Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents 1 Use of Jasenovac for Keelhaul victims 2 Martyrology 3 Bias of the article 4 Friar or not 5 600K 6 From bigger numbers to bigger Serbia 7 last moment leading 50K 8 the "Picili Furnace" 9 mass copy&paste 10 sources 11 2005 stuff 12 Brzica 13 The linx 14 Any shrink in the vicinity ? 15 Boring propaganda 16 Hmm, PRO-CROATIAN EDITING 17 About Tudjman's estimates 18 == Hmm == 19 == Hmm == 20 Encyclopedic fact and representation -- hogwash 21 YOU ARE QUOTING WITH HUMAN LIVES!!! 22 Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, Jerusalem 23 On the whole thing 24 Allegations, doubts 25 category:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina 26 Controversial topic 27 Later events 28 Srbosjek 29 "Daj dragi katolički bože da svi jebeni Srbi krepaju!!!"? 30 I forgot to sign my post 31 "ren"?? 32 Jasenovac - allegations never proven in the court of law 33 Dr Mitov and Jasenovac (his off topic rumbling) - my response 34 Bosniak Mythology: A Guide through Fiction

[edit] Use of Jasenovac for Keelhaul victims

"After the end of WWII the grounds of Jasenovac and around Jasenovac were also used to bury victims of the communist reprisal against civilian survivors of the Bleiburg massacre."

are there any proofs for these claims? bleiburg is far from jasenovac, and has nothing to do with it. Goya 04:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The prisoner march back to Yugoslavia from Bleiburg has included various executions and throwing people into pits, that's information I'm acquainted with. It's not impossible, and indeed reasonably likely, that the same wastelands around Jasenovac were used for this purpose, too. The anonymous user has inserted this again, too. However, we have no clear evidence or even a clear report of this, so I included it rephrased. (We likely have no clear evidence of a lot of other things, so I'm letting this pass amended instead of removing it altogether.) --Joy [shallot] 11:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This theory about burrying Ustashe, Domobran and Bleiburg victims in Jasenovac I have witnessed as supporting late president dr. Franjo Tudjman's idea about reuniting Croats of Ustashi and Partisan descent by means of digging all of the bones of the dead on opposed fighting sides and burying them together. This should be remembered as one of his most disputed ideas. However, history revisionism in Croatia has already started beatification of Tudjman and this truth is being ridiculed and persons reviving it are being banned (recent Feb 2006 example of very famous Denis Latin show).

In fact, Holocaust revisionists need all possible means to reduce number of Serbian, Roma, and Jewish victims in Jasenovac, in order to look Ustashe regime more acceptable. In fact, capitol Zagreb's trams and buses are still full of "U" (Ustashe) and direct swastika signs, in a movement that regarded hidden return to Ustashianism as return to true Croatian values, much as HSP and Anto Djapic, who went to pay hommage to Holocaust victims but privately probably still salutes measuring hight of corn. Besides, his party is proud of having WOLF as symbol. Does that ring a bell? Relativization of Nazi and Ustashe crimes serves purpose of justifying HDZ and Tudjman, and shifts nation's attention from continuing effort of governing tycoon elite to subvert enitre economy under theri control, owenership and monopoly, destroying all free enterprize competition. It goes deeper than that, but it accounts to money, as tycoons do not pay taxes in practice being good Croats while free enterprizes have to and they often go bankrupt because of disloyal competition.

Ustashe controversy and alleged injustice Croats were done is an incomprehensible and limitless source of demagogy, mass self-pitty and universal excuse for virtually any failure of Tudjman's regime, which serves in masses up to this day. Those who do not believe this "established fact" are ridiculed, persecuted (DEnis Latin), or generally considered traitors and enemies.

In ligth of all this it is easy to understand why Tudjman needed to mix bones to finally destroy account on WWII victims under the disguise of national peace and reuniting effort. The theory of Bleiburg (most hoy Ustashe marturdom site) bones in Jasenovac served exactly for the same purpose, since now the work could be completed and all bones of Partisans and Ustashe and Holocaust victims could be burried there forever. --Mtodorov 69 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyrology

Unfortunately, Mir Haven is a shining example of how Wikipedia can go wrong. This is an article which attempts to put the issue of the Jasenovac camp in an unbiased light. This means that it should not be favourable to either 'side', which thus continues to mean that you will be perpetually editing this article, Mir Haven, until you collapse of exhaustion. Speaking from a hopefully neutral point of view (I'm a Spaniard), I can only see that this article not only examines the fact that Jasenovac existed (which is inevitable - I don't see the relation you try to bring up by discrediting Auschwitz), but it does so by quoting all the numbers and points of view. See, this is one thing I like about Wikipedia. Whilst proprietary enciclopedias offer an often biased point of view which stays like that for decades, Wikipedia warns you, and sometimes even offers you two copies of the same article from two different points of view in order to support the NPOV guideline. The way you rabidly seem to attack Serbia as a generical whole (which is altogether inexplicable - whether it were Serbia or France or Burundi) tells me you have underlying emotional issues to settle before you could hope to try and maintain a serious point of view on an issue as delicate as this. Throwing a log into the fire myself, I have to say, the language you use I had only seen before in German National Socialist decrees and speeches. 'Poisonous'? 'Martirology'? The study of martyrs?

In all seriousness, this is a pretty fair article in my opinion. There is no justification for having a NPOV breach tag on it (unless Mir Haven were to set his hands on this article) because it deals with all victim tolls and explains them to a resonable extent.

As for Mir Haven, I recommend he take an aspirin and think about what he is saying. Not only is he not convincing anyone of anything, he is merely damaging the reputation of The Wikipedia by inflaming articles unnecessarily by means of childish and rather worrying denialist attitudes.

Anonymous from Spain.

This page, which is a good example of Serbian pathological propaganda-needs serious, serious revision. Since it contains lies galore, I'll edit it until *all* Serbian lunatic martirology (the camp had very, very high toll of victims, probably ca. 50,000- and Serbian lunatics want it to be 700,000 or 1 million. Nay, this poisonous pathology has to be exposed. http://www.iwpr.net/archive/bcr/bcr_19990419_3_eng.txt

We are better than I thought, well the Serbs had their fun time during the Kingdom, and well, sucking the rest of the republics of Yugoslavia, well we know where the treasure was held... in Belgrade, AND THEY STILL SUCK ECONOMICALY, UNBELIVABLE

Mir Harven 18:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mir Harven, please stop spewing your hate speech, Holocaust Denial has no place on Wikipedia, victim numbers are nothing to play around with, let alone bury under the rug.

Regards Igor

Well-this needs clarification. This article on Jasenovac is an example of "hate speech". And now, something on "Holocaust denial":

-before the collapse of Communism, Auschwitz concentration camp had had the table purporting that 4.2 million people were murdered in this camp. Now- the figure has "dropped" to 1.1 million. Where are 3.1 million people gone ? Exaggeration of number of victims has always been a tool in "emotional blackmail" for very mundane political purposes.

-as for "revisionists"- if it were not for "revisionist" view on history and everything, we would be still believe dogmatic nonsense, like geocentric system, beauties of colonialism or "essentially good intentions" of Communists. ::"Revisionists" have been, as far as WW2 is concerned, right in at least two things: after the Kremlin archives had been opened, it became evident that Nazi war against Soviet Union was indeed a "preventive war" (the nature of that war is not an issue); Stalin's atrocities against all peoples in S U and the conquered areas (and especially against Soviet POWs) were more than confirmed.

-as for numbers: first Soviet publications spoke of 6 million Soviet citizens who died as a result of Nazi aggression; then, it was 20 million; now, the toll has climbed to 28 million. Is anyone of sane mind expected to believe in such dallying with figures ?

-and, finally: Jasenovac death toll is somewhere 49,000 and 85,000. The majority of links (external links) given at the Jasenovac page are not much more than morbid greater Serbian agitprop-most notably by a shadowy figure of Milan Bulajić. The Jasenovac myth has served, in past 40 or so years, as *the* pillar of Serbian expansionist aggression against Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Well- since this page is a heap of lies, I'm still uncertain what to do: it is a good illustration of Serbian morbid mindset, and it maybe should be left unchanged, as a testimony of an illness; on the other hand, it's a litany of lies, and therefore should be exposed.

We'll see.

One of your "sources" is, laconically, addressed here:

http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/reviews.html

Mir Harven 18:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mir Harven,

I know nothing about Auschwitz, Dachau or the other camps or the number games you play in editing their figs. Jasenovac has nothing to do with 'emotional blackmail' as I am certain that the Holocaust of the Jews did not have anything to do with it.

I don't much care for discussions about the USSR either, this is not really an issue that concerns Jasenovac, does it? Or is it just part of some big scheme of yours, demasking the "great Serb/Soviet/Jewish conspiracy"? Don't know, don't care really...

You claim that Jasenovac's death toll is between 49 and 85 thousand, Milan Bulajic, whom you accuse of being a liar, has collected almost 78,000 names of Jasenovac victims, so what is the deal? 78 is larger than 49 and smaller than 85? Right? Wakie, wakie!

Think what you will of the Serbs, just do it on your own page, don't waste the time of Wikipedia visitors who wish to do something constructive with their time, and spending so much time restoring erased information is not considered constructive.

The page you've offered me does not provide anything on Jasenovac, besides, the URL contains the ominous Herceg-Bosna, the little Croat statelet formed in Western Herzegovina renowned for its neo-Ustashi lobby in Zagreb. Apparently, some people down their think it's still 1941 because they are surrounded by Ustaša and Nazi iconography. I wouldn't be surprised at anything coming from them, including the claim that Jasenovac was a tourist resort.

Regards,

Igor 1:04, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The page you've offered me does not provide anything on Jasenovac, besides, the URL contains the ominous Herceg-Bosna, the little Croat statelet formed in Western Herzegovina renowned for its neo-Ustashi lobby in Zagreb.

First-this is rubbish. The internationally recognized "Republika Srpska", which covers ca. 49% of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is an entity based on chetnik genocidal ideology ( in their own words- http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/ ). It is, in minds of most Croats and Muslims in BH, "illegal" (never mind Dayton- Munich, Chamberlain and Hitler were also "legal" in their own times) parastate statelet created by "fascist" policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Looks like someone's "fascism" easily got away-at least, for a time. As for Heceg Bosna- it can be argued that is the will of Croatian people in BH (as is Republika Srpska of Serbian, or any kind of Bosnian Muslim state). So- with regard to "fascist", "statelet", etc epithets- better wait for resolution of BH crisis, since this is only a respite.

