Wikipedia

Talk:Independent State of Croatia/Archive 3

< Talk:Independent State of Croatia
Latest comment: 15 years ago by AP1929 in topic Legal status of NDH
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The Helm quote

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

This part of the text:

Hans Helm, the appointed head of the Gestapo in the Independent State of Croatia, wrote in his confidential January 14, 1943 report (titled as "Basis of the partisan danger" and sent to General Kasche):

"Most of the partisan ranks are coming from the Serbs - due to the fact that they are the most villainous way persecuted ... the new regime in Croatia started the programs of annihilation and destruction of the Serbs, which (the programs) are publicly supported by the highest ranks of the Croatian government, and (the programs) adopted as the main government goal. The fact that a different talk was coming from the official Ustashe side - under the rebellion pressure and due to the course of events - even a reconciliation was mentioned - leaves no possibility to compensate the harm caused by, for example, Dr. Mile Budak, the actual (Croatian) minister in Berlin ..."[1]

is correctly quoted and referenced. However, while the Gestapo may have thought this at the time, the information they had was obviously incorrect (as per the following references from vojska.net). Therefore we can't have the Wikipedia reader influenced by faulty German intelligence. I suggest we return it to the text in this form, removing the incorrect info:

Hans Helm, the appointed head of the Gestapo in the Independent State of Croatia, wrote in his confidential January 14, 1943 report (titled as "Basis of the partisan danger" and sent to General Kasche):


—Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is inconsistent. You can't source half of a reference and consider the other half as "undesirable". Either you leave the whole text (with adequate explanation), or you remove it all. Helm is obviously writing this letter because he thinks that the uprising in NDH is caused by Serb persection. Removing the "uprising" part of the letter and quoting the "persecution" part misses the whole essence of the report.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose you're right. But I don't understand your edit about the sixth division, I mean why is that division so special that it warrants inclusion in the text, for example, the entire 8th Dalmatian Corps was formed out of Croats. I could cite around 10 divisions made up from Croatian soldiers right now, what's the point? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, right now you have an unreferenced claim that Croats constituted a majority in the Partisans. I have made a referenced claim which shows that in at least one division in Croatia "proper", Serbs constituted a vast majority. I think that is very notable and Wikipedia does not regulate notability of article content, anyway. If you want to bring in information about the ethnic composition of other units, go ahead. It's certainly more useful than making unsourced statements about the ethnic composition on the whole.--Thewanderer (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Unsourced statement"? According to the information included in the references for the statement, a small, massacred, incarcerated, and prosecuted 13% national minority would have to be the basis for the foundation of 30 or 40% of the Croatian brigades and detachments in order to form an actual majority. To suggest this is the case is highly irrational, not only because of the references I included, but also due to the history of the Yugoslav front. There are other references from vojska.net that confirm Serbia as an "infertile" ground for recruitment and Partisan operations throughout the war (read up on that, if you like, I'm not a fan of overreferencing statements). Without Serbia, Serbs do not form even the overall majority of the population in the remainder of Yugoslavia (including the FR Bosnia and Herzegovina).
So you're suggesting the article should contain the ethnic compositions of all 81 brigades, 131 detachments and 28 divisions formed on the territory of the NDH? I ask you again: what relevance does one division's composition have, there were 55 of them!? Where are you going with this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If we could find such information it should certainly be included on Wikipedia. By that point it would probably merit it's own section, perhaps in another article. Again, Wikipedia has no regulations on the notability of info. If you think I'm performing some POV violation, say so.
You are talking about republican borders which did not exist until after the war. The Independent State of Croatia had nearly a third Serb population. It's entirely possible that Serbs made up the majority, as Croats were divided between two or three armies (Croatian, Yugoslav, and to a lesser extent German). I personally couldn't care who made up the majority. However, you have to find sources if you're going to make such bold claims. All I see now is original research with a link to a bunch of detachments as your apparent "reference".--Thewanderer (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not need a history lesson, and I know when the borders were internationally recognized. However, you may not know that the KPY already stated its intention of acknowledging the independence of each of the 6 states before the war (as opposed to the "unitarianism" of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), including the (proposed) borders. These later happened to be realized, with some minor changes. By the end of the war (1944) provisional governments of each geographically defined Republic were established, and the state of origin of each and every Partisan unit was well known. The link to a bunch of detachments with a Croatian majority is indeed a sufficient source for any intelligent person whose rational thought is not clouded by his/her POV.
Indeed a list of the units may be a good subject for a separate article, however, if you believe such a list would be desirable in Wikipedia, why do you not include the list without the explicite ethnic info?
While I'm aware you breached no Wikipedia rules, I'll ask you again: what bearing does the ethnic composition of a minor fragment of the NDH Partisan forces have on anything at all, let alone this unrelated article? Why is it worth including, and why did you include it? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A source which provides a fragment of the ethnic composition is more useful than unreferenced, original research on the ethnic composition on the whole. Luckily, I have added the necessary source for Communist Croatia's Partisans. I have also marked your other sketchy claims with fact tags until you can find some proof. I am not interested in having debates here. You don't need to prove to me your personal knowledge: Wikipedia does not require it, and I'm not asking for it either. You just have to find verifiable and reliable info from a source.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had a feeling you'd dismiss discussion any time now. Once more:
1) This is NOT original research, it can be directly derived from the refs I've provided (as I've pointed out numerous times).
2) Do not remove references, it is against Wiki policy.
You're turning out to be one of the more arrogant editors I've had the displeasure of dealing with on Wikipedia. You presume to teach people history, and then belittle their own historical knowledge when they correct you in your mistaken presumptions. You hide your POV well, but considering your origins it is pretty obvious to anyone from these parts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you're interested in constructive discussion, I'm all for it. However, I'm not interested in hearing how you're personally proving some info from sources which obviously do not support you. What does a list of detachments alone prove? Nothing. The accusations of POV are ridiculous: I have provided the reference for the very info that I was asking you to source. I don't care whether Serbs, Croats or Martians proved the majority in Partisans. However, if we're going to make such heavy claims that "Croats made up the majority throughout the war", we should have sufficient sources rather than one user's "logical conclusion" on the matter. Verifiability and no original research are the core policies of Wikipedia. That's why I'm looking for more sources on the ethnic breakdown.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, I lost my temper and I apologize. I'm sure we can reach a compromise, what I want to know is what do you think about rephrasing the problematic sentence? What would you say to:
"It should be noted that Croatian units were significantly more numerous than Serbian units among the Partisan ranks. By 1944, Croats formed 60% of the Partisan units within the territory of the Federal State of Croatia." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I did:
1) I rewrote the first sentence of the paragraph to a form supported by the vojska.net sources. I hope we can leave it at that.
2) I rewrote the last sentence of the paragraph and removed the fact tag. I don't have to bring in sources to confirm the NDH failed to pacify the populace, do I? We're talking about the most numerous resistance movement of the War, after all.
3) Replaced People's Republic of Croatia, with Federal State of Croatia. The former didn't exist before the end of the war.
4) Made minor sentence construction fixes. And sources state Croatia had the most operational units in the Partisan movement (not second most), I assume that was a lapsus calami? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No mistake on my part. According to Vojska.net, Serbia had 83 detachments (Central Serbia 41, Kosovo 6, Vojvodina 36) compared to Croatia's 72. Serbia had 54 brigades (Central Serbia 31, Kosovo 9, Vojvodina 14) compared to 48 Croatian brigades.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second, Croatia did field more units than any other federal unit (I thought I made it clear we were speaking in those terms). I appear not to have noticed you stated "Republics" in the text, my mistake indeed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone have any idea what the legal status of NDH property is when it comes to copyrights? Images belonging to Yugoslavia fall under Template:PD-Yugoslavia. What is the status of images (mostly flags and emblems, I guess) which belonged to the NDH?--Thewanderer (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The NDH never legally existed, a fact often forgot it would seem. The UN never recognized it, indeed, there isn't a single government on this planet that recognizes the existence of the Independent State of Croatia. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis, never dissolved throughout World War 2. The NDH is merely a form of German/Italian occupation, no more than Nedić's Serbia or the General Government. Perhaps Croatian president Mesić calling it a "fantasy" is an understatement, "nightmare" would be more appropriate, I think. I suppose images should also fall under Template:PD-Yugoslavia, no matter how wrong that may seem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, legally NDH didn't exist, but that's the exact problem when trying to deal with copyright status of its state property. See, Template:PD-Yugoslavia seems to only cover state property of SFR Yugoslavia (I'm also not clear why this tag clears images of copyright, as the agreement it cites doesn't appear to say this). I don't think it covers individual intellectual property within SFR Yugoslavia (individual groups should retain their own copyrights). The Independent State of Croatia's intellectual property did not fall into the state ownership of Yugoslavia, as the NDH can legally be considered as some sort of private organization.
I've tested the waters for using this tag at Image:Flag of rank of Commander of HOS.PNG. However, I don't believe it really applies. It seems to me that flags and other such property should belong to the UHRO, which hasn't existed for 63 years. Very confusing.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the property of the UHRO was confiscated (nationalized) by the federal government in '45, and all its assets seized (much like the NSDAP). All property belongs to the state, i.e., SFR Yugoslavia and its successor states. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, according to my international law class, the Independent State of Croatia's legal existence is no longer questionable and has enough state like qualities and legal 'dejure' control to be responsible for it's own actions - this will obviously catch up in Croatia 50 years from now when you all catch up to the rest of the world. Legal existence is constituted by deJure and deFacto control. Obviously due to time context and international relations at the time, you were primarily recognized by one side or the other. However, even though several allied forces recognized the first Kingdom of Yugoslavia, it did not have one milimeter - not even one, of deFacto control, nor was it practicing proper deJure control. This thus leaves only the existing governments in power - this makes them legitimate. Nothing ever actually constitutes the number of nations to acquire 'dejure' control which is established through international recognition. Defacto control as we know it comes from civil and military rule over given areas - from 1941 - 1945 the majority of the areas within the NDH were most definitely under Croatian deFacto control. These two factors combined is what constitutes the legitimacy of state. Unfortunately the balkanian population including DIREKTOR have international law books from the 60s. Oh, and you are mistaken, much of the UHRO property was destroyed within SRH and SBiH or taken by Ustasa officials into exile. The largest collection to this date is in the hands of Visnja Pavelic who refuses to hand over her documents to the Croatian National Archive. AP1929 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Huge Problems with Article

