Talk:Far-right politics in Croatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thompson again

TheFEARgod, Thompson is not the most popular mainstream singer in Croatia, not by a long shot, nor does the HRT often play his songs. He is popular among a certain kind of crowd, which is theoretically in the plurality, never in the majority, and at the same time mostly detested by the rest. --Joy [shallot] 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which TV station those people watch, but I'm sure it's none of major croatian TV stations. There is silent embargo (on 3 major TV-stations: HTV, Nova TV and RTL Televizija) on this guy. Anyone claiming opposite must be out of his mind or just not living in Croatia.

Look at this text Thompson - the most banned croatian singer], for example. --Ante Perkovic 10:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT MENTION THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE MURDERED AT THE JASENOVAC CONCENTRATION CAMP! THOUGH THERE IS MENTION OF THE NUMBER OF USTASHE EXECUTED BY THE PARTISANS.

Thank you for testing your Caps Lock key here. Your test worked. BTW, this is about Neo-nazism, not Nacism. --Ante Perkovic 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

SrbIzLike hiding the truth?

I invested quite an effort in finding the source of picture image:Lipadom.jpg and when I finally found out that it was taken in Austria.

I could even delete it from this article because it was not taken in Croatia, but, as a compromise, I decided to just update the caption.

Now, SrbIzLike seams to have the problem with me providing the proof that people on the picture were not under jurisdiction of Croatian police, whick kind of undermines the point hat he is trying to make.

Now, I would kindly ask SrbIzLike to leave my caption because I believe that the additional information I provided is quite relevant for the subject!

--Ante Perkovic 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think picture should be deleted but I think caption should stay because it is very relevant to the subject. Jakiša Tomić 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, the caption here is illustrating a specific point. The point illustrated is that children are rised in this way, and not that partisans killed Ustashi. So, I believe replacing of caption is an attempt to sidetrack the issue of rising children this way. The fact that it is in Bleiburg (if so) can be mentioned, but not on the cost of main point! SrbIzLike 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find the personal attack ("hiding the truth") quite insulting, especially given that some Croat editors keep removing content that is unpleasant to them, and even this very picture is currently proposed to be deleted as "slander". Who is trying to hide the truth here? SrbIzLike 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I added words "Picture taken in Bleiburg, Austria ([1])" because, otherwise, people might think that croatian police tolerates this, since the article title contains words in Croatia. Now, that would be sneaky, wouldn't it? So, please, do not delete this. --Ante Perkovic 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was seeking information about neo-nazism and I am from India, which effectively means that I don't know anything pre-handedly. To me, the picture is not making ANY point, because it is completely caption less. The caption: "Picture taken in Bleiburg, Austria ([2])" are quite useless, as there is no comment on the link either. I would request to add some information too. PS: The people there seem to be a happy couple :)

Reason for NPOV & Verify tag

Point 1

The following is contradicted by UHCR article [3] which attributes poor economic conditions in hinterland, integration in current community & property rights issues as the main obstacle to the return of Serb refugees. It also attributes motives to the Croatian government which are unsourced, represent opinion & are difficult to substantiate:

The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by Ustaša-related issues - the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists, and it (among other things) has prevented the majority of Serbs from returning, a situation that the Croatian government is attempting to rectify. However, it has been also hampered by the subtle ways that government avoids a good faith effort to return the expelled - threats with war crime accusations (many people who were deliberately chosen as obviously innocent - for instance, those who were children in the 90s, have been arrested and mistreated in order to deter Serbs from returning), reparation offers for only a small fraction of the property value etc. Most Serbs only come to get some reparation and do not continue to live in Croatia, but the state nevertheless claims that they have returned in order to win favor from EU and further its efforts to join the union, that imposes conditions on Croatia not to mistreat Serbs, presumably in good faith.

The above UHCR artice is just a complementary information - not a contradicting one

I agree. This UHCR report is just written to excuse the Croatian government to a great extent. If you read Amnesty International reports for a number of subsequent years - you'll get a bit better insight into hidden racism agains the Serbs that rules minds of many in today's Croatia--Purger 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The UNHCR report is written to document facts on the ground - not to excuse any government. The above political opinion neglects the fact that it was the UNHCR that was first to criticise the Croatian army for allowing the mass exodus of Croatian Serbs. It also neglects the facts in that article stating that it is issues over property rights & economic conditions that are the main barriers to refugee return anywhere. For example alot of Croats have not returned to Vukovar b/c they have well paid jobs on the Dalmatian coast - alot of Bosnians have not returned from abroad b/c of the better economic conditions.

Far from being a truth that 'the UNHCR report is written to document facts on the ground'. The document of such kind is always written using so-called 'diplomatic language' due to the fact that it has to be accepted by all aides in the conflict. Claiming truthfullness this way and taking this document as superimposed to other documents and testimonise is utter nonsense --Purger 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From my recollection of the HRW articles, they talk about harrasment & beuracratic impediments of the Serb minroity. They don't mention Ustasha as the source. The attempt to make any harrasement of Serbs as synonymous with Ustasha/Ustasha related is a propaganda exercise & has no place in an encyclaepedia. Hence the NPOV tag. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous other documents and facts that might be found in the Croatian newspapers and foreign media about upsurge of Ustaheizm in Croatia and just in the areas which were populated by the Serbs before the last war. So, this document is not the only one nor the most truthful one at all.--Purger 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All in all this is documented where it needs to be documented - Serbs of Croatia and linked from here. I think I resolved this bit. --Joy [shallot] 11:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Point 2

The following, whether intentionally or unintentionally, blurrs the distinction of Croat nationalist & Ustashi. Despite the attempted definition of Ustashi dijaspora, it still resonates as Serb propaganda that trys to equate Croat national feeling with fascims/nazism. The comment is also unsourced & makes no attempt to substantiate what percentage of funds came from those with Ustahsa sympathies etc & those of the rest of the dijapora. Again, comments that are difficult to substantiate but are repeated ad nauseum in media campaigns of the various protaganists in pushing this line.

The Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, HDZ) and its president Franjo Tuđman have had the financial support of the so-called Ustaša diaspora during the late 1980s and 1990s when they became the ruling political party in Croatia.

A lot of truth is here - do not see any propaganda

It is propaganda because it does not contain substantiated facts with a relevant context.

The logic it trys too drum in is Ustahsa dijaspora funds govt-->govt an Ustasha govt The logic also implies that Croat nationalist = Ustasha. It ignores that the bulk of the dijaspora are not connected with Ustasha (whatever that means), but may be nationalist & that they financially supported the Republic of Croatia.

It needs a source, or the very east to quantify what the influence of Ustasha sympathisers was - if 5 or 10% of supporters were Ustasha sympathisers, then it should state that. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, to be taken seriously, you have to drop your habit of marking somebody's contribution as propaganda. Your implications are meaningless. Following the same racist ideology developed by Ustashe does not excuse the Croatian nationalists not to be seen as the neo-Ustashe--Purger 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rephrased the sentence to be less murky, and provided one example of a rightist politician that came from abroad and was influential. I think that this paragraph could use with more substantiation, but is no longer reason for dispute. --Joy [shallot] 11:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Point 3

The following is Serb propaganda line that attempts to hoist the responsibility of the wars in the former Jugoslavia on Republic of Croatia via reference to a WWII fascist regime. As such it represent an apologist view of the Greater Serbia plan. The ICTY , through the trial of Milan Babic has established a criminal enterprise to occupy & annex Croatian territiry & depopulate it of non-Serbs. The disruption of relations has more to do with loss of privelage for the Serb minority (mass job losses in a reverse discrimination program) & propaganda from Belgrade. Refer to ICTY link on Serb Republic of Krajina page.

When Croatia started secession from SFRY in the 1990s, there was widespread and growing antagonism between the Croats and the Serbs. The disruption of decent relations towards the victims of WWII, particularly to the victims of Ustaša genocide, was particularly offensive to the Serbs, as memory of Ustaša genocide was still vivid, and it made them frightened of the new developments.

Mentioning ICTY is a nonsense here. ICTY is ok when it is against the Serbs, and not ok when it is against the Croats? A criminal enterprise was American secession 1864-65. So, where we are now?

The above comment does not make sense. The difference being one is a conviction where the evidence has been tested; the other is an accusation yet to be substantiated.

I repeat, based on this article the disruption of relations has to do with rival territorial claims, loss of privelage, deliberate propaganda from Belgrade to stoke fear & hatred (refer ICTY link on Milan Babic stubb. The ad nauseum reference to Ustasha is a red herring & consistant with the propaganda line from Belgrade during the 1990's Jugoslav wars. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop talking about propaganda. Your tone is too propagandic to be taken seriously. Which secession is a crime - that one commited by the Croats or the one commited by the Serbs? Who decided it and when? When calling upon the ICTY - please, give cear link or reference of the text you are talking about.--Purger 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also rewritten this paragraph to avoid the pitfall of ignoring the fact that what was a legitimate fear was noticably exaggerated. Please verify that the current phrasing is accurate and has enough context. --Joy [shallot] 11:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Point 4

The following lack sources/citations:

Ustaše, as they were able to victimize their side in the war, and could always point to the Partisans as being "equally evil", in an effort to partially exculpate the Ustaše

Lacks source & attributes motive that is not substantiated.

I disagree. While technically unsourced, this is a common theme in all rightist rants that I've ever seen. As soon as one mentions how the partisans were the Good Guys in WWII, the magic card of Bleiburg is pulled out of the rightist apologist's sleeve and the responsibility for the sum of all war crimes in WWII is shared. Which is okay, really. --Joy [shallot] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then it should belong to a page on the Partizans as it has to do with them as opposed to the Ustasha. Noone seriously believes that by referring to the Bleiburg massacre, that that will somehow diminish the crimes of the Ustasha. It has more to do with bragging rights & political jousting on moral supremacy between the right & the left on the Croatian political spectrum, with the communists & Ustasha representing the polarized extremes of the two.

It really needs to be sourced or go I'm afraid - although you have anecdotal expriences, if we allow undocumented anecdotal experiences in, then that creates a loophole open to abuse. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to rephrase this again. Just because nobody in their right mind believes such a thing that doesn't make it go away. Remember that we are not talking about very rational people here. --Joy [shallot] 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The main controversy is the active role of president Tuđman and Croatian establishment in this.

Lacks source.

I agree. I also noted this with the {{citation-needed}} tag. Whose idea is this reburial, does anyone know? --Joy [shallot] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no lack of resource. This man who claims it is a dishonest one. It is not difficult using google search (Tudjman Jasenovac rebury) to get [4], [5], [6]. It happened not so long ago and was one of the events that revolted many people around the globe.--Purger 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though in a new paragraph, the quote carries on from the previous paragraph which talks about Bleighburg.