2. now to the Jasenovac camp. Well- the most respected (I don't include here Serbian lobbysts from suc, pavelicpapers, srpska mreza and similar stuff. Bulajić was one of the instigators (along with Dobrica Ćosić and much of Serbian Academy of Sciences) of 1991-1995 wars and his credibility is nil.) investigators are expatriate Serb Bogoljub Kočović and Croatian ex-UN expert Vladimir Žerjavić. They both came with virtually the same figures for overall losses of ex-Yu peoples. Žerjavić, far from being a "revisionist" (in a "bad,bad" sense of the word) is the most thorough researcher. And here are the links one might consider truthful- unlike suc and similar propaganda:

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bul2.html

(interstingly enough, Kočović (a Serb) got lower figures for Serbian casualties than Croat Žerjavić)

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bul.html

Whole Bulajić affair unmasked

http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/

Žerjavić's book- the most thorough break-up of all casualties in WW2 in ex-Yu

http://www.hic.hr/books/from-fairytale/

Exposure of Serbin misuse of "Jewish connection".

The authoress was one of "the righteous among the nations". Mir Harven 18:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bias of the article

I am not inclined to entirely agree with either Bulajić or Žerjavić regarding Jasenovac, but this page does seem to be biased similarly to the former historian. Despite the subject matter which is nothing less than distressing, the language used is really picturesque and too suggestive at times. It's a slippery slope, someone just has to throw in an extra spicy provocation and it becomes another flamebait. That just doesn't fit in the encyclopedia. FWIW. --Shallot 01:16, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• That just doesn't fit in the encyclopedia.

Hmm...Bulajić and Žerjavić are hardly to be compared. The former was an instrumental in Serbian aggression on Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, essentially one among war instigators. Virtually no one, save a few ames fraternelles, takes his "investigations" as anything scholarly or rational. Be as it may: as I have said- the Jasenovac wiki page is a Serbian propaganda page. I'm not sure whether I want to dabble in this matter any more-or not. But- if I do (or any Croat with any brains)- then, this page has to be written completely anew, or the bulk of text (and links) be put under the "disputed" label.

Mir Harven 18:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I think should have been made clear in this article is that Zerjavic's study was published by Jewish Community of Zagreb in late eighties, so his numbers (60-80,000) should *definitely* be considered anything but credulous (unlike Bulajic's, who came up with the number to fit his political agenda). Dr. Goldstein from Jasenovac Memorial Centre claims around 80,000 victims, but does not exclude the possibility of death toll being as high as 100,000. I could not help but to notice that Wikipedia article claims "Several hundred thousand people were murdered at Jasenovac, most of them Serbs."- a wee bit of bias, perchance? And, wouldn't it be nice to see the death-toll of Jasenovac camp as given by more sensible Serbian historians like Kocovic, who has estimated about the same number as Zerjavic?

Another point of interest, regarding previos comments here, is that Goldstein excludes the need of it encompassing memorials for, mostly civillian, victims of Communist terror in Jasenovac- because they were executed on ground of the camp, but not in the camp itself... Apparently, the people running the Memorial Center find some victims 'more equal' than others, as it seems most people do.

In similar vein, I do not see any hint to the fact that death-toll of Tito's communist regime was as big, and most likely even bigger, than that of Ustashi regime. Anyone can check Rummel's 'Death by Government', to check those facts. He estimates Tito's death toll at ~1.3 million, which accounts for 'unlawful' killings only, IIRC.

-- IMHO we could add the Mir Harven's estimation of Jasenovac victims as Holocaust revisionist's most recent claim and say it is that, ending the dispute. Mir Harven is a proven Holocaust revisionist, but supressing his right for expression will only give him an aura of an martyr which he does not deserve. Not at all. I think you will agree with me that it is important to inform reades about revisionist's claims, because it is better for them to hear it from us, which will make Wikipedia even more neutral.

In fact, after our generation dies, the next one could fall prey to revisionists who will tell there was no Holocaust, who will follow dr. Tudjman's doctrine of mixing the bones of butchers and victims, and who will probably state photographs and movies are a clever manufactured and forged evidence. In fact, their hypocrisy is best known only to them because they know very well how much they've slain and they boast about Jure and Boban their heroes making competition about killing thousand Serbs in a day, surpassing even SS efficiency, even using hammers instead of gas. What I wanted to say is they know they lie, and Harven knows he lies, so we will win in the end. --Mtodorov 69 23:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of Mtodorov 69's post above:

revisionists who will tell (...) will follow (...) will probably state - unwarranted conjectures;

they know very well how much they've slain and they boast about Jure and Boban - vague accusations;

and Harven knows he lies - slander;

we will win in the end - warmonger lingo.

You obviously think this is some kind of "war" that you must "win". It's a shameful attitude for a Wikipedian. --Zmaj 12:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zmaj, I see you are also writting from Croatia, so I hope you are not a revisionist too. Fighting for truth is also a war, and it WILL be won in the end. My Book says so (Rev. chap 21). -- Mtodorov 69 21:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friar or not

149.101.1.130 (NO PROOF OF EXCOMMUNICATION FROM ANY RELIABLE, NEUTRAL SOURCE)

Um. First of all, stop yelling. Secondly, requiring reliability is rather hypocritical given the unreliable data already presented in the page.

Quoting from a quick search on google, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/6208

"... ex-friar Vjekoslav Filipovic (alias Miroslav Majstorovic), the only individual of Franciscan affiliation who was connected with the shedding of blood of "Orthodox, Communists, and Jews" by the Croatian Ustashas, was excommunicated by his bishop well before he became the commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp."

or http://www.catholicleague.org/research/assault_on_Christianity.htm

"Actually, “Brother Satan” was tried, defrocked, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war ended. In fact, his expulsion occurred in April 1943, before he ran the extermination camp."

Both statements from people that claim to have an academic title. (Not unlike Milan Bulajić, if I may notice.)

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a place that lists excommunicated Catholics. I guess I'll have to go to the nearest diocese library to find that (and even then, I have no way of proving it's reliable and neutral! Ha! :).

In any event, we now went from "former monk" to "a monk". How's that for neutrality? Can someone who's doing everything contrary to what a monk should be doing really be considered a monk?

--Shallot 16:08, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Filipović-Majstorović and his falsely attributed "monastic credentials" during the Jasenovac era need to be accentuated in order to give the whole affair an aura of Satanic evil- Catholic, of course. I guess it's the time for a major revision of the Jasenovac page. The linx are given above, the others can be added, but since no minimal consensus about the Jasenovac camp exists- it can be presented in 2 versions, at best. Probably the best intro is http://public.srce.hr/sakic/jasenovac/index.html . And these are the most reliable info. Because, what's now on wiki page is a shameless Serbian agitprop-not unlike the "Srebrenica denial" and similar stuff. Not to mention definitely morbid intonation the entire text reverberates with- possibly a characteristic betraying the authors's mental state.

Mir Harven 18:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 600K

Nikola, please present a source for the number of 600,000 victims of Jasenovac. In my experience it's fairly hard to come by a credible source for such a claim for all of NDH, let alone this camp complex only. --Shallot 00:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cf. Talk:Independent State of Croatia#Death count during WW2 in NDH. --Shallot 01:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's in the article. As you haven't removed it I guessed that you acknowledge it.

I don't, really, I'm just being lenient because I'm not eager to see another revert war. --Shallot

Sorry, I don't think I understood that sentence correctly. Do you mean to say that the source is in the article already? One of the external links? --Shallot 17:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The National Committee of Croatia for the investigation of the crimes of the occupation forces and their collaborators stated in its report of November 15, 1945 that 500,000-600,000 people were killed at Jasenovac complex." Nikola 05:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those figures have been (reasonably well) disproved by various people from the statisticians like Zerjavic and Kocovic to politicians (I think it was... Đilas? who said it) who stated that they were inflated ad hoc in order to get better war reparations from Germany. They aren't too credible. --Shallot 12:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, you have nicely incorporated that POV; but why omitting POV that newer estimates are too small for nationalistic reasone? 50,000+30%=65,000<77,743 so it's certainly too small. Nikola 11:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, now I saw you mentioned it. Nikola 11:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned both, and then the last sentence of the paragraph. I know that there might be mistakes in the calculation regarding 77K but it could go either way, so lacking anything else, it's a decent number to end the paragraph with. With reference to this number, it would seem that the initial mention also needs to be lowered to something more sensible. --Shallot 16:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for other sources, for example Opća (1978) mentions "several hundreds of thousands". Nikola 16:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's also very vague, with an undefined yet likely large margin of error. Žerjavić and Bulajić may have been at each other's throats but at least they each provided a modicum of rationale! (What was Bulajić's Jasenovac estimation, anyway?) --Shallot 16:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can't tell. Nikola 05:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, is that a translation of "više stotina hiljada" or "nekoliko stotina hiljada"? In that case, in my experience at least, the tendency is to mean 2 – 5. --Shallot 17:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nekoliko. Nikola 05:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From bigger numbers to bigger Serbia

Yeah, the aim is evident.

Ustaša authorities established numerous concentration camps in Croatia between 1941 and 1945. These camps were used to isolate and murder Serbs, Jews, Roma, Muslims, and other non-Catholic minorities, as well as Croatian political and religious opponents of the regime. The largest of these centers was the Jasenovac complex, a string of five camps on the bank of the Sava River, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) south of Zagreb. Although further research may yield more exact figures, current estimates place the number of victims murdered by the Ustaša in Jasenovac during World War II between 56,000 and 97,000.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac/

14. Jasenovac: victims of war according to data from the Yugoslav Institute of Statistics (1964), Bosnian Institute, Zurich, Sarajevo, 1998.

