Talk:Ante Pavelić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ante Pavelić article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Most murderous regime I

"Pavelic's Ustashe regime was the most murderous regime in the whole that time occupied Europe?" Who is writing these articles, Chetnik Youth? This whole paragraph (all the way to Malaparte quotes) should be deleted for two reasons: 1) Useless, non-encyclopedical garbage that can be used for propaganda only 2) Even if you ignore that you can see how badly is that text incorporated with the rest of the article (i.e. you just can't put such paragraph on the end of the article. Articles should end with place, time and circumstances of death info).

Snowspinner ????

First you revert kucan and drnovsek articles and than you just revert this article not because of the size but because you didn`t like that I was wright when I said pavelic was fascist.

--Avala

I don't know about those other articles, but it's not unexpected that oversized and unexplained images will be removed. It's best to fix them, anyway, and I did that. You also did a sloppy job in the Belgrade article, it took me ages to download that over modem :) But all is well that ends well. --Shallot 11:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


For me it is unexpected. I always fix if I am able to.

Well I took those pics for Belgrade from German wiki and you know that they use ADSL with 3mb/s!

:D--Avala 15:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
About the term "most murderous regime": this is first subjective and prone to edit wars as I see here and second, the situation in occupied parts of Soviet Union with partisan activity was possibly as bad or worse. I would recommend to stick with version [1] by 83.139.82.247. Pavel Vozenilek 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am by no means an apologist for the Croat fascists, but I think the label 'most murderous regime' needs some
The sourcing is given below. This regime is known for the bestialities that surpassed anything seen in the wartime. Even German and Italian occupying forces were prompted to stop Ustashi in commiting them - horrfied by what they had seen. I'm afraid that the numbers of the corpses per Ustashi capita are much bigger than the ones that could be calculated for Germans.--Purger 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
sourcing. For example, someone coming to this page who isn't an expert would probably assume Nazi Germany was the 'most murderous regime' of the period - concentration camps directly run by the Nazis were responsible for a good few million murders, even before we look at occupied Russia. So, to be blunt, if the Croats are going to beat the Germans they are not going to do it on sheer number of corpses. Maybe on some measure such as number of murders per German/Croat citizen, per square mile of occupied territory, or per head in teritory under their control. Quite possibly you're right, but we could do with a citation to demonstrate it.81.41.90.223 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caputt quote

Everyking, it's unclear to me what the long paragraph about the book accomplishes. If the eye-basket is really a figment of the author's imagination, then don't mention it, otherwise readers can draw the conclusion that it was a normal feature for writers to go around publishing fabricated horror stories about the poor old innocent person. --Shallot 00:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Don't lecture me, I just made a few minor fixes to the paragraph. I have no opinion on whether it should be included, I've never even heard of the book. Everyking 00:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, bleh, I didn't notice it was an anonymous edit at first, I just went by the name seen above the diff output. I'm sorry!
In any case, the comment itself stands, I'll go edit the paragraph. --Shallot 00:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Nuremberg testimonies

Misha Glenny, The Balkans, Penguin Books 1999 Page 500

In July 1941, for example, some 500 Serbs, including women and children, from Glina, a small town 65 kilometres south-east of Zagreb, were arested and shot dead. As a consequence, the peasants from the surrounding villages hid themselves in the woods. The Nuremberg Tribunal described what happened next.

The Ustase offered an amnesty if they would convert to Roman Catholicism. A majority of peasants agreed and returned to their villages.

"The mass conversion was organized and the peasants duly arrived at the Serbian Orthodox church in Glina. 250 people turned up for the event. They were greeted by six members of Ustase. When all were inside, the chuch doors were locked shut. The peasants were forced to lie on the ground and the six Ustase begin hitting them with spiked clubs. More Ustase appeared and one after another every single peasant was murdered in this fashion"

The quote above comes from the Nuremberg Trials, quoted in

Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964, page 101

"The horrors that the Ustashi have committed over the Serbian small girls is beyond all words. There are hundreds of photographs confirming these deeds because those of them who have survived the torture: bayonet stabs, pulling of tongues and teeth, nails and breast tips - all this after they were raped. Survivors were taken in by our officers and transported to Italian hospitals where these documents and facts were gathered."

(Commander of the Italian Sassari Division in Croatia, 1941)

"Increased activity of the bands is chiefly due to atrocities carried out by Ustasha units in Croatia against the Orthodox population. The Ustashas committed their deeds in a bestial manner not only against males of conscript age, but especially against helpless old people, women and children. The number of the Orthodox that the Croats have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand."

(Report to Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler from the GeheimeStaatspolizei - GESTAPO - dated February 17, 1942)


Hermann Heubacher, the German Minister to Belgrade (1941) Hitler's personal assistant for the South-East Europe and the Balkan affairs in Zagreb (1942-1944), a witness at Nuremberg Trial in his book

Sonderauftrag Suedost 1940-1945, Bericht eines fliegendes Diplomaten,2. durchgesehene Auflage, Mai 1957

page 31.

Zu diesen explosiven Nationalbestrebungen kommen religioese Gegensaetze zwischen Katholiken, Pravoslaven und Muselmanen. Als ich einmal einen in Montenegro beruemht gewordenen Cetnikfuehrer zuredete, di Muselmanen in Ruhe zu lassen - er hat mir versprochen und sein Versprechen gehalten - erhielt ich eine Antwort, die aus den Tuerkenzeit-Anekdoten des Marco Miljanow stammen konnte: " Wer diesen Glauben hat, ist keine Serbe mehr!" Das Pravoslavenrezept des Ustaschafuehrers und Poglavnik ( Staatsfuehrers ) Kroatiens, Ante Pavelic, erinnert an Relilgionskriege blutigsten Andenkens: " Ein Drittel muss katolisch werden, ein Drittel muss das Land verlassen, ein Drittel muss sterben!" Der letzte Programmpunkt wurde durchgefuehrt.

WENN FUEHRENDE USTASCHA-MAENNER BEHAUPTETEN, DASS EINE MILLION PRAVOSLAVISCHE SERBEN (EINSCHLIESSLICH DER SAEUGLINGE, KINDER, FRAUEN UND GREISE ) GESCHLACHTET WURDEN, SO IST DAS NACH MEINER MEINUNG EINE RUHMREDIGE UEBERTREIBUNG. AUF GRUND DER MIR ZUGEKOMMENEN BERICHTE SHAETZE ICH DIE ZAHL DER WEHRLOS ABGESCHLACHTETEN AUF DREIVIERTEL MILLIONEN.

Translation of the capital lettering only:

When the leading men of the Ustashi movement are stating that they have slaughtered one million Serbs (including infants, children, women and aged) this in my opinion is a self-praising 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.

End of translation

Als ich wieder einmal wahrhaft entsetzliche Vorgaenge in meiner kroatischen Nachbarschaft im Hauptquartier zur Sprache brachte, sagte mir Adolf Hitler:

"Ich habe dem Poglavnik auch gesagt, dass man eine solche Minderheit nicht einfach ausrotten cann: sie ist zu gross!"

page 18.

