Talk:Aloysius Stepinac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Aloysius Stepinac is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Saints Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article may need an appropriate infobox template.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Croatia Portal Aloysius Stepinac is part of WikiProject Croatia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the nation of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Stub explanation 2 mock trial; religious conversions 3 blessed, notable, infamous 4 Milan's comments about the direct involvement 5 Stop Edit War - "convicted criminal" 6 rehabilitation 7 image caption ("Ustasha establishment") 8 To Croatian Historian 9 A matryr 10 Irrelevant parts 11 Introductory paragraph 12 Dr. Gitman 13 Deletion of unrelated sentence, explanation 14 POV 15 Text removed 16 Edit war strikes back 17 Facts 18 A gentle request 19 PLEASE try to avoid POV 20 Dalma84? 21 (Not)Overturning the Sentence 22 Let's do this civilized-like 23 Sorry - edit conflict 24 Great rewrite! 25 Still POV? 26 Apology 27 Quotes section needs references 28 Dutch wiki article about Stepinac

[edit] Stub explanation

I figure that the article is pretty lengthy compared to an average stub, but it's still missing much content and context regarding his rise in prominence, the WWII-related events. Someone needs to read through the first page of the Google search for Alojzije Stepinac and summarize the available documentation regarding Stepinac's involvement in the war. --Joy [shallot] 18:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] mock trial; religious conversions

I explained the notion of mock trial in one instance, although I didn't yet delve into the discussion on whether and to which extent he supported the religious conversions during WWII. This is probably the issue that requires the most immediate attention. --Joy [shallot] 02:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] blessed, notable, infamous

WHy blessed and notable when he is infamous? HolyRomanEmperor 18:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milan's comments about the direct involvement

The document is correct when it comes to the biographical background proper. However, it does omit a great deal of information pertaining to his direct involvement in the mass murder of Jews, Serbs, Romas and other non-Croats, through his blessing and overt approval of the murderous Ustase regime... I think that the Pavelic Papers contain a great deal of information that directly tie him to the regime. -Milan

Do you have any prove in Stepinac's direct involement in any murder? If so, please present it. Saying that he was involved, because he welcome the NDH or had good relationships with Ante Pavelić would be as absurd as calling Churchill a communist, because he was allied with Stalin. The only thing that can be said is that he was in favour of the independent Croatia (which annoyed the lovers of Yugoslavia) and he was anti-communist (which antaginized communists). But neither patriotism or anticommunism can be regarded a crime. Regards, Jasra 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Edit War - "convicted criminal"

If you are doing revert, please explain why. Why are you insisting on the expression "convicted crimianal" when this is far from neutral point of view. I think we should stick to facts only, without making a Great-Serbian or Communist or any other propaganda. Jasra 21:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

it is a fact - he was a convicted war criminal Cicceroa 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet it is also a fact that another government of Croatia later entirely retracted that conviction, but you conveniently omitted that from your rationale. This is a non-argument - it's simply a slanted description that can and should be avoided. --Joy [shallot] 13:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither the Croatian government nor Croatian parliament do not have authority for overturning court decisions since that act would be unconstitutional. The "thing" you are pointing at is parliamentary declaration - act without any consequence nor validity; it is simple political act. So if you find legal court decision invalid or somehow "politicaly motivated" you should be more distrustful against notorious political act such as this declaration. Brunislav 09:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rehabilitation

Could you elaborate a bit more why the annullation of the Yugoslav verdict was (...) part of a wider campagn to scare remaining Serbs and ethnically cleanse them from Croatia. I do not think anyone can be scared by one's rehabilitation, especially when a person is dead. Jasra 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

it is analogous to rehabilitating hitler in the wake of new pogroms on jews. being from poland, you can imagine what it means Cicceroa 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did order to exterminate Jews and other nations, so his responsibility is direct. Stepinac did not order to kill anyone, neither he approved the killing. He was definitely in favour of the independent Croatia and the only force approving this independent in those times was Hitler with his allies. If you blame Stepinac for colaboration with Nazis - you should also blame let say Churchill and Rosevelt for the collaboration with Stalin (a mass murderer) and call them criminals (although not convicted). In Wiki articles you should present NPoV. The only certain thing about the verdict was that it was annulled. So I think it is better just to say that the Yugoslav verdict was overturned and do not write any comments. Jasra 20:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are few proofs of even hitler involvement. Comparison of Hitler and Stalin are very insultive indeed - they are not the same. Churchill was no saint either. Each person needs to be judged separately. Stepinac has blessed the Ustasha regime, he was involved in forced conversions of Ortodox Serbs into Catholicism, and indeed many Ortodox priests were hanged under his regime. So, he might be more involved in genocide than Hitler himself (nota bene - genocide is not only killing, but destroying of a nation by other means, and Ustashe did all that - forced conversions, organized by Stepinac clergy, killings in which clergy enthusiasticaly participated - take a look at what Catholic Crusaders did!). He was chief cleric in Ustasha regime, and clerics were actively commiting crimes in Jasenovac and all over NDH. You, if you are Catholic, should feel shame that such things happened - and not to protect this convicted war criminal. Cicceroa 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet you fail to notice that the article already says all that, just without spilling bile the way your comments do?

It's not "protection" of a "convicted war criminal" to state facts without excess emotion and ignoring the context, it's simply adherence to the neutrality policy. You would do us all a favour if you got acquainted with it.

--Joy [shallot] 13:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image caption ("Ustasha establishment")

I don't think the use of the term "other members of Ustasha establisment" is a warrented caption under the image of Stepinac with members of Ustasha. The article in no way establishes that he was Ustasha. Until the article makes such a connection (I might add that I don't think that'll happen), I think that "other" should be removed from the caption. 129.22.35.189 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cicceroa wrote, repeatedly, stepinac was in the establishment.

I don't believe that this is an appropriate use of that word. The Catholic Church was not a governing body of the NDH, nor was it founded and/or united (established) for the purpose of being the administration of this entity. Sure, there is a general meaning of the establishment under which one can put the largest and the most influential religious entity of a state, however, by saying that Stepinac was part of the Ustasha establishment we imply that he was either a member of the Ustasha or at least that he was a sympathiser. As the article explains, he could have been considered sympathetic to them for a while in the beginning of the war, but not later. And even that is merely a weak link of sympathy; there is no reason whatsoever to consider him a member of the Ustasha organization. So, Cicceroa, please consider the above and kindly stop modifying that sentence. --Joy [shallot] 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Croatian Historian

I looked at your corrections at Alojzije Stepinac article. Basically I do not object them, but I don't know if they will stay for long. I have two things:

1. I think one should give more explanation why the trial did not meet proper standards.

1. My objection is to the word "murdered". Unless any new facts are known, the communists caused his death due to the lack of proper treatment, bad conditions, etc., but it is too strong to say "murdered". (I have edited that, but I can be wrong).

BTW. I'm very interested in Croatian issues. I remember the whole process of restoring Croatia's independence. I wanted to contact you, but your userpage was blocked, so maybe you can mail me or write on my discussion page. Regards Jasra 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is no place for personal comments. Croatian historian is a banned vandal who posted on his page his hatred towards Ortodox Russians and Serbs. Is this the kind of Catholicism you want to associate with and defend? Cicceroa 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You say "This is not place for personal comments" and just exactly are making one :(. Read my message carefully and you will see that I am also critical to CH. Coming bac to the article - please explain the necessity of the phrase "convicted criminal". Jasra 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was warning you about the true nature of the person you are engaging with - you posted comments about him in the first place. As for your comments and reverts, I find it hard to think of something as a compromise if you are removing even the statement that he is contraversial (wich is at least what is undeniable). He is a war crime convict, and he died serving a sentence for his crimes. Note that not even Hitler didnt personally kill anyone. His soldiers did. And Catholic clergy had their hands fool of blood - Jasenovac had CLERICS as killers and organisers. So, he has command responsiblity at least.

No. That statement is false, to the best of my knowledge. Were the members of the clergy in Jasenovac concentration camp within the Church hierarchy, that is, were they acting in their official capacity as members of the hierarchy? Did they receive instructions or orders or anything from a bishop or an archbishop with regard to being there and/or doing anything against the Ten Commandments ("Do Not Kill" springs to mind, eh)? I have yet to see a substantive positive answer to any of these questions, and I've actually tried to find it (including on PavelicPapers.com). --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And he argued for forced conversions.