"In 1990, a cousin of Ante Pavelić claimed in Bleiburg that there were 10,000 killed there, and that they were Ustasha and Domobran soldiers. There are reports of claims of up to 100,000, and then 600,000 victims" These need sources & an explanatory note of it's relevance - have no problem with it staying provided it is sourced & it is easy to understand where it fits in the overall picture. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In 2004, in a telephone straw poll conducted during the "Nedjeljom u dva" talk show at the Croatian Radiotelevision, more than 17,000 calls, or 58% of callers, expressed positive attitude towards Ustashas and the ISC. Due to the nature of the poll, where each call was charged approx. half a euro and the system made no effort to remove duplicate callers, this result may not be indicative.

Lacks source - the reference @ the end indicates poor research design. If the poll is not indicative, then it should not be included. I can design a loaded survey, present results in WIki, pointing out it is poorly designed - it carry's no wieght & adds nothing to the article. Needs to be deleted.

This was added to the text back on Ustaše, and kept getting reintroduced by anonymous advocates. Let me try to squeeze out the gist of it only. --Joy [shallot] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Planning rewrite of article - this will need to go. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a credible survey on this question. Can anyone provide a link. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no official connection between the Ustaše ideology and the politics of the new government that made Croatia independent from Yugoslavia, but numerous parallels were drawn between these two ideas by its detractors.

Still, people were talking about it [7]--Purger 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in that comment too - gossip & rumour are not facts; especially if they stem from the Belgrade propaganda line (again refer to ICTY documentation on the conviction of Milan Babic). croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Nedeljom u dva" poll was conducted - wanted it or not. The results are as given. Please, stop labelling and start researching and discussing the things seriously.--Purger 20:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacks source - who are these detractors - represents weasel words.

I don't think it should be made any more obvious than this. A detractor can easily show this sequence of events and actions and claim that it's all one big orchestrated effort to aid neo-Fascism - and in fact they often do. I don't agree with them, but I agree with the fact that they exist. --Joy [shallot] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you able to provide informationon who these detractors are? - are they Serbian politicians/Belgrade/Serb apologists like Nora Beloff? I think it needs a qualifying statement - I could go a put a line in the page on Serbia & say that detractors draw parallels with the Milan Nedic fascist regime & Cetnik fascits collaborators - it would be true but it would be propaganda.

Also, b/c Tudjman was a Partizan general & alot of his Generals/ Security Service heads / ministers were former communists/UDBA, we could draw parallels between his government & the Partizans. A qualifying statement is required. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a qualifying statement would be most useful. I invite the said detractors to explicate themselves! :) --Joy [shallot]

Finally, I know of credible sources for Thomson reference - can someone please add (no not Pavelic Papers :))

--croatian_quoll

new general points

Note. I do not see any serious points here written by this user. I do not see any justification of keeping these tags here imposed by one person whose intent is apparently not to improve the quality of the article - rather to prevent that the truth is said.--Purger 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add sources or I will delete entries. NPOV/verify tag stays until issues resolved. Pls discuss before removing NPOV/verify tag.

I have fixed points 1, 2, 3 and much of point 4. Can we remove the tags now? --Joy [shallot] 21:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag has to stay b/c the oversll piece resonates as propaganda piece and is not an encyclaepedic entry.

It fails to answer basic questions with credible sources in a concise format such as:

- Who are the Ustasha & what characterises them - are they different to the pre WWII Ustasha movement?;

- political ideology?;

These valid points would be needed to bring the article to a higher quality status, but the lack of them doesn't detract all that much from the current article. The current article started by analysing events and trying to explain them - an inductive reasoning. This would contribute deductive reasoning (although some deduction has already been added by me). Neither is all too bad, but both would be best. :) --Joy [shallot]

- make the distinction between Croat nationalist & Ustasha;

Agreed. I've been weeding out such generalizations for years now, you're most welcome to help. --Joy [shallot]

- any associated political parties and their links with similar parties across Europe;

There are none which are openly neo-fascist, as far as I can tell, there are only extreme nationalist ones that can be branded as chauvinist, and the mainstream parties with issues. The former fact should be explained, yes. --Joy [shallot]

- make the distinction between Ustasha supporters & those that use Ustasha symbols as a symbol of defiance or as a tool of intimidation/harrasment i.e. racist behaivour without actually having any concern with the political agenda of the Ustasha;

*nod* --Joy [shallot]

- How large is there supporter base (i.e. what percentage of the electorate) & what is the geographical distribution;

These things are fairly impossible to assess in the present situation. I welcome your attempt, though. --Joy [shallot]

- What influence if any do they have on the modern political scene;

There are explanations for this already in the article, although you could probably elaborate further. Then again, if we start talking about influence, it can soon become a slippery slope because it's hard to quantify. --Joy [shallot]

croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall, thank you for your patience in explaining point by point what needs to be done. --Joy [shallot] 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo historical claims

"However it is red herring because back in the Roman times, in provinces of upper and lower Pannonia (today Hungary and Slavonia) taxes were collected in the then highly valued marten skins. Hence the Croatian word 'marturina' or tax, derived from Latin word 'martus' (Croatian: 'kuna'). Between 1260 and 1380 the Croatian Viceroys were making a marten-adorned silver coin. However, the diminishing autonomy of Croatia within the Croatia-Hungarian Kingdom led to gradual disappearance of that currency. The marten currency, Kuna, reappeared in 1939 when the Banate Croatia, established within the Yugoslav Monarchy, considered issuing its own money"

Removed. The Croatians weren't present on the Balkans in the Roman empire times. Croatia-Hungarian kingdom never ever existed. Croatian feudal state was conquered by Hungarians and the local feudal rulers were kept under full control. The story is here apparently given to whitewash the Independent State of Croatia past and has nothing to do with neo-Nazism in today's Croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purger (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 June 2006

User:Purger, you are interpreting this wrongly. The meaning is that the word "kuna" equals marten (which is true) and that this was a medieval currency (which is true). The Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom existed, and it was actually named Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen - for that matter, please feel free to acquaint yourself with the early Croatian history by reading the end of the article medieval Croatian state and the beginning of the article Croatia in the union with Hungary.

I've written it clearly in the article - whether the true intent of picking the name "kuna" was to recall NDH or to recall the Middle Ages - is pure speculation. We can accuse this government of picking the same as the fascists did all day long, but that doesn't by extension make that government fascist itself, that's not logical. This would fall under the logical fallacies of Post Hoc (NDH kuna occured prior to .hr kuna, therefore the NDH kuna is the cause of .hr kuna) and Composition (one particular kuna was used by fascists, therefore all other kunas are used by fascists).

--Joy [shallot] 23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Joy - please give us a number of valid historic references, especially those of the world renown historians of the medieval Europe - supporting your claims. The most interesting ones shall be those of the Hungarian lineage. The Wikipedia is not a valid resource at all - as none of the existing encyclopaedias. FYI, I found some Hungarian sources not even mentioning such a personal union you're talking about [8], [9] - click the 1120 map, for example. Also, do not use buzzwords like fallacies, composition, etc. when trying to substantiate your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.3.19 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 June 2006

Please sign when you leave a comment. The document on the personal union is called Pacta Conventa. Here are some sources:

[10] (German source)

[11] (German source)

[12] (Croatian source)

[13] (Hungarian source)

[14] (American source)

Please note I have rewritten this whole section & needs to be reviewed. croatian_quoll 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Marinko, it should be noted that we don't actually know whether Pacta Conventa was a written document because it was not preserved. It is instead the recorded history of the personal union which is assessed to be something other than a blunt annexation by all relevant historians. --Joy [shallot] 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, this attempt of yours to ignore the obvious fallacies is quite feeble. It would help if you would actually read what I wrote in the parenthesis instead of claiming that these are buzzwords. Also - saying that Wikipedia and all other encyclopedias are not a valid resource makes me wonder what are you doing here in the first place? What possible interest could you have in this whole invalid resource? --Joy [shallot] 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Joy, in the strict scholar sense, not a single encyclopaedia is a primary historical source. It is, in the best case - just a secondary source of the most common information about some idea or event. Not a single encyclopeadia is ever listed - in any serious history textbook about anything - as a reference. Moreover, inventing stories about something by some people, then using these forgeries as valid historical sources (by others)- in order to edit an ecyclopaedic article is immoral. So, in the first place, I am here to enforce plain morality, or just expose some immoral activities.

I cannot wait on the response of the person who asked you to give valid references, but I clearly see that you give some web sources which no one serious historian can accept as valid. Also, I see that the two 'German' sources are actually Croatian sources. 'Pacta conventa' was born in the heads of some Croatian nationalists and there is no a single trace of such document in serious history textbooks.--Purger 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Croats were conquered by the Hungarians, then why were they permitted to have their own parliament & the cities on the coast retain alot of autonomy. 'Pacta Conventa' was a reality (whether an actual document existed or not) & the denial of this fact is consistent with the Greater Serbia idealogues practise of deconstructing the history of their neighbours in an assimilation led exercise of territorial expansion ala Dubrovnik & Vukovar. I noted that you equate German reference with a Croatian one & ignored the Hungarian reference. You wanted sources, you were given them, & because they do not sit with your POV, you discard them with some vague notion that the sources would not accepted by 'serious historians' - am I to take it that this is code for the 'Serbian Academy of Sceince & Arts'?. Pls stick to facts & substantiate any claims with sources. croatian_quoll 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts (sourced from the Croatian ministry of foreign affairs & European integration website) on the kuna stay - the reference to pre-Croat settlement is to practices that existed in Roman times that carried over with the settlement of the Croats in the area. croatian_quoll 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason for "POV check" tag

For those unfamiliar with wikipedia rules:

The shear number of unresolved issues on this very talk page is more that enough to put "POV check" tag.

Wikipedia:Vandalism clearly states:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.