Der nach diesem Zerfall ( of Yugoslavia )losbrechende kroatische Racheund Vernichtungsfeldzug gegen das pravoslaviche ( griechisch-orthodoxe) Serbentum gehoert zu den grausamsten Massenmordaktionen der Weltgeschichte: ..... --Purger 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most muderous regime III

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394929

"They started with one huge husky peasant who began singing an old historicalheroic song of the Serbs. They put his head on the table and as he continued to sing they slit his throat and then the next squad moved in to smash his skull. 'This is what you are all getting' an USTASA (Croatian Nazi) screamed. USTASE surrounded us. ..Then the slaughter began...Within a matter of minutes we stood in a lake of blood."

Ljubo Jadnak, Survivor, Yugoslavia

"This State, our country is only for Croatians, and not for anyone else. There are no ways and means which we Croatians will not use to make our country truly ours and to clean it of all Jews and orthodox Serbs. All those who came to our country 300 years ago must disappear. We do not hide this our intention."

Milovan Zanic, Minister of Justice, Croatia

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395075

The crimes of the Ustasha documented by the Zagreb indictment included the murder of hundreds of specifically named Serbs, Gypsies, and Jews; the creation of the Jasenovac concentration camp, where hundreds of thousands of individuals were killed; and the following specific cases of barbarism:

1. tying families by their hands with wire, forcing them into a pit, and cracking their skulls with sledgehammers;

2. operating a crematorium at Jasenovac into which persons were flung alive;

3. herding Serbs into their Orthodox churches ... and then butchering them with knives;

4. medical experiments into the perseverance of human organisms;

5. slitting open the bellies of pregnant women;

6. drinking blood from the slashed throats of the victims;

7. inducing cannibalism among camp inmates;

8. mutilation of the living and the dead;

9. raping schoolgirls before their mothers;

10. catching infants on bayonets;

11. inventing new methods of torture;

12. throwing burning lime on the living in execution pits;

13. feeding food laced with caustic soda to starving children.38

The evidence against Artukovic also included, in addition to evidence about his role in the above activities of the Ustasha, various affidavits from witnesses who had been in a position to observe his activities during World War II.

[edit] Malaparte's book

C. Malaparte, Kaputt, page 266 Nortwestern University Press, Evanston, IL

A basket of oysters

While he spoke, I gazed at a wicker basket on the Poglawnik's desk. The lid was raised and the basket seemed to be filled with mussels, or shelled oysters - as they are occasionally displayed in the windows of Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly in London. Casertano looked at me and winked, 'Would you like a nice oyster stew?'

'Are they Dalmatian oysters?' I asked the Poglawnik

Ante Pavelic removed the lid from the basket and revealed the mussels, the slimy and jelly-like mass, and he said smiling, with that tired good-natured smile of his,

'It is a present from my loyal ustashis. Twenty kilos of human eyes.'

On Curzio Malaparte Talk page I argued that this (and other) stories should not be taken as documentary but as work of fiction. Since the story above is widely known its presence in article here is IMHO useful but it should be clearly labeled as narrative. Pavel Vozenilek 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Fictions, cook-books, fitness, yoga are the book-shelvers classifications that might be seen in the book stores and libraries. The valid academic terms are: novels, dramas, tragedies, comedies, poems, short stories, essays, etc. About scholars - Sigmund Freud highly regarded Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov as a psychoanalytical study, Balsac's novels are regarded by French historians as social studies of the French society, Andric's The Bridge on the Drina is a scientific reference in the books of the world-renown historian W. H. McNeill (Europe, Ottoman Empire) and a part of the history curricula (University of Missoury, Kansas City Dr Carla Klausner: [[2]]). The same way Malaparte's Kaputt and The Skin are widely regarded as the WWII literary testimonies. As you might know, the testimonies that could be found in the Nuremberg Trial and in the Eichmann Trial (Tel Aviv, 1961) archives are the scientific, historic references - even though based on the words of common people.--Oesterling 14:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not arguing about beletristic value of the books or their impact or Freud or Dostoyevsky. Simply: a novel should not serve as documentary reference in encyclopedia article (which I see happening here). Pavel Vozenilek 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overblown

Pavelic's regime was clearly not "the most murderous regime in the whole that time occupied Europe". In fact, Ustasha murders and crimes were nowhere near as organized as German or even Soviet/Allied ones. Most of the people comitting these crimes were uneducated thugs. Gestapo certainly had more organized methods of torture, while concentration camps in Germany took far more lives than those in Croatia.

Why did the above pro-Croat Ustasha supporter not have the courage to leave his name or username, before spouting his pro-Ustase rhetoric??

No courage, I guess, just like his fascist murderous countrymen, the Ustasha??? Brandubh Blathmac 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Clear to whom? To you?--Purger 16:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And, as has already been said, literature and poetry have no place as sources of an encyclopedia article.

Who decided it and since?--Purger 16:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholicism

Having had a private audience with the Pope during WWII when his state was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of non Catholic people, and given his own personal rescue by the Roman Catholic church after WW2 and the relationship between his political party and his state with the RC church, Ante Pavelić is certainly Catholic enough to be categorized as such in the categories listed at the end of the page.

To do otherwise is to be dishonest in every sense.

Brandubh Blathmac 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: DEMIURGE REVISIONISM ON THE PROWL -- JUST LIKE WITH DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN USA; PRE-CODE MOVIES AND ROMAN CATHOLIC PRODUCTION CODE OF CENSORSHIP IN MOVIES IN 20TH CENTURY, ETC.!!

Brandubh Blathmac 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes he certainly falls into categories for 'roman catholic politicians', and 'war criminals' - he was certainly up there on the Allies' wanted list, although for obvious reasons never got to trial. Demiurge why are you removing these? I have no knowledge of BB's editing history or whether he/she is a sockpuppet, but these edits, and correcting syntax and spelling, were certainly not vandalism.Bengalski 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to describe the regime?

The latest edit now has it as 'semi national socialist/fascist' which is ungainly and confusing. What is a semi-nazi? Personally I would keep it simple and just go for the most general term - fascist, though if people feel we need to be more specific there is clerical fascist which fits them like a glove.Bengalski 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjecture

This is conjecture and as such has no place in Wikipedia. The fact that the author cannot cite definite numbers and uses generalisations: "close to one third Serbs, even if not more." weakens the text. For this reason alone it should be removed.

The extent of this campaign against the Serbs was a real genocide, because they aimed to exterminate a third of them, expel another third, and Catholicize another. The Ustaše succeeded in reaching their first goal - they exterminated close to one third Serbs, even if not more.


[edit] More fiction

What place has this discussion of literature and poetic descriptions of Ustashe activities got in a encyclopedic article about the leader of the Ustashe? If it belongs anywhere (which is quite questionable) it belongs under the Ustashe entry.

Utashe atrocities made a strong impression on literature and poetry. "Basket of Oysters", a chapter of Curzio Malaparte's novel Kaputt, depicted Ustashe's widespread practice of gouging out the eyes of Serbs. In Jama ("The Pit"), Ivan Goran Kovačić wrote of how Serbs were wrapped in barbed wire and dropped into pits. Other works inspired by the Ustashe were Oljača's Kozara and Svetina's Volčiči ("The Wolf Puppies").