I can't see how this is true, either. I don't see any reason to state that he *argued for* them, he implicitly condoned them (at least in the initial stages of the war) by not opposing them. That is still wrong, but it's clearly not the same thing. --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That his war crime sentence was overturned by the new croatian government is no surprise. They renamed streets after Mile Budak at the time - now do you think that is objective. I trust more the antifascist goverment than the new croatian goverment. Cicceroa 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, but it's also worth noting that Budak was rehabilitated for his literature, not for his political work. No other non-poet NDH politicians were rehabilitated, TTBOMK. --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement "controversial" from the very beginning of the article, but in the rest of the article it was clearly seen that he was cantroversial. I also removed "blessed" from the beginning (also because it is mentioned later). I wanted to leave at the beginning only the statements which are the FACTS and both you and Croatian User will be able to agree with them (he was a cardinal, he was Croatian, etc.). In the later part of the text, I think all the controversies are presented from both sides. It has not been proved that he ordered any clerics to kill anyone. The fact that there were clergymen involved in war crimes does not make the Archbishop guilty of these crimes. You can always say that he did not enough to prevent the crimes, but it can only be hypothetical to say whether it was possible to make more. As far as Mile Budak is concerned - it is a different issue and it is better to discuss it there. I don't know much of him, but it looks that he really was involved in crimes and his defenders only say that his literature work should be separated from his activities as a politician, but as I said I know there was a controversy, but I do not know Budak's exact involvement. When you talk about the antifascist government - it is of course your personal attitude whether you would trust them or not. Remeber that they were also responsibe for war crimes like Bleiburg massacre. So I would not trust them. I might not trust Tudjman's government, but I would rather trust present Croatian government. They try to stop the efforts towards the rehabilitation of Budak, but they fully agree with the rehabilitation of Stepinac. But of course it is a matter of your personal stand and in the article facts are needed. Jasra 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You could use the same argument against Churchill and in fact Dresden bombing was far worse than Bleiburg, that is blown out of proportion by Croatian neo-government. Facts on the table, and Ustashe, with Alojzije as their spiritual leader, were BY FAR the worst killers in WWII - they appaled even Hitler's SS who had to restrain them. And fact is that he was a war criminal convicted by the antifascist government - and both comunists and anti-comunists (there were TWO anti-fascist guerilla movements that fought occupation and Ustashe in WWII, and both were supported by the Allies) agree that Catholic clergy in Croatia headed by Stepinac were criminal. The Jasenovac camp was headed by a priest of Stepinac's church. That are the facts. Also, inserting claim that Stepinac was matryr - which is completely false info - can tell how POV you are. I can imagine that by standards of concentration camps in Poland Jasenovac is no big deal, but Croatia is 10 times smaller than Poland, and also, about a third of Serbian population in NDH were executed in the most henious chapter of Holocaust. Are you defending that? Cicceroa 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A matryr

Do you have any proof that Catholic church has declared him a matryr. I find it quite unbelievable that they would go so far in their clash with Tito, who at the time was a major international player. Please provide references, or this will be removed. Cicceroa

I am not sure about the OFFICIAL stand, however I've seen pictures of Aloizije Stepinac (before his beatification) with the caption Hrvatski mučenik. So at least in common belief he was a martyr. But I agree that it should be checked what an official stand of the Church is like. On the other hand the title "martyr" does not have as official significance as the title of "blessed" or "saint". The borders between martyr and non-martyr are not very strict. Jasra 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In what "common belief" he is/was a martyr?

Title "blessed" or "saint" have significance only for Christians.

Brunislav 09:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So in fact you are admitting that you have no source for this. That there were pictures with such captions by his fans means really nothing - other that some fans consider him a matryr. You might as well say he is a hero, an idol or whatever. For some people, Hitler is a matryr too. Or, to much greater degree, Mohamed Atta, and many terrorists. A statement by Church is one thing (and there ARE people who are considered matryrs), the opinion of few is another. He certainly did not die a matryr death, if you say he is you are insulting real Christian matryrs. There is not even a widespread belief that he is a martryr among Croatian nationalists, let alone Croats or Catholics at large. Cicceroa 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A simple googling reveals this page which, despite arguing against Stepinac, mentions that pope John Paul II referred to him as a martyr. --Elephantus 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the outstanding figures of the Catholic Church, having endured in his own body and his own spirit the atrocities of the Communist system, is now entrusted to the memory of his fellow countrymen with the radiant badge of martyrdom."

this is what pope has said on his beatification. But that is not proclamation that he is matryr. The claim needs to be qualified. Cicceroa 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I believe i's absolutely riddiculous to state that a man who publicly sanctified Croatian 'Legions'(units formed to assist German war effort on the eastern front and perhaps the most dreaded killers, although the competition is strong, to be formed from Yugoslavian peoples) a martyr. The man almost certainly didn't have anything to fear from the Ustasha since they are unlikely to do anything against a catholic archbishop, so to refuse was definetly an option. Allso it is in my oppinion more remarkable that the SFRY's authorities actually endured his presence in the position for so long and didn't indite him. It is more probable they actually just wanted to be rid of this nationalist since religion is the main destabilising factor in Yugoslavia (as became apparent recently). I say this to disprove any allegations that his trial was an attack by the 'evil' communists on the croatian people: the man was a threat to Yugoslavia and an Ustashe supporter (in the least). dIRECTOR (a Croat BTW)

Cicceroa quotes Jean Paul II accurately but says his comment was not a proclamation of martyrdom. It was exactly that. The question of Stepinac's martyrdom was of fundamental importance for the Catholic church. John Paul II had previously determined that in the case of martyrdom it was permissible to promote a candidate towards sainthood (which is what beatification is) without the need for proof of a miraculous intercession by that candidate. No miracle in Stepinac's name had been proved, therefore martyrdom was the only route by which his cause could be advanced. Considering that Stepinac died peacefully at home, nine years after being released early from prison to live out his last years in his home village, I am inclined to have some sympathy with those who don't regard him as a martyr in any normal sense of the word.

Kirker 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant parts

I removed a part about a priest being a war criminal in Jasenovac, because there is no evidence that Stepinac had any connections with this priest and the article is about Stepinac. You can move this part to another article. There is also no evidence that the overturning the trial against Stepinac in any way encouraged ethnic cleansing or any attrocities against Serbs. Jasra 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the statement that the "Jasenovac camp was led by his priest" is incorrect at least in the case of Miroslav Filipović, who was ejected from his order before he became the commander of the camp. There is also little to no substantiation to the claims that the "Catholic Crusaders" were connected to Stepinac or vice versa. --Joy [shallot] 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They were not excommunicated, and that is the least what Stepinac was to do - he had the power and, let us not forget that, the responsibility. The organization with a name "Catholic Crusaders" doing such bestialities, not being excommunicated, not even condemned by the Archbishop - in this case, silence is a sign of approval, and a consequence was hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Serbs. Stepinac blessed Ustashe, instead of doing what he was supposed to do. By not doing it, he granted legitimacy to "Catholic Crusaders" and other involved priests - how many of them would be able to do what they did if they were punished by their church, in the name of which they commited crimes - there is evidence that Italians were concerned for the horrible stain on reputation of Catholic church that by Croatian priests doing crimes made, but the Archbishop of NDH did nothing. It is very relevant piece, and it should stay. In modern war crime law, it is a war crime not to persecute those who commited crimes. The same morality logic applies to Stepinac - he allowed genocide to happen, he allowed his priests to take part in it, therefore, he is a war criminal, and in fact a person who damaged reputation of Catholic faith, as he chose to allow worst criminals to comit crimes in the name of Catholic faith, which he was supposed to protect. Serpen 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that kind of logic is just swell, you might as well also call Pope Pius XII a war criminal, or indeed any other Catholic priest who was not at the bottom of the hierarchy. Please stop pointing the finger without some actual substantiation. For example - if there is a rule in Roman Catholicism that says that an archbishop needs to excommunicate person A for doing action B, and Stepinac did not do that, say that. The excessive moralization is not conducive for a NPOV article. --Joy [shallot] 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cicceroa wrote: [wider campaign ...], which also included naming streets after Mile Budak, the ideologue of Ustasha genocide, who was also rehabilitated on that wave of Croatian nationalist euphoria. Serbs were deeply frightened by such developments, and the whole process ended in ethnic cleansing of over half million of Serbs, who were reduced from 12% to 2% minority in Croatia.

This addition is wrong on so many levels. First of all, conflating the issue of Budak to the issue of Stepinac is untidy to say the least. Budak actually was part of the Ustasha established discussed above, while Stepinac was not. And even if one disagrees with that claim, that's still just a matter of opinion, and not a pertinent fact that would need to be stated in the article. And the last sentence is first of all irrelevant, secondly it is wrong since the purported "half million of Serbs" were never all removed from Croatia, let alone "ethnically cleansed", and the 2001 census shows that they are a 4.5% minority so the number is also wrong. Besides, 50-year-old conspiracy theories don't kill/evict people, real people and real actions do. And finally, regardless of all these complaints, Wikipedia articles are not a place for semi-random rants about tangential topics. --Joy [shallot] 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, it is not like that at all. Both Stepinac and Budak incidents were part of the same campagn, certainly Serbs saw it like that. Also, the sentence is attributing the view to Serbs (part of the quote that you didnt include), so yes, Croats hold different opinion, but this paragraph is about feelings of Serbs.