This study - published for the first time after so many years - provides the name by name list of victims of the Jasenovac Camp, compiled by the Yugoslav government in 1964. It is the first and only official state list of victims of Jasenovac between 1941-1945. The list contains a total of 49,602 names of Jasenovac victims. Of these, 5,900 were Croats, 26,170 Serbs, 8,121 Jewish, 1,471 Roma, 789 Muslim, 174 Slovenian, 59 Hungarian, 35 Montenegrin, 7 Macedonian, others 84, and those not identified by nationality 6,792. From the Stara Gradiska camp: 9,586 victims, of which were: 646 Croats, 7,774 Serbs, 923 Jewish, 20 Slovenian, 3 Montenegrin, 1 Hungarian, not identified by nationality 58 and other 1. The total from both camps was registered as 59,188. The book can be purchased in book stores and from the Croatian News and Information Service, HINA.

http://public.srce.hr/sakic/jasenovac/readinglist.html

IN JASENOVAC CAMP, according to my research between 48 and 52 thousand Serbs were killed, 12 thousand Croatians, 13 thousand Jews and 10 thousand Romanys, altogether around 85 thousand people.

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bul3.html

If someone intends to cite Wiesenthal center-dont bother. They are unreachable and haven't even tried to respond frequent questioning as to why only they among wannabe authorities still holding vestiges of respectability stubbornly operate with inflated and ludicrous figures of Jasenovac victims. But, having in mind Hollywoodized picture of Wiesenthal himself and obscurantist nature of his followers- it's not much of a surprise. Mir Harven 23:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] last moment leading 50K

At the last moment, in January, 1945, more than 50,000 prisoners who were able to walk were led from the camp.

Were led from it... where to? What does this sentence mean? --Joy [shallot] 11:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] the "Picili Furnace"

What is meant by the "Picili Furnace"? --Joy [shallot] 11:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found it myself... --Joy [shallot] 16:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In early 1942, near the Brick Factory, the Ustase constructed a special furnace for the incineration of people - the so called "Picilli Furnace" - which they razed after three months in operation.

Source: http://www.pavelicpapers.com/features/jasenovac/sectionb.html

He heard of the "Zvonara" building, Picili's furnace and Gradina where executions were carried out, according to reports by other inmates.

Source: http://pubwww.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9905/hina-03-n.html

[edit] mass copy&paste

A lot of the article was copied and pasted from http://www.jasenovac.org/whatwasjasenovac/index.asp, which is at least decent enough to quote the origin: Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, edited by Israel Gutman, vol.1, 1995, pp.739-740. --Joy [shallot] 11:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sources

There should be more explication of the sources... googling also indicates that much of the information is collected from the writings of Avro Manhattan and of Edmond Paris, each of whom wrote books about the wrongdoings of the various Catholic organizations during WWII. --Joy [shallot] 17:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, there they are in Ustase#Bibliography. Perhaps that section here and there should be merged. --Joy [shallot] 14:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 stuff

Some group called the 'Jasenovac Committee' in Republika Srpska organized a commemoration of the disbanding of Jasenovac early in April 2005, and erected a sort of a memorial in Donja Gradina, the place in Bosnia on the other side of the Sava river across Jasenovac itself. The memorial includes a plaque saying 700,000 Serbs and 33,000 Jews were murdered in Jasenovac.

There was also a discussion panel in Banja Luka (IIRC?) in late April 2005 about the Jasenovac victims. Some person, I forgot the name, stated that there were 700,000 Serbs killed in Jasenovac by the Croats, and that the Croats are a genocidal people. (NB: not "Ustaše" but "Croats", in both instances.) This was replied to by Ivo Goldstein, a Jewish historian from Croatia, who said that he still trusts Vladimir Žerjavić's calculations more than anyone else's and thinks there were around or less than 100,000 victims of all ethnicities; also that the statement about a genocidal nature of a whole nation are nonsense. The Eparch of the Trebinje Eparchy of the Serb Orthodox Church, also replied to the "genocidal people" statement, disagreeing with it, and also noting that the Croats suffered genocidal treatment in 1945 after the fall of the Ustasha regime and in some Bosnian place called Zlovode, or something like that. The original claimant had no further reply to either of these issues, and no one else had anything to say about it.

I heard all that in an interview on Croatian Radiotelevision with the aforementioned Ivo Goldstein. He is a professor at the Philosophical Faculty, University of Zagreb.

There was also another report aired on HRT around this time talking about all this, and there was one notable thing mentioned in it: some historian said that the records from Jasenovac are scarce and unclear, and have been misinterpreted in the past - he found a group of three (or six?) thousand inmates that were thought to have been transported from Gospić to the Jasenovac camp, but they were actually transported to Germany and killed there, not in Jasenovac. So they can be counted among the victims in NDH (which deported them to Nazi Germany), but not among the victims in Jasenovac. That person then said that the records need re-examination and that he doesn't trust any high estimates based on old data, or something like that. This same reporter talked about Slavko Goldstein, head of the Memorial Area in Jasenovac, and said that this organization has a list of 59,000 victims (I've added this factoid to the article already).

From all this, it seems rather clear that there exists a group of people that actually does still claim that there were over a hundred thousand people killed in Jasenovac, but it's also fairly unclear what they base their claims on. --Joy [shallot] 13:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should also mention that the initial events were covered in the Croatian press initially in a very sensationalist manner. Gotta hate blood-thirsty journalists. --Joy [shallot] 13:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joy, AUSCHWITZ-LUGE, or Jasenovac-Luge is forbidden, in not only Germany, but also elsewhere.--Ninam 05:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? --Joy [shallot] 13:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brzica

Back when one anonymous user removed the bit about Petar Brzica being a priest, I googled and found nothing to really support such a claim. Now that I looked for it again, there's one forum where someone stated:

Petar Brzica was a failed seminarian who held the rank of Lieutenant in the Ustaska Obrana (the infamous Ustasa Defense under "Maks" Luburic that ran the internment and concentration camps in the NDH). He was NOT a priest. (source: University of Zagreb, History Department)

The ridiculous claim that this individual would be physically capable of slaughtering 1,360 people in one day is simply grotesque and practically impossible (almost one person per minute for the entire day?!); this is aside from the fact that the Jasenovac camp system was created as a labour-industrial complex, so the senseless slaughter of the potential work-force would be counter-productive to say the least. Jasenovac was not a nice place, and thousands died in miserable circumstances, but claims of this kind (i.e. "1,360 killed in 24 hours") are simply an insult to the victims - it is as if the dead are not worthy of sympathy and the criminals not guilty enough if the sufferings or the excesses are not exaggerrated a thousandfold.

Regards,

Allen/

(Allen Milcic)

I couldn't agree more... --Joy [shallot] 10:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The entry for this person on the infamous former list Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy was:

BRZICA, PETAR: Catholic cleric from the monastery of Siroki Brijeg. Member of the 'Great Brotherhood of Crusaders.' This notorious 'King of the Killers.' won a contest held in Jasenovac based on who could kill the most Serbs in the shortest period of time. Fr. Brzica won. In the course of the night of Auqust 29. 1942, he cut the throats of 1,350 people with his own hands.

FWIW. --Joy [shallot] 10:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Petar Brzica anecdote is indeed quite curious. For one thing, 1,360 single-handed murders with a knife is, to say the least, excessive. But there isn't much available regarding Brzica, and what is available appears to lack some consistency. Online, he appears variously as Petar Brzica, Peter Brzica, Pero Brzica and Pero Bnica. As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, "brz" in Croatian means "quick," so perhaps this is a pseudonym?

The primary sources for this story (at least as far as I've seen) appear to be:

• Karlheinz Deschner, With God and Furher (pp. 280-281)
• Novo svestenomucenici i mucitelji Pravoslavne crkve u pravoslavnom srpskom narodu. Published by: "Svetigora", Cetinje, 2000, Pages: 59-63.
• Milan Bulajic, The Role of the Vatican in the Break-Up of the Yugoslav State (pp. 41-42)
• Howard Blum, Wanted: The Search for Nazis in America. Greenwich CT: Fawcett Books, 1977

The Blum text is the one that alleges (link removed by spam filter).

One of those sites provides a little more background into how the story was transmitted - the originator of the story was Mile Fraganovic, who took part in the bet. Fraganovic tortured and killed a prisoner named Vukasin, but as the story goes:

... After this [Fraganovic] went mad and later told Dr. Neda Zec in hospital about this accout, who later wrote about this occurance(sic) with old man Vukasin.

So perhaps the Brzica story is a wildly exaggerated retelling by a mass murderer suffering from PTSD, or an invention, or an urban legend, or a real war criminal and fugitive. Do correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Prestonmarkstone 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that "Pero" is a pet form of "Petar" (forgive my ignorance). Prestonmarkstone 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The linx

I've glanced on these Jasenovac cc linx. Well- they are a welter of relatively reliable sources and Serbian chauvinist, anti-Croat crap. I've divided them into two groups. Opinions welcomed. Mir Harven 12:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm...on the other hand, this division of linx is a bit arbitrary. Different titles for ext. linx ? Other options ? Ideas ? Mir Harven 07:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked over the list. arhivrs.org can be reinstated, they carry pictures.

Kosta Brandic's page is mainly propagandist (cf. intro).

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust quotes are carried by jasenovac.org, wiesenthal.org, srpska-mreza.com, and the main flaw of that text seems to be the inflated victim estimate, but the rest seems okay.

Further on that, that is ISBN 0028645278 and it's been published by MacMillan in 1995. I don't think any of those full reprints are actually legal!

pavelicpapers.com carries a small excerpt as well, btw.

--Joy [shallot]

jasenovac.org does, however, have another flaw in that it still carries a 2000-dated text saying Today Jasenovac is located in the newly created state of Croatia, whose government has vandalized the site and refused to acknowledge the horrors that took place there. the latter part of which is patently wrong. There are other debatable statements in that pamphlet as well.

User:Oldadamml has since added Jasenovac Research Institute link

I wonder if there's any rationale? The last time I was there I didn't see much on that whole site that was interesting for the encyclopedia other than their copyvio EoC quote. Now I notice they have a victim list - wonder from which source. --Joy [shallot] 08:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

srpska-mreza.com is otherwise, well, crap, so I'd prefer not to give them any space whatsoever and get the EH information from elsewhere.

"Serbian scholar, in S.F. ..." is a newspaper-like interview with Milan Bulajic, I fail to see the relevance and importance overall (it rehashes some issues that are already fairly clear and rants about others), so I'm moving it here.