What did Chetniks do???? So innocent ay....two sides to every story ...flip the coin.... I think more Croats died by Serbs, most is hidden in POV....look at Bosnia my friend...who did the mass killing there

[edit] Fiction

A lot that is written about Pavelic is fiction and propagnada. Yes he was a Nazi but more like a Nazi Puppet. He had little power. This guy just did as ordered by nazis. But wait a minute didnt most of Europe..wasnt just him. One has to remember the Ustashe and Ante Pavelic were a ""minority"" of Croats who fought alongside the Nazis. ""Most Croats"" and Tito himself fought against the Nazis. It hurts me when people label Croats and single them out ---but forget all the other countries who had nazi forces and in much bigger numbers. WW1--- WW2 was a dark time in history but the truth needs to be told and not hyped up by ignorance. ANTE PAVELIC was anti his own people ...he disliked the Dalmatian Coast (Croats too) and offered them to Italy...so i wouldnt say he was very Croat in any shape or form. Pavelic was just a puppet on a string...but so was most of Europe..including Italy France Hungary Estonia Serbia etc...

Yeah, it is always nice to have a good opinion about yourself. The problem emerges regularly whenever your wanderful self is not mirrored in the minds of other people the way you wished.--Purger 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Pavelic was just a puppet rates with similar ones like "all of the Nazis were just listening to what Hitler ordered". And why would you need a lot of power to commit murders or genocide? --Dultz 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Croats are not nazis, they fought for Yugoslavia just like Serbs and Bosnians. The people who were nazis were "domace izdajice" or in english "betrayers of the homeland." There were handschars, cetniks and ustase who were all against their own people... how can we single only the croats out when serbs and bosniaks did equal collaboration? Thus it makes me feel very sad when we single out only one group.

[edit] Get real

..........stop blowing Serbian POV on this page............ half of what you say is untrue............Pavelic was a puppet...he had no power to do such things.....just propaganda and that has no room on wikipedia.... War is war...killings went on all sides...no good guys in war...wake up Evergreen Montenegro1 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone is a puppet, then they should do the job properly by killing their victims straightforwardly, and not make them die in agony and in a humiliating way such as by forcing them to drink battery acid or plucking their eyes out and selling them on the market as 'good luck charms'.

[edit] Serbian Bodyguard

Why is there no mention of of the fact that Ante Pavelic had a Serbian bodyguard. This bodyguard was with him right up until Pavelic fled to Argentina. Some of the Ustashe troops where in fact Serbs by blood. These are known facts and should be mentioned. Source....some books i have read while living in Yugoslavia ...very unbias books as it was time of Yugoslvia. Title ...it was so long ago...but one might check with historians.

This statment (coming from "some books") is close to those that claim that most of the Nazis were Jews, so it was Jews who killed the Jews, don't blame the Germans! Bollocks. --Dultz 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the Partizan football club in Belgrade was run for many years by former Croat President Franjo Tudjman...he was president when the club was founded in around 1945 and spent many years involved with the club.

And what should this tell us? I don't understand. --Dultz 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Evergreen Montenegro1 03:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


It's a tad bit different.. Serbs and Croats are similar if not exactly the same by blood.. If you mean that the people who killed had "orthodox" ancestry , then yes.. most croats do.

[edit] Ante pavelic was a kind man and his Ustashe army were at times Kind

Ante Pavelic was kind but nieve because he agreed to Italy if Hitler won the war the region of Istria and Dalmatia would be given to Italy. Even though Ustahes did Kill a lot of serbs it wasn't that much as the serbs clamied. Franjo Tudman had a look at how many Serbs were killed during the Second world war he got a total of 38,000. But the Ustashe army treated most allied prisoner with kindness. --Marbus2 5 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


LMAO, are you kidding? Sure....only 38,000 Serbs died, to bad they found Jasenovac to prove you wrong. C-c-c-c 04:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all i read the artical and somewhere there it saids that there was a lack of Documented evdience to show how many serbs were killed by the Ustase. They say a estimate of 25,000 to 1,000,000. But ask yourself where did the estimates come from, Probley from the communist of Yugoslavia who won the war which was lead by Tito Brojz and we know how much propaganda the communist Yugoslavs have put on Croatia after World War 2 and onwards. --Marbus2 5 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Right, would you like to deny Holocaust for the record as well? And please, brush up on your English, or otherwise don't contribute. Thanks, -- C-c-c-c 20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The holocaust is also full of properganda 1,000,000 Jews died in Poland in a Concentration Camp, Yeah right how could 1,000,000 jews die and there is no mention on how many other national's died. Its as if their were no other nationalitys in the concentration camp accept jews. Now honostly could have 1,000,000 jews died in poland or was it form all diffrent nationalitys. --Marbus2 5 10:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, Pavelic was kind man.... and Hitler worked for the Red Cross. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.105.48.93 (talk) 12:11, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring

I see some anon editors have been engaged in revert-warring, to the point of removing the {{NPOV}} tag. I've no particular opinion on who's right or wrong here, but compromise needs to be reached.