Just because someone has *feelings* about something that doesn't make it an encyclopedic fact. Think about it. Imagine if we went on to describe the pain of every single victim of every single wrongdoing - would it still be an encyclopedia? --Joy [shallot]

Next, Croatia ethnically cleansed and expelled using subtler means of discrimination almost all of its Serbs, so that less than 100,000 remained. Given that there were 560,000 of Serbs and that some Serbs declared as Yugoslavs in 1991 (the ethnic hatred against Serbs had been boiling at the time), the claim about half milion is true. I would just say they were expelled, since some, living in inner Croatia, were expelled by discrimination rather than by brutal force.

This is still inference in a place where that is entirely inappropriate. And we can also disagree about the topic - not all Yugoslavs were Serbs, nor were all Serbs subject of discrimination and brutality, not nearly. But again, that's beside the point - the point is that there is no place in this article for this kind of tangentially relevant emotional writing. --Joy [shallot]

And the 4.5% is the percentage claimed now, when supposedly 100,000 Serbs returned. In fact, only a fraction really returned, many just took papers and fictively live in Croatia, but Croatia counts them to win favor from EU. Everyone knows that who has any idea about the problem of the Serbian refugees.

Well, if people didn't want to be counted in those percentages, they could have told the census recorders to skip them; arguing against the percentages on the basis that they are, well, percentages, that's pretty pointless. And the problem of Serbian refugees is discussed on Wikipedia already, but in the articles where this is *entirely relevant*. --Joy [shallot]

So, I find the claims founded, and find your assertion that description of Serbian Golgotha is random rant is just an attempt to add insult to injury. Serpen 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of discourse we're not supposed to be having when writing an *encyclopedia article*. --Joy [shallot]

Joy [shallot] states here - and elsewhere in Wikipedia talk - that Miroslav Filipović was ejected from the Franciscan order. Could Joy either remove such statements please, or support them with a reference? Kirker 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph

I have removed this phrase from the introductory paragraph: for Serbs and some Jews he is notorious for...
Let me explain.
An encyclopedic article about a man is not an article about what people think of that man.
It is about what that man did and what was done to him. It is about the facts of that man's life.
Let me use an example. George W. Bush is currently notorious in many parts of the world, but this isn't mentioned in his introductory paragraph. Why? Because the Bush article is not about other people's opinions of Bush, but about what Bush has done in his life.
What I'm saying is basic logic, but the removed phrase indicates that some people don't seem to understand it. --Zmaj 08:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Gitman

Maayaa deleted this part about Dr. Gitman: and a recognized expert for Jews in the Independent State of Croatia. He asked: "recognized by whom?" and claimed this was a peacock phrase.
Maayaa, please inform yourself before throwing accusations. It is really not hard to check a person on the Internet. Dr. Gitman received her Ph. D. for the dissertation Rescue and Survival of Jews in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), 1941-1945. Her work on this topic also earned her a Fulbright scolarship for Zagreb, Croatia. In 2005, she was accepted into the post-doctoral program at Yad Vashem. This is more than enough to call someone "a recognized expert".
--Zmaj 12:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is responsibility of those who make claims to cite sources, and using weasel words is always suspicious. Also, your standards for being a recognized expert may be subjective, but the precise statement can be made. Maayaa 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, where did she earn PhD. This is very important. If she earned PhD in Zagreb, that may imply possible bias, and this information should be included. I will add a fact tag, since the claim has to be verified anyway. Maayaa 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

She earned it in New York, which you could have easily checked yourself. --Zmaj 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will remove your fact tag, since it is unwarranted. Such tags should be used only for controversial claims, not for someone's PhD, otherwise you could put that tag after every word in the article. --Zmaj 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of unrelated sentence, explanation

I deleted this part of the sentence:

and the whole process ended in expulsion of over half million of Serbs, who were reduced from 12% to 3% minority in Croatia.

because:

• This is unrelated to the subject
• Today, Serbs form 5% minority in Croatia
• They did form 3% minority just after Operation Storm, but they fled out of fear, so word "expulsion" cannot be used here

I hope this explanation is good enough. --Ante Perkovic 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very related to the subject of the paragraph. You cant just delete images and paragraphs you dont like. As for expulsion, this might be contraversial (Croats of course deny their crimes), but the more neutral way to state this important fact can be used. Maayaa 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that someone does not like some information, but that this information is irrelevant to the subject. It is enough to write that saw Serbs the rehabilitation of cardinal Stepinac a part of attempt to rehabilitate NDH in general, but expulsion (or fleeing) of Serbs was the result of military operations, which had nothing to do with Stepinac. I don't think this article should cover all the aspects of Serbo-Croatian relationships. This is the article about one person and should not much go beyond this. Jasra 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it not relevant. Stepinac is accused of approving forced conversions to Catholicism, part of plan to eradicate Serbs from Croatia. The Stepinac is rehabilitated, the Serbs dissapear. All the facts should be presented, as these things are related. Maayaa 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a name for your logic, Maayaa: conspiracy theory. --Zmaj 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you (Maayaa) insist, everything is somehow related to everything else in the universe, but the main question here is - is it related enough to be included in the article. I think not.

One of the mail problem with many pro-serbian users here is that they would, if they only could, put information about NDH in every possible article from Daisy to Dusseldorf.

There is a name for such a behaviour - disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. And guess what - it si against the rules. --Ante Perkovic 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Stepinac is not just any article. It is an article about a convinced war criminal, who cooperated with the regime of NDH. So, what you say is ridicilous. As for your acusations of disruption, they are insultive indeed. The real disruption is in obscuring the facts related to NDH by Croatian users, who shamelessly want to censor wikipedia - from removing images that they dislike, to deleting relevant paragraphs, that show truth about Croatian crimes. Maayaa 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Obscuring the facts??? Why do you change the subject? Is Stepinac is also responsable for Serbs exodus in 1995? Yes or no? If he isn't, let's keep the exodus out of the article. Clear as a a day. --Ante Perkovic 07:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck, if he was even directly related to these events, they could stay in the article. But he wasn't.

The difference between talking about other things that happened related to him long after his death is that they directly related to him. The Parliament did something about him - direct link. The Pope did something about him - direct link. The Wiesenthal Center did something about him - direct link. Yad Vashem did something about him - direct link. That contested scholar said something about him - direct link. You get my drift. Somebody thinking something about someone else who did something related to Stepinac - that is not a direct link, not by a long shot. --Joy [shallot]

You seem to fail to understand the relevance of Budak at all. Saying Stepinac sentence was withdrawn might give a false impression that he was indeed not guilty for his war crimes. However, giving the whole context - renaming streets after Mile Budak, erecting monuments to Francetic, expelling Serbs from constitution (and later from Croatia) etc. gives the reader the opportunity to see this revocation of sentence as it was - just a part of nationalistic hysteria, that made heros out of WWII criminals, tried to rebury bones of killers with their victims - hundreds of thousands of Serbs killed in perhaps the most bestial genocide in history, that appaled SS who were, as a consequence, seeking less brutal ways to kill Jews after they concluded Croatian methods were too savage, etc. - hiding this context makes Stepinac look as he deserved to be seen as merely a victim of communist opression. Deleting information about Serbs is precisely serving this purpose. Maayaa 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Try and write all that in a (neutral) article first. In other words, establish context from an actual part of history, rather than tangential assertions that look like nothing more than conspiracy theory.

Also notice how all this context, exactly the way you said it, in sequence and making it sound like one big orchestrated effort, was the story that the likes of Milošević used to lead the Serbs all over Yugoslavia into a series of wars. Therefore it's not likely that any history article will actually include this context written like that because much of the world thinks it's propaganda.

Another thing. All that context, even if all of it is true, doesn't actually prove that Stepinac wasn't a victim of the communists. One can stage a trial of a guilty person, too. Just because a person is guilty that doesn't make a trial any less staged. --Joy [shallot] 20:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe that this part - and the whole process ended in expulsion of over half million of Serbs, who were reduced from 12% to 3% minority in Croatia. - is extremely POV. Maayaa is trying to simplify things so much that he is trying to persuade the reader that the entire war is result of renaimng streets and rehabilitation of a few Ustasa.