• Jewish Bulletin: Serbian scholar sheds light on "Balkan Auschwitz"

Lord of the Danse Macabre is more of an essay, but I think it's worth keeping. I read most of it at one point, and I don't remember any major flaws - refresh my memory?

I still haven't read jasenovac.info well enough, but it looks promising too.

--Joy [shallot] 08:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regard to pavelicpapers.com, its archive of documents is actually useful, but it's the intro commentary that tends to be propagandistic. I have exchanged some mail with Cali Ruchala over some of the intro text over there and he's been fairly responsive about fixing it, and implied that it was Siniša Đurić who added the biased comments. I think that this could be fixed up fairly well. --Joy [shallot] 09:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be as it may- pavelicpapers, suc.org, jasenovac.org are very explicitly propagandist & "delusional". They are controversial (and this is under-understatement). Maybe there is a better way to group such sites (a more appropriate title, or a brief comment near each and every). The fact that they contain many reliable info is not a very convincing argument: for instance, the material available on http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/open.htm is more than 90% true & correct (and, btw, interesting). Nevertheless- this site is a rather obvious anti-Semitic propaganda. Mir Harven 12:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but, from what I've read (at least, parts of)- this "Enclyclopedia.." is crap. Just like Britannica's 1911the edition brimming with racialist, pseudo-Darwinist rubbish on blacks/Negroes. Nay, this is controversial. Mir Harven 17:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It might be advisable to verify if all the links match the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:External links. There could be grounds for a non-controversial removal of some of the more controversial ones. --Joy [shallot] 13:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I received this page by Google alerts, and after what I read here I couldn't resist the urge to react. User under the nickname Shallot claims to have discussed something with Cali Ruchala about introductory texts to documents on pavelicpapers. He claims that my name was mentioned as the author of some biased comments. This is simply not true because my name was not discussed in the corespondence, but what I would like to know what biased comments do you think I wrote? Please be specific, because you claim that something needs to be fixed, and I can tell you that if there's anything incorrect I wrote that you can point to, it will indeed be fixed, though I doubt you'll be able to find that sort of an error.

I'd paste the correspondence here but obviously I don't have the other person's permission. It followed from a mail I sent to editors@pavelicpapers.com on the 19th of February, 2005. I complained about how Ivan Merz's name was being dragged through the dirt in the introductory texts without corroboration, and this was corrected by Cali Ruchala. He stated later that he doesn't really know that much about Merz as it doesn't interest him. From this I concluded that it must have been some other editor who was responsible for those flawed intros. --Joy [shallot] 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

Apparently, from what you concluded you considered it to be sufficient to denounce me here by my name as some evil force behind the pavelicpapers website. This sort of thing occurs in other discussions and actual articles on Wikipedia, because we are associated there with websites and projects we have nothing to do with, and there are even conspiracy theories that the Serbian Unity Congress, Jewish organizations or whatever are behind the whole thing. Nobody funds us, but I guess that you may find hard to believe, or that we have nothing to do with any Serbian or Jewish organizations. Obviously the issue here is that I'm a Serb (though my full name might as well be Croatian), and since you can't dig out any dirt on Cali Ruchala, who alone created the website, and since you can't accuse him of anything, you concentrate your attention on the Serb in the project as a proof of some secret agenda. This is typical, since no criticism can be addressed for the content of the project, it is necessary to denounce someone who presented the documents.

Look, if there's one editor saying he doesn't have interest in a subject, and the text is written, and there is one other editor listed, it's logical to conclude who wrote the damn text. If you wish to chastize me for using common sense, feel free, but it's still silly.

If it makes any difference - I apologize for naming you as the author of something you did not write, I did not know the exact circumstances and jumped to a conclusion.

I've no idea where you see that *I* accused you of anything like SUC or whatever, that I was "digging dirt" on Cali Ruchala or that I see an agenda or whatever. If anything, I have shown good faith by saying that what I perceive as issues with your web site "could be fixed fairly well". That's a verbatim quote from the above, so kindly lay off the crack pipe.

--Joy [shallot] 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

I didn't mention that you personally made the SUC accusation. The other things I mentioned can be read on various Wikipedia discussions, I didn't imply either that you personally make such comments, but that your last comment was similar to that sort of thing. The point is that you immediately assumed that it was me who writes "biased" and "propagandistic" introductions, and felt the need to tell it to the whole world, even though none of the things you said are true. Can you blame me for thinking it's on national basis, even though it may not be so? So you can say here any nonsense about anyone, and it's preposterous if I complain, but if I present a document of a Catholic priest saying something about a layman of his church, you jump complaining how it's a libel. So my reaction is out of line, but your wasn't. Strange. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 4 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

The slight bit of difference here is that I'm writing comments on a clearly marked discussion page and signing and dating them, making it clear that it is just poor ol' me who's saying it - and that means when I say that you did something, it's clearly hearsay. On the other hand, your interpretation of those documents on the web site is marked as "independent research of the history of the Ustaša movement" - and that's usually said when one is presenting the truth. That's why I'm more likely to raise an eyebrow at too much opinion in that. --Joy [shallot] 4 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. You didn't even complain about anything that was written in the intro about the document, you complained of what was not written, that is that Merz is associated with Ustase with no evidence. In the introduction no association was made, but in the document itself written by a Catholic priest. So you're complaining that we should correct something someone else said in a document we presented, that was his opinion, and if we think it's reliable then the only thing you can do is to try to refute this opinion of his. You haven't done that. Your argument would then be that the Catholic priest was either lying or exaggerating (correct me if I'm wrong). So you're criticizing the person who presented the document as a malicious claim, not the person who actually made the association of Merz with the Ustase. That is why I think your arguments in this case are unjustified. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 5 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but you're still advertizing the opinion of some Ustaša without providing information that would justify it. --Joy [shallot]

Your comments about flaws in this introductory text are also far from truth. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) you complain about the fact that it wasn't noted in the introduction that Ivan Merz was not alive during the NDH, which in your understanding is a form of a slander. But even in this little objection you are not right. If you would read the document itself more carefully, and there's really very little there to read unless you have problems with concentration, you would see that it is mentioned there "the late Dr. Ivan Merz" which means that he was not alive in April 1941, therefore neither during the NDH. So why would one need to especially point to this fact in the introduction as you demanded?

Let me paste what I wrote to Cali Ruchala:

Possible controversy of the Pope visiting Petricevac really has little to do with Ivan Merz, so mentioning him in the context of mass murder etc looks like nothing other than dragging his name through the mud. Just because some Ustase or their sympathisers thought that he was "radically Croatian" that doesn't make it right to link him just so unequivocally to what someone else did over a decade after he was dead.

--Joy [shallot] 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

How much do you know about Merz and his Eagles? I assume you know that there was a Pan-Slavic youth organization called Sokolovi or Falkons, so since the Vatican considered Pan-Slavism a dangerous thing they decided to found their own youth movement called Orlovi or Eagles, as a counterpart. The movement was exceptionally intolerant and it professed hatred towards any Slavic idea and against non-Catholics. Essentially it was founded to undermine the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and produce strife among its peoples. After Merz's death it was banned.

Really? That would indeed be grave issues. However, I'd like to see the text first. I just reread the pavelicpapers.com intro text about Stepinac and the associated documents, and I can't help but notice that the intro overall has a too negative interpretation without much evidence. Just like the overall interpretation by the Catholic Church is too positive without much evidence. So I'd prefer to see the documentation on Merz, too. --Joy [shallot] 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I'm glad you say that. The amount of documents that can be presented is only the matter of available spare time we have. It will take years to translate all documents we have. The document you're complaining about comes from a book Magnum Crimen by Viktor Novak (not Vjenceslav as mentioned here on Wikipedia).

(Will fix, didn't notice. --Joy [shallot])

The book has 1124 pages. So you see that book alone may take quite some time to present in English, aside from all other things. You may read the book in Croatia, I think the library of Matica Hrvatska has one or more copies (the book was banned by the Communist regime as well as by the Vatican), or you can buy it online for 130 euros. The claims made in the book are irrefutable, because Dr. Novak has invested quite an effort to verify all his claims by documents of those whom he criticized. There are also two chapters that were censored even before the book was published, so that will be presented as well. The chapter from where the document comes from is translated and it will be presented soon (there are other references to Merz, Eagles and Crusaders in other chapters). I think that after you read the book (or at least the parts we will present soon), you will change your opinion. So I am glad at least that you're keeping an open mind in this regard, which means that my first impression of you was wrong. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 5 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

However, the Catholic church kept the organization but renamed it to Crusaders, who, as you will see, became one of the pillars of the Ustase regime. So Merz didn't kill anyone, he didn't personally hurt anyone. But as the first leader of this organization he is responsible for it's program and activities, which according to an official organ of the Church - was in tune with the program of the Ustase. The fact that his associate. Dr. Ivo Protulipac joined the Ustase, mentioning on various rallies how Merz always professed radical Croatian ideas, is very relevant. And soon the whole chapter of the book will be published, so

you will see what sort of ideas they professed. You'll have a lot more things to complain about. The controversy is that the Pope chose to beatify this person in a place with 90 % Serbian population, which was understood as a provocation along with the Petricevac story. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 4 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

As for your claim that Ivan Merz is being dragged through the dirt with no evidence, you're not right about that either. As you can see, the document was written by a Catholic priest, an associate of the Archbishop of Sarajevo, and an editor of an official Catholic paper of the Archbishopric. It says there that the spiritual program of Merz's organization was spiritually coherent with the program of the Ustase. And the vast majority of members of Eagles, subsequently renamed to Crusaders, became sworn Ustase. How is anything on that page "flawed" then, as you claim? You seem by far more intelligent and different than characters like Mir_Harven or gen. Paton, so ask yourself isn't this sort of stuff beneath you? Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 3 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Cali also made a similar argument. I responded with:

But that's hardly important. It's as if some Scotland-hater made remarks about how Alfred the Great was the best thing after sliced bread for making England a kingdom, and then you quote them as saying "article by Foo Bar praising the expansion done by Alfred the Great's England as in being in line with the program of 'Scotland sucks - British Empire owns' hate group". Sure, Alfred is tangentially relevant to the hate group, but is it really a proper and/or useful description?