So, I will repeat the important part here: Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. Any questions? --Ante Perkovic 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have one - what's the dispute you want checking that's not already being done? There seems to be plenty of discussion in progress, which is the intent of the {{POV-check}} tag, so why insist on the tag remaining? Also, many of the above points seem to be mostly settled, so it would appear to be unnecessary. As you are aware from the above, placing tags when consensus has been reached on an article is improper, even if you personally disagree with the consensus outcome. Regards, MartinRe 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that a fair amount of people have a beef with a fair amount of text in the article, so there should be some care taken. This isn't pandering to random anonymous complaints, these concerns were explicated clearly and calmly, and the last attempt to address them was immediately reverted. There is no consensus and the discussion is long from over. --Joy [shallot] 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, substantiate what is fair amount of people. I am regularly going to remove any pseudohistory - if forced to be used here--64.18.16.251 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The bits about kuna are not pseudohistory, for fuck's sake. The information about medieval trading and Banovina is from this page at the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I've yet to see a non-lame rebuttal of that. --Joy [shallot] 01:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to give as a proof a historical valid reference. The above given - is worthless.--4.249.3.210 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is insane. I think your opinion is worthless, too! So what?! --Joy [shallot] 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to purify your mind, see here that there are people in Croatia claiming exactly what I claimed here - kuna never was a curency in the whole Croatian history [15] --4.249.93.168 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Objašnjavajući inicijativu za promjenom imena valute, Bazdan kaže: "Po svom značenju i poruci, kuna je isto što i ulica Mile Budaka, jer i jedno i drugo glorificira kult Ante Pavelića. Naime, kuna nikad u povijesti našega naroda nije bila novčana jedinica, to je postala tek s osnivanjem NDH. Svaki put kada dodirnem kunu, osjećam se kao da uživo srećem sve ideologe i koljače NDH, na čelu s Francetićem, Budakom i Pavelićem". --4.249.93.168 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really annoying to see all these bits which have been beaten to death on other articles already repeated over and over again, and each time the justification for the opposition amounts to "You're making it up!". These things are common knowledge in Croatia, it's highly frustrating to see people with IP addresses from another continent preaching about how we puny people in question here are all on crack.

On related note, nobody in Croatia sees the kuna as the currency of the NDH, we all see it as our currency and it's not inherently fascist.

Bear in mind that 58% of Croatians have positive attitude towards the Ustashe and the NDH. If your people do not want to hurt those who were doomed to be extinct in the years 1941-45 - then ask them firstly (the Serbs, the Jews, the Romas). Maybe, they have some right to say what's wrong and what's right?--4.249.3.210 16:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, 58% of Croatian do not have positive attitude towards the Ustashe and the NDH. You picked that percentage from a random and uncontrolled TV poll. This is just devoid of reason. --Joy [shallot] 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

...from a random and uncontrolled TV poll ??? So, the poll shall not be random and must be controlled? Is it so in your country???--4.249.90.89 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please allow the actual opinion of the majority of the relevant population to be explained, rather than having them all dumped in the same bin as the neo-fascists. You do realize that saying "you all are using a fascist currency!" is an insult, right? --Joy [shallot] 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a simple truth. Modern Germny does not have for her anthem "Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles" even though that the song does not come from the Nazis. Does it tells you something about respecting those who died in the years of the Nazi rule?--4.249.3.210 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But a part of Das Lied der Deutschen is used as the German anthem right now. Likewise, the name kuna is used as the Croatian currency right now, but it's not named kuna nezavisne države Hrvatske since it is not. Is there something inherently fascist about marten, perhaps? --Joy [shallot] 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced {{POV check}} with {{ActiveDiscuss}}, since that is more accurate. --Joy [shallot] 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous user, this time from 4.249.3.210, has irritated me enough to be this -><- close to reaching for the blocking. Please, stop saying emotionally charged things that don't really have basis in reality. It's not productive. --Joy [shallot] 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Anonnimous - please register

No need - it is quite legal to anonymously contribute and discuss.--4.249.90.89 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Claiming that the Kuna currency is fascistic is highly irridentist. There could be said: "It has a lot of common with the Ustasha currency and resembles it" - but labelling the currency of a Democratic modern state is highly pointless

3. Is this all that you're arguing about - because if it is, it's rather silly. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 11:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the currency, the anonymous user (users?) has made a logical error by assuming that the burden of proof lies with the other side in the dispute. Neither Joy nor HRE are obliged to prove anything. The reason is quite simple. Since Kuna is globally accepted, any attempt to present it as unacceptable belongs to the realm of original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. --Zmaj 07:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentences

I have removed this sentence:

Due to the fact it became part of SFR Yugoslavia in WWII, Croatia does not regard denazification as a major priority, unlike most other European states involved in that war.

This claim is defamation unless proven. --Zmaj 07:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This claim is, however, true. Goldstein (a Zagreb Jew) spoke of this - he said that the US President demanded that Croatia (with BiH) becomes a special territory within Yugoslavia, governed by the Allied powers and an international Proctetorate over the Croatian people installed (quitte like happenned in Western Germany). However, Tito and his supporters soundly refused this, claiming something like ...there is only brother-to-brother in... or something similiar. I really can't remember. Although, the current sentence that presents this situation is slightly confusing. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the claim "does not regard as a major priority", which is relativistic. But I have a much more practical proposal, which I wrote below (under "Explanation of my changes"): just replace it with two NPOV sentences from the article itself. --Zmaj 13:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another sentence removed:

Yet there are few punitive measures employed against the trespassers, as is most commonly noted with graffiti.

Few as opposed to what? A relevant comparison is required, otherwise this is just defamation. --Zmaj 07:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This latter is a purely POV sentence and has to be simply deleted.

Did complete rewrite - my rewrite was on previous version of Zmaj (ver conflict?), but my changes incorportae his changes based on discussion page. Will review & confirm later. croatian_quoll 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of my changes

• Neo-Fascism

Ustaša accepted the Nazi program of exterminating Jews, which was originally not a feature of fascism, so I believe we can include their followers in Neo-Nazism.

This sentence does not say anything meaningful--Purger 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It does to people who followed the history of changes in the article. There is a difference between fascism and Nazism, and some users obviously think that Ustaša were fascists and not Nazi. This is why I felt the need to explain that they used Nazi ideology. --Zmaj 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Due to the fact it became part of SFR Yugoslavia in WWII, the large percentage of Croats in the Partisans, the trials and retribution at the end of the Second World War and the indoctrination that was part of the Socialist education system, modern day Croatia does not regard deustašafication as a major priority.

This sentence was changed several times, but it has remained POV. No wonder. It is relativistic – Croatia does not regard denazification as a major priority in comparison with what other issues? Therefore, I have removed it an copied two NPOV sentences from the body of the article:

Since gaining independence in 1991, Croatia has often been accused of ignoring the crimes committed by the the Second World War fascist Ustaša regime, and tolerating the symbols or the activities of individuals sympathetic to such a regime. This has been known to provoke criticism of Croatia in the West, and particularly among the Serbs.

Attempt to whitewash and relativize (acused)--Purger 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I tried to avoid relativization. When you say e.g. "Croatia is not doing enough", that is impossible to prove, because lacking a system of comparison. On the other hand, when you say e.g. "Croatia has often been accused of", it is either true or false, there is no room for playing with words. I am trying to make the article more NPOV. --Zmaj 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Deustašafication

As explained above, they had a Nazi program, so I think Denazification is OK.

Deustašafication and Denazification are synonyms here--Purger 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I have no problem with Deustašafication, I just proposed Denazification as a more usual word. Deustašafication sounds silly to me, but whatever. --Zmaj 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• while there are also instances of much more explicit hate speech: the phrase Srbe na vrbe! (meaning "hang Serbs on the willow trees!") also appears in graffiti and as slogans of Croatian football hooligans

As explained in the appropriate article, this is a cry of ethnic hatred, not of Nazism. It has been used since 1915. Therefore, this sentence must go.

Nonsense - you did not explain anything. You just made a sensless claim. The swastika symbol and the "Deutschland, deutschland ueber alles" anthem are much older than the Nazism and they are still the Nazis symbols!--Purger 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Your logic is all wrong. Nazis used black clothes, so is everyone who wears black clothes a Nazi? Nazis spoke German, so is everyone who speaks German a Nazi? --Zmaj 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I discovered that this kind of absurd rhetoric even has a name: Reductio ad Hitlerum. Purger, I suggest you read it. --Zmaj 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• In 1990, a cousin of Ante Pavelić claimed in Bleiburg that there were 10,000 killed there, and that they were Ustasha and Domobran soldiers.

Why is this here??? If you look at Bleiburg massacre, the most conservative estimates of experts are 55,000 victims. Therefore, I have deleted this sentence.

So, it is apparent that you are and Ustashe apologist - not a surprising fact. 55 000? There is only 16 Ustashe buried in the Bleburg cemetery!--Purger 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As for the massacre, see here: Bleiburg massacre. --Zmaj 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Although large number of people show up on concerts of Thompson (the band sold out Poljud stadium, seating capacity 35,000, with only the disabled persons permitted to enter the playing field), even larger number of people showed up on concert of Bijelo Dugme (whole capacity of Maksimir stadium (seating capacity 40,000, entrance to the playing field was allowed, 70,000 people attended the concert) was sold out in a matter of minutes) although Bijelo Dugme is directly connected with sentiment of Yugonostalgia (merchandise sold on their concert included images of Josip Broz, map of SFRY and five-pointed star). In the year that Thompson twice sold out the biggest concert hall in Zagreb ("Ledena dvorana", capacity 10,000 people) with price of tickets being 40 kn for first concert and 60 kn for second, Đorđe Balašević sold out the same hall twice with the price of tickets being 100 kn.

I can understand why it is important to establish the number of victims in Bleiburg or Jasenovac, but establishing the number of people on the concerts of Thompson or Bijelo Dugme is ridiculous and childish. There are relevant paragraphs about Thompson earlier in the text, so I will delete this entire paragraph.

--Zmaj 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The text above, you have it deleted, is ok - your claim is just attempt to hide relevant information and distort the truth.--Purger 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How is that information relevant? --Zmaj 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, a reader might get the impression that Croats really like Thompson for his extremists lyrics. The paragraph clearly ilustrates that Thompson is not that important part of Croatian culture and that not all Croats are neo-nazis. I find this paragraph a nice ilustration of the fact that neo-nazism in Croatia, although existent, doesn't have wide public support. But, then again, I wrote the paragraph :-) --Dijxtra 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you see it that way, OK, but it is a rather large paragraph. I will leave it up to you - if you return the paragraph, I suggest you shorten it. Another thing: the anonymous User:64.18.16.251 has reverted the entire article twice this afternoon without any explanation on the talk page. How should we proceed? --Zmaj 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with --Dijxtra, that section is important because it provides context & a reference point. I think we should delete the earlier reference to Thompson & include it in the one section. croatian_quoll 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing content, removing references, without explanation

I noticed that a few of you are

- not participating in the discussion - removing the text and references without any explanation

Also, when asked to provide valid historical references - you are offering anonymous contribitions to some web pages and the white pages of current Croatian regime.