--Ante Perkovic 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[...]might give a false impression that he was indeed not guilty for his war crimes. This is not false impression. There is no proof that Stepinac was guilty of war crimes. He never ordered anyone to kill/imprison/expell anybody. Even if he approved converting Orthodox Christians into Catholicism - he never gave any orders to threaten anyone and force him/her into conversion. So his partial involvement in the issue of conversions cannot be seen as a war crime. Even if he partially supported NDH, he did not support genocide. He did support the independence of Croatia and this can be the reason why he was tried and sentenced. He also was strongly anti-communist. These two reasons were enough to find him guilty from the PoV of Titoist Yugoslavia, but they do not make him criminal.

This is speculation. Brunislav 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW. If one really wants to put Stepinac's rehabilitation in a wider context - Why not to put the trial in the wider context of repressions inflicted by the Tito's regime (križni putevi, etc.).

Using the term "križni put" for returning of the fascist colaborators to their homeland (and puting them on trial, in prison or in grave) also says something about colaboration between Church and fascism. Brunislav 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly in favour of such a solution, but if you want wider context - you should put it everywhere.

Talking about Budak - he was NOT officially rehabilitated. Some local city/town councils named streets after him, but there was no act of official rehabilitation (correct me if I am wrong). Those who wanted to honor Budak claimed that one should separate his literary work from his political activities (I do not agree with such a statement, but it is not the same as rehabilitation of genocide).Jasra 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I put POV template on WWII section. Most of the section is about the crimes committed by the NDH supporters, but the relevance with Stepinac is only that he did not do enough to prevent these crimes. The only source to support this was a BBC broadcast aired during the war. Britain was at war against Germany and NDH sided with Germany, so Britain had to be against NDH. They were not only genocide carried out by the Pavelić regime, but against any independent Croatia. Stepinac was against the genocide, but he was in favour of independent Croatia and in those time there was no other serious political power supporting the independence of Croatia. Taking all this into account the objectivity of the broadcast must be disputed.

I don't think any compromise can be reached in this article. The best would be just remove the whole sections (they can be put in some other articles, e.g. about crimes committed during WWII or NDH or alike). In this article it is just enough to say that the critics say Stepinac did not do enough to prevent genocide against Serbs. However, I realize it is impossible, so I think another section should be written from the point of view of supporters of Stepinac. In both sections it should be said that one is from the POV of opponets and the other from supporters.

BTW: it is unclear to me the expresion "his ex-priest" (about the Jasenovac guard) - if he was "ex" - Stepinac was not responsible for his actions.

Jasra 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally see nothing wrong with calling a moral coward a moral coward. Maybe I'm just crazy or something, but no true Christian (or moderately decent human being, actually) would support an independent Croatia built on Serbian blood.

Calling a spade a spade isn't an NPOV violation.

"The purpose of all this terror was to destroy the enemies of Catholicism. Yet, while the Catholic Church, whenever given total power, can become a ruthless destroyer of her enemies, bursting with dreams of expansion, she can simultaneously follow a no less ruthless campaign of absorption."

This isn't NPOV at all! This has nothing to do with the article, it's just ordinary anti-catholicism! The Catholic Church hadn't "total power" in Ustacshe Croatia, they had a small influence (which they maybe missused), but this is rather conspiratory theories than history.

The influence of Catholic Church in ISC (Independent State of Croatia) was not smaller then it is in the present-day Republic of Croatia - it is bigger then it should be. Brunislav 08:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

I moved the POV warning to the begining of the article. I think that the word 'unfair' in the statement: "He was convicted by the Yugoslav authorities in 1946 for collaborating with the Ustashe in an unfair trial," is POV.

NO, it is not. Read the book CROATIA by Macus Tanner, and look at practically every article written about Stepinac's trial. It was an unfair trial because 1) Every member on the jury was a member of the communist party hand-selected specifically based on their loyalty to Tito 2) "Evidence" was allowed into the trial where its legitamacy was questionable. 3) it was already predetermined that the jury would vote guilty no matter what 4) The trial was staged by the communists because of Stepinac's opposition to the communist regime, not because of his alleged actions during NDH; if Stepinac had accepted Tito's terms on the stance of the church (ie breaking from Rome) he never would have been arrested 5) In 1992, the Croatian government overturned the guilty verdict on the grounds that the trial was staged and unfair.

Do not put the POV tag just because YOU personally don't like something. I am taking it off based on FACTS. --Dalma84 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Dalma84. Your so-called facts are incorrect.

1. If somebody is a member of Communist party that does not mean that he would not be fair. Stating such thing is a clear racism against communists and you can be persecuted for that. Also, I doubt in the fact that all of them were members of the party (although that is not important).

2. Legitimacy of the court is not under any question. Republic of Croatia has accepted all decisions of all courts from 1945. to 1990. as its own. It is in the power of judge to decide whether an evidence (without quotations) is eligible or ilegible for the trial. Your opinions, or the opinions of ANYBODY else, are not important.

3. You cannot prove that.

4. Everybody can be put on trial whether the person is guilty or not. It is a job of the judge to determine is somebody guilty or not.

5. Croatian government or parliament mustn't overturn the court decision. That act would be unconstitutional. Croatian parliament had enacted the law by which every court decision adopted between 1945. and 1990. could be challenged ON THE COURT and eventually (not necessarily) overturned. Verdict against Stepinac has never been challenged and cannot be challenged anymore since the law give two years deadline for those revisions. All that means that Croatia definitely accepts that verdict and this trial cannot legaly be considered unfair. Brunislav 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All right oh wise one, where are your sources backing ANY of your "facts" up? Your reasoning is extremeley laughable, you can hardly expect me to take you seriously with such statements as "Stating such thing is a clear racism against communists and you can be persecuted for that." I won't even attempt to respond to that. Here's what I tell you--all of my FACTS are in the book I mentioned, also, Vatican investigations and the overturning the verdict by the Croatian government is more evidence than your unsourced "facts." Are you able to find one reliable source to back up your claims?? 1) You are beyond hope. There was a reason the jury was handpicked, they were all close to Tito. Once again, read that book. You might actually learn something. 2) This is yet further proof that you don't have any facts. Explaining any facts to you would be the equivalent of explaining rocket science to a five year old. Therefore, I won't even try. 3)http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780300091250&itm=2 Please read it. For your own good, and for the good of Wikipedia, so you can stop vandalizing its pages. 4)Read the book 5) I cannot believe you just wrote that. I honesly can not. Read the book

A reminder: reverting anything without facts is considered vandalism. You have been warned. --Dalma84 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You do not have to take me seriously but you still can be persecuted. Your statement is clearly against the 106th article of the so-called "Kazneni zakon RH". Please feel free to read it: http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/1997/1668.htm.

2. Your book represents POV and not a fact. How can the book be more valuable then a court decision?

3. Vatican investigations? Where is court decision from Vatican?

4. Croatian government cannot and must not overturn the court decision. By the Constitution legislative and executive branches are separated from judiciary (4th article - http://www.nn.hr/sluzbeni-list/sluzbeni/index.asp). Please do not mention parliamentary declaration. Parlamentary declaration is a (political) opinion of the parliament (again POV) and in any case cannot be legaly above the court decision. (Please, read also the column of the priest Živko Kustić: http://www.jutarnji.hr/komentari_i_misljenja/kolumne/clanak/art-2006,10,13,Kustic_kolumna,46198.jl)

5. The jury is ALWAYS handpicked. A job of defender is to oppose and a job of the judge is to make final approval of the jury. Please ask some lawyer for the further explanation.

6. Republic of Croatia is a legal successor of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (Consitution, Preamble - http://www.nn.hr/sluzbeni-list/sluzbeni/index.asp). There are also several decrees on the takeover of the former SRC and SFRY laws (Decrees are divided by domains). Please tell me what is the purpose of the judge if not making decisions on the court?