(In retrospect, the timeframe doesn't actually fit in this analogy, but that's not really a problem.)

So, if there is something actually wrong that this guy Merz did, please state so, don't insinuate or beat around the bush.

I should note that we had a brief discussion about this already at Talk:Ustase#Merz.27s_Eagles and I used the same argument at Talk:Vladimir Žerjavic. This is the Wikipedia NPOV policy. --Joy [shallot] 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

One other thing about the comment of the user Mir_Harven. He compares the website pavelicpapers.com to anti-Semitic sites. Please clarify this (prove it). I find it amusing that a person like Mir_Harven who is a pathological anti-Semite (I can prove it) and a denier of Jewish Holocaust (I can prove that too with his own words) is comparing us to anti-Semites, even though he previously wrote that we are funded by Zionists who inflate the number of Jewish Holocaust victims. It seems that Mr. Mir_Harven, just like some of his favorite politicians, says one thing in English, but completely opposite for the home crowd in Croatian. And if the website in your own words (of both you) contains reliable info, what's the problem with it then? Perhaps my "biased" introductory texts, even though I wrote only one?

I reacted because you mentioned an untruth about me here that many people may read, and the purpose of my reaction is not to participate in any Wikipedia activities or editing of articles, but to cut you two guys to your size, since you've been poisoning this place for quite some time.

Sinisa Djuric [1] -- 2 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

It's not been often that my edits were described as those of Mir Harven, especially not as "poisoning"; ask the random readers for an assessment and you'll see that I'm quite often the mediator, and disliked by nationalists from all sides. And you're accusing *me* of drawing conclusions according to nationality? Sorry if this sounds overly confrontational - but I'm really tired of this kind of irrational discussion. --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Any shrink in the vicinity ?

My, my...what a load of Serbian propagandist crap. Since my name is mentioned here, a few things gotta be said:

• Viktor Novak was a renagade Croat, Yugoslav mason & anti-Catholic pamphleteer. His works (Magnum Crimen, Vuk i Hrvati, Magnum Tempus,..) are pure & unadulterated rubbish no serious historian mentions any time- except as an example of biased and rather crude propaganda. His work is not a part of curriculum in any Croatian university, nor anywhere in the world. Except (I guess) in Serbia, where «luminaries» like Vasilije Krestic set the tunes:http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23806913658146

The term "renegade" implies that Viktor Novak became something else other than a Croat, which is nonsense. In your deranged mind a Croat person who writes against the Ustase at the same time stops being a Croat. Novak was a student of the most eminent Croatian historian Ferdo Sisic (he was Novak's mentor), he is also the author of several capital works on Croatian history, particularly Illyrism and bishop Strossmayer. The fact that any of his books are not cited at Croatian universities tells more about modern Croatian universities, rather than about Viktor Novak. Regarding the claim that he was an anti-Catholic writer - Novak was actually a Vatican student of paleography, and among the most eminent paleographers in Europe of his time, he never criticized any aspects of Catholic faith, but specific activities of Catholic clergy and their supreme hierarchy in the Vatican, therefore his works have nothing to do with books against Catholic faith. The accusation that he was a mason is typical for Ustase literature, but it is characteristic that this was never substantiated by any sort of evidence. And what if he was a mason, how would that discredit his work? Perhaps you could point me to a single serious criticism of Novak's books? It is typical for your sort of people

to defame an author, rather than criticize his work. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 7 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

• as for my alleged anti-Semitism (hm...how odd/of God/to choose/the Jews), my opinion on the Jewish chauvinism & detestable figures like Simon Wiesenthal or Efraim Zuroff is clear: these are examples of deranged chauvinist pathology. The same goes for the site pavelicpapers and similar propagandist rubbish. I'll repeat: I loathe Jewish chauvinism as exemplified in figures like Wiesenthal or Zuroff, and I find the Nobel peace-prize winner Elie Wiesel a laughable charlatan (this goes for a few other Nobel peace winners- Jimmy Carter could be a nice specimen). Also- I despise the Holocaust industry & agree with Norman Finkelstein on this matter, say, 80%. But- I doubt that the Jewish population (ca. 13-14 M in the planet), religion & history can be reduced to the obsessions of three of four names & their ideological lapdogs' rants.

Alleged anti-Semitism? Read your own words. You talk about an inflated number of Jewish Holocaust victims which means you deny the official numbers, that's definitely an anti-Semitic remark, aside from accusing the head of the Wiesenthal center of being a Jewish chauvinist. The irony is that a person like you edits Holocaust pages on Wikipedia. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 7 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

• the user Djuric (he's not a user, but, what the heck..) has got his own troubles with Serbian chauvinist poison. It's OK with me. Other peoples' ailments are their business. But- this splash of bile on Ivan Merz & other looney associations are not proper stuff for wikipedia. The wikipedia project is imagined to be a source of information & not a field for free play of associations based on junk historiography (Viktor Novak) and Serbian paranoia.Mir Harven 7 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)

I haven't edited any articles nor I intend to. One of the reasons I reacted here was the nonsense you keep writing here about our Holocaust project. You have stated on a number of occasions that you will delete any links to websites you don't like. This means you have a serious problem with a difference of opinion, therefore with Wikipedia policies as well. You also promote Nazis and their ideology on Wikipedia, such as Mile Budak. I haven't seen an example of my chauvinist poison, neither the proof for comparison with anti-Semites mentioned by you previously. It would be fair to clarify these issues. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 7 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

[edit] Boring propaganda

I suppose the intention behind the reply on the comments regarding Greater Serbian numerology & a few Jewish chauvinist propagandists was to start a staircase-like bickering on the topics mentioned. Well- it won't happen.

• Viktor Novak was primarily an anti-Catholic pamphleteer whose voluminous invectives don't (and didn't) deserve inclusion in the university curricula anywhere in the world. The user Djuric's comment on the impartiality & professional credibility of the contemporary Croatian universities is simply a testimony of Serbian chauvinist indoctrination & anti-Croat lunacy. Novak's pamphleteering is ignored everywhere (except in Serbia). His writings (the only exception is the edition of a paleographic work, the 11th century Supetar cartular which he co-edited with the linguist Petar Skok) have been treated as pieces of pro-Serbian propaganda ever since their appearance & have never been a part of Croatian universities curricula, not even during the era of communist SFRJ. Casual remarks on the various sites show exactly this:

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_feb98/surmanci.html «...The history of Yugoslavia, one quickly learns, is not something for those interested in a quick read. The more one delves into the issue, the more one comes away with the impression that there is no such thing as an impartial history of the region, certainly not during the period surrounding World War II. Parris, who is no exception to this rule, also claims that two priests took part in the massacre at Surmanci, one of whom also has a familiar name. Marko Zovko, it turns out, was a priest, but not a Franciscan like the more famous Jozo Zovko, the man who, in many ways, created the Medjugorje apparitions. Marko Zovko was the secretary to Bishop Cule, Misic’s successor. I learn this from the current Bishop of Mostar, Ratko Peric, who traces the Parris citation to Viktor Novak’s book Magnum Crimen, which was written to accompany Tito’s 1946 show trials. The purpose of both the book and the trials was to implicate the Church in the crimes of the Ustashe. As a result, Novak’s book has to be viewed with caution. This is the verdict not only of the current bishop of Mostar, but also Serb scholars as well. Miro Todorovich, editor of Measure, said no one, referring to the Serbs he knew, was willing to put his hand in the fire over Novak’s book. Srdja Trifkovic, also a Serb, who now teaches at Rose Hill College, an orthodox college in South Carolina, sees Magnum Crimen as “an attack on the role of the Catholic Church in Croatia, which Novak saw as the moving spirit behind the Ustasa atrocities.” When Serb nationalism reawoke in 1988, a reissue of Magnum Crimen was a huge best-seller in Belgrade despite the book’s high price. Bogdan Krizman called it, nonetheless, “a prominent Freemason’s settling of scores with the clericals.” Trifkovic has similarly unflattering things to say about Edmund Parris, claiming that his book Genocide in Satellite Croatia was ghost-written by Branko Miljus, a Serb emigre publicist, and dismisses Parris otherwise as the author of “several theological tracts critical of Roman Catholicism.»

It would be hard to include a book that hasn't been translated into English as a part of literature at Oxford or Yale for instance, but don't worry, soon that will change as well. This document for instance is interesting enough to be included in literature at Oxford university, and when Magnum Crimen is translated in its entirety, it will be interesting as well, because people will be able to judge it when they actually read it, not by other peoples' interpretations. Soon parts of the book will be available in English, and it will be interesting to hear you dispute anything that was written there. And again you don't judge the book itself, but the author trying to defame him. If the book was written to accompany the 1946 show trials (although it was published two years later), why did the Communists then ban the book? This certainly doesn't add up and contradicts your arguments. Quite simply you are attempting to defame and slander an author with outright fabrications, thereby his work as well, as I will demonstrate below, demolishing your case entirely. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Usual Serbian crap. And they, in their self-deluded fanaticism, think that Novak's rubbish will alter any rational person's perception on anything ? Propagandists shitload galore had been translated into English- and, what ? Krestic, the SANU Memorandum, books by Dedijer & Smilja Avramov, etc. itd. And ? Btw- Novak's rubbish has been available in SFRJ all the time: I've read it during ex-Yu period. Geez...Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly. The book was banned in 1948, but it was reprinted in 1986. I doubt that you read the book. As for your dimissal of the book, there are other publications to corroborate everything that was written there. For instance, we will also publish parts of the Ciano diary which corroborates everything Novak wrote in chapter XVI. You may also want to read "Dokumenti o protunarodnom radu jednog dijela katolickog klera", Zagreb 1946, which is filled with documents. And we will see when the book is published in English, how will anyone be able to dispute any documents published in it (živi bili, pa vidjeli). Sinisa Djuric

And, I guess, this verbal diarrhea should be addressed point by point ? No way. Inadvertently, the author has unmasked himself: the Ciano diaries, a Fascist "meditation" full of inconsistencies will, I have no doubt, have been a worthy companion to Novak's ramblings. As are Communist pamphlets published during the preparation of Stepinac's monster trial. I look forward to another display of Serbian mental disease. As for Novak's books- this crap was available in Croatian local libraries during the Titoist era. What sickos. They probably believe their own imaginings....Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, conte Ciano wrote about his allies, namely Ante Pavelic and Vlatko Macek. I'm sure you'll find it interesting. You are certainly not someone who can judge whether it's reliable or not in that regard. As for Novak's book being available in Croatian libraries, this is something you can't prove, perhaps you can find a copy of a single book that was published prior to 1986. Actually in the 1986 edition you can read a preface by Jakov Blazevic (you know who that is) who specifically said that the book was banned by Yugoslav authorities. There's only the word of yourself to the contrary, a pathological anti-Semite/neo-Ustase Mile Budak fan/ Holocaust denier and an infantile mental case. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Or- http://www.hr/darko/etf/et112.html «On the other hand (also without precedent in the history of WW2), three months later, August 13, 1941, "An appeal to Serbian people" was signed by 545 leading Serbian intellectuals in Belgrade, including four archbishops, at least 81 university professors, artsits, etc. Two of the best known intellectuals are Aleksandar Belich, a linguist, one of the "scientific" founders of Greater Serbian programme, and Viktor Novak, who became ardent communist after 1945, and wrote a voluminous Magnum Crimen accusing the Catholic Church and Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac for "collaboration with ustashis" (its "reliability" is well known; of course, his books are extensively cited by Serbian sources).»