fascist vs. Nazi - which is the more correct term and why? ✍
Just compare Italian fascists to the Ustashe
- Jews and Serbs in the war zone occupied by Italians were protected to a great extent; as per testimonies of the Jews and Serbs, Italian army was engaged in chasing the Ustashe bands when they entered the Italian zone.
Italians did not establish konzlagers in order to exterminate Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies nor they had it as their primary goal - Ustashe did it and were more ardent that Nazi Germans.
Pavelic's Independent State of Croatia mimicked the Nazy Germany and she run six larger konzlagers out of the 13 in the wartime Europe who were not established and run by Germans.
Conclusion - for the Ustashe and their regime Nazi is a more appropriate term than fascist--Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I would use 'fascist', or more specifically 'clerical fascist'. The ustashe ideology was similar to in many respects, but differed from in others, both German Nazism and Italian Fascism. Fascism as it is generally used is the broader term - it can be used specifically to refer to the Italian variety, but also more widely for a range of related movements and positions. That is - the ustashe definitely can be filed under fascism (in the broad sense); Nazism is more debatable. Alternatively there is the more specific term clerical fascism which fits very well.Bengalski 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I gave some comparisons above to show that the Ustashe were close to the German Nazis. Also, 'Nazi' in this article is used as an attribute. Claiming that is a point of view is a nonsense. You could see, for example, that the world renown historian and the Oxford Universtity professor, A.J.P. Taylor, uses the term 'second German war' while reffering to the WWII. Nobody claimed ever that his term is not appropriate for the WWII.--Purger 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MalaparteOysters.JPG - this link is simply broken and needs to be left out.✍
I can fix it--Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"These bestialities were even recorded" vs. "Some of the actions of the Ustase have been recorded" - "bestialities" is a POV word and should really be changed. Let the reader judge accordingly. ✍
Not a single word is a POV. An idea might be a POV. As to the bestialities - how could you describe slashing people's throats, smashing their heads by mallets, gouging their eyes and sending them as a prezent to their leader Pavelic, raping then killing girls? Is there a better, more descriptive word? Just read the entries above starting with 'Most murderous regime'. You'll find there a great number of the bestialities described in details. --Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the only real argument against 'bestiality' here is it does a disservice to beasts. On the other hand, yes it's not really necessary - the actions speak for themselves.Bengalski 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"inspired by the widespread practices of Ustashe's gouging out the eyes of Serbs; Kovačić's Jama (The Pit), where Ustashe tied Serbs with barbed wire and dropped them into pits; " - can we have a cite for that please?
I do agree - this is not needed to be pointed out. However, it can be read in 'Kozara' and 'Volcici'. Malaparte did not mention whose eyes he had seen during his meeting with Pavelic. Kovacic did not mention ethnicity of the blinded in hi poem 'Jama'--Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much every reputable source (including Britannica, Great Soviet and Brockhaus) calls him a fascist leader. The Nazi thing seems a bit like OR – "Nazi" is mostly reserved for the NSDAP people themselves. See e.g. Ion Antonescu. --Elephantus 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept this man's point of view without a grain of salt for finding him as a falsifier (see [[3]]). Also, the 'Nazi' term became an adjective used to mark the WWII war criminals. As per [[4]]
The Extradition of Nazi Criminals: Ryan, Artukovic, and Demjanjuk
by Henry Friedlander and Earlean M. McCarrick
Andrija Artukovic, the highest ranking Nazi criminal to find refuge in the United States, was born in 1899 in Austrian Herzegovina, which after World War I formed part of Yugoslavia. Trained as a lawyer, he participated in the prewar politics of Yugoslavia as a member of the extremist Ustasha, whose aim was the creation of an independent Croatia and thus the destruction of a unified Yugoslavia. During World War II,13 when the Ustasha assumed power in the Nazi puppet state of Croatia, Artukovic served as Minister of Internal Affairs. As such he was in charge of the police and paramilitary units that imposed the Ustasha system of terror. These forces established death camps where they murdered large numbers of men, women, and children including Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Moslems. As the second highest ranking member of the Ustasha regime and as the man in charge of internal security, Artukovic was implicated in these crimes.--Purger 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As per Merriam-Webster online dictionary [[5]]
Main Entry: Na·zi
Pronunciation: 'nät-sE, 'nat-
Function: noun
Etymology: German, by shortening & alteration from Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist
1 : a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2 often not capitalized : one who resembles a German Nazi
- nazi adjective, often capitalized
So, as the second meaning, the word 'Nazi' is applicable within this article--Purger 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
To be more specific:
Britannica:
Pavelic, Ante, born July 14, 1889, Bradina, Bosnia, died Dec. 28, 1959, Madrid, Croatian fascist leader and revolutionist who headed a Croatian state subservient to Germany and Italy during World War II. ...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
ПАВЕЛИЧ (Pavelić) Анте (14.7.1889, Брадина, – 28.12.1959, Мадрид), глава хорватской террористич. фаш. организации усташей, воен. преступник. ...
Pavelic Ante (14.7.1889, Bradina, – 28.12.1959, Madrid), head of the Croatian terrorist fascist organization Ustaše, war criminal. ...
Brockhaus
Pavelic, Ante, kroatischer Politiker, * Bradina (Herzegowina) 14. 7. 1889, + Madrid 28. 12. 1959; emigrierte 1929 nach Italien; gründete und leitete von dort aus, an den Ideen des italienischen Faschismus orientiert, die Ustascha...
--Elephantus 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
To be more specific, Britannica claims that Pavelic was 'revolutionist'? As much as Hitler was or maybe more? Very poor reference. Not a single serious history texbook ever references any encyclopedia. Brockhaus claims 'Pavelic, Ante, kroatischer Politiker'? All his life? So Bin Laden is a politician, nicht war? As to the term 'Nazi' and how to use it and when - it is the matter of living language: the vocabulary confirms it and there are examples of this term use.--Purger 12:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have quoted what I think are reputable, representative reference works. Surely the fact that all of them call Pavelic a fascist and none of them calls him a Nazi has significance? "Revolutionist" - Pavelic certainly was one, because before he was installed in power in 1941 he had been a leader of what was a radical insurgent organization that proclamed its aim of overthrowing the Yugoslav state. He was also a politician (besides being a criminal and a mass murderer), just like Hitler, Stalin and Mao were politicians. --Elephantus 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
And there's this introduction from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust by the Yad Vashem centre:
Pavelic, Ante (1889-1959), Leader of the fascist puppet state in Croatia from 1941-1945. Pavelic began his political career as a member of the Croatian Justice Party. ...
--Elephantus 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Enough! I do not want to deal with people who are expsed as falsifiers. You are one of them! Use of the English language adjective 'Nazi' has nothing to do with other points of view about this man. Also, I could add at least four far more reputable sources of information about Pavelic. Encyclopaedias are not strong references at all!--Purger 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for this page. Let's see what happens. But please, can we resolve this here rather than engaging in revert wars? - Ali-oops✍ 14:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Page has actually been fully-protected now - Ali-oops✍ 16:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect?

A request has been made that this article be unprotected. Is it ready for unprotection? I don't see a lot of talking going on over the past few days, but then it was a weekend. · Katefan0 (scribble) 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not unprotect the page, because the editor in question is involved in several edit wars across a number of articles related to Croatia. Otherwise, this page will again see a sudden surge in number of "new editors" and anonymous IPs whose only "contribution" to Wikipedia is reverting to one POV page version. See contributions of user:SrbIzLike, user:64.18.16.251, user:Petrinja, user:Purger etc. (in all likelyhood all sockpuppets). It suffices to check their "user contributions" to realize that every page where "they" are operating on has turned into a nightmare for Croatian contributors. Any constructive work has been brought to a standstill as our efforts there have been reduced to an attempt to sustain the vandalism of a large number of new editors familiar with 3RR who keep appearing out of nowhere sharing the predilection for the same pages on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This claim about sockpupets is frivolous and offensive. Among those who are reverting and claiming POV not substantiating the claim is EurowikiJ. This article is written almost solely by me!--64.18.16.251 12:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You??? All the article??? Who are you??? Teasing me or EurowikiJ?--Purger 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just you. A serious and a knowleable man is not epected to waste his time explaining meanings of the English language words —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.18.16.251 (talk • contribs).
After being dormant for 4 days User:64.18.16.251 has resurfaced to "tease" the suspected sockpuppeteer User:Purger. Though annoying, even sockpuppetry can be occasionaly hillarious. EurowikiJ 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the anons and socks don't seem interested in discussing the matters under dispute, I'll reduce the protection to a semiprotect. That way good faith editors can still edit. · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What a sensible decision. I can't wait for the "good faith editors" to resume their "editing". EurowikiJ 15:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Pages can't stay protected forever, particularly when there's no discussion toward resolving the disputes that caused the protection in the first place. I'd rather just block bad actors and let the rest of us get on with building an encyclopedia. · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which... a message to Purger: Don't remove NPOV dispute templates unless the dispute is actually resolved, or there is a consensus on the talk page to remove it regardless. And especially don't use edit summaries that don't reflect what you actually did to the article; you removed a link, AND you removed the NPOV template. Be more precise next time, please. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's removed once more without consensus, that editor will be blocked. Can someone please delineate here what they feel is biased about this article? NPOV templates must be placed along with explanations of what the placer feels needs improvement. · Katefan0 (scribble) 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
First thing first - I do not want to deal with this user Elephantus for finding him as a falsifier (see [[6]]). Are you going to block him/her indefinitely? Yes or no?--Purger 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. We'll give folks a couple days to explain why this article needs an NPOV tag; if no explanations are forthcoming it can be removed. · Katefan0 (scribble) 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes you do know it very well! After reading the [[7]], for sure. Go to the 'About Elephantus' title on that page. Tell us what is there. Honestly.--Purger 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I've read it, but I still don't know what you're talking about. I'm only interested in what is happening at this article right now. I'm not here to adjudicate disputes between users; if you've had a problem with a user in the past, then use dispute resolution. · Katefan0 (scribble) 21:48, 24 May 2006