7. You are vandal. And you cannot prove what somebody is thinking. Are you enlighten by God to have that ability.

8. Please learn something about law.

9. I shall try to find the law in "Narodne novine" during following days.

On the end, I must say that you are POV pusher without any knowledge of law and please stop with vandalization of Wikipedia with your POVs.Brunislav 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have some maturity issues, therefore, I will not attempt to answer your petty backlash. You refering me as a vandal was only a response to your hurt pride it seems, because you make absolutely no sense. How do you know that book it POV? Have you read it? Why are you judging something that you have never seen? That book has been used as reference to countless of Wikipedia articles. That is how I found it. You have failed to add any facts stating it is an unfair trial. Any at all. And who is going to "persecute me?" Buddy, I live in the United States of America, not your fantasy communist land, because even if I did live in the Republic of Croatia, no one can "persecute" (or do you mean prosecute?) me. I know because my uncle is a politician there, very anti-communist. I hope you will refrain from personal attacks and adapt a more professional manner, because it is not in my interests to carry out an edit war with you. I want this article to be as NPOV as possible. Anyone who has seen me edit here knows I don't deliberatly change articles without proof. I have added my facts and another link. It seems that you object to the fact that the cardinal's trial was unfair. Well, just show some proof. --Dalma84 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, as I promised under 9, I have found an evidence and you can read it here: www.tportal.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/page/2006/10/12/0014006.html . You called me a vandal without any proof, and when I give a proof to you then you are angry. The book is by default POV when you put it in the contrast with some court decision. I can also cite, for example, "Marxist concept of religion" and you can disapprove with that opinion. I have not failed in proving anything. OK, I made a mistake in spelling but you still can be prosecuted not for anti-communism but for depriving the right to somebody for becoming a member of the jury because of it's political opinion (and I believe that such thing is also illegal in the USA or there is possible to deprive somebody to be member of the jury if he is, let's say, republican). You have also stated that a communists are liars just because they are communists. Your uncle also can be prosecuted if he does any such thing (if he deprives somebody of his civil rights). The other side of the medal is, of course, the one that says that this trial will probably be postponed long enough to fail. Especially with such high level of corruption as it is in Croatia. What would happen if I say that you and your uncles are liars and not eligible to be a members of the jury just because you are anti-communists? I also want this article to be as neutral as possible, and that is the reason for moving words such as "unfair" form your edition. If you do not understand Croatian, then I am very sorry if you will be unable to understand what is written under those link that I have provided. Maybe you should ask your uncle for explanation or translation. You cannot call this trial unfair because of some insignificant declaration or some book or your personal opinion. If you find that trial to be unfair, give me the verdict which proves that. Otherwise, the article will be more neutral without the word "unfair" and it would still be correct enough. As I see from your comments, you call this trial unfair just because of the fact that it was conducted during socialist times in Yugoslavia. And one more thing, there is no such thing as a "communist land". "Communist land" cannot exist because communism cannot be achieved while countries still exist. Those countries were socialist. I am sorry in advance for possible spelling or grammar mistakes made in my comments.Brunislav 08:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand you. The only "evidence" you have is that court decision from the mid 20th century. And if I take it, you are familiar with law, you would know that cases can be overturned (though it is rare). And please, keep my uncle out of this. You know nothing of him or me to be making such wild assumptions. I just brought him up as an example of how your logic is wrong; but don't you worry about him--he finished law school and has a PhD. And stop makinig up lies about me. I never said communists were liars. Your words.

"You cannot call this trial unfair because of some insignificant declaration or some book or your personal opinion"--no I call it unfair based on facts. From books and other resources, including my own knowledge of law. I have already given you the rationale for that.

"If you find that trial to be unfair, give me the verdict which proves that." Are you sure you know law? According to you then, the Dred Scott case back in the 19th century was the right one because the court ruled that Scott was indeed property because he was a slave and not a person. It took many, many years for that to change in this country. --Dalma84 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed

I removed the following text in an "undo" but it might be of some value to some editors.

Since my name Dr.Esther Gtman was mentioned in this article I must make a correction. In the file submitted by the Croatian Archives to Yad Vashem there was a large file of documents under cover Ivo Politeo, Stepinac. In this file there was a list of 60 names of Jews who were rescued by Stepinac during the regime of NDH. In additon Amiel Shomry (then Emil Shwartz submitted his own testimony. He was at that time the personal assistant to the Chief Rabbi of Croatia Rabbi Misoslav Shalom Frieberger. Among those who testified are: Dan Baram from Jerusalem, Ljudevit Stein from Zagreb, Dank Stockhammer and his wife Lea Kon Stockhammer. All these individuals survived through the efforts of Stepinac.

For the spokeswoman of Yad Vashem to say that there were no personal testimonies written by those who were rescued by him is plain worng. To suggest that his life was not in danger is to revise history. It is enough to read Hans Helm's, the Police German attace to Zagreb HDA Hans Helm file, box 33, book XIV, letter dated 23.3.1943, to realize what they thought of Stepinac. They called him 'judenfreundlich'(Jew Lover) and 'protector of Jews'. Stepinac's life was in danger such subversive behavior was not favorably viewed. I think that it would be just right and proper to review the material carefully and reach a decison based on facts and not on rummors.

--Lloegr-Cymru^{£ ¥} 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war strikes back

There was a time when the article was coming close to neutrality. Unfortunately this balance has been destroyed. In the introduction only facts should be given. The interpretation and different points of view can be presented in a further part of the article. However, if you really want to present all the controversies - both controversy about the trial and controversy about proclaiming him blessed should be presented. At present version in the introduction it looks like the trial was aproved by most of people and only the beatification was controversial, which is clearly POV. I am also not sure about the facts. Was Stepinac convicted also for participation in forced conversions? I mean - was this charge actually brought against him? I am simply not sure about it. Jasra 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

The Serbian Orthodox Church openly collaborated with the Nazis, and many priests publicly defended the persecution of the Jews (e.g.Nikolai Velimirović). Cardinal Stepinac condemn ethnic genocide against persecuted minorities. Archbishop Stepinac said this on March 28, 1941 That is "The schism (Eastern Orthodoxy) is the greatest curse in Europe" It's obvious that this article contains Great-Serbian and Serbian Orthodox propaganda.

[edit] A gentle request

Would the undoubtably right-wing and extremely religious person (to avoid any insult) that keeps removing my edits please explain just how he became so convinced, FOR EXAMPLE (and there are many), that a PARTISAN "mob" attacked Stepinac at Zaprešić when THE WAR WAS OVER FOR SEVERAL YEARS (there were NO Partisans then and the term is now used as a derrogative by the radical nationalists). Such political labeleing says much, since it is common for the rural right-wing Croats to use namecalling in pursuing their POV. I will not let you alter the facts and present this very devious and cunning man as a victim of an "evil empire". He was not. Tito was in fact very careful not to harm him, he was not stupid:

1) He asked him to stop attacking the state and abusing his religious position to meddle in state affairs. Stepinac didn't like that so he wrote the big letter. 3) He pleaded the Vatican to remove the nationalist archbishop since there was no reasoning with him. 2) He put him on trial to stop his dangerous (look at the 1990's! ffs!) religious agitation 3) He drastically COMMUTED HIS SENTENCE. 4) He ALLOWED HIM TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY in order to be free from imprisonment. 5) He allowed him to be buried in the Zagreb cathedral against many demands to the contrary

Tito was raised in a catholic family, he had nothing against catholics, he was being careful of the security of the state (once again: look at the 1990's!). Yugoslavia was the most religiously liberal of all the eastern bloc countries ffs! No matter what clerics fabricate nowadays! BTW, I'm a Croat from Split and have studied WW2 extensively. No national motives lie behind this. DIREKTOR

I don't care who you are, or the person you have a problem with. But since you think Stepinac was a "very devious and cunning man", you can't edit the article in an unbiased way. That much is obvious. --Zmaj 17:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's preposterous! I also think Tito was a very devious and cunning man! There is nothing negative about this. You should take a very careful look at the meaning of "biase". I respect Stepinac as a true Croat and a man of adamant principle, but he was not an idiot, he had certain political goals that were extremely dangerous to the state. A state that tried it's best to stop him peacefully. Yugoslavia was not an anti-religious state, it simply (finally) seperated the Church from the state, a most commendable goal which was not to the archbishop's liking. He WAS cunning and had many a time carefully manipulated with the statistics: he stated the number of killed Catholic priests but failed to specify that they were not executed upon orders from the command, also, many of them were killed by isolated CHETNIK groups, and not by the partisans. He attempted to extort concessions from Yugoslavia, like the establishment of priest schools (something impossible in Yugoslavia of the 1940's). Also, IT IS NOT KNOWN WETHER HE WAS KILLED OR NOT (he might have been, but this is FAR from certain). I am simply trying to show the other sides' story in this, extremely one-sided, article.

This guy included political lableing ("partisan") of civilians after the war in the article. And you have the audacity to call me biased because I called someone cunning and devious, that's rich, Zmaj! P.S. BELIEVE me man, I don't care who you are! I just stated my nationality to avoid being judged on a national basis. Judging from the article this was not unprobable.

your request was not gentle. btw, in the external links there are a lot of links in which many of the sources are from. you are removing a lot of sourced info. i hope instead of removing the info, you can add something in which you think is good and not just your personal opnion and dislike. you insert your own opinion here alot and try to pass it off as croatia's opinion. Tito has little to do with this article, he shouldn't be a problem.