My only resopnse is to revert the changes--Purger 12:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained all my changes above. It seems you came to the article in those two minutes between the time I posted my changes and the time I explained them on the talk page. I will return them now. --Zmaj 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Purger reverted 13 changes in a row!!! Some of these changes were explained by words: "word order" and "Spelling, grammar & punctuation.".

He didn't even bother to check what those changer are. This is pure vandalism. --Ante Perkovic 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Those 13 changes are pure vandalism and they shall be reverted mercilessly.--Purger 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing that you didn't find one single word of those 13 changes worth keeping means that you either didn't read it at all or that you are extremelly unwilling to accept anybody else's opinnion. --Ante Perkovic 14:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now everybody calm down. Neither Purger's nor Marinko's nor my changes are vandalism. On the other hand, it is bad to change the article without explaining why. I invite Marinko to explain his edits. As for my changes, I explained them and hope we will have a useful discussion about them. --Zmaj 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My rewrite is an attempt to give the article context, for example:

the section on blowing up Partisan monuments - these monuments were erected in honour of anti-facism, but also epitomised the Partisans for which the JNA was a successor, the same JNA that bombed Croatian cities. Without this additional information, as the article stands, the implication is that the monuments where destroyed by neo-ustashi which on it's own is POV & an unsourced claim. A more likely explanation is that they were destroyed by people in anger to what the JNA were doing; croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Yet there are few punitive measures employed against the trespassers, as is most commonly noted with graffiti. Due to the fact it became part of SFR Yugoslavia in WWII, Croatia does not regard denazification as a major priority, unlike most other European states involved in that war. because it ignores the fact that their are few punitive measures against any graffiti because it is difficult to catch the perpetuators. The second part represents unsubstantiated opinion & is confusing. Does it talk about modern day Croatia; how does the author know that Croatian authorities considered denazification as an issue? Where are the sources? croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

the section in the intro which suggests that the cause of neo-fascism is that Croatia was not treated like a defeated country after WWII is unsourced and contradicts the fact that percentage wise, Croats made a large component of the Partisans, & ignores the civil war between the right & the left of the Croat political spectrum (I believe a similar thing was going on in Serbia?). Also ignored is the indoctrination under the Socialist eductaion system, where Croat nationalist was equated with Ustasha (used as a deogatory term), and people were constantly reminded of Ustasha crimes (particularly in the early years) and taught 'bratstvo i jedinstvo'. I have left the original claim, but added these facts, which have since been removed by someone; croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed line "This has been known to provoke widespread criticism of Croatia particularly in the West, and notably among the Serbs". Unsourced & contradicts the fact that majority of criticism stem from Serbia, Serbs or Serb lobbyists/apologists like the late Nora Beloff. Instead, replaced it with This has been known to provoke criticism of Croatia in the West, and particularly among the Serbs. But again, soemone took this change out w/o explanation. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Kuna, I left the marginal view represented by one member of Helsiki Watch in Croatia, but added history of the Kuna Also there is the name of the new Croatian currency - kuna, introduced in 1994, which was also the name used in the NDH (1941-1945). The leader of the Dubrovnik branch of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, dr. Zdravko Bazdan in an interview for Slobodna Dalmacija, proposed renaming the currency [16] - as a final phase of de-ustashafication. However, using the same logic, would traslate into the forfeiting the bulk of Croatia's cultural heritage because of misappropriation by the Ustaša for their nationalist rhetoric - an unsustainable proposition. The Croatian government points to the historical continuity of the use of the kuna (marten in Croatian) on the territory of Croatia, from the use of marten skins during Roman times, the use by Croatian Viceroys of a marten-adorned silver coin between 1260 and 1380, to it's reappearance in 1939 when the Banovina of Croatia, established within the Yugoslav Monarchy, considered issuing the kuna as its own money. Someone keeps vandalising the page by removing this history. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing my edit to the Thompson section, predominantly in the border areas devastated by the JNA during the Croatian War of Independence. Thompsons draws crowds in places like Osijek & regions that were hit hard by the JNA &Serbian forces. This fact should be noted. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the line radicalising them and leading to the establishment of a 'joint criminal enterprise'. (refer sentencing judge statement - section 24, point g). in the section ==Impact on and of the War of Independence==. This point is sourced from the ICTY and is an important fact, because as it stands, there is no information on motive or identification of the persons involved. Without this information, the article is too vague and deals in generalisations. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Replaced The Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, HDZ) which became the ruling political party in Croatia, and its president Franjo Tuđman, also had the financial support of the so-called Ustaša diaspora during the late 1980s and 1990s. The term "Ustaša diaspora" refers to those in the Croatian diaspora who had emigrated after WWII (who were often, although not always, directly connected to the NDH regime). The most notable supporting argument for this is the fact that Gojko Šušak and other such returnees became influential politicians in modern Croatia. The resurgence of the Ustaša ideology in present-day Croatia is often connected to this. to The Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, HDZ) which became the ruling political party in Croatia, and its president Franjo Tuđman, also had the financial support of the Croatian diaspora during the late 1980s and 1990s, including a small number who had emigrated after WWII (who were often, although not always, directly connected to the NDH regime). because it represents unsubstantiated hearsay & does not qualify the statement because these notions are difficult to quantify. What percentage of the dijaspora are Ustasha - how big were their contributions relative to other Croats in Dijapspora. It blurrs the distinction between Croat nationalist & Ustasha. I also removed the comment about Gojko Susak as I have yet to see a source that he was Ustasha. Certainly nationalist, & his father may have been Ustasha, but nothing to show that he was - someone has since reversed my changes; croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed President Tuđman himself had controversial views on the topic of World War II, claiming that the Ustaša state was indeed an expression of the Croat state tradition. Such a notion could be considered true in view of Croatia's long historical struggle for independence, but is contradicted by the assertion that Croatia was a puppet-state of Nazi Germany at the time. to President Tuđman himself had controversial views on the topic of World War II, claiming that the Ustaša state was indeed an expression of the Croat state tradition. Such a notion could be considered true in view of Croatia's long historical struggle for independence, but because Croatia was a puppet-state of Hitler at the time, that position is hard to defend. The fact that German generals complained of the Ustasha's treatment of Serbs (b/c it stoke rebellions that the Germans did not want to deal with), and that Jure Francetic escorted Pavelic to the Eastern Front despite complaints by a German general @ the lack of control he displayed over his troops, puts in doubt the pupet status of the NDH. The Ustasha during WWII had an agenda & they were sticking to it - to reflect this ambiguity, I rephrased the section, which has since been reversed in an unexplained change. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Added the line The use of the neo-Ustaša symbols is complicated by the recent war, which makes it difficult to ascertain if the proponents are genuine neo-ustasha (in the same vein as neo-nazi's in Western Europe) or persons expressing residual hatred from the war or political defiance to the government, with no direct affiliation to Ustaša or their ideology. The problem with this article, is unlike neo-nazism/neo-fascism in the rest of Europe, there has been a vicious war in Croatia, & the article fails to capture the affect that this dynamic has on the use of Ustasha symbology. Agian, reversed in an unexplained change. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by Ustaša-related issues - the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists, and it is one of the things which have prevented the majority of Serbs from returning. (For more information on non-neo-fascist issues troubling the Serbs of Croatia, see that article.) was changed to The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists - it should be noted that "Ustaše" hin this context is sometimes used as a derogatory term for Croat or Croat nationalist. A UNHCR report however found that economic backwardness in their original area of inhabitation, integration into the current country of residence, and issues over property rights were the primary obstacle [17]. The article also found that security issues were not a major issue/concern. (For more information on non-neo-Ustaša issues troubling the Serbs of Croatia, see that article.) and has since been changed back. In this section, it fails to acknowledge the debased used of the term Ustashi (mentioned earlier on in the article) & how previous propaganda may still be affacting peoples use of terms. It also fails to substantiate that any residual resentment is from Ustashi & not from people still angry at the devastation from the war. Nor does this section seek to qualify what level of significance does the issue of security hold for refugee return and as it is now, represents POV. The link to the UNHCR article is a reputable source & addresses thses issues. Again, removed in an unexplained change. This link needs to be included in this article. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed To their modern supporters, the Ustaše are not considered responsible for mass murder that they committed, and instead they are considered to have been victims of the Bleiburg massacre, a major reprisal of the Partisans against them during the last months of the war. to To their modern supporters, the Ustaše are not considered responsible for mass murder that they committed, merely being the other side in a fratricidal conflict to maintain ethnic balance. They are also considered to be among the victims of the Bleiburg massacre, a major reprisal of the Partisans against them, but also a means of removing political opponents during the last months of the war. because it better reflects the mindset of Ustashi sympathisers. Also the Belighburg massacre was not just a case of reprisals - many civilians were also murdered. I believe the great grandson? of Dostoyevski has written a well-researched book on operation Keelhaul. Caused a stir when it first came out because of the involvement of some English troops in the massacre. Once I source the book, will include the details here. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, removed neo-nazi reference because the Ustasha were best captured by the term clerical fascism. The term neo-nazism is not a good fit for the Ustasha. Also changed all neo-fascist reference to neo-Ustasha, as this is more relevant & precise. It's deustashification that is the issue discussed & term used in Croatia. The article should reflect that. My changes have since been reverted by someone. croatian_quoll 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

What about opening pages Talk:Neo-Nazism in Croatia/disputed/subject 1 to Talk:Neo-Nazism in Croatia/disputed/subject n and trying to discuss every part of the article separately. We can put version A and version B on the top and then discuss it.

Because, it's getting very hard for anyone outside small group of user involved in edit-war to follow the conversation.

Zmaj, Purger, Marinko... do you agreee?

If yes, let's try to separate this dispute in more digestable pieces.

--Ante Perkovic 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. We could separate them by chapters, from 1 to 7. But User:64.18.16.251 does not seem ready to discuss things yet. I do not want to work with a reverter around. --Zmaj 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I will wait until at least one of "entities" of the other side answer my request for comment. If they refuse it, they better have good explanation!

I wouldn't like to see "them" making reverts before discussing this, that really wouldn't be proper way to go. --Ante Perkovic 23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed croatian_quoll 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing and Distortion of Truth

The opposite side was asked and is asked again

1. to provide valid historical reference that might support claim that kuna was a Croatian currency (never done)

Did you check kuna article? There are references at the bottom. One of them, [18] (government site) celarly says The marten currency, Kuna, reappeared in 1939 when the Banate Croatia, established within the Yugoslav Monarchy. so, can we say this issue is settled?

Wake up - the Croatian government site is not a valid historic reference. The valid historic reference shall be like: the coin minted anno domini 1225; Hungarian national museum Budapest

1. Coin from 1225???? I knew you will react before even reading that reference. --Ante Perkovic 00:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the point - instead of a valid historic reference - pseudohistory writen by an agitprop.--4.249.90.204 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2. the Croatian government site is not a valid historic reference? Read WP:Verify and then come back to repeat it!

Yes, and it says:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Definitely the Croatian government site is not reliable and reputable source and it is unsourced completely!--4.249.90.204 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Croatian government not a reliable source for facts about Croatia? --Zmaj 06:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2. not to whitewash

• There was no revolting against Communist rule in the early 1990s. There was a secession war in which Croatian communists took active role
  • Yes there was. They losat power because of people being sick of their rule

• The moves to hail Budak this way, were supported by 120 university professors, scholars, and other prominent - it does happen and it is a shameful act that shall not be hidden

• The modern Croatia was formed long after WWII was over, and aside from occasional exceptions, there was no desire whatsoever by the Croatian political elite to associate the new country with the former Independent State of Croatia or to revisit the status of Croatia as a member of the winning side of that war. - pure whitewashing, Anto Djapic, member of the Sabor - open admirer of Ante Pavelic, the politicians are suppoorting idea that the Independent state of Croatia was expression of the Croatian people for freedom, etc.
  • Djapic is not Croatian political elite.

Of cuurse he is - like his mentor Tudjman, like Seks, like Vukojevic, like ...--4.249.90.204 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the preferences of Djapic, but the text does say aside from occasional exceptions. I know enough about Croatian politics, though, to see that you are associating him with people who do not have anything in common with him aside from being Croatian politicians. --Zmaj 06:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

- People who collaborated with the Ustasha were often court-martialed at the end of the war, the Bleiburg massacre was committed, and after the war was over, there were also trials against suspected collaborators, secret service control over citizens with links to the Ustaša and Croat nationalists in general - another whitewash, the Bleiburg massacre never happened, a great number of the Ustashe never was court-martialled; many of them changed their uniforms and became Tito's partisans.

Bleiburg massacre never happened? Can you give me some proofs or I just have to beleive you? Talking about apologist and revisionist... bah.

Ustasa changing uniformes? You mean chetniks? Can you give any source for this? Because, if you can't we'll just have to ignore this.

Saying that the Bleiburg massacre never happened is extremely insulting to all the people who lost someone near and dear in Bleiburg. To say something like that, you must be either evil or stupid. --Zmaj 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

3. stop deleting references!!!

Who deleted references?

Anyway, I'm returning parts I explained to be deleted with no good reason. --Ante Perkovic 00:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes by use Marinko

• Changed

This has been known to provoke widespread criticism of Croatia particularly in the West, and notably among the Serbs.

to

This has been known to provoke criticism of Croatia in the West, and particularly among the Serbs.

because it is more neutral & clear language - in previous statement, what is widespread criticism? - what's the difference b/w particularly & notably in this context? - does that mean the West or the Serbs criticised more. Sources please.

Widespread is a peacock term, so it is OK to delete it. --Zmaj 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ok croatian_quoll 08:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Added examples of issues Croatia was preoccupied with - (e.g. economic stabilisation, war, refugess)

• Added line The JNA, which engaged Croat forces during the Croatian War of Independence, as the successor to the Partisans, were epitomised by these monuments. because it provides a reference point.

Since JNA was not actually epitomised by these monuments, it is POV. I would rephrase the sentence like this: The JNA, which engaged Croat forces during the Croatian War of Independence, considered itself as the successor to the Partisans. --Zmaj 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, it's like saying the ANZAC memorial does not epitomise the Australian military. One is intrinsically linked to the other. croatian_quoll 08:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Replaced

Also there is the name of the new Croatian currency - kuna, introduced in 1994, which was also the name used in the NDH (1941-1945). Seeing this as a sign of reviving the Nazi past, some members of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights proposed renaming the currency [19] - as an act of the purifification of the Croatian mentality. Also there is the name of the new Croatian currency - kuna, introduced in 1994, which was also the name used in the NDH (1941-1945).

with

The leader of the Dubrovnik branch of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, dr. Zdravko Bazdan in an interview for Slobodna Dalmacija, proposed renaming the currency [20] - as a final phase of de-ustashafication. Using the same logic, the bulk of Croatia's cultural heritage would be tainted because by the Ustaša misappropriated many national symbols. The Croatian government points to the historical continuity of the use of the kuna (marten in Croatian) on the territory of Croatia, from the use of marten skins during Roman times, the use by Croatian Viceroys of a marten-adorned silver coin between 1260 and 1380, to it's reappearance in 1939 when the Banovina of Croatia, established within the Yugoslav Monarchy, considered issuing the kuna as its own money.

New version contains more precise details as well as history.

Yes, "some members" was weasely. Anyway, as I said before, there is no need to justify Kuna, since it is globally accepted. --Zmaj 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a very short history is important for the reader thta has limited background to the topic - maybe it should mention that it is globally accepted? croatian_quoll 08:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Added predominantly in the border areas devastated in the course of the Croatian War of Independence because it provides a reference point.

• Changed Denazification to Deustashification in the title because this is the precise term used in Croatia.

• Changed one title to ==Events and issues connected (actual or alleged) to neo-Ustasha in Croatia== because some the claims are unsubstantiated or dispute & the title should reflect that. Changed Neo-fascism to Neo-ustasha as this is more accurate.

Just a slight improvement: Events and issues connected to actual or alleged neo-Ustasha in Croatia. Looks better. --Zmaj 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ok croatian_quoll 08:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Changed

In 2004, in a telephone straw poll conducted during the "Nedjeljom u dva" talk show at the Croatian Radiotelevision, more than 17,000 calls were in favour of Ustashas and the ISC. Due to the nature of the poll, where each call was charged approx. half a euro and the system made no effort to remove duplicate callers, this result is of limited usefulness. The ratio of calls was 58% in favour and 42% against.[21], [22], [23]

to

==Public support==

Although neo-Ustashism in Croatia is geographically widespread and its supporters are active, this can be highly deceptive since public support for neo-Ustaša elements in Croatian society is fairly limited. In 2004, in a telephone straw poll conducted during the "Nedjeljom u dva" talk show at the Croatian Radiotelevision, more than 17,000 calls were in favour of Ustashas and the ISC. Due to the nature of the poll, where each call was charged approx. half a euro and the system made no effort to remove duplicate callers, this result is of limited usefulness. The ratio of calls was 58% in favour and 42% against.[24], [25], [26] On the other hand, on parliamentary elections of 2003, far-right Croatian Party of Rights received only 6.4% of votes.

Although large number of people show up on concerts of Thompson (the band sold out Poljud stadium, seating capacity 35,000, with only the disabled persons permitted to enter the playing field), even larger number of people showed up on concert of Bijelo Dugme (whole capacity of Maksimir stadium (seating capacity 40,000, entrance to the playing field was allowed, 70,000 people attended the concert) was sold out in a matter of minutes) although Bijelo Dugme is directly connected with sentiment of Yugonostalgia (merchandise sold on their concert included images of Josip Broz, map of SFRY and five-pointed star). In the year that Thompson twice sold out the biggest concert hall in Zagreb ("Ledena dvorana", capacity 10,000 people) with price of tickets being 40 kn for first concert and 60 kn for second, Đorđe Balašević sold out the same hall twice with the price of tickets being 100 kn.

because it provides context to a survey (b/c of research design) that has no scientific value.

• Changed

The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by Ustaša-related issues - the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists, and it is one of the things which have prevented the majority of Serbs from returning. (For more information on non-neo-fascist issues troubling the Serbs of Croatia, see that article.)

to

The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists - it should be noted that "Ustaše" in this context can sometimes be used as a derogatory term for Croat or Croat nationalist. A UNHCR report however found that economic backwardness in their original area of inhabitation, integration into the current country of residence, and issues over property rights were the primary obstacle [27]. The article also found that security issues were not a major issue/concern. (For more information on non-neo-Ustaša issues troubling the Serbs of Croatia, see that article.)

It's nice to read a nice article. These three are not so nice. [28], [29], [30]--4.249.90.204 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Both the text about the UNHCR report and the (future) text about the AI report should be moved to Serbs of Croatia. --Zmaj 07:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

because it is sourced and better represents NPOV.

This would make it more legible: The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše". It should be noted... --Zmaj 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, fix your changes accordingly - and do not mention NPOV.--4.249.90.204 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the AI reports. None of them mention any claim of Ustasha - they just mention discrimination re economic & social rights w/o actually quantifying it. I am yet to see a source where fear of Ustasha (as opposed to discrimination from some in the community that apply collective guilt to Serbs for the war) as the primary obstacle to return. Just reinforces my comment on debasement of terms. By the very nature of a human rights organisation, it's not in its brief to mention non-discriminatory factors (as listed in the UN report), so it is difficult to assess from the AI report what role economic discrimination or security fears played in decisions. In this regard, the UNHCR report is more useful benchmark. I agree with Zmaj, the whole section would be best moved to the Serbs of Croatia. croatian_quoll 08:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

How do we know that the photo at the top of the page is real (not staged)? It seems suspicious, especially since it says it was taken in Austria. For all anyone knows this photo could be disinformation propaganda made by an anti-Croat group! Please remove and it is appreciated if people could approach these subjects with verifiable data and images. Thank you very much. Etemad 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The photograph has already been removed by an administrator on English Wikipedia, see Image talk:Lipadom.jpg. It is still on Commons, but the process to remove it there is in progress. It is likely that it will be completely removed in a couple of weeks. --Zmaj 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the image is still showing in this article so the link should be removed especially if it is going to be permanently deleted. Etemad 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Serbia

I have been trying to find an article on "Neo-Nazism in Serbia" but it doesn't look like it exists? Why not? It is a fact that there are many neo-Nazi groups in Serbia with ties to western European Nazi groups that promote hatred against Albanians, Bosnians, and Croats. If an article on this "neo-nazism in croatia" should exist then I urge people to do the same for neo-Nazis in Serbia. Thank you. Etemad 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an old saying: "If you want it done right, do it yourself". --Zmaj 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice on sock puppets

NOTICE: 64.18.16.251 and a number of other users have been identified as sock puppets of Purger. See here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Purger. --Zmaj 09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed changes - section by section

Introduction

I propose changing current introduction:

''Neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism in Croatia exists among the people who during World War II participated in the creation of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), are or have been members of the Ustaše, or otherwise sympathise with these Nazi/fascist causes. These mainly arose from Croatian nationalism and are considered the far-right in the political spectrum.