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion

Greeting all - apparently, all of my wikipedia 'problems' with articles that relate to the Independent State of Croatia are to be solved here - so I have been redirected to this discussion page. I would first like to state how it is ridiculously humorous that a man who is "Pro Yuoglsav" and speaks "Serbo Croatian" (A language that doesn't exist and never did) is one of the main editors on this page - and it shows.

First thing is first, the Independent State of Croatia was not a Puppet State, nor was it a monarchy. The Independent State of Croatia did not breach the rules of sovereign succession from the Kingdom of "Yugoslavia" - it was declared by the Croatian people at the will of the Croatian people. If the Independent State of Croatia was a monarchy from 1941 1943, it would be safe to say that present day Canada and Australia are also monarchies.

As for NDH not "existing legally" - this is an ongoing battle, and most specialists of International law see the state as having enough state characteristics to be held accountable for it's actions. DeFacto it was undoubtedly there - DeJure - here is a debate. The Indpendent State of Croatia was recognized by 32 countries - the Axis did not have 'that many friends" and Axis recognition is not less significant than Allied recognition. The Independent State of Croatia was a member of the Universal postal Union and FIFA - along with many other international organizations.

Next point, Hitler and Mussolini did not "install" the Ustasa. The Ustasha movement installed it self with the support of the Axis. The Independent State of Croatia was proclaimed on April 10th, 1941, and was not even recognized by Germany until 5 days following.

Next point - I disagree with the use of the terms "almost all of" when speaking of Dalmatia and the Rome Agreements. I think whoever jotted that part down has to review his/her Croatian history/geography and figure out what exactly Dalmatia is, because Italy didn't even anex 30 percent of Dalmatia - let alone "almost all of it". population started rebelling on the day the state was proclaimed - Serbian Cetniks began massacring in Bijelovar on April 10th of '41 and this event is commemorated every year in Croatia, if you would like to view a clip of the commemoration I believe there is a nice long one on youtube. As for the 'partizan rebellion'. The partizans were not a reaction to the Independent State of Croatia, the KPH (Communist party of Croatia) existed years if not decades prior to the existence of NDH - they took the oppourtunity to invite more people into their 'belief system' by attacking the state from day one - using heavy propaganda to persuade people to join their movement - and they were undoubtedly successful.

"It should be noted that Croatian units were significantly more numerous than Serbian units among the Partisan ranks.[37][38] In 1944, the third year of the war in Yugoslavia, Croats formed 60% of the Partisan operational units originating from the Federal State of Croatia."

I WONDER who put this load of nonsense in the article.... This is nothing but a play on words - what is the "federal state of Croatia" ? That didn't exist anywhere deFacto OR deJure - why don't you tell everyone how many Croatians were in the partizans from all of Croatia (obviously at the time) or all of "Yugoslavia". The percentages of Croatians enlisted in the partizans were only high from 1944 and on (in Croatia modern), otherwise that is a very feebly 'fact' - made to create the illusion that the majority of Croats "joined the resistance" - they did not - not even close.