I did not remove any important referenced material. Name an example so we can see what POV you are trying to defend with that tired line. But in general, just because something is referenced dosen't mean it's correct and non-POV. Especially in some ideological cases like this one. Why don't we use Mein Kampf for a reference then, ffs? As for the oppinion part, I think it is you who are trying to use nuances in wording to defend your point of wiew, while I'm trying to represent an objective wiew of the government at the time based on the political situatuon. All you are trying to do is make this man into a Luke Skywalker defending the force against Darth Vader, if I may be so juvenile. I also did not voice my dislike against anyone. How could I, I don't dislike anyone in the article (except Pavelić, maybe). You (or who ever wrote that) are using political labeling to turn this article into a farce. Besides the Partisan thing, here's another case: Yugoslavia is an example in business schools all round the world of a textbook socialist state (as opposed to the communist eastern bloc), yet you insist on calling the government communist at every opportunity to support your point of view. Why do you do that if Tito has nothing to do with this article? Of course he does, it's childish to assume otherwise, he jailed the man, ffs! I, on the other hand, call the government of Yugoslavia what it is: the government of Yugoslavia (kindly notice the lack of derrogatives).

I stated my arguments, you have yet to repute one. (I was actually being sarcastic with the title. Sorry to have upset your with my Dalmatian ungentleness...)

I removed four or five sentences from the post-war period. I explained the reasons for the removals in the edit summaries. Generally speaking, those sentences were all conjectures or interpretations - stuff that has no place in an encyclopedic article. I haven't checked, but I think they are all your edits, DIREKTOR, since they are marked by the same style. I wouldn't dream of accusing you of writing lies; in fact, everything I removed could be the truth. But the removed claims are both controversial and unproven. They need to have sources, there is no way around that. --Zmaj 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully:

First Edit: Are you saying he did not meddle in state politics (this needs no ref, it's obvious). If you believe so, and I certainly hope not, you are very naive. "pointing out murders can be an attack against the very foundations of the state only if that state is founded on murder", perhaps you misunderstood. The new Yugoslavia was founded on the Partisan movement, an attack on the legitimacy of said movement (justified or not, I'm not getting into that) most certainly IS an attack on the foundation of the state. This is not biased, this is how it would have been perceived (at the time, and perhaps today as well) without doubt. It also needs no ref, it's obvious due to the simple, previously stated logic.

Second Edit: All right perhaps I just got angry and wrote that because of the "partisan" mob thing, but he was attacked by a crowd of civilians in Zaprešić. The infulence of the Yugoslav government (truthful AND deceptive) was huge at the time, and the people were undoubtably angered. Never mind, though, your edit's fine.

Third Edit: Very well, I will refrase that part, it does sound pretentious. But it MUST be pointed out that Stepinac was indicted only as a last resort. Not because the government was being nice or very mercifull, but simply because Tito knew that he would be adding fuel to the fire by arresting him. He DID try to avoid it with all means because he knew he would lose support from a part of the people (Stepinac also knew this and thought that because of this he was untouchable). You have to explain these "deeper" layers of the matter in the article. That is not pretentious, it just SOUNDS that way. Also I assure you this is at the heart of the matter. The Government's historically documented actions clearly show this, it needs no ref.

Fourth edit: This is not mine, I merely changed the emphasis somewhat. But, once again you misunderstood, this in NEGATIVE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, because it shows he was indicted not because of the crimes he was accused of but because of his letters in recent years. It doesn't get more true, but if you want to remove it, fine, I have no reference for this statement (since I'm not it's original author.)

Thank you for your detailed explanations. I think we're moving towards a consensus. Now let's see...

First edit: Did Stepinac attack the legitimacy of the partisan movement? It doesn't seem so. He complained about the murders and other injustices done against the church and its members. It's defense, not attack. It did stand out, though, in a time when nobody dared raise their voice. Maybe that's why it seems like an attack to you. Also, please don't rely on "logic"; in historical issues, "facts" are much more useful. What seems like logic is often only a vehicle for fictional narratives.

Second edit: Thank you for your understanding. Yes, the government did have a huge influence. If I find any references for public anger, I will most certainly include them.

Third edit: I understand what you mean. OK, let's leave the sentence. I'd just rephrase it a little bit: instead of all peaceful options, which seems exaggerated (who knows if they exhausted them all?), I'd put diplomatic options. Diplomacy is a nice word here, since the relations between church and state are similar to the relations between states.

Fourth edit: This is not about whether the sentence is negative for the government. I removed it because it is an unwarranted interpretation. You see, it is only supposing that the government was prepared to overlook his WWII conduct. But other suppositions could be made - for example, that the government was waiting for the right moment to strike. So, instead of making café-style hypotheses, I think it's best to remove such interpretations and stick to the facts. --Zmaj 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you're right, but so am I: he defened (his position) by attacking the partisan movement. (I don't think he wrote about NDH killigs of catholic priests...).

Secondly, although I am aware this will again sound pretentious, I must say that the government was certainly not waiting for the right time to strike. I am sure of this, because anything else would defy, not logic, if you like, but common sense. These are the reasons: First of all, Stepinac didn't really do anything that horrible during WW2, his sentence was only 16 years, so even the court had to agree to that (take into consideration that the penalty for treason was usually 60 to life). Second, the government obviously did not originally intend to "strike" at all, simply because it is not in their political interest to ruin their relations with the Vatican (and many other catholic states) AND lose part of their public support in Slovenia and Croatia just to convict a "minor offeder" in the huge WW2 Yugoslav mess. Thirdly, if anything this was the WORST time to endanger their relations with non-socialist states. This was the time of the famous resolution of the informbiro, I don't thik I need to say anything more. You have to look at the big picture: Tito had Stalin to worry about more than anything else.

[edit] PLEASE try to avoid POV

Recent edits have turned this article into a minefield in which I fear to tread. Terminology is appearing that is wholly inappropriate to an encyclopedia. For instance it is POV to say the Vatican's refusal to remove S~ after WW2 was "blatant" or to say the Vatican "naturally" condemned the trial. On the other hand it is equally POV to say S~ "clearly" suffered in prison - especially when we're talking about the kind of suffering usually associated with matyrdom. The guy was allowed two cells for himself and another as his personal chapel.

It is plain from their edits that Direktor is hostile to S~ and that Dalma84 has an opposite view. I hope my own views are not so obvious. For what it's worth I'm on Direktor's side - I have no time for S- and no time for the Vatican. But we should be concerned with facts, not opinions.

Part of the trouble with Stepinac is that much is still unknown. But as Zmaj said, we shouldn't fill in the gaps with our own conjecture. This article would be better without its colourful adjectives and adverbs. We should certainly not be adding to them.Kirker 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not hostile towards Stepinac, I just don't think he was a martyr, there's a difference. However, the article is already so POV that the concept of the middle ground between the views is altered. So an objective interpretation of events may seem POV in the context of the rest of the article.

Like you said, the man had: an extremely short sentence (which was then commuted), a relatively easy time in the "notorious" Lepoglava prison (the place is a normal jail) and was then released. There is absolutely NO evidence that he was murdered, he was a sick man, why the government would poison a dying cardinal is beyond me (but then I'm not the head of the UDBA...). The Vatican abruptly refused all diplomatic negotiations on the subject of REPLACEMENT (not removal or degradation) of their archbishop and then promoted him to cardinal. This objectively falls under the term "blatant". It is also natural that the Vatican condemned the trial: they were opposed to it even starting, do you suggest there was even the slightest chance for them to accept the results of the trial? There is nothing POV about these statements.

In the iterest of compromise, though, I will accept the removal of these adjectives if other ones, promoting an extremely black and white, naive view, are removed. This is international politics people!, things are never simple. Propaganda is simple, keep it out of encyclopedias.DIREKTOR

I have already removed some adjectives and proverbs. If they were not PoV, but they were saying nothing. When you, DIRECTOR, write The Vatican of course rejected and you argue that it was obvious that the Vatican would do so - then of course is not necessary. I have also removed the sentence: He did not call for the abolishment of any concentration camp. There could be different reasons he did not do so. Hypothetic reasons could be: he believed it was right to have concentration camps or he believed that such demand would be unrealistic and cause the rejection of other demands (he thought were realistic). Without giving real reasons this sentence says nothing, and the reasons are not known, so it is better to remove the whole sentence. In some cases public opinion was clearly divided and the evidence can be interpreted in either way. In such cases expressions like "in Croatia as well as in Serbia" are put when it is said about negative opinions on Stepinac and "by Croation nationalists" when it is said about positive attitude to Stepinac. I think it should be said "supporters of Yugoslavia" and "supporters of the independent Croatia". At least my observation is that those positively thinking of Stepinac also support Croatian independence and those who are critical of Stepinac supported united Yugoslavia and felt sorry that it fell apart. If I am wrong, I would like those thinking other way to stand up (the last was a joke). Jasra 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a minute! Are you saying he DID call for the abolishment of concentration camps? This is statement of FACT and must not be removed. It says much about Stepinac's political wiews and is used in the context with his admittance to the list of the righteous among the nations. It is important because it shows this man is no Schindler.