(UTC)

I am actually in dispute state with you. I removed the POV tag not seeing any reason for its existence. Then you threatened: Please stop. If you remove this tag once more without consensus, I will block you for vandalism. I did not understand what were you talking about and asked: Please, elaborate where do you see the disputes related to this article. Who disputed it and how?. But, someone else had to elaborate your threat: Can someone please delineate here what they feel is biased about this article?. To me, looks like that you are vandalizing honest efforts to edit this article.
Anyway - to elaborate the last sentence above: I can reach consensus only with honest people. Those who weren't once - are not the ones that I want to deal with. That's what is happening at this article right now. Editorial policy of any serious publication does not have place for falsifiers. Here it is not the case. That is not my problem with a user in the past. So, there will be no consensus. Are you going to keep the tag forever?--Purger 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, people should be given adequate time to justify why the tag is needed. If nothing is put forth that's critical of the article, I'd say it can be removed by the weekend. · Katefan0 (scribble) 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: 64.18.16.251 and a number of other users have been identified as sock puppets of Purger. See here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Purger. --Zmaj 09:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no 64.18.16.251 user at all. The 64.18.16.251 IP address is of a proxy server used by thousands of people
  • Please see User_talk:Ali-oops#Meaningless_tag for my response - Alison✍ 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusing Kovacic!

Kovacic, himself Croat, never mentioned ustashe or Serbs in his poem "Jama". He was talking about innocent victims of war and their inhumane executors that were present on all sides with nationalist hatred during the WW2. Not to mention that the poet himself was killed by the Serb nationalist chetniks! This shameful abuse of a great poem for Serbian nationalist propaganda is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Things like this should be moderated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.152.217.129 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Kovacic did not talk about 'innocent victims of war and their inhumane executors that were present on all sides' - he was talking about Ustashi - even when not mentioning them. Kovacic was killed by Tito's henchmen - the same way they killed Mladen Stojanovic. Then he invented stories about chetniks - as their killers.--72.75.55.21 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So we have a dead poet's mind reader here. What he ment Kovacic said in his poem. Will someone with authority remove Kovacic from this article? I repeat: such abuse of a great poet is a disgrace for Wikipedia.194.152.217.129 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning of Kovacic is not really appropriate in this place. No nationalities nor ideologies were mentioned in the poem. I would like to remind people that Italians made many crimes in Istria and Primorje region, and there isn't much talk about it. I see that as preferring Italia ahead of Croatia and Slovenia by most of the world. That occurs in changing names that exist in both Italian and Croatian/Slovenian versions to Italian, and decrementing crimes made by Italian fascists which consequences are still visible in many villages. Kovacic's poem "Jama", is a poem about war crime and death. It doesn't say who are the victims and who are murderers. They could be Ustashe, Chetnics, Italian fascists or partisans taking revenge. Crime and death are universal. Martin 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War Criminal

I understand why people would call Ante a war criminal (in my opinion, deservedly so). However, the Wikipedia Category:War Criminals is for people convicted of war crimes (or at least so the description on its page says). Therefore, if Ante was never convicted of war crimes, neither during his life nor posthumously, he should not be put into that category, though I see nothing wrong in saying somewhere in the article that he fits the conventional definition of a war criminal pretty well. -- int19h 07:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense - he simply escaped the justice. His impartial judge are the people he victimized.
So maybe it's time to add Slobodan into this category either? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ante Pavelic got the Death penalty - he was convicted by the Partisan court. Ante was convicted; the difference is that punishment wasn't executed. --PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

He was never convicted in any court. Show trials in dictatorships without rule of law, and withouth any jurisdiction over Pavelić, who lived in a different country and was a citizen of a different state (Croatia), doesn't count. North Corea may declare Bush to be a war criminal, but it's only the POV of North Corea and no basis for categorizing him as such. Shgoals 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect terminology

Ante Pavelic was the leader of Ustase, but the Ustase were not national-socialists (who were the German NSAPD party led by Adolf Hitler) nor were they fascists (who were Italian led by Mussolini). The Ustase were a nationalist party (movement) and their agenda was that of Croatian nationalists (establishment of the Croatian state). However, they did not share the same ideology as the NSAPD or the Italian Fascists. Their ideology would find a counterpart in Franco's Spain, perhaps.Lusich 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

Clearly this article has heavy POV problems, including both Anti-Pavelić and Anti-Croatian (denying the Croatian people the right to independence) as well as pro-communist/pro-Serbian bias. Shgoals 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Opinionated Article

In all fairness, Ustasha should be referred to as a political and nationalist organization, in lieu of "terrorist" organization as written in this article.

In comparison, the Nazi Party of Germany was just that: a political/nationalist party, not a terrorist organization.

The reference to the NDH (Independant State of Croatia as a "puppet Nazi(German) regime is likewise totally off-base. As the Croatians are culturally and historically a part of Western Europe, they are also the traditional allies of the Germanic peoples. After being forcibly pushed into the previous "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", the Croatians were primed for a nationalist movement.

I have revised the article with a more neutral standpoint for people new/researching the subject. I have removed terms such as "terrorist organization, puppet regime, etc, only to have the article changed again to a more opinionated, Serbian perspective.

The points you are revising are perfectly neutral. By any standard, NDH was a puppet state. If you take a look at Britannica under 'Ustase', 'Pavelic' etc. you will find him defined as a leader of a subservient state to Germany. Ditto all history books in the West, never mind Churchill and the lot. The term terrorism is, in principle, biased and there I agree with you. It is used for Ustase because a number of organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, refer to them as such - an organization that was responsible for inflicting terror on civilian population. Whether we find it appropriate to change the term into something different is a matter for discussion. The constant references to puppet state are there to make sure that nobody identifies the present Croatia with the crimes committed under the Pavelic regime.--As286 08:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The belief that any Axis nation was subservient to the Germans is misleading. The Italians, Turks and Romananians were not subservient, in the fact that they were given direct orders from the German government/military to perform a specific detail, or face the consequences. That was not the fact with them, and it wasn't a fact with the NDH.

The term terrorist organiztion needs to be left out indefinitely; it is a biased term for a neutral arcticle.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center likewise is not an unbiased source of information. They do have an agenda, and hence should not be used for factual information.