Tons of errors, I don't even know where to begin, so once some of you take the above in, I shall continue. AP1929 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that it is hilarious that all sources are internet sources, and that this "DIREKTOR"'s arguement is "google it". Out of the first 100 sites that call the NDH a "Puppet State", 80 were Serbian, 10 were Jewish and the rest had no sources whatsoever. The term "puppet state" has to go - in order to make a neutral article - not to simple "appease" anyone. "Puppet state" is political criticism, and NDH does not meet the requirements of even wikipedia's definitions of "Puppet State".AP1929 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to google books in regards to the Independent State of Croatia as a puppet state with many books written by people who are not Serbian or Jewish (though being Serbian or Jewish should not in any way disallow a non-biased source to be used). Similar results occurred when searching for NDH and puppet state. AniMate 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I expect you were referring to me? I suggest you stop before you get reported. We've had a lot of Croatian nationalists and Ustaše-nostalgics on this article, and I'd like to happily point out that little or nothing is left of their "contributions". I don't know you, so all I'll say at this point is that you discuss all your edits and use reliable sources. I won't hesitate to report any vandalism. All the stuff you brought up is properly sourced, please do not start an edit war. How did you like my Userpage? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is according to him that any source that doesn't agree with him is wrong. AniMate 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he knows the TRUTH? Kidding, sources on those claims are reliable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
@Ani-Mate - Would you let neo-nazis write Jewish history ? As for the books in google books - every single last one was Serbian or Jewish other than Jozo TomasevicH's book about NDH which was written in the 60s or 70s I believe, I actually have a copy of it, and it's only references are "Yugoslavian" ones. I can find tons of "sources" that claim that the Holocaust never happen - does that mean that it is correct ? If you look at what "puppet state" refers to, I can simply show you that Croatia was NOT a "puppet state" during WW2.
@DIREKTOR - Thank you for proving my point - this is not a neutral article : I suggest you look up what the term neutral means; but I am glad you agree with me. As for your user page, it almost made me sick to my stomach, but to each his own - everyone is entitled to their own opinion in the modern free world unlike they were in Yugoslavia. It's almost a bit ironic that a communist such as yourself would threaten to "report me" because we all know that that is exactly what Yugoslavs did best, and is what landed thousands of innocent people on Goli Otok. Even though I didn't like your page, I find comfort in the fact that Yugoslavia is long gone, and that Croatia exists, and that your "home city" Split, is the most right-wing city in all of present day Croatia.AP1929 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR, you previously had the oppourtunity to meet average people seeking the truth. I am a History Major and I KNOW the truth through thousands of documents, and personal archiving / research. Not to mention hundreds of interviews with actual Ustase, Domobrani, members of NOB, the UDBA and the KPJ (who knows maybe I know someone in your family).Tell me what you would like me to reference and I will do so, I don't see you arguing any of my points. AP1929 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read this quote and the corresponding link from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of the highest quality sources available on the Web:
"When Germany invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, Ante Pavelic, the Ustaša's leader, became head of a German PUPPET STATE, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH)..."
This is the link: [1], it is also in the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Now to other matters
1) Split? Right-wing?! Oh you mean the rural suburbs, oh yes they are quite right-wing, but I would not call them "Split" in the "narrow" sense of the word (we call it the "Radunica line"). The center districts of the town are not very much like that. In any case, "stari Splićani" know a little better. btw, HDZ has 6, and the SDP has 5 seats in the city council.
And I don't like you writing "home city" in that manner, I'll have you know my family lived in Split for around 350 years.
2) Goli Otok was a maximum security prison, mainly used for Stalinists, I take it that, besides the Ustaše, you like those guys too?
3) Finally, if you read my Userpage you should know that "I am not a communist". And that Yugoslavia was by far the most liberal of all the Socialist states, it was considering joining the European Union.
Oh, and I'm the Secretary General of the United Nations, I'm actually from Korea ;D My point is that you could be Tuđman risen from the grave, you'd still have to use sources and discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Why do you write "@" in front of people's names? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated on other discussion pages, that is one of many errors in Encyclopedia Britannica - there are so many, that even Wikipedia has a page set a side for it. Take a look at what else Britannica wrote about NDH in previous editions (Thanks Serb propagandists for the site !) : http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/ustashi.html
Other matters - I do not care, what you consider to be "Split", I care about WHAT IS Split, and that includes those "rural-suburb" areas - LOL - you're going to tell me, I know Split like the back of my hand. As for Goli Otok - who told you that ? Denis Latin ? LOL - The fact of the matter is that most of the people that were initially there for being branded "Stalinists" weren't actually Stalinist at all, but were simply "reported" as so by members of the UDBA. Goli Otok was in existence LONG after 1948 Druze Direktore. As for Yugoslavia joining the European Union - anyone can 'consider' joining - but can they get in ? Croatia (modern) seems to be having many difficulties let alone the state the 'flicked off' over a million Croats. Yugoslavia was most "liberal" at face value to the rest of the world because the rest of the world would not and could not look into anything going on there - Yugoslavia was a buffer zone during the Cold War and played a huge role in those political issues (made lots of friends in the west). Here is an example of "Yugoslav" liberalism : "We let the Croats go to church" meanwhile they are also sending members of OZNA and UDBA to church to see who is going, and those who go are deprived of very basic human rights - yes how "liberal" of "Yugoslavia". Please do not compare me to Tudman, he is yours not mine.AP1929 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok, please do not remove Britannica referenced info, as that is vandalism. You can start your own website where you can tell people all about the eeevil Serb conspiracies (there's more than one, right?), there you can also tell them all about the Serb control over the Encyclopaedia Britannica and how it is wrong and you're right. For a "history major", you don't know much about the Tito-Stalin split and the threat of Stalinist invasion that Marshal Tito avoided (he was the only one that succeeded). Tell me, where did you study?
As for Split, yes, there's only around 60,000 of us, but the "starosjedioci" are still there. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, you need to change the tone of your comments. You are very close to, if not already, violating WP:NPA in your characterizations of DIREKTOR and his user page. AniMate 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove any Britannica sources, I simply stated that Britannica has written many DIFFERENT things of the topic at hand which aren't very encyclopedic at all and anyone can go see for themselves. I don't know much about the split ? How do you know that ? I simply pointed out the the majority of people who were sent to Goli Otok were suspected Stalinists, and very few of them actually WERE Stalinists. The communist dictator and one of the most notorious mega killers of the 21st century Tito didn't 'escape' anything. Yugoslavs tend to think that Tito made some kind of heroic move by saying no to Stalin, even though Tito himself was a Stalinist prior to the war - he didn't, Stalin could have over-run Yugoslavia in a matter of days if he really wanted to so that there would be no trace of Tito or the Partija. AP1929 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The "country" was a PUPPET STATE, its properly referenced, its explained, its concluded.
So you're saying that Stalin didn't invade Yugoslavia because of charity? Stalin?! Tito's diplomatic connections and maneuvers in the west (more specificly with the USA) ensured that such a move would probably start WW3. That's why he didn't invade. Tito is known as one of history's greatest diplomats and leaders of the non-aligned movement. His state funeral was attended by more diplomats and statesmen than any other. They included four kings, thirty-one presidents, six princes, twenty-two prime ministers and forty-seven ministers of foreign affairs. Or is that also Serb propaganda? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "puppet state" in regards to NDH is incorrect, and is also a term of political criticism which does not make for a NEUTRAL article. I do not care who went to Tito's funeral, that doesn't "make the man" more than half of those people aren't people to "be proud of" and the other half had no idea what Tito was doing or had done. Professor Rummel of the U.Sof A is a specialist of genocide and has put Tito in the top 10 list of "worlds greatest Mega-Killers".AP1929 (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica trumps almost anything. There are a lot of historians in this world with almost as many differing views. Tito's funeral was just an example of his diplomatic accomplishments, of course it is generally irrelevant. btw, have you ever imagined that Andrija Hebrang could have been a Croatian patriot and a Stalinist? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica does not trump everything a trump is a trump - trumps don't 'almost' trump anything they trump or they don't, didn't your dida teach you how to play Briskule like mine did ? Hebrang was a follower of the wind. AP1929 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I said it trumps almost everything, you don't have that "almost". I can play briškule just fine, and as a matter of fact, my Dida (grandfather) did teach me how to play :) I always kicked ass playing dupla.
Anyway, come on, "old Juga" wasn't that bad. Like the TBF guys say: "znam, ni onda nije sve bilo bajno, al' pari mi se mnogo lipše". People had a far higher standard of living and a far lower suicide rate. Besides, half of Split was built by the Federal government: Riva, Poljud, terminal, Gradska luka, Marjanski tunel, Sjeverna luka, Škver, uređenje Marjana, bazeni, lučice (osim Matejuške), skoro sva industrija, hoteli, Gripe etc, etc... not to mention that Hajduk was one of the best clubs in Yugoslavia, and far more succesful in general. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Old Juga" sent millions of Croatians into the diaspora - maybe because the standard of living was 'so great'. As for suicide rates - I don't suppose you forgot to take into the consideration the Homeland war, and what people went though, and the thousands of Croatian soldiers who have committed suicide in these past few years....Many parts of Split might have been well funded by Yugoslavia, but rural 'pro-Ustasa' regions were left completely neglected in the third world, and I am living proof of it - I'm living proof of all of it, thankfully, because of "old juga" I was born and grew up in a FREE true democracy called Canada, where I was educated and can now use everything I have learned "against Juga". You are talking to someone who spent vary many days protesting and being politically active against that monstrosity of "country" or should I say killing machine of Croats. The only thing that was 'better' in those days was Music and Soccer, and soccer only because we couldn't wait to play the Serbs. Don't talk to me about Hajduk Split, you are talking to a lifelong member of both Hajduk and Torcida Split. AP1929 (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why your folks left, I can only suppose they (correctly) assumed life would be better in Canada (as did even more Serbs, to my knowledge), or they had some very good reason to get out as fast as they could ("OZNA sve dozna", hehehe). If you lived in Canada how can you truly know what happened here? If rural areas were less developed, its because they were rural areas. Oh, and using plain mathematics, it is possible to assert the significant drop in tourist numbers, GDP, and employment levels that was caused by the destruction of the unified federal market (long before the escalation of the Yugoslav wars). You see, the economy of SFR Yugoslavia was well planned to function as a unified whole (with Croatia actually being more developed than Serbia, one of the causes of the war), destroy the whole, destroy the economy. Let me assure you, as a "living proof", life was generally better before the so-called "diaspora" imported their bitter, bottled-up nationalist hatred. Nothing ever comes of irrational, nationalist hatred, especially towards a nation that is closer to us than any other.
There are larger linguistic differences between the kajkavian of northern Croatia and shtokavian of Dalmatia, than there are between the shtokavian of Dalmatia and the shtakavian of Serbia. This is fact.
I ask you, can you perhaps see that you are not very objective in this matter due to your family's experience? Can you even consider accepting that working together is better than hating each other? There was no need for the country to have remained socialist, it could simply have remained a mostly economic union, to the benefit of us all (not that it would greatly affect any of you guys safely tucked away in the pine trees ;) Croatia is still essentially an economic fragment of a greater whole, unable to function as anything other than a market for EU products. I guess my point is this: its far too easy to sell economic prosperity for nationalist pride when you live thousands of miles away, eh? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I have figured out a perfect solution to this. Since AP1929 believes that any Western source that states the NDH was a puppet state has been unduly influenced by Serbs, perhaps we should try to get them to change WP:RS. We should insert a sentence along the lines of:

All reliable sources, no matter how established or well respected, must agree with exactly what AP1929 knows to be The Truth.TM If he disagrees with them, they are no longer reliable sources.

Isn't that essentially what you're arguing here? AniMate 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters, it is none of your business why my parents left, and secondly I am not one to simply judge from the 'outside', if you would like to have coffee on the riva one day, I would gladly join you. However, I'm probably not as friendly in person towards people like you as I am on here. I do not hate anyone, but I do however know that I love Croatia above all - I can not hate anyone more than I love my country and people. This article is about NDH and not why you think "Yugoslavia" was a good idea - if it was a good idea, it would exist today. The NDH was a formidable idea, and thankfully, a Croatia exists today. I am not objective, at least not as objective as you are in this particular matter - I mean, common, someone who openly praises Tito and Yugoslavia is going to write about NDH. Thats like letting the grand wizard of the KKK write about black history. My family was heavily involved in the Second World War, during SFRJ in the diaspora, and during the homeland war.
As for Ani-Mates sarcasm : Note for the last time that there are no modern studies on NDH, the Ustasa movement, or Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic. Britannica is simply re-using the information which they have always had - even during the Yugo years. Does Britannica have a definition for "Puppet State" ? And for the last time, the term, is political criticism and does not make for a good neutral article.AP1929 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, no reliable sources are reliable. We should then change the policy to :

AP1929 is the only reliable source. He is the only one who knows The Truth.TM

That sound about right? That being said any speculation or discussion about another user's personal life is way off topic and needs to be avoided by both parties. AniMate 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that states :

"The NDH existed for four years and had seven governments, only five of which were headed by Ante Pavelić. Contrary to popular opinion, the Ustaša state was not a puppet regime, far from it, in fact. Both the Italians and the Germans expressed their continued frustration at being unable to control and manipulate the Ustaša. Despite their military presence and economic support, both Axis powers lacked real leverage over the ever more frantic activities of the Ustaša."http://www.ce-review.org/00/19/vaknin19.html I don't like the last part, but there is truth to the fact that both Italian and German sides were very frustrated with lac of control, and there is tons of proof of that. Hitler would not even allow Kasche to take control of the German soldiers in Croatia - he stated that all German soldiers were to answer to the local authorities of Croatia.AP1929 (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


(I apologize, it would appear I have allowed myself to be dragged off into a meaningless Wiki debate, by the same person criticizing me for it, no less :) Congratulations on your source, but I have found another one, it states: "When Germany invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, Ante Pavelic, the Ustaša's leader, became head of a German PUPPET STATE, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH)...". Fortunately, there is no need for a lengthy debate as to whose source is more valid, since this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you have a problem with it, then I suggest you e-mail them with a detailed description of The TruthTM, I am sure they will immediately rewrite their article, provided their Serb masters let them of course.
There is no need for discussion here, this matter is settled. All I have to say is that should you rewrite any text referenced by proper sources such as Britannica, I will revert and report. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
USHMM puppet state --Rjecina (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of these articles say that the Ustasa movement was a "fascist" movement - which it was not - so if MOST sources are WRONG about that, how can they not be wrong about anything else ? AP1929 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!!! The Ustaše were not fascists? I know Canada's pretty far away, I just had no idea it was on another planet. Trust me on this one, ok? The sources are not wrong:
-> YOU ARE <-
You know, you're even far too radical for Croatia's right-wing extremists... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascism today, at least here seems to be an epithet - only you poor 'balkanci' tend to still label everything as "fascist". The Ustasa movement was not and never will be a fascist one - take a look at the AMAC reference on the actual NDH article, which I believe is there thanks to you. AP1929 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave Puppetry to the Puppets, Not Croatia

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

If Croatia was such a "puppet state" then WHY:

did Italy not recognize Croatia until 2 days after the CROATS had proclaimed the state, Germany five days after.

did Croatia not join the Axis until July of 1941.

did Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic reclaim Istra and the small portion of Dalmatia on September 11th on 1943 without consulting anyone?

did the NDH initiate racial laws in May of 1941 instead of April ?

did the NDH abolish anti-semetic laws in 1943?

did the NDH send it's jews to Germany for monetary gain ?

did German soldiers on NDH soil answer and take orders from local authority only and not the German base in Belgrade ?

did NDH exist even after both Italy, Germany - the entire axis - had fallen ?

did criminals answer to the Law of NDH and not the law of Germany or Italy ?

The list can go on and on....

The "puppet state" adjective was imposed on the Croatian nation by Yugoslav communists in order to make it sound as if Croatia never really existed and therefor wouldn't (too bad for them it does today), and it is also used so that Croatia can not make closer reference in history to the Croatian historical right to Bosna and Hercegovina. AP1929 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing wikipedia's "Axis Nations" article - I have noted that out of all the "Axis Nations", only ONE of the "Minor Axis Nations" is branded a "Puppet State" while the rest are not. You can not compare Croatia to actual puppet states such as Manchukuo or Montenegro. Heck, the Slovaks are briefly mentioned at as a "German puppet" in this article, but in the actual article about the Slovak Republic in the 40's "puppet state" is no where to be seen. I would like the wikipedia editors who are not rooted from Croatia / Serbia etc. to make note of the 'twists' in history from our disastrous area all over wikipedia and the internet - and to take fresh CRITICAL eyes to these problems. AP1929 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this means anything (duh!), a country can still be a puppet state. Why do you think this excludes a puppet state? Also the NDH was far more of a puppet state and even less of a state than Manchukuo. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, I'm interested in what form of words you would prefer to describe the NDH? Could you make a suggestion as to what you would rather see please? Enthusiastic ally of Nazi Germany maybe? So overenthusiastic that even hardened Nazis were shocked by the excesses? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the TRUTH - "Minor Axis Nation" instead of "Puppet State" - even if many sources state "puppet state", the whole point of wikipedia is to provide neutral articles - and "puppet state" is nothing but political criticism which does NOT make for a neutral article. AP1929 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's put it this way - Anti-Croats label the NDH as a puppet state, whereas others do not. You can all see for yourself right here. I am a Croat, I do not label it as such - whereas DIREKTOR is a "Croat" (maybe in regional terms considering he is supports pan-Slavic views) and he is the one who put that term back in. A neutral article should not "lean" one way - in this case, DIREKTOR's view, a neutral article should not include political criticisms as they are not the views of all. AP1929 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica is an anti-Croatian source? We'd better let them know... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Britannica has created an un-neutral article of the NDH based on anti-Croatian sources. Nice try though.AP1929 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial Legislation