• So much for Viktor Novak.

Not if I can help it. You have no idea how glad I am that you pasted the above paragraph. The author of the mentioned "appeal to Serbian people" was one Milan Acimovic, the right had man of Serbian Nazi leader Dimitrije Ljotic, and the head of the puppet government in Serbia. In the time this "appeal" was written, and when you claim that it was signed by Viktor Novak and other prominent people, Viktor Novak was actually imprisoned in the Gestapo prison in Belgrade, in Aleksandrova street No. 10, from where he was later sent to concentration camp Banjica. So you have the nerve to claim that a man who was a Gestapo prisoner and Nazi concentration camp inmate signed an appeal in support of the Nazis! A really unprecedented defamation technique. This also gives a clue about other "signatories", many of whom were also prisoners of the Gestapo. The Germans themselves weren't impressed by Acimovic's performance, so they soon after this "appeal" they sacked him and appointed Milan Nedic as the head of the puppet government (btw, how come they haven't done this with Pavelic?). They also brought four reinforcement divisions (1 from Germany and 3 from France) to suppress the uprising in Serbia, which says enough about whatever you were trying to prove with the mentioned appeal (oh, and btw, how many German divisions were in Croatia at that time?). So much about your "appeal" and slander against Novak that he was a Nazi supporter.

Novak was a signatory of this appeal, whatever his (passing) troubles with the Gestapo might had been. As for other rubbish on German divisions etc.- enough to say that anti-German uprising in Serbia was crushed very effectively in 1941. & Serbs were timid until liberated in the mid-1944. But, this is not the place for jabber on WW2 & leitmotives of Serbian paranoia (this has been tackled elsewhere: http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/ww2.html). These people, seems to me, are not able to stick to the subject. Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You really are unbelievable. Novak was one of the first ten citizens of Belgrade who were arrested by the Gestapo already in April 1941, and most of the war he spent in the Gestapo prison and in the Banjica concentration camp. Only in your deranged Ustase mind a person can be imprisoned and tortured by the Gestapo and at the same time support the Nazis. The reason they arrested him in the first place is that he wrote against the Hitlerites even before they invaded Yugoslavia. You neo-Ustase simply don't refrain from any sort of defamation to defend your positions. That will change when the book is published and you will not be able to refute a single word in it. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 18:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see- only in "deranged Ustase mind", combined with lies on Novak's status during WW2. Hm...really, to lose an expansionist war must hurt. Mucho, mucho. Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I really feel like I'm dealing with a 33-year old man with a mind of a 12 year old. Only that explains your infantile rant and your idiotic explanations of everything as "Serbian lies", everything I said can be verified, and will be verified. When that is done, the only thing you'll be able to do is to rant here on Wikipedia or with your pals at http://www.crnalegija.com. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

But you don't stop there, you have to claim that Novak became "ardent communist after 1945", of course after being a Nazi supporter (in your deranged mind). But your stupidity is only surpassed by your ignorance - Novak was never a member of the Communist party, and it would be interesting to hear your explanation why did the Communists ban Novak's book, since you claim that the book was a part of Communist propaganda and Novak a Communist propagandist and a free mason? It's simple - you haven't read the book, you barely know anything about it, so since you're not capable of criticising anything that was written there, in a real Stalinist manner you cite a web of elaborate fabrications (as demonstrated above) to defame an author and everything he wrote, even though his work consists more of documents rather than his own words. So much about Viktor Novak and so much about your deranged neo-Ustase mind. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Novak was a member of the SANU during the Communist Yugoslavia period and his books had never been banned. Simply a Serbian lie. Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It was banned by the Ministry of Interior of Croatia. It's irrefutable. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 18:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Republics' ministries had no authority to ban books. Moronism easily exposed. Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You'll be able to read two chapters that were censored by the Ministry of Interior of Croatia even before the book was published. Just don't tell me you were able to read these chapters as well during the entire Communist rule in Yugoslavia. Subsequently the book was banned on the entire territory of Yugoslavia as a work against "brotherhood and unity", even though that's what the book advocated in the first place. As for Novak being a member of SANU, yes he was, he was the founder of the historical institute of SANU, but as you may know there were scores of other Croats who were members of SANU (even Krleza was a honorary member). Besides, SANU itself was founded by a Croat scientist named Josip Pancic. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• as for «anti-Semitism» tag, things are clear: number of Serbian casualties is inflated, not Jewish. As accepted by all rational people around the globe- the number of Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide is somewhere between 4.5 M and 6 M, the figure most frequently quoted ca. 5.5 M. The fact that a few Jewish chauvinists like Simon Wiesenthal (a charlatan catapulted into orbit of global prominence by one or two Hollywood movies) & the heir to the throne of martyrological mythology Efraim Zuroff harp on imagined Croatian (Belarussian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian,..) «historical guilt» endlessly- means nothing. They are plain haters of Croats, Ukrainians, Lithuanians,... (take a pick) & their chauvinist paranoias are exposed elsewhere (for instance, Wiesenthal's despicable defamation of Ukrainians has been unmasked long since- http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1986/188613.shtml , plus numerous other sources available on the Internet).

Oh? To quote you from above "number of Serbian casualties is inflated, not Jewish". But what do you write here in Croatian: "...similar to Efraim Zuroff, the director of the Wiesenthal Center - another chauvinist pathology with an inflation of Jewish victims..." This is the real you, these are your words, your ilk always says one thing in English and the opposite in Croatian. How is that called here on Wikipedia? Perhaps the word is propaganda, no? Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat ? Zuroff is a Jewish chauvinist sicko & his dabbling in the number of victims in ex-Yu is pure & unadulterated crap. This goes for Wiesnthal centre and the number of victims they "advertise". The number of Jewish victims in the Jasenovac cc is inflated in Zuroff's propagandist warfare: the only reliable stuff on Jasenovac cc number of victims is the list that has cca. 56.000-57.000 names on it. Everything else is a speculation-but the speculation has limits: rational analysis shows that the overall count of victims in Jasenovac cc is somewhere between 60 and 80.000- while Zuroffs of this world would like, in their sick minds, to "push the limit" (out of the blue, just like that) to 100.000 and more. Now- this is a political-propagandist pornography, very similar to the "endeavors" of Milan Bulajic & comp. Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat your own words for you "another chauvinist pathology with an inflation of the number Jewish victims...". This is what you write in Croatian, but avoid commenting it in English when you are unmasked. You specifically said that the number of Jewish victims is inflated, which is certainly a reference to the entire Holocaust, since it would be incredible that you think that the number of 33 000 murdered Jews from the NDH is inflated. Can you deny your own words? Regarding Jasenovac, the list of some 80 000 victims has been reviewed several times and verified, that's certainly not a speculation and it's definitely higher than 57 000 from the 1963-64 census. Besides, the list from 1964 is available on the internet, and even many Croats couldn't find their relatives on it (myself as well). Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yawn....Zuroff has tried to skyrocket the number of Jewish victims in Jasenovac cc and Croatia in general. As I said-he is a Jewish chauvinist sicko. Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You can yawn all you like, but that won't change back your words, which now you are trying to deny. Not even Franjo Tudjman disputed the number of Jews murdered in the NDH, but evidently you think that can be done. Your words as quoted above are pretty clear, and evidently a reference to all Jewish victims of Holocaust. Aside from being an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier, you are also a neo-Ustase who is trying to rehabilitate the author of Racial Lawsin the NDH, Mile Budak, the laws even more drastic the those from Nuremberg. This last thing you seem to be very proud of as you announced your article that would rehabilitate Budak as a victim of greater Serbia and the Communists. Your credibility is zero. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Concerning the number of casualties during WW 2 in ex-Yugoslavia along ethnic lines is well established by Vladimir Zerjavic- whatever the likes of Zuroff or Wiesenthal may think & feel about it. Regarding Croatian writer Mile Budak: he is a victim of Yugoslav communist terror whose participation in the NDH regime wasn't anything one should be proud of-but he certainly was not a war criminal, unlike mass murderers Tito or Draža Mihailovic. Or, if the burden of culpability were to be judged impartially- Harry Truman or Winston Churchill. Despite hysterical propaganda against the cardinal Stepinac, the truth has come out. Budak's case, although different in not few traits, will certainly undergo historical reassessment in the future.

This is an important and broad subject that I don't have the time to discuss here, nor to argue with someone like you about it.

Aha. How predictable. Yawn...Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

But I can say one thing - if we take for granted that the Communists inflated the total number of causalties in Yugoslavia, does that automatically mean that Vladimir Zerjavic's numbers are correct, and that they cannot be disputed, that they should be regarded as a holy scripture on the subject? If we know that the number of 750 000 Serbs killed in the NDH is not correct, neither the number of 750 000 in Jasenovac, does that mean that Tudjman's or Zerjavic's numbers are automatically correct, and cannot be disputed? I'm asking this because I found errors and misleading data in Zerjavic's work, while Zerjavic himself found capital errors in Kocovic's work, but that didn't bother him to continue to verify his data with Kocovic's.

Yawn...Žerjavic is, for the time being, the most reliable source accepted everywhere around the globe. If/when his figures are corrected, that will happen as the result of serious historical & demographic analysis- and not as the "fruit" of obsessions stemming from Greater Serbia propaganda. Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reason Zerjavic has even the least of credibility is the fact that unlike Tudjman, he didn't apply his methods to Holocaust as a whole, even though that can be done, and it wouldn't look too good for him. Hell, you can do it yourself. What is Zerjavic's briliant "serious" scientific method? - add 27-31 % to the number of accountable victims and that's basically it. So on Tudjman's number of 900 000 for the Jewish victims of Holocaust (he cited Raul Hilberg regarding these numbers, as prof. Josip Pecaric keeps repeating) you just add 27-31% and there you have Zerjavic's methods applied to the entire Holocaust. Mind the fact that Yad Vashem recorded 3 million names of Jewish victims, for Tudjman these were not reliable, just like 80 000 names collected for Jasenovac are not reliable for you. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are 59.000 victims in the Jasenovac -Gradina cc, not 80.0000 (if anyone considers Milan Bulajic seriously, they must be bonkers). As for Tudjman and Jewish victims- he never concluded that 900.000 Jews were murdered during WW2, but quoted estimates that range from 4.2 M upwards to show unreliability of such estimates. Onother Serbian misfire, I guess. http://www.jusp-jasenovac.hr/logor_en.php, http://www.bhdani.com/default.asp?kat=kol&broj_id=322&tekst_rb=7 Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You may look for interviews of Slavko Goldstein, who stated that the list has been revised and that it may be considered as credible. You also may have seen his interview with Aleksandar Stankovic from a couple of months ago, again stating this fact. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Another thing about the work of both of them, Kocovic honestly pointed out in the beginning of his work that his calculations are a middle value of the highest possible number and the lowest possible number, therefore it cannot be presented as "nit picking accurate" as some do. I won't discuss this here any further.

Interesting. Both Žerjavic and Kocovic have come to the figures that are actually much higher than those collected in the ex-Yu. It is much more probable that these figures are also inflated, as were those re war in Bosnia 1991-1995. Just, for the time being- these are the accepted figures. Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You can actually find the list from 1964 on the internet. The list contains 647 000 names. It's been proven that the list is fallacious, as in several districts in Bosnia the census was not performed, while elsewhere it was found that it lacked many names of those who were undoubtedly killed. Even Zerjavic knew this, so that's why he added the 27-31%. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aha, conspiracy. From funny to hilarious. Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? I merely said the list is incomplete, if you don't believe it, you can read Zerjavic's writings, where he too mentioned this fact. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Budak, again you proudly reveal your true face, perhaps some German would have similar things to say about Goebbels, but not many would do it as openly as you do. This term "historical reassessment" you're talking about is merely a euphemism for Holocaust Denial. Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Boring & inconsistent. First, I'm "hiding" something. I'm duplicitous. Then, I proudly reveal my true face. Well, pull yourself together. The days of Greater Serbia are over. I don't think there is much to discuss here: Novak is exposed, as are chauvinist, anti-Croat (Ukrainian, Balt,..) escapades of Wiesenthal & Zuroff and Serbian dabbling with numerology. Enuf. Mir Harven 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who is inconsistent. You say one thing in Croatian and another in English. You still haven't explained your comment regarding the number of Jewish victims (though you said something completely opposite in English as if that was your real opinion), and you just keep ranting about Zuroff and Wiesenthal. And of course, as every self-respecting neo-Ustase, you can rationalize your every nonsense by shouting "greater Serbia". Sinisa Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Deaf ? Stupid ? Retarded ? I said: the number of Serbian casualties during WW2 was probably close to the figures established by Žerjavic. The number of Jewish casualties is close to the figure, also, but the likes of Zuroff and Goldstein try to artificially pump up the figures. As simple as that. http://www.hic.hr/dom/393/dom10.htm, http://www.hkz.hr/1705.htm Ad nauseam...Mir Harven 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the total number of Jewish victims in the NDH is identical by both Zerjavic's and Goldstein's data, as well as Zuroff's. You're just trying to rectify your statement about the Holocaust that I quoted earlier. And this persona you're now citing, Josip Pecaric, aside from rehabilitating Budak, now claims that even Pavelic tried to save the Jews. Perhaps, he too will be beatifed by the new Pope. S. Djuric --81.93.82.5 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As for this user- he's got no logical capabilities, which is evident from the muddy statements he's inundated this place with. Finis.Mir Harven 9 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm, PRO-CROATIAN EDITING

I have noticed some people undermining important info. Both Žerjavic and Kocevic had claimed that the count of death in the Independant State of Croatia is between 300,000 and 350,000. Someone had deleted that. And it was said that Franjo Tudman claimed that there were 28,000 killed in all of NDH; even though there were over 50,000 confirmed back then which was replaced with: "...even though this info was in display long before him." The changes must be done. I would consider also adding the fact that the Jewish Yugoslav population had fallen down to 20% as a result. Oh, and could you add http://www.hrvatskiustaskipokret.comto the links, please?HolyRomanEmperor 17:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with [[User:HolyRomanEmperor] that there were a lot pro-Ustasha Croatian editing and we should keep track to fight those Nazi editing. --Oldadamml 14:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

to both of you.....do the words of Dr. Harald Turner, the chief of the German civil administration in Serbia, that Belgrade is "first city of a New Europe to be Judenfrei", ring the bell!??!

“Lažemo da bi smo obmanuli sebe, da utešimo drugog; lažemo iz samilosti, da nas nije strah, da ohrabrimo, da sakrijemo svoju i tudju bedu, lažemo zbog poštenja. Lažemo zbog slobode. Laž je vid našeg patriotizma i potvrda naše urodjene inteligencije. Lažemo stvaralacki, maštovito, inventivno.” DOBRICA COSIC (Deobe I,str.135)

[edit] About Tudjman's estimates

Where does the Tudman estimate of 28000 come from? Tudman's own work Horrors of War gives an estimate of 30,000-40,000. The Franjo Tudman article of Wikipedia puts his estimate at 30,000-60,000. Does anyone have a source for the 28,000 number? It seems a little sketchy, as it's 2000 casualties less than his usual lowest estimate, and does not include any range. --Thewanderer 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In the testimonies of Slavko Goldenstein one of the 20% Yugoslav Jews sruviving the Independant State of Croatia. 212.62.33.4 12:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] == Hmm ==

Ok, who is mr Harven??? He speaks with words of total fascism, nationalist propaganda and nazism! HolyRomanEmperor 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] == Hmm ==

Ok, who is Mir Harven??? He speaks with words of total fascism, nationalist propaganda and nazism! HolyRomanEmperor 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mir Harven (a.k.a. Hroboatus) is a known Croatian Internet troll and webmaster of hercegbosna.org. Nikola 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Smolenski........looking at you profile, you don't seem to be any different than the subject of this discussion.......same shit, different colors.......

[edit] Encyclopedic fact and representation -- hogwash

This article has so many contradictions it is really funny:

For instance: " On the night of August 29, 1942, bets were made among the prison guards as to who could liquidate the largest number of inmates. One of the guards named Petar Brzica reportedly cut the throats of 1,360 prisoners with an especially designed butcher's knife (called srbosjek or Serb-cutter). Having been proclaimed the prize-winner of the competition, he was dubbed "King of the Cut-throats". A gold watch, a silver service, a roasted suckling pig, and wine were among his rewards. Historians have cast doubt on the number of inmates allegedly killed by Brzica, noting that Brzica would have had to kill 1.9 people per minute over a 12-hour period (with no breaks). "

Has really no place in the article as fact of abuse, but it really shows the fabrications that have been going on about the Jasenovac camp. For instance the super human effort required: 12 hours no break, slaughtering people machine like. Also, the other dead giveaway is the surname Brzica. Brz in the Croatian language means quick, so reall the persons name is Peter Quick, quite interesting and really co-incedental quick on the knife. Just like all people with the surname Rabbit have many children and persons with the surname Fox are sly. What an urban myth...

---

Yeah, that's an interesting interpretation I have to admit. Very nice try. Trouble is, the letter "z" in "Brzica" is pronounced "zh" as in the letter "G" in the English transliteration of the French word "Gendarme". The letter "z" in the Serbo-Croat word "Brz" (meaning "quick" or "quickly") is pronounced "z" as in the English transliteration "z" for "Zebra". So you cannot claim that your shortened version "brz" of the Croat surname "Brzica" translates to "quick" or "quickly". Nice try though. As far as "Serb nationalists" trying to "inflate the numbers of victims" as claimed by some Croat writers above, well as a matter of fact it was the Croat Ustasha officials in the NDH Independent State of Croatia themselves who were doing the "inflating" during World War 2:

"Hermann Neubacher,perhaps the most important of Hitler's troubleshooters in the Balkans,reports that although some of the perpetrators of the crime estimated the number of Serbs killed at one million, the more accurate figure is 750,000. One of Hitler's generals, Lothar Rendulic, who was in the area where the crimes were committed, estimates that in the first year of existence of the puppet state of Croatia [i.e. from April 10, 1941 to April 10,1942]at least a half million Orthodox Serbs were massacred, and that many others were killed in subsequent years." Quoted from French Roman Catholic Professor, Edmond Paris' book, "Genocide in Satellite Croatia" [The American Institute for Balkan Affairs,1962,Chicago, Illinois USA].

Take this direct quote for example from Hitler's personal assistant for South East European and Balkan affairs, Hermann Neubacher, in his book: "SonderAuftrag Suedost 1940-1945: Bericht eines fliegenden Diplomaten" [Goettingen-Berlin-Frankfurt, 1956]. On Page 31 he states:

"The Orthodox recipe of Ante Pavelic, Ustasha leader and Croatian chief, reminds one of the religious wars in their bloodiest aspects: one third must become Catholic, one third must leave the country and one third must die. The last item was executed. When the leading men of the Ustasha movement are stating that they have slaughtered one million Serbs (including infants, children, women and the aged), this in my opinion is a self-serving exaggeration. According to the reports that have reached me, my estimate is that the number of those defenseless slaughtered is some three quarter of a million".

Cheers,

Pete Robert North.

