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Ustašas were catholic( most of them). However there were many muslims who joined after Bosnia became a part of Croatia. Still there are many debates even today in Croatia who were the good or the bad guys. Partisans and Ustašas were mostly living in rural areas and they just followed these ideologies without knowing why. By becoming an Ustaša many people thought that they are fighting for an independent Croatia which was controlled by others for more than 1000 years. So even today there are people who are in favour of this regime.

What Jasenovac truly is....

I just have to say few things about Jasenovac, Croatian concentration camp for Serbs and other non-Croats. There are different data about number of people who were killed. But, most the most likely is the the one about 300 000-400 000 killed during Second World War. Also, ustashe (like none other fascist nation in Europe) had concentration camps FOR CHILDREN. Chetniks are serbian military formation that have origins since Serb-Croatian dispute and war. War crimes commit in name of chetniks are crimes like every other, and every Serb are ashamed of them. Serb never wanted war, we were always dragged in. So, that thing about Serbs-killing machines is nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.152.223 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Poor Serbs ! They are really unlucky. In last 100 years they have been in 8 wars (Balkan war I (1912), Balkan war II (1913), World war I (1914 - 1918), World war II (1941 - 1945), Slovenia war(1991), Croatia war (1991 - 1995), Bosnia war (1991 - 1995), Kosovo war 1999) but they have never wanted war. Really, really unlucky people. Rjecina 14:20, 14 May 2006 (CET)

Who ever wrote the above passage about war is truly a fucking croat idiot...

I'am also motherfucker.

Liberated?

It is completely incorrect to say that red army liberated Croatia (A political POV, communist propaganda, as Soviets were nothing but oppressors to many)), there has to be more accurate term for what happened.

Please sign your username so we can have an idea of who is writing what. It is the most well accepted term; pro-Nazi apologism is, certainly, not part of mainstream scholarship. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do, as soon as I figure which email account I used to register my username the last time, formatted the computer a while ago and havent edited wiki under my own name for a good while.

pro-nazi apologism? Oh please, its certainly not worse than pro-soviet propaganda.

It is highly questionable, on the part of your single-purpose editing, not to distinguish between overthrowin Nazi power wherever and what happned after. El_C 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The TRUTH

The Ustase had not commited geocide they where just protecting there country. The the only people the Croatians killed where the ones that attacked Croatia. 1 source that I have is that when the Croatians lost the war the English gave up the Croatians to the Partizani which later the Partzani Killed more then 300 000 thousand Croats and Civilians But all Serbians think that Croatians hate them the Partizan are the ones who started a genocide agianst the Croats.

LUKAPENDES 06:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor Ustase ! Really, really sad story about them. They have been really unlucky. Regards of croatian user from Croatia.Rjecina 10:46, 23 May 2007 (CET)

To the TRUTH: We wonder why the world is in the state it is in? People's POV and sense of reality has become so twisted and obtuse. Everyone who has SERIOUSLY studied Balkan History know the truth..and my friend it's no your version.

I am a non-serb, non-croat who has travelled to both countries. I must tell everyone that the people I encountered in Beograd were both welcoming and very sophisticated, a multi-cultural city. I had a very different and difficult time in Zagreb. There seems to be some huge inferiorty complex with croations. I have croation friends who have told me of the lack of tolerance in Croatia.. And I witnessed it first hand.

Bill Zelinski

Catholic Encyclopedia

Has anyone researched the catholic encyclopedia for information about Ustaše, Miroslav Filipović, or World War II? I did and found nothing. I would like to read the Catholic perspective on these subjects.

Oliverte 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Very dubious text

According many shcolar references I came accross it is clear that Ustashi were an organization of terrorists, saboteurs and above all - rasists.

For example,

• Encyclopedia of Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Volume IV, Editor in Chief, MacMillan Publishing Company NY 1990 Page 1551 states:

• • They assailed many of their opponents, attacked government installations, sabotaged railway tracks, land explosives in public places, and in 1932 even attempted to create popular uprising in a remote area, Lika

Also a number of references copied from the Ante Pavelic talk pages is quite clear in classifying this organization as a terrorsit and racistt organization

• Political Parties of Europe By Skowronski, Sharon, Vincent E. McHale Published 1983 Greenwood Press
  • Page 1046 USTASHE. The Ustashe was a Croatian terrorist organization formed on January 8 1929 by Ante Pavelic, secretary of Party of Rights merged into and provided the political core of the Ustashe ...