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Contrary to popular belief there was never a formal statement/document made by Dr. Mile Budak in regards to "Kill one third, convert one third, expel one third". There should also be mention of the fact that the government of NDH tried to appease it's Serbian population by creating a Croatian Orthodox Church, in an attempt to make ethnic Serbs loyal to the Croatian state. There is a very "iffy" article about the Croatian Orthodox church on wikipedia already, and in it, it claims that Vladimir Singer (Jewish Ustasa) was the one that had "said" that the NDH should "Kill one third..." etc which completely contradicts this part of this article. AP1929 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain this [2] then? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What is that supposed to prove ? Can you read Croatian ? This says nothing about Dr. Mile Budak, and it is issued in 1941 - The issue states that Jews and Serbs move out of homes in certain Zagreb neighborhoods (not all of Zagreb), it doesn't even say anything directly about killing, it simply states that those who do not move out of the neighborhoods within 8 days will be evacuated. AP1929 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to prove (and indeed does prove) that the Ustaše were not quite as nice as you seem to believe. I put it there in response to your remark that "the government of NDH tried to appease it's Serbian population ... in an attempt to make ethnic Serbs loyal to the Croatian state". And yes, I can read Croatian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No one said that the Ustase were "nice", but they aren't "the most inhumane monsters of all time" as some sources would like to label. Every war brings war crimes, and every war brings fanatic thinkers to act. I am not here to deny crimes against humanity, I am here to help contribute to the creation of a neutral article. The government of NDH was often criticized by German officials for not actually enforcing Racial laws in NDH - Dr. Ivan Gabelica's last book has tons of interesting transcripts and documents all about it. And YOU have to understand, that no matter where Serbs live throughout the Balkans - they consider it to be "Serbia" - not all Serbs, but a majority, even recent political figures have been threatening Croatia with "Greater Serbia" borders. The same day that the NDH was declared, Serbs started massacring - Bijelovar is only one example. People have to realize, that time and again, Serbs in Croatia have rebelled against any shape of Croatian independence - take a look at the war in Croatia in the 90's. There are no actual documents that show this "One third" idea, it is often credited to many different Ustasa, and the creation of the Croatian Orthodox church in 1942 is hisotrical fact - why would this be created if the NDH government wanted to kill off the serbs/convert/expell them. The fact of the matter is, there are many Serbian families - whom I have personally interviewed - who lived perfectly normal lives throughout NDH. AP1929 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The government of NDH was much more often "criticised by German officials" for the scale and savagery of their atrocities, as is well documented. Hardened Nazis were frankly appalled by what they had to witness. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Too bad more than half of those "documents" are fake.AP1929 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are they? I've never seen anyone saying that before. Interesting. The main point to bear in mind about NDH is that it was an integral part of Hitler's strategy to divide and rule in Yugoslavia. To see Slav fighting Slav. He accomplished that rather well. The 'Independent' State of Croatia was as 'independent' as the German 'Democratic' Republic was 'democratic'. If Pavelić had woken up one morning and decided he didn't want to be Hitler's buddy anymore then Kasche would've had him replaced before lunchtime. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Alasdair, the guy's obviously in denial here. Though I must say I'm finding the strength of his POV hard to believe. He is willing to denounce every source, every quote, as Serb conspiracy/propaganda. How do you work with this guy?
AP1929, please, on Wikipedia we have rules about the reliability of sources. If something is sourced properly, it cannot be removed on the basis of someone's personal convictions (no matter how strong). Historians supporting your view are obviously less reliable than the sources already provided. I can't make it any clearer than that. These are all facts, trying to deny them is ridiculous and does not warrant a response. Furthermore, I intend to have a look at your contribs to see if other articles have been edited in such a manner as you propose here.
I also suppose, as an interesting digression, that your name means "Ante Pavelić 1929", referring to the year of the formation of the Ustaša movement. Are you a supporter of the Ustaše? (despite what you may think, the Ustaše most certainly are fascists, created and financed by fascist Italy from the beginning) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You've never seen or heard anyone say that before because most Croats don't bother arguing with Yugoslavs like DIREKTOR - we know how it was and we just leave it be, but even that is slowly changing. Everything I have to say is somehow "not allowed" because you aren't "allowed" to go against the norm. You have to understand that this part of Croatian history is beyond tainted thanks to 60 years of communist hegemony over the Croatian people. After 1945 the only people who were allowed to write history were people who were pre-approved by the communists. Hitler needed Croats much more than Croats needed Hitler in later stages. Your last 'statement' is nothing but nonsense. And FYI, Croats are not slavs, and never were.
Direktor, the day you know more about NDH then I do is the day I quit my job and join the partija.AP1929 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no way anyone can convince you they know something you don't, because you know the TRUTH, don't you? Perhaps we should let the fascists and the Nazis write history?
We're not Slavs? Well some Croats do sound more like Turks than Slavs, but I don't think they can deny their culture... (I am familiar with all theories of the origin of the Croats) Hitler needed Croats! LOL ROTFLMAO!! Why because of the few lousy divisions the Ustaše gave him (his army consisted of over 200 divisions)? Please answer: 1) do your beliefs differ in any way from the Ustaše doctrine, my dear history major? 2) Do you support the elimination of Serbs undertaken by the Ustaše government? (I wonder if you have the guts to write up the answers for Wikipedia to see...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"Fascism" is an epithet, and there are no such people that exist today. And no, Croats are not Slavs, Croats speak a Slavic language, but are definitely not Slavs - Croats (majority) have some of the highest percentages of the EU8 Haplotip in Europe along with the Scandinavians - and my very own DNA analysis, and the other 150 that I conducted - proved that to me (along with previous studies). And Yes, Hitler needed the Croats because had we not sided with him, he would have had a 3rd front. There is tons of proof as to why Hitler did not want to 'control' the area - he wanted the Croats to be satisfied so that they did not join the red army en-mass as many did. What is to you the "Ustase doctorine" ? If you are referring to the "Nacela Ustaskog Pokreta", then yes, I do completely agree with them 100 percent, as does any normal Croat. Do I support 'elimination' of anyone ? No. I do not support the elimination of any peoples, killing is not something to take pride in, however, at that time, the entire globe was at war. Once again, I can openly say, that I do not HATE anyone based upon their race or nationality. I LOVE my country and my people, and would stand between anyone who was against it, to defend it and our right to be independent and free. I'm not coming on here to spread HATE - which YOU are doing - I am coming on here to shed some much needed light on a historical topic.AP1929 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
AP, this is extraordinary stuff. So Croats are not Slavs? A quite revolutionary theory that goes against everything that all the other historians, scientists and linguists think. Wow. A further thing that interests me is the breadth of your skills. Not only are you a history major, but you run around personally interviewing Serbian families and conducting DNA analysis on people as well. Where do you find the time for all this endeavour? Truly impressive. As a further point, in response to your comment that "If the Independent State of Croatia was a monarchy from 1941 1943, it would be safe to say that present day Canada and Australia are also monarchies", well, yes, it would be perfectly safe to say that, as both are constitutional monarchies with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State. I'll leave this post there as to do otherwise would lead me to correct more or less everything you have written on this page, except that finally I'd like to point out how frankly daft it is to say "I LOVE my country and my people" because wherever you go in the world you meet good and bad people, irrespective of race, religion, nationality etc. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My dear Alasdair, perhaps you do not know of a theory right-wing Croats developed to justify their existence and ideas of supremacy over other Slavs: there is a "theory" that says Croats are not actually Slavs, but are some weird Arian-like people that came to this area and were oh-so-tragically assimilated by Slavs. Now crusaders for the TRUTH like our friend AntePavelić1929 labor incessantly to enlighten the rest of us as to our true destiny (probably to rule the world, or something). Fortunately DNA haplogroup tests have established that genetic differences between Serbs and Croats are on the whole completely insignificant.
AntePavelić, your sentence that all Croats support the "nacela ustaškog pokreta" are offensive and baseless, not to mention outright stupid considering the current composition of the Croatian Parliament, which consists of almost no right-wing parties (the HDZ is center-right and does certainly not support the "nacela ustaškog pokreta"). But then your lot don't place much stock in democracy do they?

Again, I ask whether you've got the courage to answer my question in a straightforward manner (a simple YES or NO would suffice in this type of question).
Do you, or do you not support the Ustaše movement? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right wing" Croats, do not seek nor did they ever seek supremacy of "slavs". Croatians are clearly not Slavs as indicated by DNA studies of Europe, anyone unfamiliar should become familiar. I know for balkan users like DIREKTOR such information is hard to come across. Croats are a mix of all kinds of genes, but only a small percentage of the population holds a lower end genetic breakdown of slavic genes. Croats are not a Slavic people, it is the 21 century - we have science, and we have logistics to conclude that even the idea of homogeneous "race" in any part of Europe is ridiculous. Croats are not slavic by majority according to DNA, they are however a Slavic-speaking people. Oh and for the record, just because someone likes NDH, it's ideas, the movement etc. does not mean they are a hardline right-wing nationalist. They weren't all then, and they weren't all now. You balkans need to stop over simplifying and generalizing. You all equate Ustastvo with some quasi 1991 form of it led by a bunch of political dissidents who were prisoners of yugoslavia - these people had no ties with the legitimate and legal successor of UHRO. However, the leading party of Croatia, the HDZ did have full support from most remaining and notable sworn Ustase in the beginning. Even the only legal and legitimate predecessor of UHRO - HOP, stood financially and ideally behind Dr. Tudman (ironically a former partisan). That same HOP was the first Croatian Democratic Movement - so if you are referring them as "my kind" I guess you are wrong again. What's it like to be wrong all the time? AP1929 (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some findings to consider: Eu7: 44,83% - the so called 'Croatian', haplotip Eu19: 29,31% "Slav" Eu4, Eu9, Eu10, Eu11: 13,79% - neolithic haplotips, haplotip Eu18: 10,34% basque,haplotip Eu16: 1,73 asiatic Serbs on the other hand are HG2 49% turk anatolian (the biggest in europe), HG21 13% berber-morlach, 23 % others and only 15 % slavic. I seem to be answering so many question, you might as well answer mine, again: What does it feel like to be wrong all the time?AP1929 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The NDH was never an actual absolute monarchy; the formal "King" never stepped foot in Croatia let alone had any actual power or social influence. Also, the government re-established the Croatian parliament Hrvatski Sabor in 1942 with no mention of it's "King". AP1929 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you then vote accordingly in the discussion on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta? Monarchists would like to picture the NDH as an Italian-controlled state... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ustaše movement

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

AP1929, as someone who's always been interested in history, I'm delighted to meet someone with non-conventional views. It's great for my education. It's easy to find anti-fascists, but much harder to find the other side. They tend to be pretty covert, sort of shadows in the night, you know. Therefore, to come across someone who is so openly pro-Ustaše as you are is an excellent academic opportunity. If you don't mind, I'd love to hear your rationale about a few things, if you'd be generous enough to take the time to answer a couple of my questions. Namely, could you explain in honest terms what you find so attractive about Pavelić and the Ustaše? What draws you to them, both emotionally and rationally? If you are pro-Pavelić is it automatically true that you are pro-Hitler as well, or are you able to separate the two? Does it ever feel very lonely out there when the mainstream is so against you, or is that isolation a source of strength that makes you even more determined? What do you think were the best qualities about the Ustaše? Why do you think most people are so opposed to the Ustaše?

I've got more questions but those'll do for now. My friend, many thanks in advance for taking the time to answer, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not hard to find "people like me" who actually know something about Croatian history and genetic study -- most of us are disinterested in dialogue with openly pro-yugoslav, pro-communist characters such as user:DIREKTOR or with "historians" such as yourself who are disinterested in questioning the works of Western Society - which I admire and take part in - from 1945 to present day; especially in regards to the "balkan" area of the world. Since you are asking me what I find "attractive" about Dr. Pavelic and the Ustase; I will answer this after stating that I do not think that either Pavelic, the NDH or the Ustasa Movement were all knowing or never wrong.
To answer your questions:
Dr. Pavelic: if one is to actually take an in depth look at the life of Dr. Pavelic - not a la "historians" such as "Dr." Ivo Goldstein who in a recent paper tried to examine Dr. Pavelic himself but branches off into totally irrelevant topics which have nothing to do with his thesis, other than maybe his hidden 'thesis' : the blackening of the Croatian name - one will quickly learn that he was a very intelligent man who loved his people and country. He was described in the 30's in Italian documentation as he was described in the media in Bulgaria - as a humble, intelligent man who does not bare a balkan-like side which was traditionally associated with conspirators and liars. I don't know where you went to school, but when I was in University, I learned that a good politician is one who stays on message. In my opinion, Dr. Pavelic produced exactly what he devoted his entire life to: An Independent Croatian State and the simple ideal of the fight for one which lived on decades after the fall of NDH -- pro-yugoslav and pro-communists tend to argue that the struggle for Croatian statehood existed for centuries and would have continued to exist even without Dr. Pavelic and Ustase or NDH - but we all saw what happened the Croatian intellectuals such as Milan Sufflay, Bruno Busic, Dr. Marko Veselica etc. We know about the attempts of a systematic killing of Croatian language, culture and national feeling which took place from the 18th century and on from Illyrianism, to yugoslavism, and ofcourse Greater Serbianism. Dr. Pavelic not only became Poglavnik in April 10th of 1941, he became the 'poster boy' of Croatian Independence. It was his movement, his self-suffering, his time in jail and all of his actions which led to the freedom of the Croatian people from the grips of the first serb-dominated yugoslavia. I am not a fan of Dr. Tudman for example, but I will always respect him for the good that he did from the 1960s until his death. Dr. Pavelic was a politician who played some real good hands with really bad cards in the most turbulant time of modern history. He was a good looking humble man, from a peasant family, he stayed on message even when it was hard to do so considering the "friends" he had to make thanks to the unfair endings of the Versailles treaty and the situation in Europe at the time. When he 'fled' he looted nothing, he worked with his own bare hands as a bricklayer in Argentina, his surviving family is simply to this day asking for the property which was ceased by the yugoslav government in 1945 - which was acquired by Dr. Pavelic prior to the creation of NDH. He continued the fight for Croatian independence by creating the very first democratic Croatian movement which was part of the International League for Democracy - which later went on to fuel the rest of the Croatian Political Emigration. I truely believe that he could have disappeared from any political or even Croatian scene post May of 1945; some even insisted on it due to the fact that he was on the losing side of the war. However, he continued to fight for what he believed in - Croatian Independence. He distanced himself from Hitler's Germany and Italy and fought the fight by any means possible - this is why he was shot at, and this eventually lead to his death. Therefor, he devoted his entire life to the Croatian struggle - he went to jail thrice because of it and took bullets for it. In my opinion, that is worthy of some form of respect. Jakov Sedlar, a popular Croatian film maker, is apparently creating a documentary-like biography on Pavelic's life which is to air on screen this year. According to Croatian Jutarnji List, the daughter of Ante Pavelic, Visnja in Madrid has offered him a ton of material which she refuses to give to the National Croatian archive. I believe that this film will open a world of discussion and shed some life on the life of Pavelic - even in regards to people like me who are very familiar with all of his writings.
The Ustase: in my opinion; since you asked for it, Ustase were simply Croatian Nationalists. This was described in the Principles of the Ustasa Movement. The movement itself, in my opinion, was founded on the teachings of Dr. Starcevic in action. Ustase as soldiers themselves - people tend to overlook the rural-ness of Croatia in that period of history. Many people were Ustase simply because they felt that Croats were entitled to their own state, the agreed with the Principles of the movement. They fought for Croatia, not for Germany, not for Italy - but for their bare existence which was surely at threat based on the hegemony in the first yugoslavia which was protested by some of the greatest intellectuals of ever-time, most notably, Albert Einstein. I have had the opportunity to speak with many Ustase, high ranking ones even, (and partisans) and simple soldiers such as members of my family who to this very day do not see their battle as some fascist, genocidal one, but as defense of their country and their people who were very much so in threat. The partisans were quick to act even in the early staged of NDH by making the famine worse: ceasing agriculture etc. There is much more to the picture. In my opinion, that part of the world is still far behind, I find it laughable when people such as Rjecina or DIREKTOR compare their Croatian based education to my Western one, because I have dealt with the highest of 'intellectuals' from over there - and woah - time to catch up. They fail, as do many others, to remember the fact that they were in isolation from the progressing world from 1945 up until about 1995. This is fact. There was no objectiveness in regards to this particular subject until the mid-90ties and even they are constantly changing and contradicting. Regarding emotions - I come from a very proud Croatian family, a family who fought for Croatia in the Second World War, a family that suffered during the reign of tito, and a family that suffered during the Homeland war. A family which embraced foreign land and customs because of force not by choice. However, this does not mean that I am not proud of my Western education and this does not mean that I do not look at everything, even Pavelic, NDH etc. objectively and critically.