NDH outdid any of these vassal states in willing brutality towards civilians and collaboration, which makes it a perfect fit for the term "puppet state". They could have chosen to fight against but did not. Fortunately for everybody, a huge number of Croats did not appreciate this nonsense and ended up in Partisans.
Wiesenthal has an agenda, oh yes, to clear the world of Nazi scum. I am afraid one cannot be neutral about Nazism and here things do happen to be mostly black and white. And the Center has a VERY thick dossier on various NDH officials.--As286 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here. Until this article is free and clear of opinionated statements, is should not be considered as a legitimate source of information for any person looking for information regarding Ante Pavelic. The utter lack of neutrality, incorrect historical statements, and the use of agenda-driven entities for information, have rendered this article unreadable to a person genuinely researching the subject. Nathraq 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)nathraq

Why don't you start with correcting what you believe are factual mistakes: dates, places, events, etc? If facts are correct, it is easy enough to eliminate NPOV problems.--As286 09:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have previously corrected only POV and opinionated statements in this article, that seemed to have been a problem for you. Why would I go about wasting my time and energy fixing historical inaccuracies, only to have the page switching back and forth between edits by certain people with an slanted view of the subject? Until Wiki gets involved, and semi-blocks this article after POV and bias oriented statements have been removed, I will leave it alone. Or maybe a person with a more commanding knowledge of the English language other than the person who added statements such as "puppet-state", "terrorist" etc. will come along and reiterate that this article is not neutral. Nathraq 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMRO was a terrorist organization

Here is a number of reputable references confirming this as true:

  • A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 by Stanley G. Payne, Routledge 1996, page 406

Pavelic and his followers eventually decided to strike down the head of state. In collusion with IMRO, the Macedonian terrorist organization, three Ustashi agents were the direct accomplices of the IMRO assassins who murdered King Alexander and the French foreign minister in Marseilles in October 1934.

  • Mediterranean Politics by Richard Gillespie, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press 1994, page 94

In November 1990 the first free elections were held in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The undisputed winner was the extremist nationalist IMRO-DPMNU (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - Democratic Party of Macedonian National Unity). Both its name and its manifesto refer directly to the organization of the same name that was active at the end of the ninetheenth century. Nor is it a coincidence that a report published by the US Department of State in 1991 describes IMRO-DPMNU as a terrorist organization modelling itself on the old IMRO.

  • Kosovo: Perceptions of War and Its Aftermath, by Sally N. Cummings, Continuum International Publishing Group 2001, page 31

Indeed, the Kosove Committee signed an agreement on co-operation with the Bulgarian terrorist organization IMRO in 1920, on joint actions against the young South Slav state

  • No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First by Walter Laqueur, Continuum International Publishing Group 2004, page 202

Hovever, the Balkans have a long tradition of terrorism in which the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) played a leading role as well as Croat Ustasha.

  • History of the Balkans by Barbara Jelavich, Cambridge University Press 1983, page 208:

With the assistance of the army and the moderate wing of IMRO, the government was able to disband the terrorist organization; its leader, Ivan Mihailov fled.

  • Decades of Crisis: Central and Eastern Europe Before World War II by Tibor Iván Berend, University of California Press, 1998 - - Page 329

Ideological similarities and the goal of destroying Yugoslavia provided basis for co-operation between Pavelic's party and the IMRO (Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization), a Bulgarian right-wing terrorist organization.

  • Collier's Encyclopedia, with Bibliography and Index by William Darrach Halsey, Emanuel Friedman, P.F. Collier 1986 page 725

Operatives of the Macedonian terrorist organization IMRO assassinated Stamboliski's close adviser Alexander Dimitrov.

  • Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans by Victor Roudometof, contributor Roland Robertson, Praeger/Greenwood 2001 - page 89

In 1903 the IMRO (a terrorist organization founded in Thessaloniki in 1893) orchestrated the 1903 Ilinden uprising (for details, see Chapter 5).

--Standshown (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The fact that other people have said IMRO members were terrorists does not compel Wikipedia to take a position on the matter, though of course it is fair to mention (in the appropriate place) that such views exist. But the place to discuss IMRO status is the IMRO article. The Pavelić article could get by without a description; a link to the other article is enough. But if you and Laveol think a description would help, it is surely not beyond the two of you to do it in unemotive, neutral language. You may be interested to note that the BBC World Service never uses the term "terrorist" exept when it is attributed to third parties. The reason? Its use implies a judgment and a point of view. And the World Service, like Wikipedia, strives not to have a point of view. Kirker (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just your personal point of view. IMRO is here mentioned in a very particluar historical context. The 'other people' are reputable historians. So, we are not discussing IMRO here - we are trying to correctly name events and people participating in these events. Also, my language is neutral - based on the language of the references cited.--Standshown (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WHAT is just my personal view? If you mean what I said about how articles should be written, then everything I said was in line with Wikipedia guidelines and my personal view has nothing to do with it. Now, I suspect you know perfectly well that the term "terrorist" implies a judgment. That makes it unacceptable for Wikipedia. It could be argued that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist because he was convicted in a court of law. And so he might be in the view of some. In that case it would be legitimate under the guidelines for Wikipedia to record that such a view exists. But for Wikipedia itself to apply that term to him would be farcical. I happen to believe that IMRO was a terrorist organisation, but Wikipedia is not the place for me to peddle my personal views. Equally it's not the place for you to push your views up my nose. If you want to say that respected historians have called IMRO members terrorists, be my guest. But preferably do it in a more relevant article.Kirker (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing above is in the line with Wikipedia guidelines - rather an attempt to sell the rules you had invented on spot - as Wikipedia rules. That can be considered only as an unethical attempt to derail discussion about this topic.--Standshown (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If you think I am trying to derail discussion then you are simply stupid. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. If you don't understand that, go and study the guidelines and stop editing in the meantime. To say someone is a terrorist requires a judgment to be made, and judgments can always be questioned, just as Laveol questioned yours. As I have tried to explain, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to record the opinions of responsible commentators, but it should have no opinions of its own. If you still have difficuilty understanding, perhaps your problem is with the English language, in which case take a break from the English-language Wikipedia until your English is better. Kirker (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For lacking effective knowledge of the subject - you slipped into presonal attacks and incivilty. Yes, neutral point of view is something I follow strictly- by utilizing the knowledge coming form reputable and verifiable resources!

--Standshown (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not expected jokes in so serious discussion (neutral point of view is something I follow strictly) :)) In wikipedia this organizations are not terrorist organizations:

Do you want to say that IMRO is terrorist organizations but this 3 are not ?? If you still think that IMRO is terrorist organization then you are using double standards because it is not possible that this 3 are not terrorist organizations but IMRO is !! --Rjecina (talk)

Standshown, you accused me of inventing rules in order to stifle discussion (even though the rules are there for you to read for yourself). In what sense is that not a personal attack? If I was writing a Wikipedia article about you the rules would allow me to say you are a Wikipedia editor, since that is a fact that no rational person would try to deny. I could not say you are stupid since that would be an opinion, regardless of how many wise people might say the same thing, and even if you were doing your best to prove me right :-). I hope you can see the difference. Please find a way to describe IMRO that is not contentious. ("A paramilitary organisation"?) Kirker (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My answer to false claims - Wikipedia does use the term "terrorist" to mark terrorist organizations

First claim

World Service never uses the term "terrorist" exept when it is attributed to third parties. The reason? Its use implies a judgment and a point of view. And the World Service, like Wikipedia, strives not to have a point of view. Kirker (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Second claim