• Croatia: between Europe and the Balkans by William Bartlett Published 2003 Routledge
  • Page 18 Croatian Party of Right, had established a terrorist organization known as the Ustashe Croatian Revolutionary Organization

• Organizing for Total War by American Academy of Political and Social Science, Francis James Brown published 1942 American Academy of Political and Social Science
  • Page 225 As an interesting detail for the American public it may be reported that the terrorist organization Ustashe, paid by the Italians, was sending money to the ...

• Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans Nationalism and the Destruction of Tradition by Cathie Carmichael,Published 2003 Routledge
  • Page 53The anti-Serb sentiment of the Ustasa was of realitvely recent historical vintage, having been initiated by the ninetheenth-century Croat writer Starcevic, founder of the Croatian Party of Rights (Hrvatska Stranka Prava HSP)

• All Or Nothing: The Axis and the Holocaust, 1941-1943 By Jonathan Steinberg Published 2002 Routledge
  • Pages 29-30 By 28 June (1941) Glaise von Horstenau reported that 'according to reliable reports from countless German military and civil observers during the last few weeks the Ustasi have gone raging mad" Serbian and Jewish men, women were literary hacked to death. Whole villages were razed to the ground and the people driven into barns to which the Ustasi set fire.

• Hitler's Renegades: Foreign Nationals in the Service of the Third Reich by Christopher J Ailsby
  • Page 156 One of the Horstenau's reports stated: " We saw no sign of guerillas but there were plenty of ownerless horses and cattle, not to mention innumerable geese. At Crkveni Bok, an unhappy place where, under the leadership of Ustase lieutenant-colonel, some 500 country folk from 15 to 20 years had met their end, all murdered, the women raped then tortured, the chidren killed. I saw in the River Sava a woman's corpse with the eyes gouged out and a stick showed into the sexual parts. The woman was at most 20 years old when she fell into the hands of these monsters. Anywhere in a corner, the pigs are gorging themselves on an unburied human being. All the houses were looted. The 'lucky'inhabitants were consigned to one of the fearsome boxar trains; many of these involuntary 'passengers' cut their veins on the journey"

So, the existing text as given in the areas marked as , lacks impartiality and verifiable and valid scholastic references --Giorgio Orsini 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point Giorgio. But I think you're wrong to think that the article presents the Ustaše in predominently favourable terms. I've deleted one or two of the points you had challenged, as being inappropriate for this article or too dubious to stand. But in one case I deleted your challenge and instead inserted a new external link in support of the challenged text. (This concerns whether the Ustaše goal was an independent state.) Do you still think the article needs that POV tag? If so, perhaps you could directly revise whatever you still take issue with. Or at least spell out your specific concerns here and I will try to address them. Kirker 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio, what's dubious about the death sentence passed on Pavelić and Perčec? It's verified all over the place (see for instance p21 of the Paris book already listed under references; and pp44-45 of the Trikfovic book which I've added to the references. Please don't be lazy.Kirker 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ustaše/Ustasha etc - how to spell

In making my last revisions I changed Ustasha etc to Ustaše wherever I noticed variants, except where a variant was clearly intended for a specific purpose or was in a quote. I've done this (and will continue to do it as I stumble on other spellings) because inconsistency will not help the article's credibility. It could be argued that as this is English-language Misplaced Pages, the English phonetic approximation of "Ustasha" would be more appropriate. But for better or worse the article main heading is "Ustaše" and that spelling, along with other spellings, is clearly explained at the beginning of the article. Until or unless the article main heading is changed, I would suggest that we stick to "Ustaše." I would ask others to correct any variants they see, bearing in mind that such spellings may continue to be introduced by people who are unable to use characters like š, đ etc.Kirker 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

June 30 2007: Neutrality still disputed?