Hitler: In my opinion, Hitler obviously exploited the Croatian cause by chance - though keeping a distance at the right opportunities; he was nothing but an ally of convenience and chance. I do not support anything of his, and his particular influence on Croatia is what has blackened the image of Croatia, and not that of the Ustasa Movement which clearly stated their goals and 'enemies' prior to 1941. Hitler did what he could out of his own interest, as did Pavelic. Hitler's first option was yugoslavia, not Croatia. This is fact. Dr. Pavelic distanced himself from Hitler after wars end in his writings. Hitler needed a 'calm' balkan - and Pavelic needed a Croatian State - from these two root ideas everything else spawned. Croatian soldiers fought with heart and often found themselves short of weaponry - why, because of German sanctions. The German's gave very little to receive a lot, had Croats completely turned tables and joined the partisans en masse as some claim they did, Hitler would have had a very tough third front. A minor front which was barely being held off by all of the forces in NDH at the time. I do not condone killing, nazism, Hitler anything - I do not condone antisemitism, racism etc. The Italians cheated on Croatians by dealing with the Serbian Chetniks and by annexing a portion of portion of Croatian territory to fulfill their imperialistic goals. The German's used us as much as we milked them. There was never really any true love, only politics. That's the name of the game - and Croatia and Croatians are small and insignificant - Croats need "big friends" and at that time, the Western Democracies were not concerned with the struggle of this small nation and had already made up their minds at Versailles. Note also, Hitler banned the Ustasa Movement in Germany in the 30s. Any Croat who has equated the Ustasa Movement with Nazism or has formed it into a modern day domestic version of neo-nazism is in my opinion an idiot. I truly believe that 20 years from now, a whole world of difference will be written about the NDH, when modern studies occur, and people of non-"balkan" descent take part in the research which does not stream from yugoslav secondary sources as many acquirable pieces today come from.
My determination: I like history, I like politics, I am a Croatian Nationalist, not a hard "right-wing" one; none the less a patriot and I truly believe that the Croatian National corpus as a whole can not move on until they settle their scores from the past and stop with the historic revisionism. A key step towards this process would be getting, like I said - non"balkan" people involved in this study - which is exactly what DIREKTOR and Rijecina are approaching - they are pushing their own agendas to you to solidify their beliefs and opinions so that they are widely accepted. Those users do not edit the Croatian articles on such topics - even though they are fluent in Croatian and write poorly in English - why is that? The Croatian articles on these matters are very different, and they don't bother. Why? Because they are still standing in the past where Croats in Croatia view the West as some super-society which is all knowing. If and American said it - it must be true! Thus, the only way to battle them, would be to involve my self in discussion and pull up some important questions.
My 'loneliness' : If you think I am alone - I am most definitely not. Especially not amongst Croats. Croatians, through democratic values by referendum voted for their own independent state. Anyone who does not draw any parallel to that and the conditions and event of 1941 is blind and or ignorant. Most Croats however, are very moderate people, especially now after the war and the demise of yugoslavia. Most of them have excepted the Tudman administrations policy on "hushing up" the NDH era in order to not create bad PR for Croatia as they all seem to have given up on trying to convince anyone outside of Croatia about what really happened during NDH : why - well, because no normal people see anything good in Hitler - nor do the vast majority of Croats. However, we "lost" and we were on "that side" and 60 years of communist revisionism has made it almost impossible to defend anything NDH. And because of course - "Croatia is the predecessor of Socialist Republic of Croatia" within yugoslavia and not NDH. Even NDH ministers Ustasa Vjekoslav Vranicic admittedly told the Croatian National Congress in the 70s or 80s that the Croatian people can no longer rely upon the tradition of NDH to become free as it has been demonized through opposing medias. Thus Croatians attempted a different approach, keeping NDH at their hearts - the fight for a free Croatia, while adapting to the times. Prior to April 10th of 1941, there was not such a date that Croatians celebrated -- during the dark yugoslav years (2nd yugoslavia) Croat nationalists would light fires on the eve of that date and many would be imprisoned. In the Political Emigration, Croatians openly celebrated it - once even with President Ronald Reagan. So as you see, the IDEA of that state, the idea of Croatian self-determination is what I truly love. However, thanks to the April Revolution of 1941 and the constant labeling of anything pro-Croatian by yugoslav authority as "Ustasa"-something - these ideals will always be related to that particular movement. Thus I feel it is time for Croatia to move on - apologize for the harm done and come to legitimate conclusions. Here are the good things about NDH, here are the bad - the truth regarding this this and this are xyz, now let's all move on. I hope I answered your questions, I kept it as realistic as possible. AP1929 (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference zvonko was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_State_of_Croatia/Archive_3&oldid=1190232778"