At least my observation is that those positively thinking of Stepinac also support Croatian independence and those who are critical of Stepinac supported united Yugoslavia and felt sorry that it fell apart." This is real nice, i's tantamount to saying people who support an independent Croatia are Ustaše. I for one am sorry that Juga fell apart, but am also aware that tere was no other way (with good old Slobo and all..) but to create an independent Croatia, so I support it as well. This is a VERY complicated matter you have begun talking about I suggest you be very careful with it.

Thereis nothing necessarily negative in the term "nationalist", it's not "national socialist"!

DIREKTOR, actually - if you draw comparison with Schindler - Schindler also did not advocate for the abolishment of concentration camps. Furthermore, he was a member of NSDAP. Just to mention if you want to be accurate. But in the newest version the passage about concentration camps looks OK.

Sorry, maybe I generalized too much, I rather thought about support for the independence of Croatia seen as the best option, regardless other circumstances. Of course, nowadays when the only alternative was nationalist-oriented "Serbian" Yugoslavia, many supporters of "old" Yugoslavia regarded the option of an independent states better. The problem with Stepinac was that he was really disloyal to Yugoslavia, because he supported the independence of Croatia. [Yes but at a time when it wasn't Milošević's "Serboslavia" DIREKTOR] Certainly NDH, with all its dependence on Nazi Germany was more independent than the Socialist Republic of Croatia, within Yugoslavia [this is disputable DIREKTOR]. There was no other power in those times to grant Croatia (somewhat) independence. But this can be a topic of further discussion, not directly related to the article.

OK. "Nationalists" is really not offensive in English, but it has negative conotations in other laguages. I left this word now, but I removed "radical", first of all, because it is not very precise, how radical? Secondly, the trial was questioned not only by radical nationalists.

Jasra 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All right I'll agree with that last bit, but please understand one thing: Croatia was never independent in the eyes of the world until the formation of the SR Croatia. Bear in mind that the NDH did not exist as far as 90% of the world was concerned. After the formation of the SR Croatia, it's people for the first time in modern history gained an internationally recogized sovereign state.

Ok, this is getting a little strange, had Schindler (I know he was in the NSDAP) publicly opposed the concentration camps he would have probably been thrown out of the party and would not have been able to save so many people, so you cannot draw such a comparison. He was so obviously aginst the camps privately it's almost painful. DIREKTOR

If you live in Croatia, you see busts [WHERE, ffs?] and references to stepinac everywhere. I'm sorry if it bothers you. but what bothers me is that you put it to yourself to defend yugoslavia and Tito's actions, but saying things as "obviously" and of course tito did this, the vatican did this for political reasons, etc. you already shown you dislike the catholic church and the independent croatia, and you are not objectively handling this. you sound over-excited too, over a little page. calm down please. i cannot believe the things i am getting from people over one article. why dont you add things to it without removing my labour? Dalma84 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dalma84, are you listening to yourself, you accuse me of being bisaed towards the Catholic Church, where did I show resentment of this organisation? I am an atheist, yes, but that merely allows me to look at facts objectively, if you think the Vatican does not have political wiews and goals than you are so biased by your catholicism it interferes with common sense. You just said everything yourself: I have brought it upon myself to defend Yugoslavia's point of view BECAUSE it needed defending from your baseless attack (accusations). Only that way could an unbiased wiew eventually emerge. Please realise that there are no good guys and bad guys in the world we live in. I respect your labor, But this is impossible because the article would then have conflicting sentences. I believe you are a devout catholic, I respect this deeply, but please attempt to comprehend that you may have been strongly biased by this fact. DIREKTOR Overexcited? I appear to be calmer than you Dalma84, just because I write a lot more does not mean I am so terribly excited about this "little" article. Perhaps you should just leave it be then? It would calm me down more than anything, you know...

[edit] Dalma84?

Does anyone know who's this guy Dalma84, he seems to have quit. He's the one that originally butchered the article and I'd really like to give him a peace of my mind. I mean, the guy reads one godforsaken book and thinks it's the bible or something... I hope he won't bring down the wrath of the mighty "kazneni zakon RH" (see above) upon me, I'd lose my youth in court. ;) DIREKTOR

it's me, of course. nice to meet you, whoever you are. you didnt even sign your name. thanks for the personal attacks, i find them amusing from someone who hides behind the internet, and takes so much interest in a catholic martyr he obviously hates so much. Dalma84 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look man, first of all, this wasen't a personal attack (read up on that a little) I just said that in my oppinion you butchered the article. I didn't call you names. And I didn't hide behind the internet, it was an oversight. I take interest in the criminalisation of the Yugoslav government in general. How can you call someone a martyr when it is not proven he was murdered. The pope can say anything he wants, he still does not have any proof. I find your naivete hilarious. You obviously are extremely religious and cannot therefore be unbiased in this matter. DIREKTOR

You don't know me at all, I do not put personal information about myself online, and you do not understand even the simple aspects of beautification. You're attacks against me are mean and big, I understand that I got some things wrong, but I wouild have appreaciated cooperation instead of belittling my character and chopping up my edits. You were so mean as to say "the guy reads one godforsaken book and thinks it's the bible or something..." Nice language. And you make an entire section soley about me instead of messaging me personally. Dalma84 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Not)Overturning the Sentence

There is a phrase: --- On February 14, 1992, the Croatian Parliament condemned the 1946 court decision and the trial that led to it [...].However, the verdict has not been challenged nor overturned on the court (even between 1997 and 1999 when that was possible by Croatian laws). --- Can anyone explain why it did not happen? I can guess the following reasons, but these would be only speculations (I have just invented and I want to verify them):

1. The Republic of Croatia could not overturned Yugoslav verdicts (even if it was formally possible, people thought it would be inappropriate, because it would show certain continuity they did not want)?
2. The verdict was so well justified that it would be impossible to overturn it?
3. The evidence for today was so scarce that it was impossible to overturn or support the verdict?
4. Once it was condemned people thought the whole thing was over and no further action was necessary?

Without explaining the reason this phrase is not saying much. Regards, Jasra 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As a successor state of Yugoslavia, Croatia can overturn it's verdicts. Noone can relly say the reason ,though. You're right, this sentence dosn't really need to be in an encyclopedia article. It's obviously an expression of pointless frustration. DIREKTOR

[edit] Let's do this civilized-like

I hope you will take the time to list your grievances with the article organisedly, so we can resolve them one by one in a civilised way. If not, I assure you, you won't just be able to change what you like. DIREKTOR

[edit] Sorry - edit conflict

Unfortunately I kept getting interruptions and had the edit page open for a long time. Conseqently I was not aware of Dalma84's changes when I was doing mine.

However Dalma84's edits sometimes seem just as POV as the ones he/she complains about. For instance it is POV to say "clearly" this or "clearly" that.... Also Jasra edited to remove POV content but put in some POV content as well.

Maybe some of my words betray POV too, in which case I will not complain if someone corrects them. But I hope we can manage without stuff such as what "allegedly" went on between Tito and Stepinac. Unless we can cite notes from the meetings, or what one or both of them said about it, such material is gratuitous conjecture. Likewise assumptions about what the Yugoslav government might have been thinking at any stage. Where Djilas or someone can be quoted, let's do that, otherwise it should stay out. Regards Kirker 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great rewrite!

Congradulations on an excellent rewrite, you really display a rare eloquence. You superbly shotrened and clarified the article. this is indeed a significant improvement. I would suggest to the undoubtably disgruntled Dalma84 that we both agree on this version and DO NOT TOUCH IT. It finally is NPOV.

---

The article looks much better now. I have just made some small changes. I removed the sentence in the introduction that the beatification divided public opinion, not because it is not true, but because when it is said about the sentence, which also divided public opinion - there is no information about it. NPoV demands mentioning about both controversies or none of them.

I have also doubt about the following phrase (I did not remove it):

But most of these executions had not been not ordered by the Yugoslav high command and were, for the most part, spontaneous retributions against pro-nazi clerics by the people and isolated partisan groups and, thus, had nothing to do with the Yugoslav government.

This is not related to Stepinac at all. He stated that these people were killed by the Partizans and you do not challenge the fact. It is however unfounded to state that these executions "had nothing to do with the Yugoslav government". The government did nothing or very little to prevent them, the perpetrators were either not punished or mildly punished. Just not to go into a large debate - the phrase should be either removed or it should be noted that it was the opinion of the Partizans' supporters.