It seems to be Giorgio who put the NPOV tag back on. I think his reasons were flimsy. (See Very Dubious Text above and my response.) Obviously any Misplaced Pages entry can go on being improved for ever, as hopefully this one will be. In the meantime can we not agree that whatever its flaws, the article as it now stands reflects an honest attempt at neutrality by a fairly broad spread of people, most of whom have tried to respect Misplaced Pages principles? If we can, the NPOV tag can surely come off. Kirker 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is still very POV. Claims that the Ustashe movement establishment was reaction to the assasination of Radic is historically false. Stories as "A year later, Ante Pavelić was invited by the 21-year-old Jelić into the organization as a junior member. A related movement "Domobranski Pokret" (which was the name of the legal Croatian army in Austro-Hungary) started publishing "Hrvatski Domobran", an eponymous newspaper dedicated to Croatian national matters." here pointless and do not explain anything. Probably inserted to fill the space only or aimed to divert the reader's attention from important content to completely unimportant.--NovaNova 11:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

ALL of it disputed, or just specific sections? For instance could we move the POV template below the intro and TOC now? I like Skylab's amends by the way. Part of the reason I was sidetracked into detail about defining "Ustaše" is because I'm not sure we've got the right main header for the whole article. (There is a Misplaced Pages entry under "Chetniks" which is more appropriate than Četniks" for English Misplaced Pages.) However I'm not going to take on that fight right now. Just a detail, but there is a remaining footnote reference to the dictionary - I assume it should be dropped if Skylab'a amends stand? I was against the dictionary reference because it's just not encyclopedia style to depend on such definitions for its entries, any more than one dictionary would cite another. Anyway no source was needed as the matter is uncontested.) I've deleted a comment you challenged and if you could perhaps edit where you think POV still remains, we will be a step nearer removing the template altogether. Kirker 00:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

June 07 reversions

When I redrafted NovaNova's opening paragraph, the version that he/she had started from (by The Myotis) had not been visible to me for some reason. Otherwise I would simply have reverted to it. But having done the work, I think my version should stand. Three reasons. First, Misplaced Pages should not rely on definitions supplied by other works of reference. It is no better practice to cite a dictionary than to cite Encyclopedia Brittanica. Second, it is wrong to state that the Ustaše "ruled Croatia." Third, to say the Ustaše ruled with Nazi support implies that the Nazis provided encouragement or assistance to the Ustaše regime, whereas they frequentlz found Ustaše policies and activities counter-productive; sometimes nauseating. Their presence did however ensure that the regime was unhindered by interference from the Allies. It is appropriate to characterise that role as protection. Fourth, even without these caveats it is hard to see that NovaNova's edits in any way improve either mine or those by The Myotis that NovaNova revised in the first place.Kirker 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting a word meaning explanation and its etymology in an ecyclopaedic entry does not make sense. Encyclopaedia is not a primary nor official source of this kind of information. Also, the dictionary definition, as given, is more succint and coherent.

'Second, it is wrong to state that the Ustaše "ruled Croatia."' - is your point of wiev. A referenced text has far more credibility that the one you've stated this way.

Please, elaborate this: 'Third, to say the Ustaše ruled with Nazi support implies that the Nazis provided encouragement or assistance to the Ustaše regime, whereas they frequentlz found Ustaše policies and activities counter-productive; sometimes nauseating. ' The text that follows this one is completely unrelated to the previous statement.--NovaNova 11:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re my disputing "ruled Croatia": the so-called Independent State of Croatia comprised all of Bosnia-Hercegovina, much of Croatia (but not Dalmatia which was rapidly ceded to Italy) and Sandžak in Serbia - as is spelt out lower in the article. This is confirmed by most, if not all, of the books/websites already cited. No reliable source says the territory was "Croatia".

Sorry if I was not clear about support v protection. The immediate following sentence was supposed to say that the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia enabled the Ustaše to rule unhindered in what the Allies, and most of the world, regarded as an illegal entity. This in my view amounted to "protection". "Support" implies that the Germans had a subordinate role which might have included help in implementing Ustaše objectives such as the eradication of Serbs. Kirker 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• My issue with the lead section is about form, not content. If there are factual and POV problems, that is for other editors to hash out. However, Misplaced Pages cannot have lead sentences that are a total mess, such as:

  The Ustaše - as per The New Oxford American Dictionary - "(also Ustashas or Ustashi) ... the members of a Croatian extreme nationalist movement that engaged in terrorist activity before World War II and ruled Croatia with Nazi support after Yugoslavia was invaded and divided by Germans in 1941 > from Serbo-Croat Ustaše 'rebels' ". After the Axis powers withdrew from Yugoslavia, the Ustaše was subsequently defeated and expelled by the communist Yugoslav partisans in 1945.

That is not how lead sections (or anything for that matter) are supposed to be written. They are not proper sentences written in clear English. See WP:Lead.Spylab 13:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read WP:Lead. Did you?--Giorgio Orsini 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics