Talk:Neo-Nazism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.


Please post ALL comments at the bottom of the page with indents

Contents

[edit] Discussion from 2003

Their supporters are frequently low-income young men who blame their or their society's problems on immigrants and a presumed Jewish conspiracy.

I have a small quibble with this. Their members are generally as described, but their supporters, both ideological and financial, are often quite wealthy and/or politically involved. -- April

I've cut : "However, more mainstreeam organisations such as the FN and Vlaams Blok strong refute this description." It was writen in the previous para. : "no political party of significant importance will describe itself as neo-nazi." I think this is somewhat redundant. Ericd 15:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've always thought that describing the Front National as neo-nazi misses the point and banalizes "nazism" up to the point where it's meaningless. Still, some people argue that they are neo-nazis, so we should mention that. David.Monniaux 15:49, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Music

Should mention important role of neo-Nazi &c. music. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(shudder) That's going to be a fun one to write in a manner acceptable to all parties. Probably a separate article, though.
Yes; this was my thinking. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bands who are/have been actively part of neo-Nazi culture (e.g. Skrewdriver, Fortress) vs. bands that have been accused of being neo-Nazis (e.g. Death In June, Non, Rozz Williams of all people). And labels that have been so accused (e.g. World Serpent). And bands and labels that have been so accused and sued for libel and won (I forget who off the top of my head, at least one recent case). And so on. And so forth. This is an actively contentious issue, and I shall salute anyone who can do a good job on it ... - David Gerard 15:56, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
What kind of salute? :-)

[edit] Groups

I think the article should mention whether the party is openly neo-Nazi or whether its a label applied to them by their apponents. Those of you who know more about the subject please say whether the party is openly Nazi or not.

Italy

  • Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI) (Mussolini) Wikipedia says it is neo-fascist
  • Movimento Solidad Italiano (MSI) (LaRouche) ?? ~ not a chance.
  • Alleanza Nazionale (AN) Musolini's grandaughter left the party because the party leader condemed her grandfather, so its not openly neo-fascist anymore.
  • Lega Nord (LN) ??

USA

UK

Other countries

Saul Taylor 07:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--*note: Very few groups, even amongst those listed, would publicly describe themselves as being neo-Nazi. Firstly and foremostly, these groups aren't stupid and they know the idea of a Nazi makes people nervous. So few, in fact, label themselves that way, that the term is almost entirely within the domain of a slur used by opponents. Furthermore, if we are to definitely describe any of the linked organizations as 'neo-Nazi', it would be pertitent to mention WHY. Many groups appear Nazi simply because they share symbolism and ideas, and depending on how it is percieved, the term 'neo-Nazi' may or may not apply correctly.


[edit] Jewwatch

I object against the inclusion of the link to the Jewwatch website. It's bad enough that these people peddle their views—linking to them just gives them wider exposure.
JFW | T@lk 10:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

You could say the same for any of the organisational sites. Even though I largely agree with your POV on their views, it's still POV - David Gerard 10:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Quote: "Jew Watch - This website criticizes modern 'Jewish/Zionist Supremacism'. It presents a neo-Nazi point of view." Point of view? Wouldn't "propaganda" be a better word?!--Deadworm222 00:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

-- A personal objection, I find, is not a valid reason to restrict another person(s) access to vital information. By the same logic, any given person could disallow any number of other people access to Democratic Party literature because they deem it not a point of view, but propaganda. In fact, by that logic, anyone could deny anyone access to any information. We must be responsible with free media such as the internet, because, unlike controllable media which is subject to the law of the country it is based in (in this case, the First Amendment), free media relies on the self-restrain and maturity of those involved with the production thereof.

I agree with you. --ReallyNiceGuy 16:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. If you, like me, consider their material to be depraved, then the best way to let other people know how bad it is is by letting them read it if they want to. In addition, our NPOV policy says we should provide info regardless of our emotions on the subject. — Chameleon 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazism in Russian

A question to the community. I have just added a long writeup about a part of the topic, the Russian neo-Nazis. I suspect that it should merit a separate page. So the question is, what exactly is our policy on splitting pages? If I put the long description into a separate article, what should I leave in this article? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Watcher 11:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a problem yet. When the page starts getting really long (usually considered the 32KB warning), it might be time to split it out to a separate article with a summary paragraph in the main article - David Gerard 13:11, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke

There is a lot of data to support adding the popular new age neofascist, David Icke to this page. I have a few paragraphs of information at this point, but I want to get some feedback on this idea if possible. If anyone would like to help, that would be great, too. --Viriditas 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot of controversy over whether David Icke is anti-semitic, but it would be hard to describe him as a fascist. Townmouse 19:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
David Icke is not anti-Semitic. He denies that any of the people he names are Jewish, or indeed even people. His problem with these people's actions is that they misrepresent the bona fide Jewish people, who he has insisted on many many occasions that he has "enormous respect for". Paranoid, yes, crazy, maybe, anti-Semitic, definitely not. To allege so indicates a misunderstanding of his theories. Jdcooper 16:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Icke is antisemitic according to scholar Michael Barkun who notes that Icke promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.--Cberlet 13:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia

Where did the data on the Russian neo-nazis come from? It's quite striking information, but it also makes me suspicious somehow...some sources would be helpful. 137.22.1.33 11:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- I cannot provide, at the moment, any specific rock-solid references, but I know this section is largely correct. The reason it seems incredible is because in most of the West neo-Nazism is believed to be a fringe phenomenon, a bunch of cooks, if you will, and whether or not the 'common knowledge' of this matter is correct, it is a fact that in Russia neo-Nazism (at least, as defined by the article) is an extremely healthy, public movement. If one follows neo-Nazi discourse and literature, one finds that it is a very well acknowledged fact that Russia is a central piece on the neo-Nazi chess board, and an integral part of all plans for the future.


I disagree on LDPR. The party is nationalist ('patriotic') but has no affinity with nazis or Hitler figure. in fact, it is based solely of the charismatic figure of Zhirinovsky, who is more of a businessman of politics than a man of any particular principles. He is a orientologist by profession and the only coherent political idea he came up with was that Russia needs to establish closer ties with the Middle Eastern Arab states like Iran. He is clearly strongly anti-American and a male chauvinist, but in general he is just a skillful speaker who knows how to get the mob excited.

In general, Russian neo-nazis are RNE, NBP and multiple underground groups. As far as I know, both RNE and NBP are outlawed and marginalized. Also important to note that none of the neo-nazi parties have ever made it to the parliament. The communists is another case. Russian modern commnists have turned pure nationalists in early 1990s. The so-called 'red-brown plague' (as democrats would call them) or 'patriotic movement' (as they themselves would like to be called) is very peculiar case of the ideological marriage of nationalism and communism.

[edit] Numbers, numbers...

In the article: "claiming that the Holocaust slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews" Entire Europe had that many Jews. Is it posible that SOMEBODY survived. Have thay indeed killed everyone. 3 milions + 1 milion died from other reasons but between 1939-1945. (WWII). I hope you don't see as a Neo-Nazi... --Milant 03:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a frequent point made in Holocaust denial. The facts are clear. There were about 8 million Jews before the holocaust. [1] [2] --Viriditas 04:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At the Wannsee Conference the Germans counted 11 million Jews [3]. Jayjg 08:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That sounds right. I seem to remember a Nizkhor page with that info but it's hard to find links on that site. I wonder why Landau quotes a source of 8 million, instead. --Viriditas 09:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How many of them moved to live in USA, Russia, Britain and other contries? Has a single one died in a battle? How many Jews still lived in Europe in 1945.? Number of 6 million slaughtered in Holocaust is not real. Milant 22:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 8 million might be because the 11 million list includes countries not under the control of Nazi Germany such as England and the USSR (which has 5 million alone). As large parts of the USSR came under Nazi control some of these 5 million would also have presumably. So that probably totals about 8 million under Nazi control. Though I have heard a suggestion that people killed by the Soviets in Eastern Europe may have been classified as killed by Nazis post war. Is that holocaust denial? Sounds plausable to me.
I wonder what the use of this discussion is supposed to be. Did you have the opportunity to visit the sites? Have you personally talked to survivors (I mean people with a number tattooed on their arm)? I have had the opportunity to do both and see NO POINT whatsoever in debating whether it was 6 or 7 or 5 or 10 million. Total waste of time. Suffice it to say that my dear Germans (being one myself) almost succeeded in systematically murdering millions of people. Lion, 16 April 2005
Really, what is the point of arguing how many? Can anyone unequivacolly say what the difference between murdering a million people, or ten million, or a hundred million people is? The pointless, malicious murder of innocent people is, and always shall be, absolute evil. I usually don't believe in absolutes but that is one of the few absolutes that I believe in. Sarcastic Avenger 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Link

Under the Neo-Nazi lists of political parties it has "One nation - Australia" with a link to information on the British One Nation party. Which is intended?

[edit] Neo-fascism

I'm resplitting the article, I posted warning that I was doing so before and there were no objections. Mel Etitis then reverted my changes and removed my reason why without discussing it. unsigned by user:Korhend

user:Korhend, I've moved your comment to the end of the page, where new comments go. Probably no one saw your prior comment above. When you made your split, you did not indicate your reasoning in the edit summary, as is expected. Also, please sign and date your comments by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Now then, are you contending that the Italian neo-fascists are not neo-nazis, and that there is a significant difference between the two designations? Further, do you have a source for your assertion that "Members of these groups feel that using the two as synonyms is a misnomer"? -Willmcw 22:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, the movements have moved away from each other largely, if not entirely. If you contact the American fascist movement, they will tell you just that. Most Neo-Fascist movements are avowedly anti-nazi, wanting to make such groups illegal. Even if the groups are similar, they are different enough to warrant a seperate article. Just as neo-militarists in Japan are considered a different group, the movements are largely seperate, and lack contact with one another. They should not be lumped together simply because they are both totalitarian right. Whatever similarities the regimes they are based off of had, the movements are unique and seperate enough that using them in the same article violates Non-Point of Veiw.-Korhend Apr 9

Aren't all neo-nazis neo-fascists? I see your point that the Italian neo-fascists can claim to follow a non-nazi form of fascism, but I am not sure that I see how different they are from most of the neo-nazi groups. Short of contacting the American fascist movement myself, is there any way of finding a source that complains about being lumped in with neo-nazis? I checked the http://www.fascistmovement.com/ website and didn't see anything there. Can you show us a neo-fascist website which is "avowedly anti-nazi? " Thanks -Willmcw 23:13, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

You would have to personally talk to them. However from the American Fascist parties website "We are not a neo-nazi party and we dont advocate racism or anti-semitism in any form. We are a Fascist Party and any American Citizen of whatever race, religion or creed can become members of our party. We dont say this to make good PR, this is a fact and we have many Hispanic members in our party." Though Nazis might be termed Neo-fascist if Naziism is included in the definition of Fascism, most describe themselves as Nazis and not fascists.--Korhend

Personal conversations are what we call "original research," and one oof the founding principles of this encyclopedia is wikipedia:no original research. Looking at the front page of the "NEW!- American Fascist Magazine Issue #6 is now online -NEW!" http://users.aol.com./amrfirst/index.html I see that the main article is an anti-zionist screed (Headline: Party Leader Tyrssen calls to end aid to Israel. Blasts Zionist control.) While they may claim not to be anti-semitic, their publication seems to belie that claim. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out how to read the contents. -Willmcw 23:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

If I could secure a posted statement by Seth Tyrrsen on a site, would that qualify as sufficient?

That may be sufficient in order to add a comment to some article indicating that he has made some statement, but it probably would not be sufficient to prove that he is not anti-semitic. I mean, anyone can say anything. A statement may be sufficient proof that one American neo-fasicst objects to being called a neo-nazi, but that is not enough of a reason to split the article. We can just add an aside that this or that group objects to being called neo-nazi. -Willmcw 00:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Its not enough that the founder of the largest neo-fascist movement in america objects to it? Then who exactly is large enough if anyone. As for "saying anything" doesn't that apply to any one also? Are we to assume any politician is anti-semetic until proven otherwise? How exactly can one "Prove" that they are not anti-semitic?-Korhend

If that is his statement then it would be enough to say that "the founder of a neo-fascist movement in america objects to it," but not enough to generalize beyond that. (How do we know it's the largest? How large is it?) It's very hard to prove that one is not anti-semitic while complaining about zionism. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
And it's very hard to prove that one is not anti-German while complaining about nazism. — Chameleon 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are we spelling the name of Seth Tyrrsen correctly? The leader of the "largest neo-fascist movement in america" gets only a single Google hit, to a role-playing game forum, "Legends Alliance" [4] Is this the same person? -Willmcw 02:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can we establish the divide between neo-fascist and neo-nazi. A nazi and a fascist are not essentially the same thing. Its similiar to defining Stalinism as Communism. It is not accurate. A communist may or may not coinsider himself a Stalinist. Trotsky certainly wasn't! Likewise a fascist may or may not consider himself a Nazi.

If you can suggest two definitions that would help. The trouble is that while some neo-fascists may seek to avoid the label "neo-nazi", their actions and words sometimes blur the disctinction. (See above discussion). So theory and practice may not be the same thing. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Race: it is a feeling, not a reality; 95 percent is feeling. I don't believe on can prove biologically that a race is more or less pure. Those who proclaim the nobility of the german race are by all chance non-germans."--Benito Mussolini 1932 speaking Emil Cohn

I must apologize for the great delay for my reply, my computer wasn't working. General Francisco Franco's Falange Party was widely (and correctly) veiwed as Fascist. In america there is the American Christian Falangist party, which while racist is a pro-zionist nation. At the bottom of their page is a link to ARMDI. http://www.falangist.org/index.htm ARMDIs site describe it as "ARMDI, organized in 1940, is the exclusive fundraising organization in the United States for Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s equivalent to a Red Cross Society. ARMDI supports the MDA National Emergency Medical, Ambulance, Blood and Disaster Services which benefit Israel’s entire population." -Korhend

I took a look at the website for the American Christian Falangist party. [5] They are explicitly pro-zionism, as you say, and are don't appear to be neo-nazis. -Willmcw 20:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One Nation is not a nazi group

One Nation may be a pack of completely racist dickheads (and that would probably apply to the damn Queenslanders that vote for them too  ;-P) but I don't think anyone seriously believes them to be neo-Nazis. Yes, they probably get called fascist Nazis by a lot of left wing voters in Australia, but that's more hyperbole than anything. Those lists need to be cleaned up.

[edit] Italy

How can Mussolini's movement be called neo-nazi, he was in power long before Hitler, or neo-fascist, as he invented fascism.A.K.A.47 21:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

They are called neo-fascist. The old movement was disbanded and this is a successor movement. -Willmcw 21:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, One Nation is just like any other right wing political party (the republican party, for example. --60.226.247.129 09:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisit neonazism & neofascism issue

A number of scholars of the "extreme right" in Europe make distinctions regarding the differences between neonazism, neofascism, and right-wing populism. Betz and Mudde for example. Buchanaatin in the U.S., for example, is called neofascist by some, but not neonazi. Front National in France is another example, as is de Benoist in France. I would like to attempt to put up a page Neofascism to accompnay the new page Neofascism and religion and detail the groups that might be considered neofascist, but are not accurately called neonazi. Also, note the spelling. It is gaining currency to distinguish the trends from original Fascism and Nazism.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And the new page on Neo-Fascism is up as a stub.--Cberlet 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the new corporation of a littel 300 members ar colling them selves THE A.T.C- it means (Amsterdamse terror corps)Its a place in Holland and they are trying to become one of the bigggest gangs to become.

National Vanguard is now its own organization and separate from the National Alliance. --Hremmnoth 29 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

[edit] Now that George W Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?

Now that George W. Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?

Probably not, because whether or not President Bush did indeed called liberals terrorist sympathizers, that would not make him per se a neo-fascist. One might say, if he truly spoke the words, he might be misjudging liberals or it could be called libel, but that would not make him a neo-fascist, as the definitions do not agree with the person. --Soetermans 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is this not an example of Neo-Fascism?

June 23, 2005, marked a controversial statement from Karl Rove, when he said that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

First, this is the Neo-Nazism page, not the Neo-Fascism page. At least pay attention to such detials. Second, editors can't prove a negative. Third, you need to cite a published reputable source that says this statement is evidence of neo-fascism, And finally you need to go back to point one and contemplate the fatc that YOU ARE ON THE WRONG PAGE!--Cberlet 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Fascism&redirect=no

[edit] Proxy system

The article says:

it is often surprisingly difficult to implicate Neo-Fascists in violence or illegality in any meaningful way. This is because these groups have adopted a proxy system whereby organizations which the Nazis intend to be financially, politically and socially successful are made to be extremely professional and respectable, whereas other, less important organizations and individuals are almost always the ones responsible for intimidations, violent acts and terror tactics. This makes it extremely difficult to track neo-Nazi criminal liabilities, because the culprits are often obscure and unimportant within the larger Nazi movement, and when groups or individuals are found guilty of crimes in these cases, they are almost always of little financial or political worth to the Neo-Nazi goals. In this way, prominent neo-Nazis may inspire, incite or even order violent crimes without much fear that their involvement will be traced in any meaningful way back to an organization which has a great deal to lose.

Is this just speculation, or is there evidence of this? The article only goes on to give a "good, though fictional, example". — Matt Crypto 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can try to find a cite, but it has been written about for years. The best example is Matt Hale in the U.S., but there are others. These neonazi leaders make public statements about what really needs to be done, and then followers, usually teenage or slightly older young men, go out and beat someone up or torch a house occupied by a Black family, or even commit murder.
I have written about this: Chip Berlet. (2001). "Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988." In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. But it is generally tacky to cite oneself on Wiki.
However, note that more than 90 percent of hate crimes are NOT carried out by active followers of hate groups.--Cberlet 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge of Nazi-Skinheads

This merge was proposed by User:Humus_sapiens. I'm disappointed to find he has offered no rationale here, since I was hoping to rebut it.

I don't see this as a good merge because Nazi skinheads have not only a neo-fascist aspect, but a skinhead one, and the two aspects are intertwined in their identity. Although they partly share origins and early history with both skinheads and neo-fascists, they have evolved separately from either group and have developed their own distinct cultural characteristics--although the current article merely hints at this fact. As a separate article, we can hope for more detail to reveal this at some time. On the other hand, if this article were merged into either Neo-Nazism or Skinhead, exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture would seem out of place or out of balance with the article as a whole. The merge would effectively discourage potential editors from providing in-depth coverage of unique Nazi skinhead history and culture. I would rather wait a while, allowing time for the Nazi-Skinheads article to mature. --Unconventional 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I consider myself a tolerant person, but "exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture" sounds weird (maybe because I am a tolerant person?). Should we have a separate article on Nazi-Highboots, Nazi wearing red socks, Nazi owners of Volkswagen and all other important "Nazi ... subculture[s]"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The various topics seem to fill articles on their own. Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazi Skinheads are all sufficiently complicated, and documented, to merit articles of their own. As long as we don't glorify (or denigrate) these subcultures, I don't see a need to merge the articles. -Willmcw 09:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I too consider myself a tolerant person, and recognize that it takes particular dedication to that principle to be tolerant of intolerant people—perhaps this is what you mean by "sounds weird"?—but I don't see how this has any bearing on whether a topic is notable. As regards your hyperbole, when such topics start appearing widely in the news, they will become notable and will merit articles. "Nazi skinheads" has already achieved that status, obviously. --Unconventional 17:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

In one sense this is a trivial point, but the article is all over the place in how it spells the phenomenon it talks about. I noticed all of these variants: "neo-nazi", "Neo-Nazi", "neo-Nazi", and "Neo Nazi". Can someone authoritative rule on which it should be so it can be cleaned up? Metamagician3000 00:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how authoritative I am, but standard English spelling should be Neo-Nazi, as both the whole and "Nazi" are used as proper nouns.--Stephan Schulz 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Austrian Section

The Austrian section seems to be based largely on

Stiftung Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes / Anti-Defamation League (ed.): Brigitte Bailer-Galanda / Wolfgang Neugebauer, Incorrigibly Right. Right-Wing Extremists, "Revisionists" and Anti-Semites in Austrian Politics Today, Vienna-New York 1996, p. 5-21)

found online here.

Is there a copyright, or at least acknoledgement issue?

For example

Wikipedia

"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence.

In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the Neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."

ADL

"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence. In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."


I think neo-nazism is disraceful and should be outlawed from the world

Excluded Pro Patria Union (Estonia) from the Neo-Nazism In Other Countries section. (I suppose random parties get often inserted in this list by people who just don't like them and think it would be a smart place to show their disapprovement.)--Oop 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] question

There is just one thing I cannot understand. Why do American kids think they are right for Nazism when 99% of the times they do not fit the racial standards?

Nazism may be OK for us Europeans, but I hate how it is spreading faster than communism!

I'd also like to add that riots caused by American "nazis" are plain stupid from a European's point of view, they don't lead anywhere. I've seen that in over a million years of history of my continent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SS-Handzar (talk • contribs).

I've got an answer for ya. Nazism is not okay for us Europeans. I'm ashamed to be one if you are of the opinion that nazism is good thing. There's things called WWII and the Holocaust that occured mainly because of them. You must have a real blind spot if you still believe that national-socialism or fascism could benefit any society. You are right about one thing, nazi riots are plain stupid. But not just by a European's point of view, but to anyone who ever tried to look further.--Soetermans 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MNR NAZI???

In the links listed as other neo nazis, the MNR is listed as NEO NAZI. France Fascism seem distinct from the ideology of Nazism despite some commonality of fact. I would classify MNR or FN as Fascist not neo nozi because their ideology is not really in the belief of Race superiority, but rather in the affirmance of France as a Nation and its priority.

Holocaust denial though is a common trend in Nationalist speech.

[edit] Such cute Croatian children!

What a beautiful family. Good thing to see nationalist influences rising in Europe.


___________________________________ Well, I come from Croatia and I am surely not a Nazi or anything like that. I am shocked by the picture of a Croatian family (3 children, mother and father) in ustasha uniforms. However, I must say I have never seen something like that in Croatia and in the Croatian newspapers or magazines neither. People who found this photo have done a very hard research. I am convinced, nevertheless, that such a photo could be found perheps in any European country. It may be also a simple "mise en scene" commissioned by somebody. In the third place, I would like to stress that this photo promotes intolerance and hatred against Croatian people. It is not true that "many children are raised in ustasha tradition". Maybe those who wrote the article should be questioned about their own racism. Nikola, physician, Split, Croatia

Really? I do not read Croatian, but got this from a friend of mine:
[[6]]
or this 'Ustaski defile sredistem Zadra'
[[7]]
Any comment? Was this commisioned by somebody?--Romaine 20:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This discussion was about the photograph of people in Ustasha uniforms that was inserted in this article without any source or reference, as an "amateur" photograph, with a slandering caption. Such defamation won't be tolerated. --Zmaj 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of my changes

I have removed large chunks of text from the section "Neo-Nazism in Croatia". The existence and activities of any neo-nazis in Croatia should be documented and described from an NPOV perspective. A big part of this section, however, was either slander or irrelevant data. Since this is a sensitive topic, and to avoid any mindless reverts of my changes, I'll explain my reasons for each deletion (NOTE: there are many parts I marked as "slander". Slander is an unproven accusation.):

  1. and Croatia silently allows people to use symbols of the Independent State of Croatia and Ustaše freely. Since gaining independence, Croatia has often been accused of ignoring its dark past and erasing evidence of former Fascist and Nazi crimes. - slander -> removed.
    that is what you claim. croatia is conctantly accused.
    That is what you claim. Since your claim is an accusation, it must be proven. --Zmaj 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. In one prominent case, Zagreb's "Square of Victims of Fascism" was renamed the "The Square of The Great Men of Croatia", provoking widespread criticism of Croatia's attitude toward the Holocaust. - This case has nothing to do with neo-nazism. The whole city block around the square used to have street names imposed by communists (e.g. "Street of Socialist Revolution"), so when Croatia became independent, all those names were changed into Croatian dukes and kings. After the mistake with the square was acknowledged, it was renamed back into "Square of Victims of Fascism" in 2000, and this is its current name.
    it has, since ustashe were nazis. renaiming street is giving them legitimacy
    I explained that the square was renamed within a cluster of streets. It was not renamed into anything even remotely connected with the Ustasha. The name "Victims of Fascism" should not have been removed, which was duly acknowledged in 2000. This has absolutely nothing to do with either the Ustashe or Neo-Nazism of any kind. --Zmaj 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Many streets have been renamed after prominent Ustasha figures such as Mile Budak, which provoked outrage in the Serbian minority that still numbered 12% in 1991, despite the WWII genocide. The memory of the Ustasha genocide was still very vivid when Croatia started secession from SFRY, and Serbs in Croatia were frightened because of the new developments. - Such sweeping accusations won't be tolerated. If you know of any other prominent Ustasha figures aside from Budak who got a street, write them down. Moreover, the numbers of the Serbian minority in 1991, their memories and fears are irrelevant for this article. I suggest you write them down in the article Serbs of Croatia. Therefore, this sentence will go: Some streets have been renamed after Mile Budak, a prominent Ustasha figure, which provoked outrage in the Serbian minority.
    the genocide against serbs is essence of croatian nazism
    It is irrelevant. This article is not about Nazism, but about Neo-Nazism. Nazism in Croatia is already well covered in articles Independent State of Croatia and Ustashe. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. nor does it regard denazification as a major priority - slander -> removed.
    it is not a major priority, if president wants to bury ustase in jasenovac
    Is this supposed to be an argument? --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. and public display of such symbols is now relatively common, if controversial - slander -> removed.
    it is common. you can not remove facts what you dont like
    An accusation must be proven. Otherwise it is just slander. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. The resurgence of the Ustaše movement in present-day Croatia is partly due to the financial support of Ustaše emigration to HDZ during the 1990s. - slander -> removed.
    fact-> restored
    An accusation must be proven. Otherwise it is just slander. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. That resurgence is today publicly visible even at the Croatian government level. - slander -> removed
    fact -> restored
    An accusation must be proven. Otherwise it is just slander. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. An attempt was made to bring to the justice Nada Sakic who was a guardian at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp; her cruelty towards the prisoners is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in in November 1998 to Croatia - where she was held until her release. Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never even indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander. - All this is conjecture and slander. A person is innocent until proven guilty. -> removed Zmaj
    only in law -> restored
    "Only" in law? What other criteria should we use? See my "lynching mob" comment below. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    No slander - you are not honest at all! Or maybe, not very bright? How it could be possible to have a nazi concentration camp guardian at large in your country? --Romaine 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    As I said, a person is innocent until proven guilty. I could accuse whomever I want, but it means nothing until proven in court. Otherwise we would go back to the age of lynching mobs. On the other hand, if Mrs. Sakic has not been put on trial because of a fault in the Croatian judicial system, please provide evidence for this. --Zmaj 06:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Did you read what you've deleted??? The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander--Romaine 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Repeating the same claim over and over again is not going to turn it into proof. --Zmaj 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Proving the existence of a ready audience for fascist thought in Croatia, Mein Kampf was published - Its publication proves only that there are people ready to publish it, but it doesn't indicate anything about its readership.
  10. In 1999 a suit was filed at a court in San Franciso against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works) and against the Franciscan order, the Croatian Liberation Movement (the Ustashe), the National Bank of Switzerland and others. The suit was filed by Jewish, Ukrainian, Serb and Roma survivors, as well as relatives of victims and various organizations that together represent 300,000 World War II victims. The plaintiffs demanded accounting and restitution. - Nothing to do with neo-nazism -> removed.
    Of course it has to do - if your government does not support this restitution by providing information and pressing your Church to pay back the stolen and looted money and gold - then you are silently supporting your Ustashe.--Romaine 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    If you have evidence that the Croatian government is unjustifiably opposing the restitution, please provide them in the article. Otherwise it is just slander. --Zmaj 06:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ask Germans - why they had paid 12 billion $ to the survivors of the concentration camps and to those who were in the labor camps. When the same will be done by Croatia - to those who survived Jasenovac, Stara Gradishka etc? Or to their living relatives?--Romaine 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan Levy. "Many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, after all these years," says Levy. "Many are still terrified of the Ustashe, the Serbs particularly. Unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb." - The statement of a lawyer as encyclopedic reference? This is ridiculous. -> removed.Zmaj
    Ridiculous? I know that man and I believe him and not you.--Romaine 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    The fact that you believe him has nothing to do with the issue whether his statement is true or not. Since it is an accusation, it needs to be proven before it is included in the article. --Zmaj 06:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah the truth is - these people were contacted by Levy. As I heard from some ex-Yugoslavia guy, to kill a Serb in today's Croatia - it will 'cost' the killer less than 5 year term in prison. If you have money to bribe the judge - maybe, the killer will never enter the jail. Do you expect that the Serbs or the Roma would dare to publicly say - in today's Croatia - yes the Ustashi took from my parents, grandparents money, gold?--Romaine 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    You are just adding more and more slander. Please provide references for any accusations you make. --Zmaj 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Among children, black Ustaše uniforms are now more commonly seen in Croatia than are those of the Young Pioneers. - slander -> removed.
  13. Public appearance of the Ustashe veterans seen in Zadar are tepidly condemned by some newspapers. Singing infamous Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara song which glorifies Ustashe and their genocide over Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies is popular even among schoolchildren and treated by public with silence, sometimes affirmatively, of if unfavorable - more like as yelling or screaming in public. - slander -> removed.
    fact-> restored
    An accusation must be proven. Otherwise it is just slander. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    The ex-Yugoslavia guy said that such information could be found even in the Croatian newspapers. I'll ask him for the newspaper references.--Romaine 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. In protests, supporters of Ante Gotovina and other suspected war criminals often carry nationalist symbols and pictures of Ante Pavelic. - slander -> removed.
    Not slander - it is repoted in the newspapers!!!--Romaine 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Your word is not enough. Show some proof. --Zmaj 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. There have been proposals by President Tudjman to rebury them together with victims of Jasenovac concentration camp as a sign of national reconciliation, although it should be noted that Croatian partisans were only a very small proportion of casualties at Jasenovac. Croatian Serbs, whose cousins died in the Jasenovac concentration camp and other concentration camps in Croatia, felt insulted by such proposals. - This may be poor policy, but it has nothing to do with Neo-Nazism.
    and killed serbs have nothing to do with holocaust? shame on you!
    Please provide arguments instead of personal attacks. --Zmaj 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Disgusting Nazi move called 'poor policy'???--Romaine 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'd hardly call an attempt at national reconciliation, however misdirected, a disgusting Nazi move. It seems you are beeing too emotional about the matter. --Zmaj 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No slander - you are not honest at all! Or maybe, not very bright? How it could be possible to have a nazi concentration camp guardian at large in your country? --Romaine 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course it has to do - if your government does not support this restitution by providing information and pressing your Church to pay back the stolen and looted money and gold - then you are silently supporting your Ustashe.--Romaine 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous? I know that man and I believe him and not you.--Romaine 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You have not only failed to address the arguments presented by user:Zmaj, but have also demonstrated a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy . EurowikiJ 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons for my changes. All of them have been reverted, although only the changes 8, 10 and 11 have been challenged on the talk page. I don't intend to engage in an edit war, so I won't change the article back. However, I do expect a reasonable discussion on the talk page. Slander is a very serious thing and it won't be tolerated. Unless the unproven accusations against the Croatian state and nation are supported with evidence, they will be removed - not by me, but by administrators. --Zmaj 06:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Cut ref to Eddy Morrison in those who have revived nazism because of lack of references to him in published sources. Vanity entry possibly. 81.131.1.3 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and text in the article

There is overreferencing in the section Neo-Nazism in Croatia, the reference [8] has no substance next to the text in the article: the article in Croatian talks about the graffiti of the Ustasha hailing "Za dom spremni", chetnick grafiti 4 c's around the cross as well as graffiti "Oslobodite Norca hrvatskog borca - komunjare - Gotovina - EU 1:0", te "Niste vi oslobađali Hrvatsku, pa nećete ni vladati - bando crvena" which relate to the Croatian generals Norac and Gotovina. This graffiti was found the main council building in Mursko Središće, so no Orthodox church was graffitied in this reference as well as the following: [9]. The other references do support the sentence and they are OK for referencing the point. [ FrontLine 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mein Kampf

The article had the following, which was deleted and pasted here:

Proving the existence of a ready audience for fascist thought in Croatia, Mein Kampf was published and sold in the year of 1999 - in the number more than 600 copies in hardback within days at the remarkable price of 500 kuna (75 dollars each) - roughly equivalent to a week's average salary here. That time German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was prompted to press his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic to have Hitler's book banned in Croatia. [10].

You do not have to be a Muslim to own or read the Kuran, or a Cristian to own or read the Bible the problem was that the Mein Kampf was banned literature during the Yugoslav era. So does it make you a fascist to read or own a copy of Mein Kampf ?? Don't think so. The book Mein Kampf is available in many bookstores freely over the couter in: US, Canada, Australia as well as on Amazon.com, and other countries except Germany see: [11] , so many versions for the "ready audience for fascist" for anyone who can read English ??? Don't think so. FrontLine 03:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are sidelining this issue intentionally. One thing is to academically or simply educationally read this book and another thing is to use it to inflame hatred and intolerance. So, why should Joschka Fischer had to press Mate Granic? Why Simon Wiesenthal Center should raise their voice against publishing and publicly selling this book? Any idea?--Purger 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sidelining the issue, well why can not the book be available in the Croatian language for academic purposes or and educational read, which was the intention of the tranlation and publication. And the answer to your other quiestion is quite simple: in Germany the book is banned cannot be purchased or imported, and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is against the public publications of Mein Kampf or having it available anywhere, in an unabridged version. FrontLine 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sidetracking again? Whenever is the Main Kampf published for the academic purposes then it comes from an academic institution and the very edition of the book is done by some world renown historian. There, in Croatia, the edition was purely commercial aimed to exploit the upsurge of hatred and intolerance. Please, do not vandalize this page!--Purger 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on this book is available in many countries around the world, what nonsense. Come on how many books are published to loose money ? The sentences used are pure POV FrontLine 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
True - it is available, but not for the purpose of inflaming racism, hatred, intolerance - like in Croatia. That's is the reason why Joschka Fischer had to teach the good manners lesson Mate Granic, the Croatia's foreign minister.--Purger 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Purger, maybe You could write ana article Neo-Nacism in Amazon.com, they also have Mein Kampf. --Ante Perkovic 13:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That is such a weak argument Purger for such a POV statement, and the statement you have made that the purpose of the book was to inflame hatred is not true, and the overreaction of Joschka Fischer is nothing but a stunt. Also the claims of vandalism do not stand FrontLine 02:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change in sentence order in the Croatian section

The previous sentence order was a bit of a mumbo-jumbo job, this no a bit better FrontLine 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purger's own references proved him wrong

Regarding 2 links from http://index.hr that Purger, they prove just opposite from what Purger would like to prove. one of them is about a 14 year old kid being interogated from police for Ustasa graffiti, so this proves that there is zero-tolerance for Ustasa grafiti in Croatia. Thanks, Purger, nice work :))).

Your point is very weak. As you can read from the link - the 14-year kid was not held in police station - rather called on 'informative talk'. As usual, whenever the graffities are spotted, the police always started 'search' for the culprits - which yields regularly 'not found' result. Not zero-tolerance - rather zero result! Also, not a single person of the Croatian nationality was ever fined for writing graffities or for singing 'Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara' in public. Prove me wrong!--Purger 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)--
  • Note to all: Don't use talk pages to soapbox. Talk pages should only be used to discuss discrete changes to the actual article. If you find yourself posting a message that does not directly relate to a change you have just made, or a change you are seeking to, the article, then you should probably just erase it. · Katefan0 (scribble) 12:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litigation

The litigation section in the article about Neo-Nazism in Croatia was almost a pure copy paste and it has no place there:

In 1999 a suit was filed at a court in San Franciso against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works) and against the Franciscan order, the Croatian Liberation Movement (the Ustashe), the National Bank of Switzerland and others. The suit was filed by Jewish, Ukrainian, Serb and Roma survivors, as well as relatives of victims and various organizations that together represent 300,000 World War II victims. The plaintiffs demanded accounting and restitution. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan Levy. "Many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, after all these years," says Levy. "Many are still terrified of the Ustashe, the Serbs particularly. Unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb."[12]

FrontLine 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's a copyright violation. Please don't re-insert plagiarized material, especially not from a copyrighted source. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Purger read the line above, and do not put this section without proper discussion or rewrite. FrontLine 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. --Purger 13:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The litigation part was removed, as the reference to neo-nazism in Croatia was weak Vodomar 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is about the Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others. --Joy [shallot] 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nada Šakić

The section:

In the late 1990's, an attempt was made to bring to the justice Nada Sakic who was a guardian at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic according to her accusers was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners and is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in in November 1998 to Croatia - where she was held until her release. Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never even indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander. [13]

is a reflection of some failure of the Croatian judicial system, the trial od Dinko Šakić shows one end of the specturm and the Nada Šakić does not show Neo-Nazism.

FrontLine 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not vandalize the page--Purger 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nada Šakić trial is no proof of neo-nazism in Croatia, it might be a poorly managed case by the Croatian judiciary. Vodomar 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list of links

Hi Purger, I removed that enormous list of links you placed in the article. Some of them perhaps can go down at the bottom of the page in a references section, but the article doesn't really need such an enormous laundry list like that, especially when some looked like blogs. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. At the end - I find it really ugly. Thanks for this cleaning.--Purger 20:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If I removed the laundry list, which is was and you put it back. So you get the suggestion from another user that it is ugly and bloggy and you agree with it. Oh well that is life FrontLine 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Laundry list of links - all the links listed below appear in the Article Neo-nazism in Croatia and placing it in the main article makes it longer then necessary


Vodomar 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The above set of links are mostly connections to artiles in croatian newspapers and they are found in the main article Neo-Nazism in Croatia, this is unnecessary in he main article about Neo-Nazism. There is no value in that being in at the end of the article, as the section about Neo-Nazism in Croatia covers the ground and there is a specific article about Neo-Nazism in Croatia which has this linkVodomar 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of links, as given, is needed here to support the paragraph about Neo-Nazism in Croatia HERE! Different article on a different place owns its own links! So, do not vandalize this paragraph!
The main article is too long, and by the way there is a article dedicated about Neo-Nazism in Croatia, so it is best to be consise, and you can link yourself to death in the article that descirbes Neo-Nazism in Croatia. The link are the same, so why repeat, also the article has enough references and links to make the point. Vodomar 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazism in Croatia

There are several problems with sources in "Neo-Nazism in Croatia" section.

1. These two links [14],[15]are given as a source for following statement: "Public appearance of the Ustashe veterans seen in Zadar and Slunj are tepidly condemned by some newspapers." However, these newspaper articles (from the same newspaper) are not talking about condemnation of "public appearance of the Ustashe veterans". They are "tepidly" condemning "public appearance…". So claim given in the article is original research.

a fallacy. The source is given as a source about itself. Certainly not OR per wiki policies. SrbIzLike 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

2. For claim that: "Singing infamous Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara song which glorifies Ustashe and their genocide over Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies is sometimes heard even among schoolchildren, and treated by public with silence, sometimes affirmatively, of if unfavorable - more like as yelling or screaming in public." given source is a Usnet post [16]. However, Usenet posts are not acceptable as sources. [17]

Please apply that standard to Anti-Croatian sentiment article, that has plenty of such sources. This is not OR, as per wikipedia policies, such sources can be used as sources about themselves.

3. For claim that: "In 2005 a number of Orthodox churches were sprayed with Serb hate graffiti" none of the following links [18], [19], [20] can verify it. -- Vision Thing -- 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Link added. Sources are for several incidents in that paragraph. Certainly not OR. SrbIzLike 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


1. Read the definition of original research: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."

Claim that "public appearances of Ustatshe veterans… are tepidly condemned" is original research because it hasn't been published in any reputable source (AFAIK). -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will reword it. Ustashe veterans clearly appeared, and that is sourced. However, you are wrong. If an article condemnes something, than one can say that something has been condemned in Croatian press and point to that article as a source. If you think that a statement has to be made saying "the press is condemning", then you have a problem in understanding of OR, not me. I dont know what your problem here is, if it is a word "tepidly", then that is a POV issue, not OR. But an article that condemnes something verifies the statement about condemning in press, that much is clear. SrbIzLike 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ok now. -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

2. No, they can't. " Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then they should be removed. I will remove the link, there are other references, in particular to Thompson.
You removed it, but the following text is now without source: "Singing infamous Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara song which glorifies Ustashe and their genocide over Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies is sometimes heard even among schoolchildren, and treated by public with silence, sometimes affirmatively, of if unfavorable - more like as yelling or screaming in public." -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Link to HRW report [21] you added doesn't mention any of claims listed above nor it connects persecution of Serbian minority with Neo-Nazis/Ustase. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

wrong. It mentions grafiti with cry Srbe na vrbe. Read the end of the report. SrbIzLike 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read it, but there is no mention of Neo-nazis in it. Only "Srbe na vrbe!" expression is mentioned but that expression predates Nazis. -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

4. This link [22] talks about Ustashe graffiti sprayed on Ortodox church, but it was one incident in 2004, not a number of incidents in 2005. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

then this should be stated. Wrong information is not OR, it is wrong information. SrbIzLike 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
in fact, there was an incident in 2005 too, which was sourced. So, obviously, there is more than one church, and hence I have adjusted it. You either do not understand the language well or did not read the sources listed. Here [23] it mentions vandalization of another church. U PU zadarskoj doznaje se još da su nepoznati počinitelji na pročelje pravoslavne crkve svetoga Ilije u Zadru autolakom ispisali neprimjerene poruke. SrbIzLike 17:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand the language pretty well. It says: "Zadar police informed us that unknown perpetrators sprayed inappropriate messages on Orthodox church of Saint Ilija." So article doesn't inform us who has done it or what was sprayed. "Inappropriate" in this case could mean a number of things (for example Satanists messages). -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting of edits

Why reverting edits all the time without ever getting into a discussion about it ? Why have a long winded version, when a short version is sufficents in the article about Neo-Nazism, and you can let loose on the specific Neo-Nazism for a specific country, which is more appropriate. Vodomar 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You started changing the text without any serious explanation why you are doing it! That can be counteracted only as a vandalism
That is rubbish, read the discussions and you will see that I make changes and put a note up. Vodomar 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits in the Croatia section

Changed the following:

  • speed - speeding - this sounds better in the sentence

The paragraph on litigation:

In November 1999 a lawsuit was filled in Federal Court, San Francisco, CA where the plaintifs are of Serb, Jevish and Ukrainian background who survived the WWII concentation camps. The defendants are the Vatican Bank, Franciscan Order and the Croatian Liberation Movements who concealed assets looted by the Croatian Nazis from the concentration camps victims (Serbs, Jews, Ukrainians) between 1941-1945. As per Jonathan Levy, one of the plaintifs' lawyers, many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. The Serbs particularly, for unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb.[24]

What is the point of having this, as the main point of this paragraph is: "many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. The Serbs particularly, for unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb", so to take the fluff out it is best that this is rewritten as:

Many of Croatia's critics also claim that the country is favorable towards it's Nazi past, as there are organistions like Croatian Liberation Movements (Croatian Hrvatski oslobodilački pokret or HOP), which bears the same name as the organisation that was formed after the WWII by Ante Pavelić, and are registered and headquartered organisations in Croatia. Such presence according to Jonathan Levy still terrifies Serbs, who are many times reluctant to have their pictured or seen in court in fear of reprisals and intimidation, like in the recent joint case of WWII concentation camp survivors that was lodged with the US Federal Court case in San Francisco in 1999.[25] Vodomar 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Levy should not be quoted at all, since he is not a reliable source. He is an interested party, who would profit if Croatia paid the money to his clients. Therefore, his statements have no encyclopedic weight. --Zmaj 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as Levy is being quoted in the major media, it is proper to quote Levy. While the section on Croatia needs to be NPOV and in proportion to the rest of the page, I am concerned that there may be pressure here to sweep factual allegations under the rug of history. Still, it is Levy who is claiming people are still afraid, and the paragraph revision suggested by Vodomar makes sense to me. --Cberlet 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not making pressure to hide facts, but trying to prevent any defamation of my country. Since I am a man, I am liable to make mistakes, but my contributions here are made in good faith.
My objection was wrong, I see that now. Levy's background is not related to the relevance of his statements. But, Cberlet, I hope you agree that it is only proper to quote Levy if his statement is relevant for the article. Now, I claim that Levy's statement is irrelevant. Here is why:
Such presence according to Jonathan Levy still terrifies Serbs who are many times reluctant to have their pictured or seen in court in fear of reprisals and intimidation - The existence of a marginal Neo-Nazi organization in Croatia is relevant for the article. Someone's subjective feelings about it are not. I hope I do not have to explain why.
like in the recent joint case of WWII concentation camp survivors that was lodged with the US Federal Court case in San Francisco in 1999 - The case is irrelevant for the article, as it deals with WWII, not Neo-Nazism.
In conclusion, I honestly do not see how any part of Levy's statement could be included in the article. --Zmaj 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the section on Croatia is too long, and drifts away from neo-nazism, but the claim that some Serbs still fear attacks by current supporters of the Ustashe (who are arguably therefore supporting a current neo-Nazi Ustashe movement) seems appropriate to mention in some way.--Cberlet 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the section on Croatia is too long, and it does indeed drift from neo-nazism. Over the past weeks I tried on many occastions to shorten the article to be consise, however many of my attempts were reverted with the simple excuse : vandalism. The section of the Dinka Sakic trial is nothing but probably poor handling of the case by the Croatian judiciary, and the US Federal court case has nothing to do with Neo-Nazism in Croatia, as the whole point of that section is the fear of Serbs from Neo-Ustaše's . Also, the the Mein Kampf section before was too long, before I rewrote it. In many sections and this also goes for the whole section, there is a certain clinching to any fact possible, however minute to paint a picture of Neo-Nazism in Croatia. I am not saying it does not exist, but it can be reworded and written in such a way that it is consise and "to the point" instead of beating around the bush. Vodomar 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The lawsuit stuff is the Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others. --Joy [shallot] 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm Down - Please?

OK, the section on Croatia is obviously full of emotional and political hot buttons. Let's edit one paragraph at a time for a short period of time. Also, it may be prudent to ask that this page be protected from anonymous URL edits. Anonymous editors can remain anonymous as to their "real" identity while registering here at Wiki so that they have some accountability. The last edit by Vision Thing was simply not vandalism.--Cberlet 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some users who are trying to push POV in this section, and it is not emotion but bias. In most cases edits that are done to this section ie. shortening the article, or condensing some parts so the main idea or point is expressed is often reverted, without looking at the disussion page or even dropping a note. Many edits done by myself are just reverted and the comment vandalism is placed. If you go throught he disscussion pages, you can see that most of the edits were discussed, however not many of the users who reverted have placed a comment, let alone engage in any sort of discussion. Vodomar 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention to register. Anonimous contributios are quite legal and sufficienthere. Act of registering does not bring any accountability as we have it seen many times. Your claim that 'last edit by Vision Thing was simply not vandalism' does not hold - due to the very fact that (s)he removed valid references talking about racism - which has quite clear roots in the Neo-Nazism:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.html?tbl=RSDCOI&id=43cfae9e16
Violent acts against ethnic Serbs suddenly increased during 2005. The May 18 killing of eighty-one-year-old Dusan Vidic in his house in Karin, near Benkovac, was particularly shocking. Two months later, on July 19, two elderly Serb returnees were beaten in front of their house in the village of Ostrovica, also near Benkovac. In Pakostani, Benkovac and Zagreb, attackers damaged vehicles with Serbian registration plates. Groups of young men attacked or threatened Serbian bus passengers who were traveling through Rijeka and Delnice, as well as Serbian train passengers at the railway stations in Vinkovci and Zagreb. Graffiti with the message "Srbe na vrbe!" ("[Hang] the Serbs on the willow trees!") appeared in Rijeka and Udbina. Two men broke windows at the entrance of the Serb Orthodox Church in Drnis on November 12. On May 21, a bomb exploded next to the premises of a Serb political party in Vukovar, and the following night, unknown perpetrators threw bombs at the municipal assembly buildings in the majority Serb villages of Borovo Selo and Trpinja, near Vukovar. In all but a few cases the police failed to apprehend the perpetrators.
http://www.pavelicpapers.com/archive/0101/5.html
In a search for the final answer to the question whether Thompson is just a Croatian patriot or a promoter of Ustasism and Fascism, we dug through the archive of Thompson's statements and recordings from his performances at concerts and parties.
After carefully listening many Thompson's songs - we are shocked by the fact that Marko Perkovic is being rebuked because of his black pants and T-shirts and because of the salute "Za Dom - Spremni," while at the same time Thompson keeps performing a song with words that fill us with disgust.
Although an average Internet surfer is probably not aware of this, there are tens (maybe even hundreds, we didn't count) of Internet pages dedicated to the Ustase, the NDH, Ante Pavelic and other Ustase "giants."
On many of these sites you can freely download Ustase songs performed by singers like Josko Tomicic and Marko Perkovic-Thompson, but also new ones like "Hey Ivica and Stipan."
Apparently (maybe, not willingly) you are a supporter of the acts o vandalism seen here!--64.18.16.251 12:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not support edit wars that wreck a page. I am well aware of the resurgence of the Ustashe in Croatia and among ethnic emigrants who came to the U.S. I studied Ustashe supporters in Chicago as early as the 1970s and helped edit a book where the Ustashe supporters were mentioned as coordinated by former Nazi collaborators. I have published articles on fascism as a social movement that discuss the Ustashe. Nonetheless, simply bashing all Croats as indifferent to or complicit with the Ustashe is not fair. --Cberlet
Show us who is bashing all Croats as indifferent to or complicit with the Ustashe, where, and how? This is a usual and a frequent excuse, for the Ustashe apologists, to remove whatever is not to their liking. The acts of vandalism are, that way, masked as a regular editing. You may not be one of them - but, at least, be more specific when claiming something like that.--4.249.0.110 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I very much want the section on this page to be accurate and NPOV, and currently the edit warring has resulted in an overly long, unfocused, and badly written section where any edit is unfairly called vandalism. Could we please take a paragraph at a time and discuss it here? --Cberlet 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, substantiate what is overly long, unfocused, and badly written section, what criteria you've applied to, and how it is visible here!--4.249.0.110 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazism and ethnic hatred

I agree with Cberlet and have two things to add. Firstly, I advise the anonymous user not to make unwarranted accusations of vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is official policy, says: While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. Secondly, I advise him not to confuse any attack against Serbs in Croatia with Neo-Nazism. This applies to his first source above, which is exclusively about ethnic hatred, not Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Etnic hatred and attacks on the people (they do have deep roots in the Nazism) are a regular demonstrations of the Neo-Nazism, especially in Croatia where the other manifestations of the Neo-Nazism are visible on many places where the other etnic groups (the Serbs, the Roma) are inhabitated.--4.249.0.110 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some references that are only about ethnic hatred and not about Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find a published report discussing the connection between anti-Serbian ethnic hatred and Neonazism in Croatia, then it can be cited. Otherwise it is original research. I happen to agree that ethnic hatred and neonazism is linked all over the world, but if I can't find a cite, I can't edit my views into the entry. That's a basic Wiki guideline.--Cberlet 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you are not honest when claiming somehting like the above. Instead reading the references and finding answers to your question, you are tossing nonsense. Here is something that might direct you properly - if you ever wanted it:
[26] <quote>After stonewalling the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague for several months, Zagreb nearly faced UN sanctions for its refusal to cooperate with the court. Goldstein draws a direct link between this increasingly entrenched neo-Ustashism, as he dubs it, and Croatia's willingness to defy the international community.
"If Croatian state policy and Croatia's political opposition had quickly and resolutely denounced this neo-Ustashism and stopped its spread, Croatia might not have had to deal with the Tribunal in The Hague," he says. If Croatia persists in these attitudes, it could lead to difficulties for Croatia's future with the European Union and NATO, as well as hinder Croatian efforts to share in EU aid and development programmes like PHARE.</quote>
As you might know, the ICTY is after ethnic hatred, killing, burning and looting property of the Serbs in Croatia--Purger 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Users 4.249.0.110 and 64.18.16.251 are simply wrong. Starting from the fact that ethnic hatred is a characteristic of Neo-Nazism, they have concluded that any display of ethnic hatred is Neo-Nazism. This is an error of logic.
As for changes in the article, I must protest against the user 64.18.16.251 for his careless reverts. Last time he reverted my edits, he returned a typo I corrected. It means he did not even check the changes I made, which is unacceptable. --Zmaj 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all acts of ethnic hatred are carried out by neonazis. Research shos that the opposite is true. Neonazis, however, do promote ethnic hated, and there is a relationship that can be mentioned, but only carefully. Folks, please follow Wiki guidelines and do not revert material without editing and a discussion.--Cberlet 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Proposal for a new article

Since the main problem here is not the accuracy of some parts of the text, but their relation to the subject, I propose opening a new page Anti-serbian sentiment in Croatia. Then, everything related to ethnic hatred, but unrelated to neo-Nazism (attacks on people from Serbia unrelated to neo-Ustasa etc.) could be moved there. We could also put links to this new page from Neo-Nazism in Croatia and from this page. What do you think?

Yes, definitely a good idea. Go for it! TK, 13 June 2006 14:55 (UTC)
Excellent idea!--Cberlet 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quibbling over word choice: "multiracist"

One of the pictures has the caption:

A militant Neo-Nazi in Germany. "Lone Wolves" and revolutionary sleeper units are common amongst neo-Nazis in countries where these groups are illegal; most see themselves as covert resistance fighters against an oppressive and dystopian multiracist régime.

What does multiracist mean? I think perhaps the caption should read "dystopian multiracial regime". Funkyj 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Why not make the change and see if someone objects and can explain why? --Cberlet 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parts taken out of the Neo-Nazism in Croatia Article

The paragraphs:

In 1998-9, an attempt was made to bring to justice Nada Sakic - who was a guard at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic, according to her accusers, was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners which is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in November 1998 to Croatia - where she was held until her release . The Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never even indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander. [27]

In November 1999 a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court, San Francisco, CA where the plaintiffs are of Serb, Jewish and Ukrainian background. The plaintiffs are also survivors of the WWII Ustase concentration camps. The defendants are the Vatican Bank, the Franciscan Order and the Croatian Liberation Movements who concealed assets looted by the Croatian Nazis from their concentration camp victims (Serbs, Jews, Ukrainians) between 1941-1945. As per Jonathan Levy, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be photographed, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. Among Serbs, fear of the Ustashe is still particularly strong. For unlike the Nazi Party in Germany, the Ustashe still exists and has a party headquarters in Zagreb.[28]

Have nothing to do with Neo-Nazism and it's manifestation in Croatia, it is just padding and not to the point of the main article. As discussed before, the Nada Sakic misstrial migh be poor judiciary, and the lawsuit in the USA is just another example of padding the article with unecessary fluff, and grasping on anything that has a Ustasha/nazi word in it ! I need to repeat again the two paragraphs are unecessary, weak and not to the pointVodomar 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not who is making decisions - please, note that:
Among Serbs, fear of the Ustashe is still particularly strong. For unlike the Nazi Party in Germany, the Ustashe still exists and has a party headquarters in Zagreb
'Mistrial' is a deliberate act based on pro-Ustashe public sentiment in Croatia

Is that so ?

"B'NAI B'RITH OFFICIAL DOESN'T DOUBT STATE ATTORNEY'S DECISION IS RIGHT Return to the month Index 03. 02. 1999. , 21:41H CET B'NAI B'RITH OFFICIAL DOESN'T DOUBT STATE ATTORNEY'S DECISION IS RIGHT WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Hina) - The American Jewish organisation B'nai B'rith has no reason to doubt that the decision of the Croatian State Attorney's Office not to continue the proceedings against Nada Sakic is founded, B'nai B'rith's honorary international president Tommy Baer told Hina on Wednesday.

Baer said he believed the Croatian State Attorney would have requested that a trial of Nada Sakic begin, had there been enough evidence to support it.

Adding that only one out of 26 questioned witnesses had - indirectly - put Nada Sakic at the scene of horrid crimes (Stara Gradiska concentration camp), Baer said that, as a former US public prosecutor, he knew that it was not enough to issue an indictment.

Baer said his organisation was helping and had established cooperation with Croatian authorities in important issues, such as trials of war criminals from the time of Nazism.

In his capacity as president of B'nai B'rith, Bear had visited Croatia on two occasions, and in 1995 he met Croatian President Franjo Tudjman on the Brijuni isles.

Baer said his organisation did not have and therefore could not give to Croatian authorities any evidence or testimonies of witnesses on possible crimes committed by Nada Sakic.

Speaking about the alleged evidence Belgrade claimed to have, Bear wondered why Yugoslav authorities had not forwarded that evidence to Croatia.

He declined to comment on the views of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre regarding the proceedings that had been carried out against Nada Sakic in Croatia.

Commenting on a proposal by Simon Wiesenthal Centre director Ephraim Zuroff that Yugoslavia request Sakic's extradition, Baer said she was a Croatian citizen and he believed that, although such requests should be respected, Croatian laws did not allow for such a possibility.

It would be a different matter if Sakic did not remain in Croatia but, for example, returned to Argentina, he added.

President Tudjman has invited Tommy Baer to be an official observer at the trial of Dinko Sakic, commander of the World War II concentration camp Jasenovac.

Baer confirmed he would attend the trial adding that judicial authorities in Zagreb granted all requests he had made - from simultaneous translation to additional witnesses.


" http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9902/hina-03-j.html http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9903/hina-10-v.html http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9903/hina-03-d.html http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9910/hina-05-s.html

All above is just a personal opinion of a single person. Baer is not an official representative of the victimised peoples (Serbs, Romas, nor even Jews). So, please, do not vandalize the article further.

[edit] Croatia Edits

Hi, I'm mainly concerened with anti-vandalism, but this article has me confused - I am reverting edits by IP addresses in the belief they are vandalism, and PoV.... What's the concensus on this? Talk page doesn't seem to help! HawkerTyphoon 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are supporting vandalization! A consensus was not reached ever to have these two paragraphs removed - then why you are asking for consensus to put them back?--IvoJovo 22:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't asked any concensus to put them back.... I'm simply asking what the current concensus on this is! HawkerTyphoon 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, it seems to me like you know SLIGHTLY too much about this article, so I'm going on the assumption you're actually the IP address that has been arguing against me. HawkerTyphoon 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting to remove POV, but this section must use better sources (this page does not nearly survive WP:RS). The passage will have to be removed without them. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the original [[29]]. You had chance alone to fix it - simply looking for the same title using a search engine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.9.152 (talk • contribs).
It's not up to me to "fix it". Please read WP:CITE. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's still not very reliable though - a bit.... shouty, non? HawkerTyphoon 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hawker politely made an understatement, but I will be frank. The "source" is simply ridiculous, not to mention extremely biased, with sentences like this one: The action of the government of Croatia in the Nada Sakic case confirms everyone's worst fears about the true nature of the current Tudjman regime in Croatia which was established in an orgy of murder and anti-Semitic, anti-Serbian and anti-Roma vandalism and racist aggression in 1991. Oh my God. I do not remember the last time I saw so much defamation in one sentence. --Zmaj 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, since HawkerTyphoon and RadioKirk seem genuinely interested in improving the Croatia section, let me point out again that some users are deliberately confusing Neo-Nazism with ethnic hatred. (See the discussion "Neo-Nazism and ethnic hatred" above.) In fact, out of the six references in the last paragraph of the current version, only two are even remotely related to Neo-Nazism, while the others are just instances of ethnic hatred. I can even translate the sources from Croatian if you want to verify. This anti-Croatian POV pushing has been going on for too long. --Zmaj 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I would love to make some edits, but being british, and a Fascist (but not a racist, I hasten to add), i fear that any edits I make may be PoV - I'll play around tonight though, and see what i can do about this. Posting results to talk page, of course! HawkerTyphoon 21:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazism in France

Can anyone in wikipedia create a new paragraph on the problem of Neo-Nazism in France? I will appreciate it, since France harbors a small undercurrent of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi gangs. In the early 2000's, several incidents by neo-Nazis against French Jews and Jewish synagogues are reported. The French government wanted to take direct action against the attacks, but declined to really crack down or do anything. The percentage of hate incidents by neo-Nazis and neo-fascists in France is small, compared to what the French media and Jewish interest groups claim, were done by North African Muslims with a binge against Jews over the issue of Israel. The French public mood appears more quiet and fickle over anti-Semitism, but most right thinking French people oppose anti-Semitism and the French Republic tradition of inclusion forbids it as an attack on "fellow Frenchmen/citizens". But the topic is too hot to handle in France, some call it "taboo" and many dare to address anti-Semitism and neo-Nazis a real threat. Also to discuss the Alsatian Nazi problem in the German-speaking region of Alsace, where skinheads are on the rise and some far-right groups hold sympathy to WWII-era Nazism. Some carry a code word "Ich Allemagne" which translates to "I" in German with the French word for Germany. I doubt they want reunification with Germany or are certain the Alsatian Nazis were never terminated after the war. + 207.200.116.134 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article to protect it from the blocked User:Purger, who (having gone through a series of sockpuppets) is now using anonymous IP addresses from the 4.249.*.* range to avoid his blocks. Unfortunately I don't think I can block this range, as it corresponds to Level 3, a major US ISP - too much collateral damage. -- ChrisO 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, if you can also revert the edits that were done by the 4.249.0.0/16 range, that have happened recently in light to the discussion points on this page. This will set a proper level playing field. Vodomar 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we add a Neo-Nazis in pop-culture section?

Neo-Nazis played a huge role in the late 20th century tabloid talk show craze. Many appeared on Jerry Springer. Geraldo had his nose broken in a televised brawl with Neo-nazis. Even the world's only black billionaire Oprah Winfrey confronted a skinhead in her audience(The best of Larry King page 371):

WINFREAY: "I just heard what you said. You just said 'I don't sit with monkeys. You think because she's black, because I'm black, we're monkeys?"

SKINHEAD: "That's a proven fact."

WINFREY: "That's a proven fact? It's a proven fact that I'm a monkey."

SKINHEAD: "Could be."

WINFREY: "Go ahead. Go ahead."

SKINHEAD: "First thing I want to get off my mind is-"

WINFREY: "No, I want to talk about this monkey stuff. No, no, no. I want to talk about the monkey business. I want to talk-"

Later when a riot threatened to break out half the studio audience ended up leaving the studio.

There is so much material, and the issues are so specialized, that it would be better to treat that topic in a separate article. Though I can't find a precise parallel with Nazism, we do have Godwin's Law, Nazi Chic, Nazi punk, Nazi memorabilia, and probably many more. Perhaps "Neo-Nazism in popular culture"? -Will Beback 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Roots - POV

The section is not very neutral:

  • Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a xenophobic and chauvinist movement without a clear agenda beyond the opposition to the "democrats"...
  • However, soon enough it became clear that neither of these parties was capable of accomplishing any serious changes in the national policy, and indeed soon they came to be widely seen as having had "sold out" to the "anti-people regime"
  • Also, the youth had only experienced the last days of the Communist regime, which were made up of brutal crack downs, but without any idealistic presence, and were thus similar to Nazism.

--Konstable 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Someone has removed my tag without any attempt to disguss it, and I can't find it in the history - so probably no edit summary on the removal either. I am re-inserting the tag. I wish I could fix this myself, but I don't know enough about this to give a fair analysis.--Konstable 06:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Aryan Resistance page should be linked to this page in some ways

Since it is mentioned by the article, it should be linked from White_Aryan_Resistance.

No, the mention is to a Swedish Group with the translated name "White Aryan Resistance," and the list of Neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. is at: Neo-Nazi groups of the United States.--Cberlet 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I found that the documentary, White Terror is relevant to this topic

http://enhancetv.com.au/details/displaytv.php?RecordId=12734370&database=Archive.fp5&layout=web_tv

Some of the informaiton may need to be integrated from

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru%7Dnaz.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DYM20041217&articleId=318

PLEASE stop just pasting unsigned blobs of text onto this page and have a real discussion. And please sign your posts in some way. This is not a page for a list of groups. That list is here: Neo-Nazi groups of the United States.--Cberlet 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalist Movement Party - Turkey

<incitement to murder removed>

This isn't the place for such comments. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but MHP is not even close to being neo nazi. It is just another right wing conservative party in Turkey, like the republican party in the usa or christian democrats in Germany. The people who maintain this page could at least check things up before resorting to slander of a respectable political organization that commands 10% of the electorate.

[edit] "they also are very nasty people as they dont like jews."

Edit this?

[edit] NPD Neo-Nazi party?

The article states:

A trial was held before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitution Court), the highest court in Germany, about the prohibition of the NPD (National Democratic Party), considered (though not proven to be) a Neo-Nazi party.

Yet it still continues to refer to the party as a Neo-Nazi organization, and there is an image showing an NPD rally which is caption as a "Neo-Nazi rally in Germany" thus the article appears to contradict itself. --Nazrac 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Considered, but not proven, is not a "contradiction". Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky Words!

I do believe it is the second sentence in the entire article, very true yet very POV... I'm going to remove it now, if anyone opposes this feel free to complain about it. Also, in the "Holocaust Denial" section there are more sneaky words which I am also deleting. If you want people to visit your site, make sure it is related and include a link in the appropriate section. Cissel 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect categorisation, need to move elements

The inclusion of several nationalist organisations on this page is inaccurate and renders the category as useless; in particular: British National Party (UK), Australia First Party (Australia), National Action (Australia), Patriotic Youth League (Australia) - none of which are "neo-nazi" parties. I would assume there are other misclassified examples here as well (as evidenced by reading through the above discussion).

To label nationalist groups as "neo-nazi" is as silly as labelling democratic socialist groups as "communist". This page needs to be cleaned up, with several organisations moved to the "nationalist" category [expertise needed].

It seems that biased commentators will classify any group with a political racial basis as "neo-nazi". Obviously, this is not the case, as evidenced by the "racist" nations who fought the Nazis in WW2 (Australia, USA; possibly Canada and UK). Wikipedia should be a bastion of political neutrality and facts, not a bastion of political bias and propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedDawn (talk • contribs). [actually, I did sign it, but it was rendered in a box, as I was not aware that one signed by typing four tildes]

We do not determine what is true and what is not. We just report reputable sources. If political studies or reputable media label an organisation as neo-nazi, that's what wikipedia will do. That's what WP:NOR dictates anyway. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two points to be noted here:

1) The journalistic profession is dominated by multiculturalists and multiracialists, often with a political axe to grind, and therefore often use propaganda techniques to paint their political foes in a bad light. The use of the "neo-nazi" slander is a prime example of this. So-called "reputable media" are - in fact - not reputable, and giving their slant creedence is like giving creedence to Lenin's slant on Trotsky.

2) [directly applicable to the point Michalis Famelis makes above] The mainstream media do not label the Australia First Party as “neo-Nazi”, such name-calling (for that is what it is) comes from the globalists and Multiculturalists in their blogs, sites, etc.

As Peter Charles Henderson noted in his BA (Hons) thesis, A History of the Australian Extreme Right Since 1950:

“There is also a tendency to label groups with titles like 'neo-Nazi' as a form of censure even when the group has no links or sympathies toward Nazism. This name calling has originated not only on the left but on the right where terms like 'femi-Nazi', reputedly coined by US talk back radio personality Rush Limbaugh to describe feminists, has gained currency”. http://library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/public/adt-NUWS20030924.134813/index.html (p.8) (see also pages 28-29) It should be noted that Henderson is a leftist (p.31) (all these pages are in the Introduction, 01Front.pdf). Peter Henderson is certainly a reputable source.

Therefore, the classification of the Australia First Party needs to be moved to “Category:Nationalist_parties”, not only for reasons of truth and clarity, but also to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. RedDawn 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Neos

I know, because I have paternal relatives in Krakow, that in Poland their is a strong neo-Nazi presence as a rejection of the former Communist government, maybe someone should mention that.

I'm JBAK, I just cannot be bothered to log-in, leave any responses to this on my user-page.

[edit] Sprotect and recover?

I'm seeing bits of vandalism spread across the page; I think it might be necessary to semi-protect this page until it can be cleared of at least blatant vandalism. --akuyumeTC 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GREEK NEO-NAZIS?

Next there will be Pakistani Neo-Nazis!! They are fair, they are Caucasian and they have Aryan heritage!! Many have Greek heritage like the Pashtuns and the Kalasha!!DELETE THE IMAGE OF GREEK NEO-NAZIS NOW!!

There are Greek neonazis. They are Caucasian (their skin is white, you don't need to be blond to be caucasian) and yes, they have Aryan heritage. See also Hrisi Avgi. You are idiot if you believe that the Pashtuns and the Kalasha are Greeks. Have you ever seen a Greek person? If you have, you would have noticed that they are white. Mitsos 12:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain about the Pashtuns and the Kalasha. The articles says that they are descendants of Alexander the Great's army. These people are only 10% Greek. Just think about it. Some soldiers of Alexander the Great stayed at Pakistan and married Pakistani women. Their children married Pakistanis too, and that continued for more than 1000 years!!! So, these people have far more Pakistani blood than Greek blood. Mitsos 13:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Greeks are not even White! Some look more middle-Eastern/Central Asian than anything else! ( Read the book `Black Athena'!). A Nazi is a member of the NSDAP. Former Neo-Nazi Ingo Hasselbach stated in his book (Fuehrer-ex)that many of Germany's neo-Nazis found Southern Europeans in the scene to be stupid and laughable and that "only a Nordic could be a National Socialist" (in his words). The Nazis invaded Greece and killed many Greeks, How can they be Nazis? There is a big neo-Nazi scene in Russia and Hitler hated Russians, hethought they were racially inferior. He turned that nation into a human incinerator! I could see `Japanese Neo-Nazis' more justafiable than them!! By the way, I do not think Pashtuns and Kalasha are Greek, They are descended from Aryans. Have any of you considered how many Greeks could have Northern Indian ancestry, considering much of that area was also a part of the Persian Empire and Persian troops from that region possibly invaded Greece?? P.S. Pashtuns are an Iranian not Indo-Aryan Ethnic group.

Greeks are indeed White people. Every European native, including all Southern Europeans, are White people, and this is according to pretty much every White Nationalist. What Hasselbach stated is laughable (if he really did say that), since the Nordic National Socialists were in the extreme minority. Hitler himself was far from Nordic!
The Nazis indeed made some huge mistakes: the anti-Slavic agenda was what ruined them. But despite this, these days, neo-Nazis generally include people from pretty much every European ethnic group, including Southern Europeans and Slavic people. Presently, the term "neo-Nazi" is synonymous with 'White Nationalist" and doesn't necessarily refer to a belief in the Nazi policies of the 30s and 40s.
Drew88 10:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your knowlege of history needs to be improved. Greece was never a part of the Persian Empire. The Persians invaded Greece, but the Greeks beat them in the battles of Themopylae and Salamina. I recommend you to visit either Greece or a psychologist. The Greeks are all White (except from the African and Asian immigrants who have come to Greece in the past few years). The book "Black Athena" is a pile of crap!!!! There are thousands of books that prove the ancient Greeks were Mediterannean Whites, just like the modern Greeks. Look at the ancient Greek statues, for Gods sake!!!!! Other books, by mostly German authors, say that the ancient Greeks were Nordics (see Nordic theory)!!! Again, the ancient Greeks were Mediterannean Whites, just like the modern Greeks. About the Greek neo-nazi movement, see Hrisi Avgi. Mitsos 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

About WWII, Greece was at war with Germany and Greece lost. During the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, thousands of Greeks died because of starvation. This was due to: 1) The Germans took all the food from Greece in order to feed their own people, and 2) Because of the British trade embargo no food could come to Greece. The Greek neo-nazis embrace the ideology of National Socialism, not Hitler and the NSDAP in particular. They admire Hitler, because of what he has done for his people, not the Greeks. Mitsos 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII devastation...

"Russia may seem like an unlikely place for a flowering of Neo-Nazi movements due to the strong memories of the devastation that was wrought on the nation by the Nazi German invaders during World War II" do you think other countries like Belgium, Norway or UK (among others) were not devasted by german nazis in WWII? pff this phrase about russia doesn't make sense and should be removed. this whole article is a propaganda for nazi anyway with disgusting pictures of assholes proud to wear german uniforms, this is stupid. whatever. how can it be young communists and nazis supporters in 2006? too many people are stupid and don't learn, that's life. Shame On You 14:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SUMKA

Something should be written about Sumka, the Iranian Neo-Nazi Party. The Idea of Iranian Neo-Nazis sounds laughable, but then so does the idea of Neo-Nazis in Italy, Greece and Russia. Is there an Indian Neo-Nazi party as well? They had contingients who fought in the SS and many could claim Aryan heritage. I wonder if they would be accepted by Neo-Nazis in the U.K.!!

I 've explained that Meditteraneans are White many times. I 'm not going to tell you the same things again. Mitsos 12:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified reverts to Croatia section

The previous version of the Croatia section focussed on people and events from the World War Two era. That does not fit the definition of neo-Nazism. That version was also horribly formatted, with no separation into paragraphs. I replaced that substandard version with content taken directly from the article Neo-Nazism in Croatia. Twice those improvements have been reverted by an anonymous IP user, with the unfounded accusation of vandalism.

To the anonymous editor: please 1) do not revert productive edits 2) do not make false accusations and 3) sign up for a Wikipedia account so you can be held accountable for your edits and comments. If you have productive additions to that section (including much-needed references), please add them, but do not revert to a version that doesn't discuss the correct topic. Spylab 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I incorporated some content from the old version into the new version, so now there is absolutely no reason to revert to the old version, which focussed on World War Two people and events instead of neo-Nazism. Spylab 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again the editor without an account reverted to an inferior version, even though I made an effort to comprimise by combining the two versions. Yet again the editor made a false accusation of vandalism. that editor has also brokent the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule rule by making the exact same revert three times within a 24 hour period. The editor has also incorrectly claimed that the content about WWII people is about the topic of Neo-Nazism. However, wikipedia defines neo-Nazism as "the ideology of post-World War II political movements seeking to revive Nazism or a racist form of fascism." The information that I deleted doesn't seem to meet that criteria. Spylab 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This huge portion of the article is taken out without without a reason or any explanation:

A plaque in Slunj with the inscription "Croatian Knight Jure Francetić" was erected to commemorate the notorious Ustasha leader of the Black Legion, Jure Francetic. The plaque remained there for four years, and was eventually removed by the authorities. Since 2002 there has been a reversal of this movement, and streets with the name of Mile Budak or other persons involved or connected with the Ustasha movement are few or non-existent, and with the new legislation this is illegal. Neo-Nazism in Croatia is restricted by the law as of 2006 and public display of fascist symbols and paraphernalia is now formally banned, however imprisonment and fines for such acts are generally minor.