Such sentiment and actions have been restricted by law since 2003, and the display of the symbols of the NDH or Ustaše symbols is illegal. Yet there are few punitive measures employed against the trespassers, as is most commonly noted with graffiti. Due to the fact it became part of SFR Yugoslavia in WWII, Croatia does not regard denazification as a major priority, unlike most other European states involved in that war.''

to

''Neo-Ustashism in Croatia exists among the people who during World War II were party to crimes within the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), are or have been members of the Ustaše, or otherwise sympathise with the extreme elements of their cause. They represent elements of clerical facism and are considered the far-right in the political spectrum.

Such sentiment and actions have been restricted by law since 2003, and the display of the symbols of the NDH or Ustaše symbols is illegal.

The resaoning for my proposed changes:

- Remove Neo-nazism as this is not an accurate description - Neo-ustashism is more precise & also mention clerical fascism as a reference point.

- Not all participants in the creation of NDH were Ustashi or with intent to carry out genocide on Serbs. This would be the case for many Croatian Peasant Party members who subsequently turned against the Ustasha regime & ended up in Jasenovac. As the intro is now, it is too ambiguous on this point.

- The line or otherwise sympathise with these Nazi/fascist causes is ambiguous with regard to what constitutes fascist causes. Does this include Croat independence? Have rectified sentence to try to remove ambiguity & added reference to clerical facism.

- Remove reference to Croat nationalism, because the reference to fascism make it self-evident that the movement is a extreme nationalist one.

- Remove the lines Yet there are few punitive measures employed against the trespassers, as is most commonly noted with graffiti. Due to the fact it became part of SFR Yugoslavia in WWII, Croatia does not regard denazification as a major priority, unlike most other European states involved in that war. because they represent POV and are unsourced. How does the author of those lines know if denazification is a priority for the government or not - is this capture in any executive minutes released under FOI?

Any thoughts on the proposed changes.

There is no protection notice on this page and yet still is. Etemad 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The introduction was since changed several times, but I guess it's good to explicate a few things:

• The relation between the terms "neo-nazism", "neo-fascism" and "neo-ustashism" needs to be established. It is necessary because there will be viewers who will stumble upon this page and won't magically know what "ustashi" means.
• I think a stance that Croatian independence in itself is a fascist cause it ludicrous and shouldn't even be considered. There is no ambiguity in saying that people who sympathise with fascists are supporters of neo-fascism.
• The reference to nationalism is there because it's useful to explicate (not everyone might correlate instantly that fascism arises from nationalism in this case), and because there's an article about the topic that is useful to be linked. Of course someone can draw illogical conclusions from it (nationalism<=>fascism), but that's the whole point of discussing the issue - to explain what follows from what and what relates to what.
• I agree that these statements about giving priority to denazification are not very pertinent, and I have written a section that explains the situation.

--Joy [shallot] 11:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Joy, I think you made some very valid points here. The only point I would like to have added is that, although supporting an independent Croatia in no way constitututes neo-nazism/ustashism in itself, the symbolism and to certain extent the ideology of the Ustasha were used by certain nationalists in the creation of the modern Croatian state. I'm not sure of how important it was, but I believe that it does deserve to be mentioned. At least it's a question which a lot of readers might have before reading the article.Osli73 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about, Osli73? --Zmaj 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj, I'm referring to the Tudjman regime's attempts att rehabilitating the Ustasha, as part of the creation of the Croatian state in the early 1990s. This seems to be widely accepted.

The BBC writes in an article on Franjo Tudjman:

His brand of nationalism included restoring the flags and other symbols used by the old fascist Ustasha regime that had fought alongside the Nazis during World War II. This appealed particularly to Croat exiles in the US, Canada and Australia from whom Mr Tudjman secured the funds for his campaign. [31]

Here an excerpt from the Institutute of War and Peace Reporting:

The partial rehabilitation of Pavelic’s Ustashe regime began in the Tudjman era. During the war of independence against the Serbs, which lasted from 1990 to 1995, lines distinguishing one brand of patriot from another became blurred. Ustasha sympathies were often passed off as a legitimate expression of Croat nationalism. [32]

Another article from IWPR from 2002 writes:

Under Franjo Tudjman, the extreme right were not only tolerated, their views were even sometimes reflected by the president himself, whose earlier notorious comment that he was fortunate not to be married to a Jew or a Serb damaged Croatia's reputation abroad and also instilled fear among many citizens. When the Racan government came to power in early 2000, many expected that the new authorities would make a radical break with Tudjman's regime and ban the use of Ustasha and Nazi insignia and symbols.

On the contrary, there are regular neo-fascist incidents and events in Croatia today, ranging from the raising of a monument in Slunj dedicated to Ustasha war criminal Jure Francetic in June 2000, to the mining of a monument to the victims of fascism in Zagreb's main Mirogoj cemetery in February 2001. Such incidents take place unimpeded, with the perpetrators never identified or brought to justice. [33]

I believe these issues should be adressed not only in the article, but also mentioned in the introduction Osli73 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we have that already covered in the section about the impact of neo-fascism on the war of independence (and of the war of independence on neo-fascism). Most of the above factoids are explicitly mentioned (except for the Tuđman comment about the nationality of his wife - it would be good to get the background on that, I heard it floated around the media before but never anything concrete).

As far as the introduction is concerned, it's a tough call. Any sort of association of the new Croatia with fascism could be taken as an insult, and it's a moot point whether one can point the encyclopedic finger on one particular group (esp. since we've had three different governments since), or conversely if it's feasible to point the finger at the entire establishment right there in the intro. I would hesitate making such edits because they're bound to invite controversy - there's quite likely going to be people saying it's either too harsh or too soft. --Joy [shallot] 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joy. You can never be too careful here, especially since reputable sites such as BBC publish such misinformation as restoring the flags and other symbols used by the old fascist Ustasha regime. It is simply rubbish - we are talking about symbols that were widely used in Croatia for ten centuries. It is a blatant case of association fallacy, so dear to the defamators of Croatia. Osli73, I am not blaming you. You may be only superficially informed about these issues. But this just goes to show that you should be very, very careful when making judgments in such delicate matters. --Zmaj 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Joy, the reason I brought it up was my impression that it was a widely held view that Tudjman and the Croatian government at the time of the War of Independence did promote (or were perceived to promote) a certain degree of neo-nazism/ustashism and that these claims therefore could be adressed already in the intro.Osli73 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but the problem with widely held views is that they can hardly be quantified. It's particularly problematic when the same views are rebutted on a regular basis. That phrase it's his/her word against yours from American court-room TV series instantly springs to mind :) It's hard to write an short encyclopedic assessment of what is basically a general accusation, a rumour. (Notice I said short, for the purposes of the lead section. The long assessment is embedded in the rest of the article.) --Joy [shallot] 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj, I am fully aware that the Croatian flag/coat of arms had been used since Medieval times. I do not want to imply that the Croatian flag or coat of arms are "Ustasha symbols" just because they were used with, and by some are associated with, the Ustasha. No offence intended.Osli73 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanader

Can someone incorporate this into the article? Right now, I don't have time for it. -- Vision Thing -- 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That single quote is relevant, but it would be more relevant if we could establish a pattern. An isolated quote sounds weird. --Joy [shallot] 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dignity vs. propaganda

The article as written has a lot of political connotations (I would say garbage) which the only goal was to say

• still it (neo-nazism in Croatia) is not as bad as it might look like
• we are strongly against neo-nazism
• our politicians are publicly against neo-nazism and ustashe
• there is some guilt on the communist rule and partisans for the ustasheizm revival

This way writing about neo-nazism in Croatia is not honest and completely defeats the very idea of writing such an article.

You guys have your Croatian part of wikipedia. Put there whatever you wish and leave this one (the English language writen part) to the people who could see things as they are there - applying much higher standards of the truth about neo-nazism than those which can be seen in today's Croatia.--IvoJovo 02:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A new user comes along and rants about the same things User:Purger ranted before he was blocked. Coincidence? Either way, I'm not amused. --Joy [shallot] 13:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On 21:11, 25 June 2006 IvoJovo reverted once again, and then again on 21:13 saying Oops - I did it already twice - so back to Joy's. This is nonsensical :) and the total revert count is up to five. --Joy [shallot] 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But a sock puppet was ready to jump in, as always: User:4.249.9.88, another Purger's sock puppet (how many can he make?) reverted to his version. Purger is getting really annoying. Maybe we should ask for a range block. --Zmaj 07:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Before asking for ranger block, we should investigate if this might mean some colateral demage. So far, I can say that I have about 15 bookmarks of his contributions from 4.249 adressess and than just a small number of those IP adresses is used by some other user. For example, see first 2 edits from 4.249.9.152 (May 2nd).

Since these edits obviously come from blocked user, it's perfectly legal to revert those edits as many times as you like. Note that reverting edits from blocked users don't count for 3RR! So, I propose we just revert his edits for now.

Also, we might ask for another WP:RCU for user:IvoJovo = user:Purger, which is obvious. As I see this issue, this user is sliding towards comunity ban. If this happens, we could just revert his edits endleslly, without bothering to count reverts. I believe this could, in the long run, persuade him to quit wikipedia or to stars to behave like grown-up (yeah, right, that would be miracle). --Ante Perkovic 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"ZDS" and "=U="

Somebody added the following to the article Ustaše:

In on-line communication [the Ustaša symbol] is sometimes written as =U=.

In on-line communication, [the Ustaša greeting] is often abbreviated as ZDS.

This is certainly anachronistic over there, and could be of some use here, although right now I don't see where to put it. --Joy [shallot] 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kuna and Šahovnica

I have some problems with the recently added paragraph:

The Croatian Flag that was adopted on independence was only a very slight alteration from that of the Ustasha period. Many Serbs were horrified at this, and by the resurrection of the kuna, the currency of the Ustasha regime. The election of Tuđman sent shock waves through the Serb community, as he had declared during his election campaign, "Thank God my wife is neither a Jew nor a Serb"

I see that the issue of the Kuna has already been discussed somewhat, but I think that the above sentence would lead one to beleive that the Kuna as a unit of currency was invented during the NDH era. As we all know, marten skins were used in medieval Croatia as currency. Moreover, the šahovnica/grb has been in use throughout Croatian lands since the 10th century. The changes made to the Croatian flag were, IMO, substantial; there is certainly no U in the corner, the shape of the grb has been modified, and several very old symbols of the Croatians lands now make up the crown of the coat-of-arms. If any reference is made to either of these two symbols, their respective historical contexts should be mentioned. The Tuđman quote is relevant, and I have no problem with it. --Mihovil 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the kuna name - there is no valid historical documents confirming the claims of those like you. Yes, the kuna was exclusively invented and introduced by the NDH regime.

Ustashe blogs

Blogs that cannot be given as valid URLs - due to the Wikipedia spam filter imposed on these blogs are:

• ustaseinacisti.blog.hr, fratarr.blog.hr, ndh1941.blog.hr, north.blog.hr, zapoglavnika.blog.hr,
• ustasakc.blog.hr, crnisokolovi.blog.hr, hbosna.blog.hr/arhiva-2006-02.2.html,
• ustasajunior.blog.hr/arhiva-2006-04.2.html, domobran1.blog.hr, powerandglory.blog.hr,
• ndhzauvik.blog.hr, crnalegijabj.blog.hr, sirius077zg.blog.hr,
• crnalegijabj.blog.hr/arhiva-2005-08.2.html, ustaskosrce.blog.hr

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.5.121 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite to make more NPOV

Initial Rewrite

are or have been members of the Ustaše,

Removed this line b/c it has not been substantiated that Ustase exist today as a militant or political organisation.

Neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism in Croatia is referred to as

Removed this line because Neo-ustashism is the correct technical term. Explanation of the fascist nature is provided later in the sentence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinko (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. See in an English language vocabulary the exact meaning of the neo-nazism notion.

An important factor in the existence of neo-Ustaša sentiment in Croatia was the development after the Second World War in which Croatia was officially liberated by the Partisans who formed the second Yugoslavia. As such, Croatia was not treated as a nation defeated in the war nor did the majority of its citizens feel as such; instead, they were part of Yugoslavia which won the war.

Removed the following b/c it is false. Croatia was integral to the NPOV, the Anti-fascist/ Partisan movement that battled against the fascists and collaborators. The objective of the Partisans whose leader, Tito was a Croat, was to reject the Greater Serbia hegemony of the 1st Jugoslavia (viewed as the source of much of the tragedy of the 1940's) and reconstitute Jugoslavia as a federation of equal nations. Other important individuals in this process include Croat Partisans such as Krleza, General Bakaric, General Rukavina, General Tudjman. the Slovene Kardelj and Montenegran Milovan Djilas.

Another nonsense - a teaching that came from the Tudjman's 'Wastelands ..'

Returned At the end of WWII, the Communist authorities pursued a strict set of policies which could be deemed as a form of denazification, only more similar to the Soviet style than to the American style. People who collaborated with the Ustasha were often court-martialed at the end of the war, the Bleiburg massacre was committed, and after the war was over, there were also trials against suspected collaborators, secret service control over citizens with links to the Ustasha etc. because it accurately captures the steps taken by NOP re de-ustashification. It seems to have been removed earlier by a user under the guise of the claim of revisionism. No such revisionism exists and such a comment smacks of cynicism typical of the vandalism by Serbian nationalists on English wikipedia.

Again a Tudjman's 'history' school

The criticism has indeed been warranted. Deleted this line as it represents opinion and original research.

The criticism well known documented in the media

Replaced as an act of the purifification of the Croatian mentality with as an act of urgent need for the spiritual health of the Croatian people because original translation was bad.

Unimportant

Replaced Seeing this as a sign of reviving the Nazi past, some members of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights proposed renaming the currency[34] - as an act of urgent need for the spiritual health of the Croatian people. with The leader of the Dubrovnik branch of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, dr. Zdravko Bazdan in an interview for Slobodna Dalmacija, proposed renaming the currency [21] - as a final phase of de-ustashafication. Using the same logic, the bulk of Croatia's cultural heritage would be tainted because by the Ustaša misappropriated many national symbols.

Replacement does not make sense - not from any given reference

Removing The Croatian singer Mišo Kovač , who rose to prominence as an evergreen singer of the 1970s, once sported an exact replica of an Ustaša uniform during a concert. b/c it is unsourced. Miso Kovac may have worn the black uniform of the HSP in seeking support to find out the death of his son in suspicious circumstances, but I am unaware of an Ustasha uniform.

Well known fact - you need to delve into some newspaper archives to find it

Removed Thompson has not shown much restraint in displaying his Ustaša sentiment because he never faced any official opposition in Croatia for doing so. as it represents unsubstantiated opinion and is inaccurate. If anything, he has faced alot of criticism, particularly through current affairs programs (an institutionof Croatian TV) like Latinica, as well as by the political elite.

Veery substantiated - see the Croatian media archives

Part 2

Changed: Nevertheless, the occasional outbursts of pro-fascist sentiment were rarely ever censured by the authorities, much to the dismay of liberal media and the left-leaning public, not to mention the Serbs of Croatia which were the most common targets. Because of such leniency, extremists seemed to become more and more vocal.

to

In the absense of a specific policy or laws against hate-speech, instances of pro-ustasha sentiment were rarely sanctioned.

Removed: In a widely reported incident, the then leader of the veterans union HVIDRA Marinko Liović appeared on a Slavonski Brod radio station in 1998 and publicly stated that "In my basement, the access is forbidden to dogs, cats, women, Serbs and Jews"

because of the lack of connection with neo-fascism. It more appropriately fits an article on racism rather than an article on neo-fascism. I think two separate issues that have some crossover are being confused here - rascism and fascism.

There is no confusion - while the statement is clearly generally racist, it's also typical of the neo-Ustasha sentiment - it exhibits hatred of Serbs and Jews, the two minorities persecuted in NDH. It's just silly to ignore this as some sort of a coincidence. --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

According to your flawed logic, every racist is a fascist.

Alot of people will have very negative attitudes to Serbs because of the perceived betrayal to their Croatian homeland, as well as residual anger at the war and it's associated crimes. This does not mean that this represents neo-fascist support, although a minority may very well find expression of their anger through that avenue. Some commonsense pls. iruka 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You have managed to completely ignore what I said and go off ranting about something irrelevant. People who simultaneously express scorn for both Serbs and Jews are identified in Croatia as right-wing extremists, and neo-Ustashism is, for all practical intents and purposes, the cornerstone of right-wing extremism in Croatia. The reasons why someone may express this attitude may vary, but a specifically anti-(Serb|Jew) racist is inherently a neo-fascist because those two minorities were targets of fascism. That is common sense to me, YMMV. --Joy [shallot] 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What I have written is not a rant but goes to the heart of your asertion, namely the flawed logic that every racist is a fascist. You have not addressed this & unless you do, then it cannot be included in the article. This is an article on neo-ustashim, not on racism per se. Whilst a neo-fascist will tend to have rascist views, rascist views is not on it's own not usfficient to brand someone a fascist. As an example, the PM of Australia opposed Asian immigration in the 1980's - clearly racist. But that did not make him facist. Note I have chosen a high profile non-Balkan example b/c I think you are clearly caught up in group think of the political climate of Croatia. There are clear criteria for fascism/neo-fascism, and you are clearly not applying them in this case. I object to making broad sweeping statements based on generalisations (or perceptions of generalisations) that may not even be correct. iruka 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But the Australian PM doesn't have a history the same as the racists over here have. There exists a tendency to brand those three minorities, namely Serbs, Jews and Gypsies, as explicitly undesirable, and during WWII that was ruthlessly explicated in form of police-state mass persecution. I admit that I don't know the mindset of such people precisely - whether they would all really prefer to have a fascist state all over again as a means to get rid of those minorities - but that was certainly the perception recently when there was a war. FWIW. --Joy [shallot] 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Read up on the White Australia policy, the near extinction of the indigenous population (they were considered part of the fauna until 1967 when a referendum gave them suffarage and citizenship rights -LOL a referendum was needed!), & the Stolen Generation. They still face 3rd world living conditions today and significant discrimination - see Aboriginal deaths in custody. Mate, what happened in Croatia & most of Europe isn't unique. I understand what you are trying to do b/c such racism is typical of neo-ustashi, but there is a flaw in the logic and I think if we pursue the line that all racists are fascists, then we are pursuing a POV or even partisan political line (left wing political activists will use the term frivolously to describe opponents) and assuming a connection that usually does not exist. iruka 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed:

A more recent example of leniency to neo-Fascism is how the pop/folk/rock singer Marko Perković

and his band Thompson made a career for himself by singing patriotic tunes, but

this has sometimes resulted in singing borderline fascist lyrics praising WWII criminals (cf.

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara).

to

A more recent example of neo-Fascism expression is from the pop/folk/rock singer Marko Perković and his band Thompson who nominally made a career by singing patriotic tunes, but has sometimes also included the singing of borderline fascist lyrics praising WWII criminals (cf. Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara) at concerts he has nominally performed at.

Several reasons for this change: - the comment of leniency represents opinion and original research; - it is problemmatic whether it is Thompson singing or a singer by the name of Skoro, and the article has been changed to reflect this ambiguity; - Thompson singing patriotic tunes has not resulted in singing borderline fascist lyrics. This represents opinion and original research. It could be just as equally if not more convincingly argued that it is the result of anger at Serb forces for destroying his town and an inability to forgive that is at play here.

The following image is deleted b/c of the misleading statement and absense of background information. The symbol is he Croatian coat of arms that existed at least 400 years before fascism. The motto, although misappropriated by the Ustasha is derived from a middle age Croatian saying - "za dom i kralj Petar Kresimir IV spremni". THe party HSP is based on the party of rigts, which the Ustasha were also an offshoot from, but the party of rights is not fascist in itself.

Croatian Defence Forces flag showing Ustaša motto

That's still no reason to completely censor this, when it's so patently linked. --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, how do you discern whether national symbols that have been misappropriated by WW2 fascists, and then say that it used b/c it existed centuries before, or because they wish to adopt the legacy of the Ustasha (whatever that means). What makes it patently linked??

You will note that I have a decent understanding that "za dom" has been used previously, given that I've read (and sometimes written) Josip Jelačić and U boj, u boj; yet, I still consider that specific construct "za dom spremni" to be something that cannot be separated from Ustashism. Like it or not, it seems that the Ustaše tainted that one for good. --Joy [shallot] 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By what criteria or social research do you make that judgement. It is dangerous to put in anecdotal experience unless it has the framework o proper research around it. iruka 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence. And indeed we've had numerous edits done to Wikipedia articles in this matter which showed that a large number of people more or less strongly feel that non-Ustasha justifications for 'za dom spremni' are void.

