Talk:Ustaše/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Quisling organization in 1929?

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

Can't we all just get along?

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

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

At least let's try

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

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

Picture discrepancy...

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

Genocide?

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

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

Thanks a lot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Serbian, non-Croatian sources

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

Current Status

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

While I do not know whether or not you are correct in noting that the Serbians have chetnik symbols in their national flag, I think it is worth noting that the Independent State of Croatia used the same red-and-white chequered motif on their flag as the modern country of Croatia does on theirs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't (The design was associated with Croatia long before the Ustahe hi-jacked it), but I do think that the point you are making about the Serbian flag is not a good one. Moreover the current economic state of Serbia versus Croatia has nothing do do with whether or not the Ustashe committed various war crimes against the Serbians. In short, stop ranting.

Matisia 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My say means something...

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

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

---

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

So what Religion were they?

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

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

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

What Jasenovac truly is....

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

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

Liberated?

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

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

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

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

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

The TRUTH

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

LUKAPENDES 06:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bill Zelinski

--Racerx11080 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) My grandfather lived in Croatia during World War II, he was the menager of rail road station,and he was burned live in ortodox church by Ustashe, with village teacher, and ortodox priest. ALL of them were civiliants, so claim that Ustashe didn't kill anyone unless they attacked Croatia is LIE! THEY COMMITED GENOCID (by today's standards!!!) P.S. I'm half Croat, half Serbian, so I am probabbly the most objectiv person on this page!

Catholic Encyclopedia

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

Oliverte 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ustaše/Ustasha etc - how to spell

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

June 30 2007: Neutrality still disputed?

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

June 07 reversions

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

re: use non-Croat & non-Serb historian to write article

fair enough -- any suggestions?

Photo

Photos need to be deleted. Why ? Wikipedia is having articles about 7 extermination camps (Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chełmno, Bełżec, Majdanek, Sobibór, Treblinka , Jasenovac) , SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS extermination camps gards) and Ustaša. Because only articles about Croatian terror organization (Ustaša) and Independent State of Croatia extermination camps (Jasenovac) are having photos of killing this is clear evidence of Croatophobia. All camps need to have similar photos or nobody. Using this photos for crimes of only 1 side is clear POV and against rules of wiki. Rjecina 02:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please point to the specific Wikipedia rule that says if one article has no photos, than an article about a similar topic should also have no photos. I don't think such a policy exists.Spylab 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The photos belong. THF 14:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're being oversensitive Rjecina. If we go down your route we would have to start looking at whether an article about creationism or intelligent design has as many characters as an article about evolution. That would be an absurd way to measure knowledge. Instead we should just try to make each article as comprehensive as possible. Where one article has more info than another the aim should be to improve the one that has less info, not discard info from the one that has more. Kirker 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have stoped to worry about that and started to answer. For begining wiki is now having 2 Chetniks foto (Image:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg, Meeting between German, Chetniks and Ustaša commander.jpg). After that I will upload from Holocaust museum foto from other extermination camps and put them in articles. For that nobody can say anything because if this is not allowed then we speak about double standards. In begining I have been writing on wiki about Roman Empire for which I have good enough knowledge. Only after looking Portal Croatia (this question is solved) and seeing what have Serbs users done I have started to look Croatian articles. It has been surprise for me to see how much great number of Serbian user hate Croatia and Croats and how they create new myths how parts of Croatia are Serbian land (supporters of Greater Serbia ??). Example of that is article Serbs of Croatia because in that Serbian king are ruling Slavonia between XIII and XVI century (they have never ruled Slavonia). This myths are dangerous and in my thinking it will be better if next generations do not learn about that. All in all it is funny to see how number of Serbian users support like truth Serbian wartime propaganda and delete many times words of sources without question like Einstein.Rjecina 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia, eh? I'll look into those "Kingdom of Srijem" claims... BTW, Rjecina, if you desire any help in equating the Ustaše and the Chetniks, feel free to point out any articles where you find them to be glorified and/or excused for their crimes, I would be happy to help. DIREKTOR 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism instead of Thompson

The introductory paragraph included a sentence about the singer Thompson singing WWII Ustaše songs. I assume the editor didn't know we have an entire article about Neo-Nazism in Croatia. So, instead of singling out a particular case, I added a sentence about the Croatian Neo-Nazism in general and its relation to the Ustaše, including a reference to that article. Since Neo-Nazism in Croatia didn't have the Thompson references, I moved them over there. --Zmaj 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I removed the passage which attributed the 1990s resurgence of support for the Ustaše to "religious hatred". The causes of that resurgence were much more complex than that, and included the misplaced identification with a past state which had been "independent" only in name; the hatred against rebel Serbs in Croatia; the hatred against Roma; the perception of the Nazi as "cool" (nice uniform, dude) etc. They are explained in Neo-Nazism in Croatia, so it would be unjustified to try to elaborate them in this article. --Zmaj 09:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Caption for flag image

I wonder if the caption should be more precise? This was not the flag of Croatia but of the so-called Independent State of Croatia, which had borders significantly different from anything known as Croatia before or since and which has not been recognised as a legitimate predecessor state by present-day Croatia. Kirker 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I will change the caption. If anyone has any objections post them here before reverting, please. DIREKTOR 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Prince Franjo Posedarski soldiers

Can someone please provide more detail on where this is coming from? I would like to request a quotion from the source that states this, or please provide an alternate source someone can verify. Thanks. // laughing man 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"a quotion from the source"

Ustaša sposobnih za oružje bilo je na obje strane Velebita mnogo tisuća a na čelu im vojvode Stojan Janković i Ilija Smiljanić, knez Franjo Posedarski i Zadranin Šimun Bartolac.

word for word translation,

Ustaša capable of arms was on both sides Velebit severel thousends heding them commanders Stojan Janković and Ilija Smiljanić, prince Franjo Posedarski and Zadranin Šimun Bartolac.

Radoslav Lopašić - DVA HRVATSKA JUNAKA: Marko Mesić i Luka Ibrišimović (Zagreb 1888) p 35 line 33-34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkic (talk • contribs) 07:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Radoslav Lopašić[1] Radoslav Lopašić[2] Radoslav Lopašić[3] RADOSLAV LOPAŠIĆ MONUMENT [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkic (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Annoyed

Its a shame...reading all these posts...seriously the only people reading this article is going to be either a serb or a croat. Both sides have their views...keep it to yourselves please, and only put credible and unbiased information about the Ustase in this article. p.s. Ustase did commit genocide...but lets put it into perspective...so have the serbs...and if we keep arguing about this it will be commited by both sides again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postpenultimate (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit to annoyed comment by JEW: You can be annoyed as you wish, the Serbs did not commit any such genocide in the WW II, and you forgot the JEWS, they would be also interested in Jasenovac death caps. We will never forgot Ustashe/Croat regime in WWII. Peace to earth...

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.171.115 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 

No anyone reads this article. People studying it for a-levels for instance or who are simply interested. Also, the Jews were not the only ones genocide upon in WW2. It was non-arayans. Not percifically Jews. That is just their conspiracy. METALFREAK04 (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This historic fact is not allowed on the main pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/

Ustaše (Uprisers) - nickname for Croatian soldiers that drove out the Turks from Croatia in the years from 1683 to 1689. former Uskoks. Commanders of the southern soldiers based in Dalmatia (1683) where Prince Franjo Posedarski, Prince Jerko Rukavina, Dujan Kovačević, Ilija Smiljanić, Šimun Bartolac and Stojan Janković (former muslim) Commanders of the northern soldiers based in Ogulin (1685) where Baron Franjo Oršić, Baron Stjepan Vojnović, Baron Ivan Gusić and Count Adam Purgstall. The Ustasa army numbered several thousand soldiers that later settled with there families in the Lika and Krbava region of Croatia and are all found by name age and rank in the Census of Lika and Krbava in 1712.

1. Radoslav Lopašić - DVA HRVATSKA JUNAKA: Marko Mesić i Luka Ibrišimović (Zagreb 1888) p 35.

2. Dragutin Hirca - LIKA I PLITVIČKA JEZERA (Zagreb 1900) p 66

3. Karl Kaser - POPIS LIKE I KRBAVE 1712. GODINE (Zagreb 2003) p 51-374

I am constantly deleted and blocked from editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase by,

1. User: Spylab

2. User: Rjecina

3. User: Kirker

4. User: Kuru

5. User: laughing man WikiProject Serbia.

6. User: Steel359

This is NO free Encyclopedia ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkic (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If I am not unblocked from editing this article within the next 24 hours.

This above entire message about http://en.wikipedia.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase

Will be posted in one hundred forums all over the world

Example > http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1120986#1120986

This will automatically be picked up by the search engines in the coming ten years

Example >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Usta%C5%A1e+wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

Enuf is Enuf !

--Brkic 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are NOT "constantly deleted and blocked" by me

I have deleted your input ONCE. I did it because your contribution was utterly irrelevant to an article that quite clearly is about the insurgent movement started by dissident Croats during the period of the south-slav kingdom. It would be reasonable to mention somewhere in that article that the term had been used earlier, in the way you describe. But to allow it as the lead paragraph would be idiotic. No encyclopaedia on earth would do that.

There are two other ways in which you could show off your little bit of knowledge (if that is what's driving you). You could say in the article about Uskoks that they acquired the nickname "ustaše" and you could create an entirely separate Wikipedia article with a heading such as "Ustaše (nickname of the Uskoks." In the latter case it need not be a long article. Or indeed it could say simply "see Uskoks."

As far as I am concerned, you could do both of these things AND (as I said in my explanatory note at the time) you could mention at some appropriate point in the main Ustaše article that the term had been used earlier as a nickname.

I can't stop you publishing whatever rubbish you like about me in whatever forums you like. If you go ahead with what you have proposed to say, it is enough for me to know that you know you are telling a lie. Kirker 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Then You're not Spylab, Rjecina, laughing man, Steel359, Kuru. You'r just, Kirker right ?

Just how dumb do you think I am? Unblock the article for me to edit !

--Brkic 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I am not those other people. Are you an idiot? And sorry, but I haven't a clue how to unblock you, or how to block you in the first place. Kirker 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

O You just happened to delete me ? You just happened to be at the right place at the right time ? I will post the complain on forums and blogs all across the internet until the day you allow me to edit this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase

--Brkic 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Ustaše article

If you look for person who is guilty for blocking of article you will have your answer now. On 30 september I have writen this:

"Semi-protection It is possible to put this article in semi-protected mode for long period of time because it is popular with blocked users which are coming again and again. For this it is enough to see history page of article. Users User:Guivon , User:UstashkiDom , user:Brkic are blocked, user:Skoa is vandal which nobody has asked to be blocked. All in less of 40 days we are having 4 "new" users which play with article."

and administrators have accepted my demand. After you will work on wikipedia you will have possibility to edit this article because semi-protection is working only against new users. If you think that protection is not honest you can ask that article be unprotected on this link: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

About your changes my only comment is that they are false because of 1 simple fact. I will not say why but let you read on croatian wikipedia. Look this link :[5]

If you want that something similar to that be writen in article Ustaše please write statement and I will put this statement in begining of article (something similar to : Prije 20 stoljeća riječju ustaša su se nazivali ustanici protiv Turske, Venecijanske ili Austrijske vlasti) You need to start cultural discussion with other users and not attack everybody who do not agree with you. --- Rjecina 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC

Is this also false then ? http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1i

Or are you going to delete that to ?

Quotation:

Ustaši so bili južni Slovani, ki so se bojevali proti vdoru turkov od 14. do 16. stoletja.

Translation:

Ustaša where southern Slavs, that fought against the turks from 14th to 16th century.

You try to falsify history true Wikipedia ! Because you are a enemy of Croatia !

You have already lost.

--Brkic 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Za dom - spremni!"

The Ustaše greeting was "Za dom - spremni!":

Salute: Za dom! For home(land)!

Reply: Spremni! (We are) ready!

This is not true.

It's an old Croatian military greeting,but Ustase used it. It was used by Croatian military during the Austro-Hungarinan rule when Croatians fought the Turks and even before that. You can clearly see that in the translation.

For Homeland...Ready!

It's got nothing to do with Ustase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.138.91 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Political party???

Somehow his article is listed on a List of political parties in Croatia [6] As the article is locked, and I find this to be both untrue [7] and offensive, I would like someone to correct this blasphemy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.31.130 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that the Ustashe movement is not represented in the Croatian Sabor by any political party, therefore it should not be listed as a political party in Croatia.SWik78 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Infobox

The infobox wasn't political in nature and the only reason I used it was that the Ustashe were at one time in Croatian history a political party. I never meant to imply that they're a political party in modern Croatia and the infobox doesn't imply that either. The Infobox provided valuable quick reference information that I think is useful in the article. If that makes it any better I've added a disbanded field and changed the infobox so that if the disbanded field is used then the word "Former" is added to the infobox title. -- Esemono (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with table but with category which this table is giving to article. When table is included article is having category Political parties in Croatia, but right category is Defunct political parties in Croatia. This is only problem. Please look end of your article version [8]. If you look categories you will see problem. -- Rjecina 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the template to reflect the correct category. // laughing man 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated blame of the Czechoslovakians regarding the downing of JAT 364

Under the heading "After the war" in the second paragraph the article declares the following:

"In 1972, the Ustaše were blamed for the bombing of JAT Flight 364, which killed 27 people. However, it was later determined that the flight was downed by a pair of SA-12 missiles fired from Czechoslovakia."

I am disturbed by the second sentence "However, it was later determined that the flight was downed by a pair of SA-12 missiles fired from Czechoslovakia." This is an incredibly substantial statement that has no citation and no basis for fact in any article or historic document that I can find. Ustaše are generally considered to be the perpetrators of this act. The second sentence should be deleted unless an acceptable citation can be found.67.169.193.226 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I remember noticing this some months ago. I checked it out at the time and found evidence somewhere that the claim was well founded. I'll try to track down whatever it was that I turned up. I agree that the statement should stay in only if it can be supported with a citation. (When you contribute to a Wikipedia discussion page, please type four tildas (~) at the end which will insert your name, date and time of message.) Kirker (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it out. It's an astonishing allegation, which, after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, would probably have been dug out of the Czech government archives and splashed all over the world's media, yet googling 'vesna ustase "surface to air"' gets 13 hits, including a bunch of wiki mirrors. So I'm deleting the sentence on the grounds that it's almost certainly bollocks, placed there by someone with a political agenda. --Aim Here (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Racial ideology and Nazis

Did the Nazis themselves believe the Ustaše's claims about a non-slavic origin of the Croats? Or did they simply consider the Ustaše a convenient tool? Nik42 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

This may seem a rather minor issue, but I am mentioning it on the talk page here because I cannot edit the page.

Under the "Political Ideology" heading in the information box at the top right, the word "fascism" is misspelled as "facism." BecauseWhy? (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Three days later, I have finally gained established user status and fixed it myself. BecauseWhy? (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wonder why I had to correct three factual errors about "NDH" territory : that it included the Sanjak, that the whole Dalmatian coast was ceded to the Italians, and that Syrmia was part of Serbia --it had never been, and its eastern part was only joined to Voivodina and Serbia in 1945. (89.224.135.150 (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

In the 1990s, during the Yugoslav wars, there was a resurgence of support for the Ustaše

This is false.This is a propaganda attempt to somehow connect the ww2 and the Yugoslav war in the 90's. In every country there are nazi's,individuals (idiots)Serbian propaganda throughout the 90's war portrayed Croats as Ustase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_propaganda

In 1993(during the war) there was a party that registered itself for the elections of 1995.They didn't get any votes.

The Hrvatski Oslobodilacki Pokret (HOP, Croatian Liberation Movement) remains active on the fringe of Croatian politics. The party, originally founded in Argentina in 1956 by Ante Pavelic (see also Argentina), leader of the war-time Ustasa movement and the Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia, was in 1993 registered in Croatia and unsuccessfully took part in parliamentary elections in 1995. http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/croatia/croatia.htm They were banned long time ago.

This is pure Serbian Historical Revisionism for certain political purposes,so I'm removing it. The problem with Serbs nationalists is that every Croat who considers himself a patriot or a nationalist just proud of his country is automaticly seen as an Ustase sympathizer.Generalisation and exaggeration of facts were also a great part of Serb propaganda during the 90's conflict.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever claims that there was not an 'Ustasa revival' in the Croatian War of Independence (not the Yugoslav wars) is simply lost. I am a Croat, and am telling you that there was. Dozens of brigades carried Ustasa symbols and were named after notable Ustase. Go on youtube and watch the liberation of Knin during the famous "Operation Storm" and see what songs the people and soldiers were singing. The fact of the matter is, is that Croatia's WW2 history has been so tainted by communist revisionists that it is almost impossible to defend. Thus even the Croats that know the truth about NDH see it as a lost cause to rehabilitate it as it will not create good PR for Croats. During the war, Croatia played a great roll luring in international sympathy, therefor couldn't afford to admit to the Ustasa revival - thus having to defend it beyond 60 years of communist revisionism at a time of war. AP1929 (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr.Milan Bulajić is a Srebrencia Genocide denier

A journalist asked for reaction to a statement by Mr. Milan Bulajić of the ‘Foundation on Research of Genocide’ in Belgrade, that, having studied documentation produced by the UN, and the ‘Serbian and Muslim armies’, he concluded that no genocide was perpetrated in Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS). Landale responded that any statement Mr. Bulajić allegedly made about there having been no genocide after the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica flew in the face of the findings at the Tribunal, both by a Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber.

http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050420.htm ICTY International Crimes Tribunal Yugoslavia

The Belgrade Museum of the Holocaust compiled a list of over 77,000 names of Jasenovac victims. It was previously headed by Milan Bulajić, who noww supports the claim of a total of 700,000 victims.

His name should be excluded from Wikipedia.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Srebrenica genocide has also been recognized by the International Court of Justice.

The European Court of Human Rights upheld on 12 July 2007 the conviction for genocide by the German courts of the Bosnian Serb paramilitary leader Nikola Jorgić. Jorgić was convicted in Germany of having carried out genocide in the Doboj region in 1992.

In a procedural ruling in the Milošević case of 16 June 2004, the Trial Chamber of the ICTY also concluded that

“there is sufficient evidence that genocide was committed in Brčko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Ključ and Bosanski Novi”.

As the Chetniks allowed into the Titoite ranks after 1944 strengthened their grip on the Belgrade central administration, secret police and diplomacy, the number of Jasenovac victims allegedly recorded steadily grew from around 40 000 in 1945 to the 700 000 now still peddled by Serb nationalists, while the Serbian camps at Banjica and Sajmište were barely mentioned if at all.

That the latter figure remains in a Wikipedia article hows how keen Serbian pseudo-nationalists are on imposing their propaganda in Wikipedia, and as a consequence how unreliable Wikipedia is on such matters. To be sure, when respected institutions such as the Wiesenthal center are bamboozled by such disinformation, it gives a multiplying effect to Serb lies.(89.224.135.150 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Quoted text is a wrong confused mixup of totally unrelated units and officers of NDH

'These Muslim Bosnians joined in the Nazi and Ustaše forces as part of Waffen-SS divisions 13th SS Mountain Division Handschar in Bosnia (led by Amin al-Husayni) and 23rd SS Grenadier Division Kama advised by Edmund Glaise von Horstenau (the representative of the German military in Croatia) and led by Colonel Ivan Markulj, who was later replaced by Colonel Viktor Pavicic. Lt-Col. Marko Mesic commanded the artillery section. '

Markulj, Mesic and Pavicic fought for Germans on the Eastern Front (Russia) commanding the 369th infantry regiment ..... not the Waffen SS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone plunger (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate word-form in text

In the middle of the section entitled "Ideology", in the phrase, "... Muslims had a weak nation identity", shouldn't the word be "national", rather than "nation"? Thanks.

˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denicho (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be nothing! Start posting fact and not something that you think. talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it should be "national". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An analysis of the Ustaše and the NDH by Nevenko Bartulin

http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20070911.113128/public/02whole.pdf 121.127.200.205 (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back - With Bones to Pick

Ustase, fascist, national - socialist etc. Typical serbo-communist propaganda. No one here can find me a single Ustasa figure who ever declared himself as fascist, nor does the NDH government's economic policies in any way add up to national-socialism.

"Expelled and Defeated" - the Ustasa movement retreated to Austria along with hundreds of thousands of other Croatians who feared the Red Army, Croatia never actually surrendered and the Croatian Crusades took place up until the 50s.

The Ustase and 'terrorism' prior to WW2 - I'm guessing whoever put that in is referring to the assassination of the Serbian king which is the work of a Macedonian organization; see Michael McAdams' "Croatia : Myth and Reality"

The NDH "established by Italy and Germany" - The NDH was proclaimed by the Ustase who had taken part in the invasion of Yugoslavia which began on April 6th of 1941. The Ustase proclaimed the state - if it was established by other countries, it's borders would have been defined right off of the bat, which they weren't - see the Rome Agreements. If the NDH was established by other states, it would have been recognized by those states instantly, however, Italy recognized Croatia on the 12th and Germany not until the 15th. Had Croatia been been established by Germany it would not have joined the Axis forces months after creation - July of 1941.

This is just a start for you chump amateurs, i'll be back tomorrow.AP1929 (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ante, lucky for u I've just returned as well. Rest assured you will not change a single iota of information without sources that adhere to Wiki policy. Edit warring will be immediately reported. You may well be reported already for calling other Users "chumps". See you around. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Expelled and Defeated" The Ustaše were utterly defeated and then expelled by military force. Completely true. The fact that you are an Ustaše sympathizer and that this does not agree with your sensibilities is not of concern for Wikipedia.
• "terrorism" Pavelić was deeply involved with the assassination of the Yugoslav King. This much is beyond dispute.
• The NDH is a puppet state. Puppet states are established by other states. We have more than enough reliable sources for the term "puppet state", so you can immediately stop thinking about restarting that argument. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Tito, I hate to spoil your reign of communist banter, but rest assured it will come to an end - just like Yugoslavia, Yugoslavism etc.

Considering the fact that all Croatian units were brought together - known as HOS - it is incorrect to say that the Ustase were defeated and or expelled. Secondly even if we are to be vague, it is very well documented that the head of NDH agreed that Zagreb could not be defended and called for their army and anyone else willing to retreat. Not surrender, the idea was to surrender to the Allies (which tito was not) but instead the west gave them a knife in the back. See "Operation Slaughterhouse", "Branili smo zemlju" or Operation Keehlhouse as the CIA had labeled the known and planned killing of retreating enemy armies - after war. NDH forces were not expelled and or defeated and you have no proof of such, they retreated and surrendered to the Allies which turned into one of the most shameful episodes of the Second World War known as the Bleiburg Tragedy. Can you explain the hundreds of thousands of people freely walking to Austria in May of 1945 ? Were they being forced out by a military ? No you can not. Pavelic did not assassinate the SERBIAN king, there is no proof of this, on the contrary it is well known that Macedonian extremists are the one who conducted the assasination. The NDH is not, and never was, nor will it ever be a puppet state. There is not a state on this green earth which exists purely on it's own without the aid of other states. The fact of the matter is, is that the NDH was established by Croatians at the will of the Croatian people.AP1929 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction, I am an Ustasa, not simply a sympathizer, you are a self-proclaimed Yugoslav, what is your point ?AP1929 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm a member of the Knights Templar. The problem is they do not exist. Have fun with your imaginary organization... Also, I did not name my Wikipedia account after Tito, or "JBT1941" or anything like that. I don't see the analogy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Concerning HOS. The Croatian Armed Forces (HOS) were unified under one command, yes, but Ustaše units were still within the HOS. In other words, when the HOS was defeated and expelled, so were the Ustaše units within it. Not to mention the ruling fascist "elite". Since this is an article about the Ustaše, it is only natural the sentence focuses on that aspect of the HOS.

2) Concerning Allies. Yugoslavia became a member of the Allied Powers after the Axis attacked it. By 1945, after the Tehran Conference and the Tito-Šubašić agreement, the Yugoslav Partisans were the official and internationally recognized armed force of the Allied state of Yugoslavia (recognized even by the UK and the royalist government-in-exile). They were not "Western Allies", but they were as much of a part of the Allied Powers as the Soviet Union. You may rest assured, your buddies were handed over to legitimate forces.

3) Defeated and expelled. The HOS (and the Ustaše units within it) was defeated by the Partisan General Offensive which started on March 20, 1945 and routed the remaining Axis forces in Yugoslavia. The fact that Zagreb was not defended and the Ustaše decided to turn tail and run does not mean they "weren't defeated". You do not know much about WW2 Yugoslavia. Again: if this offends your sensibilities as an Ustaše sympathizer I suggest you find some other way to remedy the problem.

4) Knife in the Back? LOL, the Western Allies never agreed to harbor fascist refugees. The NDH command was operating under a very stupid assumption that the Royal Army would ignore the Hague Convention just to save them, not to mention risking conflict with Yugoslavia and the "Eastern Allies". According to the Hague Convention's Article 20: After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You call yourself a Yugoslav, yet Yugoslavia does not exist nor is the nationality recognized anywhere in the world - and for your information, my organization does exist. I have written four books on NDH - how many have you written ? And you're going to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about LOL. The partisans were a guerrilla movement who wanted to commit genocide and actually did commit democide in May of 1945 up until April of 1948. The partisans were not recognized as any form of actual allied force until 1945 as you yourself have just stated. Partisan General Offensive ? LOL "Kinfe in the Back" - yes ofcourse, the Croatian population and command, being Western Europeans themselves, relied on the mercy of the civilized west and the Geneva Conventions - or the normal human sympathy for life to save them, instead, the British and American forces knowingly handed over hundreds of thousands of people to a certain death. If you do not see this as one of the most shameful events of the war, you yourself are a monster, are you going to deny the Holocaust now too ? Defeated - means that one has willingly surrendered or has been wiped off the face of the earth. In war, people who surrender are the ones that have been defeated. In August of 1995, Serbs were expelled from Croatia - Croatians in May of 1945 were not, they chose to leave. There was no military following them out of their own country, there was no one expelling them - they themselves chose to leave, this is fact.AP1929 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, have fun with your pet party. I do not call myself a Yugoslav, that's just you turning me into an embodiment of your nationalist hatred. xD I've written 13,689 books on every imaginable subject, so you can't argue with me.

The Partisans were recognized by the Allied powers at the Tehran Conference (1943). Read up.

Yes, Partisan General Offensive. Involving 730,000 men.

The phrase "Kinfe in the Back", entails betrayal. The Western Allies did not betray the Ustaše, since they were their enemies and had NO legal obligation to give them asylum. They actually had a legal obligation to hand them over to their countrymen that were pursuing them ever-so-closely. It was the Partisans that did not adhere to the Geneva convention. The British forces did not breach the Geneva convention at any point. You do not know what you are talking about.

Your logic is incredible: the military that followed them out of their country were the Partisans. And yes they were expelled by military force. The military was routed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to your reasoning, the Wehrmacht "chose to leave" from the Soviet Union, and was not expelled by military force. Laughable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Whermacht was defeated, and surrendered. The Croatian Defense Forces were not and did not. You are a 'supporter of the Yugoslav idea and of Yugoslavia" what more needs to be said ? The Tehran Conference was a conference in which the allies agreed to help supply tito and his murderous movement as it was beneficial to them - why was tito himself not invited ? The allies did in fact betray their fellow human beings, they knew very well what was going to happen to them, war was over. AP1929 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, is that even with the Tehran Conference, Yugoslavia was not a state from 1941-1945 in any way, nor deFacto nor deJure. AP1929 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a Croat. Your fascist (or whatever) definitions of "Croatdom" and "Croatness" do not concern me, or Wikipedia for that matter. Find someone who cares.

Yugoslavia was de jure in existence, represented by the Yugoslav government-in-exile, with the Yugoslav Partisans as its official army after the Tito-Šubašić agreement. There is nothing more to be said, this is basic, grade school history.

Your poetic ideas of "human betrayal" are as pathetic as they are racist. The implication that the Western Allies were "fellow humans" while the Eastern were not are endemic of Ustaše racial ideology. Concentrate on real legal or diplomatic obligations, not on your fanciful racial brotherhood ideas. To grant asylum to the fleeing fascists would entail and act contrary to international law (Hague Convention article 20).

The Ustaše were defeated numerous times. Most significantly, they formed the Srijem Front along with the rest of Axis forces in the area. This front was broken by the Partisan General Offensive in March and April 1945. The defenders, Wehrmacht, SS, HOS (including the military wing of the Ustaše), and the Chetniks, were defeated and forced to retreat all the way out of Yugoslavia (with minor skirmishes along the way) and were closely pursued by Partisan forces.

The Ustaše surrendered to the Allied Powers in Bleiburg and were duly disarmed (you yourself stated as much). The fact that they did not surrender specifically to the Yugoslav Partisans is irrelevant in the end. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are a Croat? Maybe a regional croat, that's about it. You are not Wikipedia, in fact you're a no body who has nothing better to do. Yugoslavia was not deJure in existence, it had absolutely no institutions and it had fallen in April of 1941. The first Yugoslavia, and second Yugoslavia which followed are not the same legal countries. NDH had both deFact and much more deJure control of it's territory than any Yugoslav 'government' whether it be in the forests of in England. I did not once imply that the East was non-human, I simply stated the fact that the Allied forces willingly handed over hundreds and thousands of innocent people to the hands of actual butchers who they knew would massacre the fleeing population. The Allies & NDH were both signatories of the Geneva Conventions, and the NDH wanted to willingly surrender to the Allies - their 'enemy'. Go find out what the Geneva Conventions has to say about the consequences of such an event. The Ustase were defeated in battles, stop twisting my words commie, the fact of the matter is, is that they were not defeated by the partisans and most definitely were not expelled. When the Croats initially surrendered to the British, they were promised that they would not be returned to Yugoslavia - this is a well documented historical fact - in the end, they were returned, "knife in the back" - check mate. AP1929 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ustasa Ideology Section

The Ustaše aimed at an ethnically "pure" Croatia, and saw the Serbs that lived in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina as the their biggest obstacle. Thus, Ustaše ministers Mile Budak, Mirko Puk, and Milovan Žanić declared in May 1941 that the goal of the new Ustaše policy was an ethnically clean Croatia. They also publicly announced the strategy to achieve their goal:

  1. One third of the Serbs (in the Independent State of Croatia) were to be forcibly converted to Catholicism.
  2. One third of the Serbs were to be expelled (ethnically cleansed).
  3. One third of the Serbs were to be killed.

The Ustaše persecuted the Serbs who were mostly Orthodox Christians yet they were more tolerant toward the Bosnian Muslims because Muslims had a weak nation identity and could be more easily convinced that they were Croats.[citation needed] These Muslim Bosnians joined in the Nazi and Ustaše forces as part of Waffen-SS divisions 13th SS Mountain Division Handschar in Bosnia (led by Amin al-Husayni) and 23rd SS Grenadier Division Kama advised by Edmund Glaise von Horstenau (the representative of the German military in Croatia) and led by Colonel Ivan Markulj, who was later replaced by Colonel Viktor Pavicic. Lt-Col. Marko Mesic commanded the artillery section. The state even converted a former museum in Zagreb for use as a mosque. The Ustaše were against industrialization and democracy. The basic principles of the movement were laid out by Pavelić in his 1929 pamphlet "Principles of the Ustaše Movement".

A problem with the Nazi ideology was that the Croats are Slavs and were considered inferior by Nazi standards. Ustaša ideologues thus created a theory about a pseudo-Gothic origin of the Croats in order to raise their standing on the Aryan ladder.[citation needed]

Ustasa ideology does not in any way shape or form aim for an ethnically pure Croatian state - this entire section is nothing but serbo-communist propaganda which arose again in the 90s. The aim of the Ustasa movement was to create an Independent Croatian State after centuries of foreign rule over the Croatian nation. The 'one third' theory is nothing but a complete piece of propaganda - where is the citation ? Where in May of 1941 ? Why is this not outlined in the Racial Laws of NDH? What do Mirko Puk and Dr. Mile Budak have to do with this at this time with their position in government? How did all three of them make this statement ? In what form ? The Ustase tried to appease the Serbian Population in Croatia by creating the Croatian Orthodox Church in 1942. Does this mean that they wanted the Serbs to become Croatians of Orthodox faith ? No it did not, they simply outlined that ever Orthodox Church be it Russian, Greek etc are national churches, and they wanted the Serbian population of NDH to be loyal to their country and not Serbia. No one was stopping them from being Serbian nor was anyone persecuting them just because they were. The fact that so many ended up in camps was because they were enemies of the state. The article mentions Ustase "atrocities" as early as April of 1941 but refuses to acknowledge that the very first atrocities took place near Bjelovar ON April 10th of 1941 - the day the state was proclaimed - angry Serbs went on a killing spree of the local Croat population. The Croatian sentiment in Bosnia was very high in the 20's, 30's and 40's - this was not something made up by the Ustasa movement or something anyone had to be convinced of. In the Beograd Skupstina, out of the 12 Muslim representatives (long before NDH) 11 declared themselves as Croats, only one as a Yugoslav. The Doglavnik of NDH was a Muslim - Dr. Dzaferbeg Kulenovic. Well over 75 percent of the most elite Croatian fighting force of all time Crna Legija/Black Legion was that of Islamic faith. As for the mosque in Zagreb - it was built by the Ustase and turned into a museum by tito and his butcherous regime shortly after the war.AP1929 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh LOL XD... I'm not going to go into this. I'll restrict my discussion to this: edit-warring and 3RR breaches will be immediately reported. Its the Admins' job to deal with fascist POV-pushers... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's job is it to deal with Communist POV pushers such as yourself ? What is so funny ? Do you think I am incorrect ? May I Ask where ? AP1929 (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and as for the Hague Conventions article 20: After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible.

However, the fact of the matter is, is that peace did not exist in the new SFRJ until years later, thus it was unsafe to go home, and thus it was against the Geneva Conventions to send unarmed, surrendered, prisoners of war to their certain death. Nice try though.AP1929 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Article on Ustaše

It is too soft. The truth has to be shed with vigor against the fascist Croatian army, ideology, and general people support. Many editors and major compilers of this article, and other articles, which shed the light upon the war crimes of the Catholic Church and the Fascist Croatians are from Croatia, I would like to point out User:DIREKTOR, who is from Split, where the local football teams still sing Fascist chants and sing about the death of Orthodox Christians and Serbians. Therefore, with such political articles, has done much, much modding of this article and other Yugoslavian political articles. All possible peoples who could be biased must effectively be banned from writing anything, for the article to be truthful. Which in effect should ban people from Yugoslavia exclusively, and people from any country which made political and military pressure on the events of the 90s. I am not saying that people can write unbiased articles, however, it is very difficult for within/from the borders of the original Yugoslavia itself, to write unbiased articles.

On articles about the Chetniks and Draza Mihailovic, these liars try and make them look Fascist, which is of course an absurd lie and I am yet to organize myself and a lengthy University bibliography to attack these articles of pure propaganda, I will change them, they will be correct. As for what obvious supporters of either Josip "Tito" Broz and Ante Pavelic, have written about themselves, to make them seem glorified, and the the propaganda they have written about the Chetniks, cannot be tolerated and this is a very serious issue. Both Truman and Churchill acknowledged the Chetniks as pure, good, Royalist fighters against Fascists and Communists, they gave medals to Draza Mihailovic and the reason for the cutoff of supplies was because they had a "different agenda," and saw the Communists as an even greater threat, to the already massive threat that the Fascists were posing. They were betrayed by the West, and still NEVER BECAME COLLABORATORS.

Aside that people from Yugoslavia, and other countries where their governments were in direct political and military conflict with the ex-Yugoslav republics, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO WRITE ANYTHING, because their judgment will be definitely compromised and the need for fact is crucial.

The Croatians of World War Two, were in the percentile of more accurately, 95% of the population, in full favor of Nazism/Fascism and were direct allies of Hitler and Mussolini, and were pure fascists. The articles about the Ustase and Ante Pavelic are too light, and indirect misleading, and tainted by the biased of Croatian editors and writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugoslavyugoslav (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me see... Your position is that Draza Mihailovic, Milan Nedić, Dimitrije Ljotić and others in Serbia are not COLLABORATORS and that all Croats are Ustaše ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Defamation of Einstein name

Einstein signed indeed a petition aimed to support the Ustashe cause. The only rational explanation was - he was not aware of the true nature of the Ustashe movement. He never made such an error again after. Therefore, removed - from the text - the sentence mentioning Einstein.--I am Mario (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right and wrong. He has not supported Ustaše, but only protested Yugoslav state terror. Because of that he must be in article, but on another place.--Rjecina (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nope - your "state of terror" is a misonmer for the legal fight against the Ustashe terrorism activities in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Hungary - a supporter of this terrorism - was sanctioned by the League of Nations in the 1930es.

This has been well argued before. Whatever the explanation for Einstein's behaviour (and it is not for Mario/Sario to invent one) he was a world-respected figure and his intervention cannot be airbrushed away. But I've toned down Rjecina's POV rhetoric. He knows as well as anyone on this site that he should not throw around words like "terror" without attribution. He also knows that his English is not good enough for editing the English-language part of Wikipedia. I say that in the knowledge that various people, including me, have offered to help him with that but he is not interested. Two other points: I changed a reference to Macek's support so that the text now reflects the reality, and I deleted a sentence at the end of the paragraph which was speculative and unsourced. It should go back in if a source is found. Kirker (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• False interpretation of Einstein naivety - legal fight against Ustashe terrorism (supported by League of nations) interpreted as terror over minorities. We have much stronger references about Ustashe activities in Kingdom of Yugoslavia - after 1927.--I am Mario (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For me is impossible to imagine that somebody is speaking about Ustaše terrorism before this terror organization is created.

It is not job of wiki users to comment sources or decisions of Einstein of anybody else.--Rjecina (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• The truth is - Ustashe organization was established on January 8 1929. The article used to support the idea that Einstein supported Ustase is somewhat sensationalistic - not a single Einstein's biography I found in library (five of them) ever mentioned Einstein in that context. The article is falsely referenced by omitting reaction of the Yugoslav government. Moreover, the League of Nations supported the Yugoslav government - not the Ustashe.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My only question is why is that so important? Not every fact is worth adding. If the article was on Radic's murder and the subsequent news coverage, it might be relevant but otherwise, I just don't see the importance of that random detail. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I've cleaned up some of the worst of this article. It was plagued with POV language ("glorified as the Lika Uprising"; "The atrocities started on 27 April 1941"; "The Ustaše gangs ravaged villages"; "the news about the Ustaša atrocities"; "where they were most often brutally murdered" and so on): That has been removed. Some of the wilder speculation and factual errors have also gone. I have removed much of the overlinking. Internal wikilinks, with a few exceptions, should be used once only in any article. There's no need to link everything possible every time a person, place etc is mentioned. I have added many fact tags; probably many more are still needed. The articles is mostly made up of unsourced claims. Lastly, most of the stuff about the number of victims at Jasenovac is a content fork and should also be removed, but I've left it in place for now. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I've corrected the crap about Einstein now. We have no idea what that newspaper source is, but nowhere does it say he "drew international attention to what he perceived as the Yugoslav state's persecution of its Croatian minority", so that nonsense has gone. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• No need to put Einstein's name in wrong context. Use better references than a sensationalistic article referenced twice in some amateurish works.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not hear to question Eintstein words--Rjecina (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one does. What Eintstein said exactly - before and after - is not referenced here at all.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

False interpretation of references and unnecessary {{fact}}ing

I've noticed that some editors are inserting text not justified by the reference given. An example: Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Politics marks clearly Ustashe as a terrorist organization, not as the far-right - as it was suggested in the earlier text version. Also, no need to add 'fact' i.e. everywhere. After reading the text and some references (Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, for example) I see that the fact-ed text is already supported by some of given references. If someone finds it useful to point at a specific page inside a reference or quote text from a given reference - it's ok. It is highly uncooperative marking text as not sourced without reading already given references.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This article deals with contentious subject matter, for which reason it is highly desirable that statements of fact should be supported with inline references. It is not acceptable simply to say "users will find references somewhere among all the books listed". What is wrong with tagging statements where they are unsupported by specified sources? What is right about it is that it may encourage editors to fill in the gaps, where they can. Kirker (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. This article is moving slowly in the right direction, but there's a hell of a lot wrong with it. It's woefully undersourced, with numerous claims that are no more than that without a good reference to back them up. Additionally, the sections on Racial persecution and Connections with the Catholic Church should be whittled down to about a paragraph each, as they are both content forks of other articles. Lastly, just a note about Einstein. The article says that the New York Times ran an article on its "front page" about Einstein's protest. It didn't. The article was on an inside page. That should be corrected. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

To Kirker: This article deals with contentious subject matter is false statement. Ustashe were historic reality very well elaborated by historians of the twentieth century history. If something is highly desirable - do it, not just demand it from others. After fully being familiar with the list of given references - come then back and show the text deficiencies.
To AlasdairGreen27: Lastly, just a note about Einstein. Firstly, the text in New York Times is an opinion about something done by Einstein - even not authored. Einstein is not quoted there at all. I've reviewed five books dealing with Einstein's work and life - not a single one ever mentioned this Einstein's support to Ustashe. Martin Broszat, the world-renown historian and university professor, nowhere in his Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat book ever mentioned Einsten in the context of the referenced New York Times article. Moreover, in the "Ante Pavelic und Ustascha-Bewegung" chapter (the same book), Broszat mentioned well-organized Ustashe propaganda in the USA. League of Nations, nor any of its bodies, ever re-viewed alleged Einsten's 'protest' nor took any action against Kingdom of Yugoslavia. To suppress Ustashe terrorism in Yugoslavia. The League sanctioned Hungary and forced Mussolini even to jail Pavelic temporarily.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anybody saying Einstein supported the Ustaše. It seems he protested against the killing of Šufflay and believed the authorities in the then Kingdom were behind it. Frankly, I have no idea what this stuff is doing in this article. Could somebody explain how it is supposed to bear any relation to this article on the Ustaše? The NY Times article in full is here and the full text of his protest is here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit - Wanderer, could you explain?

Erm, sorry if I'm being slow, but could you explain how the Einstein stuff relates to this article about the Ustaše? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was already writing it before you requested it :). Sufflay was a member of the nationalist circle, and before the dictatorship was in the Party of Rights. He wrote about the Yugoslavian injustices among other things, and developed some ideas which the Ustashe would later use (i.e. division of East and West lying on the Drina). Most Croatian histories make at the very least a cursory connection between the assassination in '31 and the rise of Ustashe from '32 onwards. See Goldstein's Croatia: A History (pps. 125-126) for a certainly non-nationalist source.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the article needs to make that clear then. I think the whole section could do with being rewritten along the lines of "Rise of the Ustaše" or something, explaining that they didn't appear from nowhere in 1941. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain the mention of Einstein or Mann. Personally, I never doubted the truth of the matter, just its relevance. So is that they protested a professor (was it because they knew him personally in academic circles?) who was involved in political activities and was killed for political reasons? Then there should more about the deaths, and their international impact (including Einstein and Mann), not "Einstein and Mann did this..." Also, its says Einstein and Mann but "he accused the King...." Einstein? Mann? The professor? Radic? I'm always concerned when simple language like that is unclear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Šufflay is one of founders of albanology [9] and strong supporter of Ante Pavelić. In 1921 his defense layer was Pavelić (Šufflay has ended in prison), and in 1925 he was member of Croatian Party of Rights delegation (together with Pavelić) which has come to Belgrade on meeting/negotiations with Narodna radikalna stranka. There has been world outcry about his killings (»Tribuna«, Rim, »Berliner Tagblatt«, »New York Times«, »Chicago Herald«, »Frankfurter Zeitung«). In August 1931 students of Croatian party of Right has printed multilanguage protest of his killings which has been signed by Ligue Internationale des Droits des L'Homme, Fédération Universitaire Internationale, Alberta Einsteina, Heinricha Manna, dr. Josef Bajza, dr. Max Hildebert Boehm, dr. Karl Fritzler, dr. Zenon Kuziela and dr. Martin Spahn. [10] (link is on croatian).

Ustaše are created by militant wing of Croatian Party of Rights led by Ante Pavelić.

Many times Šufflay is called Ustaše ideolog. For example I will use Ivo Goldstein which is saying that Ustaše myth about Croatian border on Drina is created by Šufflay [11]

Point of this long story is to show Šufflay connection with Ante Pavelić and latter created Ustaše movement. --Rjecina (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AlasdairGreen27 that section need to be rewritten along the lines of "Rise of the Ustaše"--Rjecina (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

About Einstein's name defamation

My search of any document that might bear Einstein's name - in the League of Nations archive - in between 1930 - 1932 returns no results. See http://biblio-archive.unog.ch/archivplan.aspx. By reviewing five English-language-written books dealing with Einstein's work and life - not a single one mentioned this Einstein's support to the Ustase cause. Just one, written in German,

Einstein: Sein Leben by Denis Brian, Christine von Samson-Mark, Wiley-VCH, 2005 page 352

Indem er sich den Angelegenheiten seines eigenen Landes zuwandte, empoerte sich Einstein ueber deutsche Studenten, die fuer die Entlassung eines Professors agitierten, weil dieser ein Pazifist gegen politisch motivierte Todesurteile war. "Es ist entsertzlich zu sehen, wie die unerfahrene Jugend fehlgeleitet wird", schrieb er an das Berliner Tageblatt. "Wenn dies so weitergeht, werden wir nach einer Tyrannei der Faschisten bei einer Herrschaft des Rotten Terrors ankommen." Er glaubte, dass eine solche Herrschaft bereits in Jugoslawien ausgeloest worden sei und kritisierte die Landesregierung fuer den Mord an dem kroatischen Fuehrer, Professor Milan Sufflay, der Geschichte an der Universitaet von Zagreb gelehrt hatte.

Reading further this book it is clear that the only information available to Einstein was 'The "inside story" of the Šufflay murder was given by the Croat journalist (Ustase propagandist), Slavko Cihlar, in the Berliner Tageblatt, February 26, 1931.'

So, it is apparent that Einstein fell under spell of the Ustase propaganda. About the same propaganda, see:

Appeal of the Croatian Academicians to the World of Civilisation: How the Croatian Savant, Professor of University, Dr. Milan Sufflay was Murdered by the Serbian Royal Dictatorship by Croatian University clubs association, Zagreb, 1931 32 pages

which was elaborated by

"Blood and Homeland": Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe, 1900-1940 by Marius Turda, Paul Weindling, Central European University Press, 2007 page 107

Shortly afterwards, students from the Croatian University Club Association produced an English language pamphlet, How the Croatian Savant, Professor of University Dr. Milan Šufflay, was Murdered by the Serbian Royal Dictatorship, in which they appealed to European public opinion to recognize that the murder of Šufflay was the result of endeavors to build an absolutist South Slav state. In such a state, the "European culture" of Croatia and the Croatian was to be replaced by Serbian suzerainty, in which "orthodox, byzantine, oriental-asiatic and oldturc (sic) political and social traditions" had been subsumed into a system "not only contrary but also odious to European culture"

Turda also says that "His murder occasioned international condemnation and outrage from, among others, Albert Einstein and Heinrich Mann of the German League for the Rights of Man" (no source was given)

About the Sufflay murderer

Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo by Sabrina P. Ramet, Cambridge University Press, 2005 page 254

Goldstein (Croatian historian) leaves the question of agency to the side and writes simply that Šufflay, who, as he notes, was an accomplished observer of Albanian culture, 'was killed on the street in Zagreb. The killers were never found' see also: Croatia: A History by Ivo Goldstein, translated by Nikolina Jovanovic, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1999 - page 125

About the same Sufflay

Women, Gender, and Fascism in Europe, 1919-45: 1919-1945 By Kevin Passmore, Manchester University Press, 2003 page 115, Fascism in Croatia chapter: Ante Starcevic and Milan Šufflay, who used a demonic concept of Serbs as the cornerstone of their ideologies.

Conflicts: Studies in Contemporary History by Lewis Bernstein Namier, Macmillan, 1942 page 49

The racial theories of a Croat writer named Šufflay were taken up since Šufflay had held that the Croats were not Slavs like the Serbs, bu were descendants of a settlement of Goths.

War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration by Jozo Tomasevich Stanford University Press, 2001 page 20: Šufflay was indicted in 1921 for espionage and connections with Croatian emigres and sentenced to a three year prison term

Bottom line: the story about Einstein's support to the Ustase cause is one-sided and even false.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

you have not explained how is possible to support movement which will be created latter ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please, learn basic history of the Ustashe movement before entering any discussion.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Last comment is not helpfull ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't be the first one. Let's try this again: do you want to actually explain your view? I mean, you can kept going with the "only I know the truth and everyone else is too dumb to understand" but I'm hoping you actually have a goal in mind here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• To Rjecina: Didn't I supply a lot of knowledge about Einstein's name defamation? Where is your knowledge of this subject? You shall know that Ustashe movement was established in January 1929.
  Moreover, the "muster all possible aid to protect this small, peaceful and highly civilized people" (Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman,Texas A&M University Press, 1996 page 10) comes directly (copy-paste) from the Appeal of the Croatian Academicians to the World of Civilisation pamphlet. Existence of any Einstein's letter was not mentioned anywhere else except in the Cohen's book and the New York Times.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes you are right. Until coming to wiki my knowledge about Ustaše has been very small, but we do not need to be expert to edit wiki.
  • After looking data you are again right. Ustaše are created in 1929 and they have only changed name in 1932.
  • We are having agreement that Einstein has supported action of students which are members of Croatian party of Rights (not Ustaše)
  • We are not having agreement that source is not accepted. New York Times is wikipedia reliable source, and like you know very well I am against books which are used like sources but wikipedia is saying different. Because of that it is not possible to say 1 book is reliable source and other no ! All in all even if Cohen book is proclaimed not reliable source we are having NYT which is reliable.
  • About fact that Einstein has not spoken about that latter for me explanation is very simple: If you write something political and later secret agents enter your house if you are not martyr you will end talking.
  • My explanation why he has ended all discussions about this problem is Ok like explanation of other users that he has made mistakes. Both comments are Original research.--Rjecina (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• For the last time: The New York Times article baselessly calls upon a letter which cannot be found in the League archives. Moreover, the quoted text - which is supposed to be in the letter - comes actually from the Appeal of the Croatian Academicians to the World of Civilisation pamphlet. If that letter ever existed and was public - then it would be echoed in other newspapers - primarily in the Berliner Tageblatt, in some French and British newspapers too - which did not happen.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein has not writen to League of Nation, but to Human Rights League. Now we are having another source !--Rjecina (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Not even in the Human Rights League - the proof is here [12]. Please, avoid falsely referencing this League.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your proof is OK when somebody explain how is possible that Human Rights League is not having data even about Hitler. [13] ? Maybe because they are having on internet data from only last few years ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)