- To many of their modern supporters, the Ustaše are considered to have been merely victims of the Bleiburg massacre and there were even proposals by the late President Tudjman to rebury them together with victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp as a sign of national reconciliation, although it should be noted that Croatian partisans were only a very small proportion of the casualties at Jasenovac. Although many view Croats during the WWII primarily as supporters of right-wing ideology, it must be noted that Croats, not Serbs, were the first organizers of the Partisan Movement in Yugoslavia. Croatian Serbs, whose cousins died in the Jasenovac concentration camp and other concentration camps in Croatia, often felt insulted by such proposals. The resurgence of the Ustase movement in present-day Croatia is partly due to the financial support of Ustase members who emigrated to the HDZ during the 1990s. [30]

So, it is quite clear that it is about the article vandalization--NovaNova 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That content is not about NEO-Nazism. That is about World War Two people and events. Stop making false accusations of vandalism. That is considered a personal attack. Also, you have broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule rule.Spylab 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False pretext and excuse aimed to support the article changes is serious break of the Wikipedia credibility and integrity

Following the last few edits made by Spylab it is obviuos that:

  • the removed portions of the Neo-Nazism in Croatia paragraph are written strictly in the context of the present-day event in Croatia - and properly referenced; all the above is quite clear to any person who can read a plain English text and understand the refereces text written in Croatian
  • this removal cannot be considered differently rather than vandalism because it breaks basic ethics rules of a serious editorial policy
  • Spylab apparently did not discuss any possible changes with the previous editors and now requires that all his/her changes must be discusssed before being reverted.
  • claims falsely my 3RR rule violation even though that it is visible as not being true
  • instead discussing (s)he keeps posting meaningless and baseles warning which is below any civilized criteria to even start a serious dscussion about serious changes and definitely not about the ones whose aim is not honest.--NovaNova 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


    • On the contrary, it is obvious that you do not understand the what neo-Nazism is. Topics involving World War Two-era people and World War Two-era events is not Neo-Nazism, even if events related to those World War Two-era topics occur in the present day. For example, a court case about World War Two war crimes does not fit the topic of neo-Nazism.
    • It is clear that you do not understand the definition of vandalism, and you should stop making false accusations.
    • You did, in fact break the 3RR rule, and the evidence is clearly there in the article history. Since you don't have a Wikipedia account, you used anonymous IPs in addition to your NovaNova name. Some might consider that sock puppetry, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
    • The warnings I posted on your talk page were clearly justified, as anyone can see by looking at the article history.
    • I made a comprimise by combining content from the old version with content from the version I made using text from the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article . I only used content that was about neo-Nazism, not WWII Nazism. Please stop your bad-faith edits that revert to an inferior version. If you have anything productive to add to the section please do so.
    • Finally, as I requested before, please sign up for a Wikipedia account so your edits and comments can be held accountable. Spylab 18:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations

  1. User:NovaNova is a wikipedia user account, if the user is using sockets please list the offending IP, redlink just means the user hasnt creatd a user page.
  2. the article clearly defines the subject in the opening sentence, content that doesnt fit within that definition shouldn't be in another article.
  3. WP:3RR while not broken technically, but in spirit as NovaNova made three edits over 25 hours instead of 24,

What I suggest is that the version by User:Spylab be the one in the article as it more closely adheres to the defination as defined by the subject. I also request User:NovaNova to post any variation to the wording here with a source as per WP:V, a consensus can then be reached for the article content. Gnangarra 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


This user User:Spylab is extremely cheeky and lying. My IP address is protected by the USA law and, therefore, not visible behind my ISP firewall. Who actually broke the WP:3RR rule (twice) and when - is visible here:
  1. (cur) (last) 23:59, 25 November 2006 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (reverted destructive edit by user with no Wikipedia account - see discussion)
  2. (cur) (last) 18:58, 25 November 2006 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (reversed unproductive edit which reverted to an inferior version of section (which was mostly about WWII people,not neo-Nazism, & was poorly formatted) - see discussion)
  3. (cur) (last) 13:15, 25 November 2006 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (reverted unexplained blanking of Holocaust denial section by anonymous IP user)
  4. (cur) (last) 17:43, 24 November 2006 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (last edit brok 3RR rule and was not justified or explained - see discussion)
  5. (cur) (last) 16:47, 24 November 2006 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (newer combined version includes content from both versions ( comprimise) - don't make false accusations any more - see discussion)
  6. (cur) (last) 15:38, 24 November 2006 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (reverted section to be about "NEO"-Nazism, not WWII-era figures - don't falsely accuse people of vandalism)--NovaNova 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


  • First of all, please be careful when making posts in discussion pages. You put your long post into the middle of Gnangarra's post, and then you signed my name after one of his sentences. Second, I am not lying about anything. I did not say for sure you are the sock puppet user. I only pointed out that your editing pattern and that person who used sock puppets was very similar, including the false accusations of vandalism and unjustified edits to the Croatia section. Third, you seem to misunderstand the intention of the 3RR rule. The edits of mine that you listed above were not all the same, and they were perfectly justified. In fact, one of those edits you list as a "revert" combined content from the old version and the new version. That is called a comprimise, something you seem to be unwilling to do. Spylab 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My last edit

The text which Spylab added (while removing more than half of the passage)

Such sentiments and actions have been restricted by law since 2003, and the display of Ustasha or Nazi symbols is illegal.[citation needed] The most common method of expressing pro-Ustasha views is graffiti targeting ethnic Serbs.[citation needed] Croatia has no laws against historical revisionism or holocaust denial.[citation needed]

is completely meaningless and contradictory (first sentence vs. last sentence). As to the Such sentiments and actions have been restricted ... - it does not hold. There was a move to ban these sentiment and actions in the year of 2003 - but it was prevented by the Croatian Constitutional Court as can be seen here [31]--NovaNova 02:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • These sentences are right from the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article. If you have a problem with them, improve them (including providing references) instead of reverting the whole Croatia section to an inferior version, which had terrible formatting and was filled with content that was not about neo-Nazism. Also, the first sentence and third sentence do not contadict each other. One is about symbols and the other is about Holocaust denial. They are two different things. However, both sentences are uncited, so references should be added. Spylab 11:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous editorial work is not inferior rather superior and more honest. Also, putting text for which the editor does not have references is not a serious business of that editor. Therefore - removed.--NovaNova 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a strict contradiction between the first and the third sentence. The first sentence claims that the bill was accepted and the proposed bill has a few sentences against holocaust denial and historical revisionism. If the bill were approved, then the third sentence would be meaningless.
Also, deleted entry:
The publication of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in 1999, caused the then German foreign minister Joschka Fischer to summon his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic, and press him to have the book banned in Croatia [13];
is about the Neo-Nazism and not about some WWII people. Joschka and Mate, the publisher and the buyers are not the WWII people and this attempt of publication and distibution of the Mein Kampf civilized Europe considered as a Neo-Nazism act by sending German foreign minister to give a lesson about the civil norms valid in Europe - to his Croatian counterpart--NovaNova 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As I explained in the edit note, the reason I removed your comments is that you wrote them in the middle of my own previous comments. That made it confusing about which sentences were written by me, and which sentences where written by you. Please do not tamper with other people's comments, and instead write your comments in a separate spot. Tampering with other people's legitimate comments is considered vandalism. Spylab 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, respect others by responding honestly!
  • Please do not falsely accuse me of dishonesty. Please sign up for an account and sign your comments. And if you are user:NovaNova, please do not use sock puppets. Spylab 12:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo on main page

people who suppor the popular view that people were gassed love to put these photos like the one on the main page of this article. the bodies are emaciated. they probably died of typhus not from poisoned gas. this photo probably needs to be removed. Keltik31 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo illustrates the point you are making, "neo-Nazis claim such evidence is either counterfeit or misrepresented." -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The picture is to stay, nazism and fascism lead to those attrocities.--Soetermans 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war over Croatia

Pleae seek constructive discussion on Croatia, or I will seek to have the page protected against further edits until collaborative discussion takes place.--Cberlet 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I welcome protection of this article from the destuctive edits by User:NovaNova and his sock puppets. If you look at the edit history, I made a compromise by combining text from the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article and text from the old version of the Croatia section of this article. Everything in my version of the section comes from content that was already on Wikipedia. Although NovaNova has pointed out possible weaknesses to the section in this discussion page, instead of fixing those weaknesses, NovaNova has chosen to continuously revert to an inferior version that focusses on WWII-era people and events (instead of neo-Nazism), and which is improperly formatted (with no separation of paragraphs). Spylab 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Spylab, please use colons to indent comments. It takes two to create a revert war. What you see as your "superior" version (both here and on several other fascism-related pages) reveals a lack of consideration that others may not see your edits as "superior." Try a more cooperative and collaborative tone, and engage in actual discussion rather than intellectual pissing matches.--Cberlet 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

Spylab went so far that (s)he marked me as someone's sock-puppet. I'm just wondering what makes him/her to behave this way?
  • The editing behaviour in this article (specifically in the Croatia section) — as well as the language style in edit notes and talk pages — by User:NovaNova, User:Purger-related sock puppets and various anonymous IP accounts is very distinct. I'm just wondering why you thought nobody would notice? Spylab 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia - law

I added two paragraphs to the Croatian section related

- to the failed attempt to ammend the Croatian Penal Code in order to incriminate any public display of Nazi symbols, propagating Nazi ideology, historical revisionism, and holocaust denial and

- to the accepted Nazi-era-like law interpretation and practice.

Also added a new reference related to the Nazi conception of law.

--NovaNova 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection sought

This edit war is annoying. Learn some manners. I am seeking page protection. Grow up.--Cberlet 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. This page is now protected. Look, folks, this is a complicated issue, and even though I have extensively studied the fascist period of Croatia, I have no idea how to find an NPOV text. But the folks who have engaged in the edit war do have this expertise, what they lack is a collaborative, constructive attitude. So get over it. Find a compromise. I'll do what I can do help, but is really up to us as a collective editing community. That is the wonderous aspect of Wikipedia.--Cberlet 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not complicated at all. The revert war has nothing to do with point of view, and I am not an expert on Croatia at all. However, I do know the difference between World War Two Nazism and neo-Nazism, which is the topic of this article The old version mostly concentrated on issues related to World War Two people and events. It's a very simple matter of having the section focus on the actual topic of the article. I did make a comprimise by combining the two versions of the section, but still focussing on neo-Nazism instead of World War Two-related topics. The funny thing is that now the section only links to the neo-Nazism in Croatia article, which is where I copied the text from to paste into this article. I pretty much pasted it word for word, other than adding citation requests and making a few minor adjustments to the writing style. Spylab 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The failure to take any responsibility for an edit war is part of the problem.--Cberlet 23:30, 8 December 2006(UTC)
  • Take a look at this unjustified edit to the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article which NovaNova deceptively describes as "Added about failed ammendments of penal code, and about attempt to publish Mein Kampf": [[32]]. That description in no way describes the extensive counterproductive and destructive edit that was actually carried out. Instead of actually simply adding the new content as described in the edit note, NovaNova has chosen to destroy several necessary improvemts to the article, and then lied about what has been done. This is what we're dealing with: someone who shows total contempt for the editing process and displays no sign of any "collaborative, constructive attitude" at all. Spylab 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Post-script: And just so nobody accuses me of making a knee-jerk revert to the edit I mentioned in the Neo-Nazism in Croatia, article, I tried to decipher which content was added, so I could save that part instead of reverting the whole thing, but NovaNova's edit was so big and confusing that I could not figure out which text was actually added, and which text was just moved around. Spylab 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazis - old and new

The problem on this and other pages related to neonazism in several European countries, is that in several countries, the fascist and Nazi collaborationist forces later became recast as heroic anti-communists, and their historic fascism, Nazi collaborationism, and anti-semitic actions were sanitized as part of Cold War propoganda. In some cases, these same people did lead movements against communist totalitarianism, yet this should not obscure their other ideas and actions. In Croatia, as in several other countries, the neonazi movements often are tied to earlier interwar and WWII Nazi collaborationist forces, and thus it is not possible to exclude a discussion of this historic set of relationships. However, this discussion should not dominate the section on the particular country. Also, the issue of murderous rampages against Jews and Serbs in the WWII period might need to be raised as part of a discussion of current (and changing) Croatian government attitudes toward specific current fascist political movements, especially if they link themselves back to the interwar/WWII Ustasha.--Cberlet 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Basic Editorial Ethics Here

What the User:Spylab wanted - to destroy the whole section Croatia here is implemented by User:Cberlet and endorsed by User:Gnangarra. I asked specifically User:Cberlet why User:Cberlet blanked out the whole Croatia section here [33] -what was not answered at all. Also, User:Gnangarra claimed that 'the article clearly defines the subject in the opening sentence, content that doesnt fit within that definition shouldn't be in another article.' and 'What I suggest is that the version by User:Spylab be the one in the article as it more closely adheres to the defination as defined by the subject.' [34]

I responded, asking quite clearly, how it might be that the deleted entry:

The publication of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in 1999, caused the then German foreign minister Joschka Fischer to summon his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic, and press him to have the book banned in Croatia [13];

is not about the Neo-Nazism - which is not answered by User:Gnangarra at all.

When seeing that the existing edition of the Croatia section here, was reduced by User:Spylab to just 6 sentences out of which four were marked by the [citation needed] tag [35]. Moreover, User:Spylab 'completed' his own 'editorial' work by adding {unreferenced|date=November 2006} and {weasel} tags on the top of this page!!! How a serious editor could tag/mark his own edits this way??? I reverted the section demanding explanation for this almost complete section destruction. Ultimately, the existing edits cannot be re-written or destroyed by just throwing claim 'replaced content with info from Neo-Nazism in Croatia because old version didn't focus on neo-Nazism' as he did.

All my attempts to bring the editorial work on the same start and support any further editorial work with facts and serious observations - failed. Instead even willing to discuss the issue seriously, User:Spylab started throwing accusations 'last edit brok 3RR rule', 'you may be blocked' , 'sock-puppetry' etc. and selfpraising (User:Spylab) work as superior and claiming that I do not know what Neo-Nazism is. My attempt (questions) to ask him why he deleted what he deleted already - are removed from the talk page and when I've put back the deleted questions - User:Spylab ignored them completely.

I had impression that I have to deal with an extremely cheeky and primitive personality and wondered how this person could have any access to the editirial work here. Then, I went further and examined the whole User:Spylab editorial work and noticed that User:Spylab commited more than 500 changes within 10 days i.e. more than fifty edits per day - (November 28 - December 7 2006). In that period of time [User:Spylab] was busy by the Wikipedia editing on: November 29 - 9 hours, November 30 - 16 hours (63 edits!!!) , December 1 - 18 hours, December 2 - 7 hours, December 3 - 8 hours, December 4 - 21 hours, December 5 - 12 hours, December 6 - 17 hours, and December 7 - 8 hours.

The content of User:Spylab edits were - spelling check, version reverts, removal of links, copy-paste etc.

So it is quite clearly that I had to deal with a mentally challenged person!!!

I just wonder how it is possible that a serious publisher could allow such access to the articles to a person like User:Spylab.

--NovaNova 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


  1. Response to:"What the User:Spylab wanted - to destroy the whole section Croatia" - not true
  2. Response to: "User:Spylab 'completed' his own 'editorial' work by adding {unreferenced|date=November 2006} and {weasel} tags on the top of this page!!! How a serious editor could tag/mark his own edits this way???" - not true
  3. Response to: "Instead even willing to discuss the issue seriously, User:Spylab..." - not true
  4. Finally, Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Spylab 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collabortive editing

Let's start over. Note the text at the top of the entry that the page is protected "until disputes have been resolved." If both of you (in your own way) refuse to engage in collabortive editing of text here on the discussion page, then the solution is not to keep the page locked, but to seek to have both of you banned from editing this article for some appropriate period of time. Please start placing text here on the discussion page and discussing how it should be edited. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to being temporarily banned from this article as long as User:NovaNova is banned for the exact same length of time. To start off the collaborative process, I will post both versions below. Spylab 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of two versions of Croatia section

Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to be about neo-Nazism (emphasis on neo), and that there is a full article on neo-Nazism in Croatia, which discusses all aspects of the topic in more detail, including the movement's origins in World War Two Nazism.Spylab 16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NovaNova's final version:

See also: Neo-Nazism in Croatia

Since gaining independence, Croatia has often been criticized for ignoring its past and erasing evidence of former Ustasha Fascist and Nazi crimes.[36] In one prominent case, Zagreb's "Square of the Victims of Fascism" was renamed "The Square of The Great Men of Croatia", provoking widespread criticism of Croatia's attitude toward the Holocaust.[37] Many streets in Croatia have been renamed after Mile Budak, a prominent Ustasha figure, which provoked outrage in the Serbian minority, that still numbered 12% in 1991, despite a WWII genocide.[38] The memory of the Ustasha genocide was still very vivid when Croatia started secession from the SFRY, and Serbs in Croatia often expressed fear at the new developments. A plaque in Slunj with the inscription "Croatian Knight Jure Francetić" was erected to commemorate the notorious Ustasha leader of the Black Legion, Jure Francetic. The plaque remained there for four years, and was eventually removed by the authorities. Since 2002 there has been a reversal of this movement, and streets with the name of Mile Budak or other persons involved or connected with the Ustasha movement are few or non-existent.

In the year of 2003 there was made an attempt to amend the Croatian Penal Code by adding the articles incriminating any public display of Nazi symbols, propagating Nazi ideology, historical revisionism, and holocaust denial. This attempt was prevented by the Croatian Constitutional Court - on November 27 of the same year. [39]

Another move of the Croatian state toward the Nazi era law interpretetion and practice - was made in the year of 2005 - by granting exclusive rights to the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) - to 'the law authenticity interpretation' (in Croatian - pravo vjerodostojnog tumacenja zakona) [40].

To many of their modern supporters, the Ustaše are considered to have been merely victims of the Bleiburg massacre and there were even proposals by the late President Tudjman to rebury them together with victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp as a sign of national reconciliation, although it should be noted that Croatian partisans were only a very small proportion of the casualties at Jasenovac. Although many view Croats during the WWII primarily as supporters of right-wing ideology, it must be noted that Croats, not Serbs, were the first organizers of the Partisan Movement in Yugoslavia. Croatian Serbs, whose cousins died in the Jasenovac concentration camp and other concentration camps in Croatia, often felt insulted by such proposals. The resurgence of the Ustase movement in present-day Croatia is partly due to the financial support of Ustase members who emigrated to the HDZ during the 1990s. [41]

In 1998-9, an attempt was made to bring to justice Nada Sakic - who was a guard at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic, according to her accusers, was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners which is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in November 1998 to Croatia [42], [43], [44], [45]. The Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a camp commander. [46], [47], [48]

In November 1999 a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court, San Francisco, CA where the plaintiffs are of Serb, Jewish and Ukrainian background. The plaintiffs are also survivors of the WWII Ustashe concentration camps. The defendants are the Vatican Bank, the Franciscan Order and the Croatian Liberation Movements who allegedly concealed assets looted by the Croatian Nazis from their concentration camp victims (Serbs, Jews, Ukrainians) between 1941-1945. As per Jonathan Levy, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be photographed, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. Among Serbs, fear of the Ustashe is still particularly strong as the Ustashe still exists and has a party headquarters in Zagreb.[49]

The publication of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in 1999, caused the then German foreign minister Joschka Fischer to summon his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic, and press him to have the book banned in Croatia [50]; In a number of protests, it has been reported that supporters of Ante Gotovina and other suspected war criminals often carry nationalist symbols and pictures of Ante Pavelic. [51]There were several public appearances of Ustashe veterans wearing Ustashe uniforms, for instance in Zadar and Slunj. [52], [53]. Also, a popular Croatian singer Thompson has been singing the Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara in his concerts, a song which glorifies the Ustashe and their genocide of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. [54]. Occasionally graffiti with Ustashe slogans appears in present-day Croatia, even an Orthodox church was sprayed with such graffiti in 2004 [55],[56] and the police have stepped up measures to prevent this from occurring by speeding up responses to the appearance of extreme right wing graffiti and other hate vandalism. [57]

[edit] Spylab's final version

See also: Neo-Nazism in Croatia

Neo-Ustashism is the term used to describe the neo-fascist movement in Croatia, which is influenced by the Ustasha, an organization supported by the Nazis during World War II. Support for this movement mainly arose from residual hatred from the Yugoslav wars, and from Croatian nationalism. Ustashe still has a party headquarters in Zagreb. [58]

Such sentiments and actions have been restricted by law since 2003, and the display of Ustasha or Nazi symbols is illegal.[citation needed] The most common method of expressing pro-Ustasha views is graffiti targeting ethnic Serbs.[citation needed] Croatia has no laws against historical revisionism or holocaust denial.[citation needed]

The serif letter U (sometimes embellished with a cross, and/or the letters NDH) representing Ustasha) is the most common, while there are also instances of much more explicit hate speech. The phrase Srbe na vrbe! (meaning "hang Serbs on the willow trees!") also appears in graffiti and as slogans of Croatian football hooligans.[citation needed]

An Orthodox church was sprayed with pro-Ustasha graffiti in 2004. [59][60] Police have sped up responses to the appearance of extreme right wing graffiti and other hate vandalism. [61]

It has been reported that during some protests in Croatia, supporters of Ante Gotovina and other suspected war criminals often carry nationalist symbols and pictures of Ante Pavelic. [62]

A popular Croatian singer Thompson has been singing the Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara in his concerts; a song which glorifies the Ustashe and their genocide of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. [63].

[edit] Version to rewrite

OK, NovaNova, what additional text has to be added to the text below to fill out the short entry on Croatia on this page? The rest really belongs on the longer and more detailed Neo-Nazism in Croatia page. Try just adding three of sour short sentences or additial cites.--Cberlet 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My last edit as given below does not include any copy-pasted text from the Neo-Nazism in Croatia. No need to repeat the same text here. As to the Neo-Nazism in Croatia - it is pretty bad article and not reference for a serious edit. Thanks for your advice how to edit something - but, as an editor, I have to respect the previous editors work and leave much of the existing text as is. Also, as an editor I cannot allow [citation needed] in my editorial work. This tag is something that shall be inserted by the article reviewers and not by editors. At the end, the Neo-Ustashism term, as given here, is not a word of the modern English language nor it comes from a respectable reference.--NovaNova 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit this text

See also: Neo-Nazism in Croatia

Neo-Ustashism is the term used to describe the neo-fascist movement in Croatia, which is influenced by the Ustasha, an organization supported by the Nazis during World War II. Support for this movement mainly arose from residual hatred from the Yugoslav wars, and from Croatian nationalism. Ustashe still has a party headquarters in Zagreb. [64]

Such sentiments and actions have been restricted by law since 2003, and the display of Ustasha or Nazi symbols is illegal.[citation needed] The most common method of expressing pro-Ustasha views is graffiti targeting ethnic Serbs.[citation needed] Croatia has no laws against historical revisionism or holocaust denial.[citation needed]

The serif letter U (sometimes embellished with a cross, and/or the letters NDH) representing Ustasha) is the most common, while there are also instances of much more explicit hate speech. The phrase Srbe na vrbe! (meaning "hang Serbs on the willow trees!") also appears in graffiti and as slogans of Croatian football hooligans.[citation needed]

An Orthodox church was sprayed with pro-Ustasha graffiti in 2004. [65][66] Police have sped up responses to the appearance of extreme right wing graffiti and other hate vandalism. [67]

It has been reported that during some protests in Croatia, supporters of Ante Gotovina and other suspected war criminals often carry nationalist symbols and pictures of Ante Pavelic. [68]

A popular Croatian singer Thompson has been singing the Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara in his concerts; a song which glorifies the Ustashe and their genocide of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. [69].

[edit] End text being edited

Since gaining independence, Croatia has often been criticized for ignoring its past and erasing evidence of former Ustasha Fascist and Nazi crimes.[70] As an apparent demonstration of the Nazi past sentiment in Croatia, many streets in Croatia have been renamed after Mile Budak, a prominent Ustasha figure, which provoked outrage in the Serbian minority. The same way, a plaque in Slunj with the inscription "Croatian Knight Jure Francetić" was erected to commemorate the notorious Ustasha leader of the Black Legion, Jure Francetic. The plaque remained there for four years, and was eventually removed by the authorities. Since 2002 there has been a reversal of this movement, and streets with the name of Mile Budak or other persons involved or connected with the Ustasha movement are few or non-existent.

In the year of 2003 there was made an attempt to amend the Croatian Penal Code by adding the articles incriminating any public display of Nazi symbols, propagating Nazi ideology, historical revisionism, and holocaust denial. This attempt was prevented by the Croatian Constitutional Court - on November 27 of the same year. [71]

Another move of the Croatian state toward the Nazi era law interpretetion and practice - was made in the year of 2005 - by granting exclusive rights to the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) - to 'the law authenticity interpretation' (in Croatian - pravo vjerodostojnog tumacenja zakona) [72].

To many of their modern supporters, the Ustaše are considered to have been merely victims of the Bleiburg massacre and there were even proposals by the late President Tudjman to rebury them together with victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp as a sign of national reconciliation, although it should be noted that Croatian partisans were only a very small proportion of the casualties at Jasenovac. Croatian Serbs, whose cousins died in the Jasenovac concentration camp and other concentration camps in Croatia, often felt insulted by such proposals. The resurgence of the Ustase movement in present-day Croatia is partly due to the financial support of Ustase members who emigrated to the HDZ during the 1990s. [73]

In 1998-9, an attempt was made to bring to justice Nada Sakic - who was a guard at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic, was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners which is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in November 1998 to Croatia [74], [75], [76], [77]. The Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a camp commander. [78], [79], [80]

In November 1999 a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court, San Francisco, CA where the plaintiffs are of Serb, Jewish and Ukrainian background. The plaintiffs are also survivors of the WWII Ustashe concentration camps. The defendants are the Vatican Bank, the Franciscan Order and the Croatian Liberation Movements who allegedly concealed assets looted by the Croatian Nazis from their concentration camp victims (Serbs, Jews, Ukrainians) between 1941-1945. As per Jonathan Levy, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be photographed, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. Among Serbs, fear of the Ustashe is still particularly strong as the Ustashe still exists and has a party headquarters in Zagreb.[81]

The publication of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in 1999, caused the then German foreign minister Joschka Fischer to summon his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic, and press him to have the book banned in Croatia [82]; In a number of protests, it has been reported that supporters of Ante Gotovina and other suspected war criminals often carry nationalist symbols and pictures of Ante Pavelic. [83]There were several public appearances of Ustashe veterans wearing Ustashe uniforms, for instance in Zadar and Slunj. [84], [85]. Also, a popular Croatian singer Thompson has been singing the Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara in his concerts, a song which glorifies the Ustashe and their genocide of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. [86]. Occasionally graffiti with Ustashe slogans appears in present-day Croatia, even an Orthodox church was sprayed with such graffiti in 2004 [87],[88] and the police have stepped up measures to prevent this from occurring by speeding up responses to the appearance of extreme right wing graffiti and other hate vandalism. [89]--NovaNova 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Collaboration?

So, Spylab, is there a compromise version that you can craft?--Cberlet 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For me to do a proper and thorough job, I would have to print out both versions, compare them, and combine the relevant text. Due to technical and time constraint reasons, I might not be able to do that until another day or two. Perhaps the best solution would be for you (or another editor who wasn't involved in the revert war) to combine relevant text from both versions. Judging by User:NovaNova's response above, it is clear that NovaNova still doesn't get it, and shows no evidence of being willing to compromise or be constructive. Spylab 10:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is worth the wait, and would very much appreciate the attempt when you have time. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeo-Nazism_cf95.html"