Do you want to say that IMRO is terrorist organizations but this 3 are not ?? If you still think that IMRO is terrorist organization then you are using double standards because it is not possible that this 3 are not terrorist organizations but IMRO is !! --Rjecina (talk)

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council,[1] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General,[2][3] the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union,[4] the United States Department of State,[5] the Australian Government,[6] Public Safety Canada,[7] the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[8] Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook,[9] South Korean Foreign Ministry,[10] the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,[11] the United Kingdom Home Office,[12] Russia,[13] the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,[14] and the Swiss Government.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,[5] the European Union,[6] Israel,[7] Japan,[8] and the United States,[9] and is banned in Jordan.[10] Australia [11] and the United Kingdom [12] list the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. In recent years Hamas has grown in popularity, though in the last year Hamas's popularity has started to wane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO

According to a 1993 National Criminal Intelligence Service report, the PLO was "the richest of all terrorist organizations" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "donations, extortion, payoffs, illegal arms dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc.". The Daily Telegraph reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world including Zimbabwe and Somalia.[5]

--Standshown (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you've gone to a lot of trouble, Standshown, but all you have managed to do is emphasise the point I made at the start. In none of the cases you mentioned has Wikipedia described anyone or anything as "terrorist." Thus in the Al Qaeda article, for instance, the term is ascribed to third parties (i.e. the United Nations, etc). It is they, and NOT Wikipedia, which used that description. Wikipedia is simply recording that they hold that view. Similarly the PLO is described as a terrorist organisation only in a quote plainly attributed to the NCIS. I have said all along that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to record views expressed by third parties such as responsible commentators and organisations. (I still think that in the case of IMRO the right place is in the article about IMRO, not this one.) Kirker (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, be civil if you want to carry this discusson seriously and read what you have vritten before. Wikipedia collects and represents information from credible and verifiable resources and nothing comes from Wikipedia directly. So, everything comes from "third party" - do not play with logical inconsistencies this way! What I offered here - is the knowledge from references - which is not my point of view or Wikipedia's view. Also, here is not discussion about IMRO - rather about an event particluar to this biography. Case closed.--Standshown (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Point is that IMRO has been terrorist organization in Yugoslav goverment eyes. In Macedonians eyes this has been organization for liberation of Macedonia. They are even having in 1 time period partisan groups which are fighting from time to time with Yugoslav forces. I want to say that it is not possible to say that this is terrorist organization because Macedonians are not having this thinking.
Comments that Hamas and PLO are terrorist organization because goverments which control only 30 % of world population say that is funny. This statement will be OK if majority of states and population think that or if palestinians think that.--Rjecina (talk) 19:49 29. December 2007
Which bit was uncivil Standshown? And where have I contradicted what I said earlier? Let me give you an example. Wikipedia guidelines discourage a statement such as "Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation." (But of course such a statement may appear on Wikipedia because we are all free to ignore the guidelines if we choose.) On the other hand it is fine to say: "Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation according to the UN." In other words judgmental statements should be used only where they can be attributed to specific people/organisations (ie "third parties"). If English is not your first language, you might not have appreciated the difference.Kirker (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to leave editing of the article to those who are more familiar with the subject but Standshown made a good addition and I saw a way to take it further. Please note that I changed "Serbian authorities" to "national government in Belgrade" to make it more accurate(I hope?) I would have been OK with "Yugoslavian authorities" but of course that name had not yet been officially adopted, and the actual name of the Kingdom seemed too longwinded. Kirker (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, wasn't this my addition actually? --Laveol T 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed your addition Laveol. I'm glad you did it and I'm sorry for mis-attributing it. Kirker (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem ;) --Laveol T 09:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] January 2008 edits

I have now restored some of the editing reverted by Stagalj, with appropriate references. Some of the changes are simply to remove sloppy wording. (For instance Pavelić did not "act" as defence counsel, he WAS defence counsel. And "the Skopje trials" was an inappropriate phrase since it would embrace many scores of trials that have taken place in Skopje.) I hope the present wording re IMRO will be acceptable to Stagalj. It indicates that IMRO members were charged with terrorist offences (fact) but without defining IMRO as "terrorist" (opinion). With the POV description deleted, a series of lengthy references became redundant since they had been provided only to show that IMRO has sometimes been described as a terrorist organisation. I have therefore deleted them. As I have previously suggested to Stagalj, there may be a case for Wikipedia citing the various ways that IMRO has been described. But the place for that is in the IMRO article, to which this article links. The last point to note is that I have moved the edited text back to where I had it before, under the heading 1920s and 1930s. I hope that this at least is beyond contention.Kirker (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references

To reference Kaputt is complete nonsense and Harvard scholar Michael McAdams has proved otherwise in his book "Croatia: Myth&Reality" - which is much more credible than anything presented here. I would like to add much to this, but what is the point of writing something out and referencing it, when someone can just erase it the next day? Is there a way around this?

I am new to Wikipedia and the whole lay out of these discussions is very confusing so please correct my placing of this if it is in an inappropriate place. AP1929 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The links at the bottom of this article are so bad it is almost laughable. - all of the sources are Serbian or Jewish - not to mention that the Jasenovac website has lost all credibility considering it's totally bogus list of victims (my own family is listed as being killed at Jasenovac ... don't believe me, find a Croatian friend/acquaintance and he will easily locate one of his family members who obviously did not perish there.) AP1929 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I trust you are not suggesting that sources are wrong just because they are Serbian or Jewish. The views of Slavko Goldstein (a survivor) for instance cannot be dismissed on the basis that he is Jewish. If you want to include material from other sources, and to cite those, you are perfectly entitled to do so, and that may make for a more balanced article. But as you may have seen, you must then be prepared to fight to defend your contributions! However the aim should be to stick to facts and to avoid personal opinions (POV = point of view).Kirker (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not necessarily saying that Jewish or Serbian sources are incorrect but time in and out they have proved (especially Serbian ones) to be extremely inflated and tainted. To write a encyclopedic article about Dr. Ante Pavelic and only use Serbian/Jewish sources is like writing a page on George W. Bush and using Al Quada (?) sources. I too am for a factual article, but people have to take into consideration that Croatian history is very tainted thanks to 50plus years of communist rule - in other words, people writing things about Ustase prior to the 90's were usually referencing Yugoslav pieces/documents/ books etc.AP1929 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pavelić, fascism and genocide

Fascist ? Pavelic took on some fascist principles, but he himself was not a fascist and the NDH was not a fascist state - not to mention we live in the 21st century and the term "fascist" doesn't really mean anything anymore. When I see "fascist" - unless it is in regards to Mussolini's Italy or Spain etc (States that openly identified themselves as fascist, and had their own defined form of fascism) - then I see that the person who wrote that in the article clearly has some sort of bias.