---

Mr. North, this is incorrect; the Z in Brzica has no diacritical mark, and is pronounced just like the english z. The character you are referring to is ž. Furthermore, the word brzica is defined in Željko Bujas' Croatian-English dictionary as a quickly moving storm or torrent. Challenging this story does not make anyone pro-Ustaše oe pro-nazi. If this claim is to be taken seriously, most people will demand solid documentation, which has so far not been offerred. -Mihovil

---

[edit] YOU ARE QUOTING WITH HUMAN LIVES!!!

Croat nationalists think that by decreasing the number of victims can decrease the influence of Ustashe in WWII.. Serbian nationalists think that by increasing the number of victims can decrease the influence of Chetnici in WWII..

Both Ustashe and Chetniks were on the side od Nazi Germany, and killed and tortured many... Chetniks killed Ivan Goran Kovacic, the auter of the "Jama", maybe one of the best anti-war, anti-genocide poems... He was Croat, and he was writting about Ustasha's murders and tortures of Serbs.. in he's poem criminal(KRVNIK)doesn't have a name...

Evryone knows that! But rare are those people who want to look in the history, and say: "Yes, it was done, it was horrible, I am sorry, I'll give my best to make evryone remember of those terrible crimes.."

And don't forget...

       YOU ARE QUOTING WITH HUMAN LIVES!!! 

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls

It tolls for thee

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Sir, your WW2 historical claims about the "Chetniks" (Royal Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland) being "on the side of" Nazi Germany is a BLATANT LIE as is your claim that the Royalist Yugoslav Serbs in WW2 (who you refer to as "Chetnici")were somehow equivalent to the Croat Nazi mass murderers known as the "Ustasha" who ran the Jasenovac death camp where hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, Roma & anti-Nazi Croats were brutally murdered in the most sadistic manner. To equate the Croat Ustasha with the Royalist Yugoslav Serbs [Chetniks] is an example of the highest level of "honesty" one can expect from the pro-Ustasha Nazi crowd here on Wikipedia.

See Baron Avro Manhattan's book: "The Vatican's Holocaust"

http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html

See: Sir David Martin's book: "The Web of Disinformation: Churchill's Yugoslav Blunder"

http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Balkan/Jan1995.htm

See Sir Michael Lee's book: "The Rape of Serbia"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DE1E30F933A25751C0A967958260

Regards,

Pete Robert North.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also the contrary, Serbian nationalists are inflating the number in order to show proof that the Croatian nation as a whole is genocidal, and to have a claim that any Croatian government is a perpetuation of NDH, therefore of genocide. No one will know the real truth about the victims, how many were there but stating that 500.000 or 700.000 to 1.2 mil perished in the Jasenovac are a fabrication. If only 1 person perished under the circumstances of cruelty etc it is too many.

---

is this a joke?! Peter North!?!

[edit] Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, Jerusalem

"Largest concentration and extermination camp in Croatia, located 62 miles south of Zagreb. Jasenovac, which was actually a network of several subcamps, was established in August 1941 and dissolved in April 1945. The Nazis gave control of Jasenovac to the puppet Croatian government, which was run by the fascist Ustasa movement. A large number of Ustasa members served in the camp, most notably Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, who was notorious for killing prisoners with his bare hands.

Altogether, about 600,000 people were murdered at Jasenovac , including Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Croats who opposed the Ustasa government. Of that number, some 25,000 of the victims were Jews, most of whom had been brought to Jasenovac before August 1942 (at which point the Germans began deporting the Jews of Croatia to Auschwitz). Jews were brought to Jasenovac from all over Croatia. Most were killed on arrival; a small number of skilled professionals were kept alive to work at the camp. They endured horrible conditions and brutal treatment at the hands of the Ustasa guards. Near the end of the war, Jasenovac's administration blew up much of the camp and killed most of the prisoners in an attempt to conceal evidence of the mass murders that took place there."

From: http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206358.pdf

[edit] On the whole thing

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for pretending that Jasenovac never existed. Croats destroyed the entire place so as to leave the least evidence, they even destroyed the peaceful statue which a Serb put up in that area.

If the Croats think that they will clean themselves from the guilt this way, they are wrong.

Oh, and by the way, this is for Mir Haven: you seem to hate the Serbs a lot. Perhaps you have some Serbian roots in your family that you would gladly be rid of?

[edit] Allegations, doubts

Allegations and doubts shall not be entered in any article at all--Matt Parlow 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Panonian, please don't delete category:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Jasenovac is part of B-H history. modern BiH is based on ZAVNOBiH and Jasenovac was closed in 1945 (I guess), so RS and BiH aren't really on the same level here. --Ante Perkovic 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial topic

Oh, dear God. Auschwitz isn't a controversial topic, the Germans don't deny their crimes. ...--TheFEARgod 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you even aware that Holocaust "denial" is a crime in today's Bundesrepublik, several countries in Europe, USA, Canada and Australia? So why should discussing Auschwitz be any more "controversial" than that of Jasenovac? Call me an anti-semite, Nazi sympathiser, Holo denier or whatever, but i won't accept propaganda and smear campagins masquerading as "history". I really don't care, and besides your attitude towards such dissenting views is very Orwellian.

[edit] Later events

Edits by unknown user are subject to bias so I tagged the section as NPOV. Expressions as: "What is interesting is that rebel Serbs..." with no reference, and "the stolen material" are what I mean.Biblbroks 11:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew that about thousand of serbs would do so retarded fucking around in here, hey, shit happens.

[edit] Srbosjek

I put accuracy tags on the main page for Srbosjek, and I'm putting them on this page as well. Mihovil 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Daj dragi katolički bože da svi jebeni Srbi krepaju!!!"?

Someone just added "Daj dragi katolički bože da svi jebeni Srbi krepaju!!!" to the beginning. Perhaps a translation would be benificial? This IS an English encyclopedia after all.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chessic (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

It means 'Dear catolic God make all fucking Serbs die' - Moderators please bann the ustasha retard who put this. What are mods on Wikipedia doing anyway? Is there too little of them to handle the job? Bocky 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I forgot to sign my post

• ahem* Douglas 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "ren"??

Prisoners in Jasenovac were forced to drink water from Sava river with "ren".

Any idea what this means? Flapdragon 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

corrected the misspelled german general names.

'Ren' is a spice that is made from a root of a plant. It is white in colour and its taste is very hot and that is why is used in small amounts always with a big bait of food in order to neutralise the strong taste up a bit and to make it endurable to eat. I occasionally eat ren as it is good for your health. The thing with making prisoners to eat ren while drinking water is because eating ren without anything else would make you scream from extreme sensations in your brain and throat and it would also damage your digestive system taking it on empty stomach. I know this because when I took a jar of ren and put it about 4 inches off of my nose and barely inhaled(just to fell the smell) tears almost came from my eyes, and I felt strong burning-like sensations in my nose.Bocky 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jasenovac - allegations never proven in the court of law

[edit] Dr Mitov and Jasenovac (his off topic rumbling) - my response

Dr Mitov was influenced by Serbian mythology which claims that half a million people died in Jasenovac Concentration Camp, which is just another example of unprovable allegation. No international court has rulled that so many people died in Jasenovac, and I hate to say it, but I am sick of Serbian lies and propaganda regarding historic events that took place in the Balkans. Dr Mitov failed to acknowledge mass scale massacres committed by Serbian Christian Orthodox terrorists and butchers who slaughtered over 100,000 Bosniaks during World War II. Dr Mitov also failed to acknowledge that Serbian Christian Orthodox Terrorist Gavrilo Princip was responsible for starting World War I, and World War I pretty much pulled World War II. Of course - Dr Mitov, like most Serbs - are brainwashed by Serbian historiography and lies about alleged genocides against Serbs that never happened (no international court confirmed them - they are just plain allegations). If there was genocide against Serbs in the World War II, then there was certainly a genocide against Bosniaks in the World War II also - however, none of these allegations were proven, they are just allegations and one can use any number one sees fit. Bosniak Institute published documentation that Yugoslav/Serbian government kept secret and it involves the number of dead at Jasenovac Camp, which was well under 50,000 read here . Of course, Serbians are known to exagerate things, so they claimed 10 times more dead, and their allegations were never proved in the court of law, however Bosniak allegations of Genocide in Srebrenica were proven in the international courtroom at least 5 times so far!Bosniak 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniak Mythology: A Guide through Fiction

Wow are you ever a retard, Bosniak. No international organization proved that the Holcaust was an act of genocide because the act of genocide was BASED on the Holocaust. Neither is the Armenian Genocide, and neither is Darfur (I'm sure they're all just following the Serb tradition of faking genocide). Also, I don't see the 100,000 dead Bosniak's in Word War II as a result of Serb "terrorists" proven anywhere. By your standards, those 100,000 simply died of influenza, or maybe they committed mass suicide. Or...maybe they never existed (like the Bosniak "ethnicity"). Anyhow, if you don't want to be slaughtered don't take the side of the Nazis, that was probably a big mistake don't you think?

Also, I have to laugh at your impeccable knowledge of history. Yes Gavrilo Princip shot Duke Franz Ferdinand. No one denies that. Then again, the Versailles Treaty (ever heard of it?) puts all blame on GERMANY. Of course, neither is extremely accurate, but since you love to have things on paper then there you have it: it was the Germans. You don't seem to realize that the secret alliances created by the major European powers from 1870 up to the eve of the war played the biggest part. Read up on the Three Emperor's League, Austrian German Alliance, Alliance of the Three Emperors, Triple Alliance, Russian-German Reinsurance Treaty, Russian-French Alliance, Anglo-Japanese Alliance (Look at this..Japan!!!..and where do they come in play..WWII maybe?), Anglo-French Entente, Anglo-Russian Agreement, to name a few. Also, if you go to the Holocaust Museum in Israel there's a big layout on the floor of Europe and the concetration camps. Guess what's on there: JASENOVAC. Guess how many: 500,000.

World War II was started because of Hitler's hatred of the Versailles Treaty, which I'm sure you're well informed on about now, says the Germans caused the war. Since the Germans signed it it's pretty much a confession, HENCE, the "real" cause.

Anyhow remember: A Nazi past get's a Nazi's victims future. You can't call it genocide if you collaborated with Nazis and thus died. Live with it. Jedi Svinje 21:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)