On the other hand, we have no actual evidence other than moot discussions that they are not void. I don't believe that there are any official entities in Croatia today which are prepared to use 'za dom spremni' and defend their use publically and/or in court. If you know of some, please, do tell. --Joy [shallot] 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, I don't know any party (bar fringe nationalist ones) in any country that would use a similar phrase b/c it would sound tacky and a distraction to getting heard on the more pertinent issues of social and economic policies. Might be a different story if it was a time of war ;). Do you know if the phrase is banned by any legislation - if it is, then we can put that in. I must confess that if I heard the expression that it would register on my radar, but my conclusion would tend towards assuming the person was a nationalist/patriot as opposed to assuming anything more sinister. iruka 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am forcing people to be accountable b/c alot of myths, perceptions, perceptions of perceptions do the rounds & become "common knowledge". Yet it is difficult to substantiate. Was there officially, by the party heirarchy of HOS and HSP deliberately adopting Ustasha principles and symbols (in terms of explicitly stating so or reflected in speeches)? I know that some with neo-Ustasha tendencies joined HOS, & this can be mentioned, but give it an appropriate context. iruka 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, their choice to resurrect that *exact* phrase, despite the fact that they knew very well with whom everyone else associated it, is indicative. This isn't some strange, out of the blue perception, it is a deeply rooted one in the general population. Moreover, I actually know at least one individual whom I've heard exclaim the same phrase proudly, and he *means* it in the way that connects him with the Ustaše. He doesn't shy away from it, nor does he pretend that it means something else, something innocent. It's just like that. --Joy [shallot] 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal experiences mean nought. What you are doing is taking an innocuos saying "For the homeland ready", and drawing deep political meaning that alone, without recourse to looking at their policies. The fact that you are relying on that saying as some sort of proof of neo-ustasha tendicies shows how little weight it carries. Another thing you should distinguish is an individual's acts/beliefs and that of the institution. Whilst there may have been inidividuals with neo-Ustasha sympathies infiltrating most organisations of the time, it hardly constitutes party policy. Focus on the policies of the party, and its acts/speeches in & out of parliament pls. iruka 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've seen numerous edits to Wikipedia from which it is apparent that people inferred a neo-Ustasha tendency from such statements. Someone sees a negligent or a discriminatory measure or opinion from the HSP with regard to the Serb issues, and notes that it's no wonder that they say or do that when they're known to be associated with Ustasha. I know that's almost a straw-man, but it happens and a lot of people in the world think that the argument is at least viable.

In any event, this is all a matter of discussion; I hope we've hashed out the article wording at this point. --Joy [shallot] 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is deleted because it is plain false. The Coat of arms on the flag is more similar to the coat of arms during communism. THe coat of arms has existed centuries before any WW2 fascist regime - refer link: http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/coat.html

The Kuna has already been discussed - it existed in many forms pre-WWII.

The comment by Tudjman is misleading - I believe it was said in the context of "I am glad that she is neither Serb nor Jew for had she been, she wouldn't be alive today".

This is supposed to be a stubb on neo-fascism in Croatia, not a justification of attrocities commited by Serb paramilitaries in the short-lived so called SAO Krajina, nor a political justification for it's inital existence.

The Croatian Flag that was adopted on independence was only a very slight alteration from that of the Ustasha period. Many Serbs were horrified at this, and by the resurrection of the kuna, the currency of the Ustasha regime. The election of Tuđman sent shock waves through the Serb community, as he had declared during his election campaign, "Thank God my wife is neither a Jew nor a Serb"

Reworked section on Ustasha dijaspora to give context i.e. they represent a subsection of the dijaspora. Removed the following attempt to link resurgent Ustasha ideology to Susak. It represents opinion and original research. Any resurgence of Ustasha ideology has more to do with residual hate from the recent war.

The most notable supporting argument for this is the fact that Gojko Šušak and other such returnees became influential politicians in modern Croatia. The resurgence of the Ustaša ideology in present-day Croatia is often connected to this.

Removed: There were factions that wished to restore the Ustaše ideology and iconography, mostly among the resident Croatian population, and even though they weren't successful, they were never banned by the government. During the Yugoslav wars, these committed war crimes against the Serb population on several occasions.

because it remains unsourced. Further information required from credible sources.

This is basically common knowledge in Croatia. This kind of censorship is irrational because by that measure one could remove the entire article, "requiring credible sources". --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources pls - these common knowledge things - are they perceptions or perceptions of perceptions? Are they party (SDP) political views? What is irrational is putting in something without verfiable sources or appropriate context. iruka 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see how it's phrased right now, this version should be less monologue-like. --Joy [shallot] 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Change: The right-wing parties often attracted votes by promoting extreme nationalism. The rightist parties such as the Croatian Party of Rights and the Croatian Democratic Union permeated in their support for extremism; particularly in the latter, which had a large membership and voter base, it was unclear whether actions of party members were part of actual party policy or result of factioning.

to

The conservative parties such as the Croatian Party of Rights and the Croatian Democratic Union permeated in their support for nationalism; particularly in the latter, which had a large membership and voter base, it was unclear whether actions of party members were part of actual party policy or result of factioning.

By what benchmark where HDZ exteremists? Have changed language to better reflect party attributes.

Removed: Another stage for outright demonstration of the Nazi hate and symbols are the sport events. The one that even prompted FIFA to act against such demonstration on the international scene - happened in Livorno, Italy on August 16, 2006 [http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,- 6023705,00.html], [35].

The attempt to turn this event as some sort of underbelly of ustasha support as opposed to poor taste reaction to provocation (with symbols synonymous to the JNA and Serb nationalism) by Italian communists is laughable and again, represents opinion and commentary. The fanbase involved (Rijeka) has mixed Croat-Serb-Italian ethnic base and are quite left wing.

Removed: In 2004, in a telephone straw poll conducted during the "Nedjeljom u dva" talk show at the Croatian Radiotelevision, more than 17,000 calls were in favour of Ustashas and the ISC. Due to the nature of the poll, where each call was charged approx. half a euro and the system made no effort to remove duplicate callers, this result is of limited usefulness. The ratio of calls was 58% in favour and 42% against.[36], [37], [38]

By virtue of the fact that the poll design it has no scientific value and thus has little to contribute to the article.

This was discussed at length before, but I'll leave it be, I'm not a fan of promoting semi-random riggable polls, either. --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaced: and the authorities, while nominally opposed to it, are in practice fairly indifferent about catching spraypainters

with

and the authorities, while opposed to it, are in practice unsuccessful in catching spraypainters

There's a difference between being unsuccessful and indifferent. It should be noted, though, that authorities are generally indifferent about all sorts of graffiti. This was actually stated previously in the article. --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed: The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by Ustaša-related issues - the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists, and it is one of the things which have prevented the majority of Serbs from returning. (For more information on non-neo-fascist issues troubling the Serbs of Croatia, see that article.)

because the claim is unsubstantiated. Fear of revenge and legitimate fear of actual Ustashi are two separate things and often are deliberately paired in the language of propaganda. Note the debasement of language (Ustasha vs Chetnik) referred earlier.

That's no reason not to mention it at all. It should be explained how neo-ustashism is used as a sort of a scarecrow. --Joy [shallot] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The way it was written before, it suggested that refugees were scared of returning b/c of fear of Ustasha. To date I haven't seen one source supporting that, nor a context to determine whether undue weight is given to this particular reason. I have provided a UNHCR source that shows that low rates of return are in fact mostly determined by economic factors. I have seen another source that shows that some refugees fear being persecuted by locals or war crimes prosecutions - this does not represent fear of Ustashi and thus does not belong in the article.

I have no problem you writing how neo-ustashism is used as a scarecrow. Problem needs its own section, and detail how it is manipulated, by whom, to what end and the end result. iruka 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a consequence of years of war-mongering. I can very well imagine that people who watched RTS during the early 1990s were completely convinced that there were roaming hordes of "Ustaše" in Croatia, because the journalists portrayed it, often times very vividly. I recall several sick war-time jokes based on grotesque juxtapositions of 'goloruka srpska nejač' (bare-handed Serb children and elderly) and the 'Ustaše' who killed/massacred/butchered/... them 'mučki' (traitorously), 's leđa' (from behind) or 'iz zasjede' (in an ambush), or any combination of the above.

There are still a fair few people who still believe that there was actual truth in all that charade, and flinch at the very mention of 'Ustaše', because they've being programmed to do that for years.

Yes, it's mostly irrational, it may not have a coherent basis in reality, but opinions like that exist in the real world. --Joy [shallot] 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm sure it exists, but so does almost anything. Unless it's quantifiable in some way, then it does not deserve to be mentioned because it is a subject to abuse. Verifiable sources is a Wiki standard for a reason. iruka 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't harp on this, I was trying to preserve the gist of the matter, but it's probably tangential enough to be skipped. --Joy [shallot] 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed following link b/c it has no relevance to neo-ustashism in Croatia. It belongs in an article on the hunt for Nazi/Fascist war criminals or an article on the Ustashi.

• [http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=253162&ct=286050 "Simon

Wiesenthal Center Condemns Argentine Secretary Of Cultures Defense of Croatian War Criminals", June 12, 2003]

There is an inconsistency regarding the death of Janko Bobetko. His page says he died of an illness while the Neo-Nazism in Croatia page (see photo caption) says he was killed by the Ustache.

Joy, apart from the few concerns already raised, the rewrite is really good. iruka 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Joy [shallot]

Removed from Defacement of Monuments section "but the complete extent of these activities was generally considered to have been alarming.". By what standard do we judge 'complete extent'? - alarming to whom? Monuments blown up in a brutal war, esp when those monuments have a partisan political edge to them - some commonsense pls. The statement is POV as it stands & does not add to the last line, namely that it is difficult to say impute motives for the monuments being blown up. No additional nformation is necessary. iruka 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but monuments weren't being destroyed as part of military activities, they were civil criminal acts. That's a big difference.

Also, I seem to recall right-wing politicians commenting on the monument destruction along the lines of - it's good that they're gone, but it's still vandal to destroy/steal them rather than move them away legally.

So the issue of whether it was a criminal activity isn't really disputed in the public. Nobody condones criminal and it's a major problem when people go about removing or defacing public property without regard to the law. Just because there's a war going on that doesn't mean that any individual criminal act should go unnoticed and unpunished.

I still think that this needs to be explained in the article. --Joy [shallot] 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool iruka 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have translated too literally with "mental hygeine". Can a whole people have a mental hygeine? WHat does this mean? I think "spiritual health" makes more sense, hence I have substituted it in. iruka 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that was indicative - if the person had said 'duhovno zdravlje', which is more or less a known term, that should have been translated as 'spiritual health'; but he said 'mentalna higijena', which is, well, strange in Croatian too. We shouldn't try to moderate an exact quote, just leave it is, no matter how bad it makes the speaker look :) --Joy [shallot] 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean. Based on the context, 'duhovno zdravlje' seems to fit in better - otherwise the sentence, I don't know how to put it, lacks clear comprehension? Should we change it back? iruka 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)