Another question is the issue about releasing Stepinac from prison. He was not allowed to move from his town (house?), so it can be called home arrest. Why did you remove this remark, insisting on "released"?

Finally, general remark - if you do not agree, you can of course do revert, but PLEASE, DO NOT REVERT LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS, technical corrections, etc. For example in English you usually say trial, not process - and this correction was reverted on certain stage. Regards, Jasra 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, first of all: the public oppinion was devided, but I'll accept your argument.

Second, the sentence is correct, read it carefully, it states that civilians often committed the killings. As for those commited by the partisans, please take into consideration this was not the Wehrmacht, this was a partisan movement. Stepinac was aiming at the government. The archbishop's inention was to covertly (since openly doing so would be unimaginable at the time) accuse the government of organised mass killings (supposedly to gain leverage in his demand for more church involvement in education). This shows that his accusations were objectively propagandist and tended to mislead the laiman. The high command could not control every detachment to so small a detail as killing a single person in a particular village or town. I know this will sound biased, but the local clerics WERE often betraying people, who they considered to be helping the Partisans, to the NDH authorities. They wielded considerable power because of this. There was often much hatred towards the local clergy in those days. I alone can name several occassions where the priests were linched by a crowd of angry townsfolk. THis is an imprtant phrase since it reveals to some extent the depth of the political games played here by both sides.

Third, are you saying he wasn't released from prison? The sentence was commuted by allowing him to be released from the Lepoglava prison. The sentence is true. DIREKTOR

Thanks for the comments Jasra, and again apologies to Dalma84 for unintentionally sweeping aside his/her work. If it was me that tampered with technical corrections, sorry - it wasn't intentional.

I agree with the point about court and process and would use the latter only where intending to embrace matters not strictly confined to the trial. On the question of house arrest, I think the term is either too strong or needs explaining. (But I don't know what term the government itself used.) According to the priest who was Stepinac's closest companion in his last years, the archbishop was free to move around the local community. This is not house arrest as normally understood by the term. However I am relying on my own notes for this and will recheck when I can.

On the point about the deaths of Catholic priests (it isn't clear to me who raised it), I think Jasra is saying that it happened on Tito's watch and that those priests should have been protected by the rule of law. If so I agree. I know myself that many Catholic priests had good reason to fear retribution but that does not justify lynch mobs or any government that tolerates them. Stepinac may indeed have had in mind issues like greater church involvment in education but still his complaint about those deaths was legitimate. Regards Kirker 23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Noone is justifying lynching, Kirker, all I'm saying, in simple terms, is that Stepinac did not specify the lack of Tito's direct culpability in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the people. In his letter (read it it's not that long) he implied Tito (Yugoslavia) was directly responsible for these killings, it was not, it was war, people. DIREKTOR

Yes, I need to read the letter again. My recollection of it is that Stepinac was talking about murders committed after the Ustaša had been defeated. If that is so, then he would have been fair in assigning some degree of culpability to the partisans, and war doesn't come into it. But I might have got this wrong, and I must accept that you (Direktor?) know more about it than me. Regards Kirker 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(Yeah, it's me) He wasn't stating just the numbers that died after the Ustaše were defeated, the number included all the Catholic priests that were murdered during the entire war, the funny thing is, it wasn't just the civilians and Partisans that killed them, but you have to remember that Chetniks killed Catholics (Croats) en masse, so the numbers he presented are not only not linked to high command, but many most likely didn't have anything to do with the Partisans in general. This is why it was manipulation of public oppinion. DIREKTOR

The number might be to high in terms of the priests killed by the Partizans, but it does not change the fact that there WERE cases of priests killed by Partizans (you mention "isolated groups"). When someone in a party at war commits attrocities - usually the leaders are accused. It is very hard for leaders to convince the public that they are innocent. They are usually said to be at least morally responsible. I can't see the reason why in this case it should be different. So, I think - in the discussed phrase - instead of "But" it is better to put "It is argued that...". "But" sounded as justification. It is argued idicate that the sentence is true, but does not imply that the government was completely innocent. Regards, Jasra 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is so in 90% of wars and conflicts. But let me tell you why it should be different in this case. This was the Partisan movement, one of the most unique organisations in history. This is how it functioned: it was divided into odredi (detachments) which were grouped in "proletarian brigades". At the end of the war most brigades were under direct controll of Tito. but several were given autonomus command, in order to facilitate their guerrilla activities. this was a very effective organisation since you cannot keep strict control over partisans, the Chetniks did that, they didn't go far (they, however, had very bad discipline and several genocidal commanders so they murdered much more than the partisans, this is fact). Tito had no way to controll the detailed activities of these autonomous detachments. and when the war was ending (remember that this was still rare) they entered several towns and villages and celebrated with the locals (it is also fact they were much beloved). At that point these automous detachments, often at the instigation of the local populace, engaged in retribution against colaborators, once again, most weren't killed but were arrested and later interned for 60 years in prisons such as the Goli Otok. I will accept your edit though, since this is very hard to explain.

[edit] Still POV?

Direktor and Jasra have been generous and constructive in a search for consensus and I'm wondering if the POV template could now be removed, or at least moved to a specific section or sections? This would not mean it's perfect, and of course we can go on editing it. We would simply be saying it is no longer slanted to one perspective or another.Kirker 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one can't see anything POV in it anymore... DIREKTOR

[edit] Apology

You have my apologies Dalma84, my formation of an oppinion concerning your character and personality was greatly mislead by the article, I meant no offence. Be more careful in posting info and I shall be more careful in forming oppinions about people I do not truly know. You are wrong though, I do know a lot about beatification (is that what you meant?), I was a devout Catholic for much of my youth, I even read the entire bible ;), can you believe that? The article is (supposedly?) NPOV now and there is really no more reason for further conflict. DIREKTOR

[edit] Quotes section needs references

I deleted the quotes en masse, but only to draw attention to the issue. Here is the section, in case it otherwise becomes lost from the system:

==Quotes==

• "I know what my duty is. With the grace of God, I will carry it out to the end without hatred towards anyone, and without fear from anyone."
• "I love my Croatian people and for their benefit I am ready to give everything, as well as I am ready to give everything for the Catholic Church."
• ". . .every nation has the right to independence, then why should it be denied to the Croatians?"— at his trial in 1946.
• "God, who directs the destiny of nations and controls the hearts of Kings, has given us Ante Pavelic and moved the leader of a friendly and allied people, Adolf Hitler, to use his victorious troops to disperse our oppressors... Glory be to God, our gratitude to Adolf Hitler and loyalty to our Poglavnik [fuhrer], Ante Pavelic."

It was the addition by User 213.172.239.64 that drew my attention to the issue. For me it is a most welcome addition - a needed antidote to some of the stuff pumped out about Stepinac. (For instance that book by Šimun Sito Čorić listed under External Links, which frankly I find nauseating.) But without a direct citation it is a hostage to fortune. Where the subject of an article is as controversial as in this case, it is not enough to provide a list of referenced works and leave readers to discover which elements of the article are sourced from where.

I am familiar with some of the quotes, including the new addition, and should be able to track them down in Stella Alexander's book or Herbert Butler's essays if someone else doesn't come up with the answers before me. Incidentally Butler did extremely useful work looking up and translating all the pro-Ustaše sentiments churned out by the Catholic press in Zagreb on Stepinac's watch. I will incorporate some of it when I have a chance. Regards Kirker 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch wiki article about Stepinac

n the Dutch wiki page about Stepinac it says that Stepinac held a mass for Pavelic and Pavelic had a bowl of serbian eyes on his desk all the time. Jesus Christ.wikipedia is a WHITE-WASH of serb propaganda. The Dutch article plain says that he was a nazi and an Ustasa sympathizer.The acuse him of supporting Ustase after the war.Dutch Mo-fo's.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting! But then the Ustaše have been known to do such things, although I do NOT think Stepinac would take part in anything of the sort. The real problem Tito had with Stepinac was that the man would not stop agitating against the government, in the hope of increasing the Church's influence on state affairs (church educational facilities, and religious education in all schools). Tito met with him to try and get him to stop, he refused, and had to be discredited. It's a sad business, but I dare say the two of them had little choice. He was pardoned later, though, and received preferential treatment in jail. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tito had a problem with him because he was against communism and Tito's Yugoslavia.Stepinac wanted for Croatian people to have their own state and that was a big No-No for Tito.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch article also says that Pavelic escaped with the money he got from the Serb golden teeth pulled in Jasenovac?!?!?My God.Wiki allows all kinds of propagandic bullshit.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)