Pavelic's stance on fascism is quite clear in his own book "Strahote Zabluda" which was written prior to NDH IN fascist Italy. AP1929 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right to say Pavelić was not a fascist. My own view is that the Ustaša was an "extremist catholic/nationalist and genocidal organisation" but I am not clear how much the genocidal policy came from Pavelić and how much from Kvaternik etc. (I noticed somewhere that Stagalj seems to be well informed about the Pavelić/Kvaternik relationship.) The Jasenovac atrocities have indeed been exaggerated by some Serbs but on the other hand the wholesale slaughter in many villages (for instance across Hercegovina and around Banja Luka) is still a largely unknown story, at least in the US and the UK. Very few survived from those village outrages but some survived Jasenovac and I have interviewed some of them at length in Podgradci and Prijedor. Without exception they remember the camp as hell on earth, but we are not allowed to use personal research in Wikipedia articles.Kirker (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ustasa movement was not a ""extremist catholic/nationalist and genocidal organisation". Why ? Well... many people who were not Catholic were Muslims - 80 percent of the most elite Ustasa formation known as Crna Legija / Black Legion was that of Islamic faith, not to mention that the country itself was only about 50 percent Catholic. It is understandable for someone to get that impression becausei n the 90s when war broke out, the Serbian propaganda machine started reeling out pictures of Ustase with priests etc, Bishops that supported the Ustase, this all had to do with the "revival of NDH" which the serbs 'feared' and it was easy to use things like this when the Pope himself and the Vatican recognized the Republic of Croatia early on in the days of the war.

Dr. Ante Pavelic said it himself :

Brat je mio koje vjere bio.Mi imamo jedan veliki dio naroda,koji je katoličke vjere.Imamo muslimana,imamo evangeličke vjere ,ima i pučanstva koje je u pravoslavlju.Državni je interes da ne bude u državi nikakvih nesporazuma,a najmanje vjerskih trzavica.Nama je to posebni interes,jer znamo da smo na granici Balkana,mi znamo da smo s istim Balkanom osobito bili vjekovima u doticaju.Mi znamo,da smo bili i pod balkanskim pritiskom,mi znamo da se na Balkanu do nedavna narod razlikovao po vjerama,da je narodnost bila,ne ću reći,zamrla,ali tako prikrivena uslied dogadjaja,da je vidljiva bila samo vjera i da su se ljudi po vjeri razlikovali.To je momenat prošlosti.Danas smo svi jedno,mi smo u jednoj državi,jer imamao narodnu nacionalnu sviest i obilježje i ne možemo i ne smiemo da bi drugi momenti-pa i vjerski momenti-unosili u našu zajednicu trzavice. Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic,28.veljače 1942

A brother is a friend no matter what religion he may be. We have one large portion of our population which is of the Catholic faith. We have Muslims, we have Evangelists, we even have a Orthodox population. The nations interests are that there are no misunderstandings, especially those of ones to do with faith. It is in our greatest interest because we know that we are on the border of the "Balkan", we know that we have suffered greatly under the thumb of the Balkan and we know that until not too long ago many people identified themselves with their faith. That is a part of history. Today we are all one, we are one nation, we have a peoples national mark and we can not let faith get between us. Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic. February 28, 1942

As for "genocide" highly doubtful. Once again, Croatian history is very tainted and everyday some type of new discovery makes it's way out. Take a look at the principles of the Ustasa movement it was founded upon. Cheers,AP1929 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In case AP1929 missed my comment on the history page for this discussion, I have reorganised the recent exchanges between him and me. It seems tidier this way and doesn't interrupt the separate argument I've been having with STagalj! Please undo or correct at will if not happy with changes.
I take AP1929's point about the Ustaša and catholicism. I was overlooking Muslim involvement. Maybe my description holds good for the movement's leadership and founding fathers, including Pavelić? (I am thinking of their behaviour rather than whatever was written in their constitution.) Somewhere in Wikipedia I think I described the movement and NDH regime as "ultimately" genocidal, judging them by their deeds and public pronouncements and having regard to the UN and Lemkin definitions of genocide (ie it is enough to attempt the wipeout of an ethnic group, without completing the job). If the murdering of more than 7,000 men at Srebrenica (after women and children had been released) was genocide rather than just a monstrous crime (and for some reason the ICTY decided that it was) then the Ustaša rampage in 1941 and 1942 certainly was. And that is not to rely on Serbian and Jewish sources. There is extensive corroborating evidence from Italian, German and other sources too. But I don't think AP1929 is looking for a hagiography here. (I'm trying not to read too much into his name, and the reverential way he styles Pavelić in those quotes above!) Regards Kirker (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


@ User:Kirker

My friend, you still have a long way to go - I - someone who knows actual Ustase and living Ministers of NDH, someone who has collected hundreds of Ustasa magazines in the Croatian diaspora, someone who spends most of his life studying NDH and Ustastvo, still does not know it all - but I can tell you, you have a long, long, long way to go. Don't let it discourage you.

Now - The information you have put in the WW2 sections is in great majority incorrect, even down to simple things - "Domobran's were unequipped soldiers who did not commit crimes" lol ... I think you should take a look at Hrvatsko Domobranstvo a little better. Oh and Ustasa was a paramilitary ? Do you know what a paramilitary is ? A paramilitary is something like blackwter or HOS during the Croatian war of independence (until HOS was recognized as a fighting for in BiH by the Bosnian government of course) Ustaska vojnica was a massive army and that as one recognized and set up by the state of NDH. Paramilitaries and guerrilla armies are those which are set up a part from the state and are not recognized fighting forces i.e partizans etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


UGH ! I would like to have the user who keeps changing all of this banned ! I put so much work into finding the original record of the "Proglas" of NDH (announcement) and writing it all out in Croatian and then translating it into english but this imbeciles still wants to tell me because he thinks he knows something about Slavko Kvatrenik. Slavko Kvatrenik did not proclaim NDH on April 10th 1941, it was Marko Dosen. Not to mention, the person who did this also snuck in "fascist" before Ustase in some parts of the article. I shall be making a complaint to wikipedia right now ! Cheers to everyone who is willing to learn/debate !

AP1929 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Let as say clear that both versions have been POV. I will now give reasons why:
SPA account AP1929 your version is POV because you have deleted many important facts. This facts are: NDH has been puppet state, Ante Pavelić has been in prison and he has been member of Yugoslav parliament and nothing is writen about NDH crimes.
Version before AP1929 changes has been POV because in that article it has been writen 31 lines about Ustaša crimes and only only 4 lines about Ante Pavelić poglavnik of NDH. This article is about Ante Pavelić not about Ustaša crimes !!!
Now there is time to write about POV sources which I have deleted. This are:
www.jasenovac-info.com , www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_catholic_church.htm , http://www.gorgelink.org/freebooks/vaknin/terrorism.pdf , http://samvak.tripod.com/pp55.html , This can be neutral sources only in jokes.
Similar funny are statements about poetry. Writing that works of Kovačić and others are inspired by Ustaša crimes is POV because for example Kovačić is not writing who is killer and in the end he is killed by Chetnik forces !! --Rjecina (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Croatian revisionism is in full sway. Pavelic was not a fascist or a nazi? Something worse than both - there are numerous reference already given here (on the talk page) and in the very article, too.

--Standshown (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pavelić was not a fascist in that any relationship he had with Mussolini was founded on convenience, not ideology. He wasn't truly a national socialist (Nazi) either. But he was perfectly comfortable leading a regime that set out to remove/eradicate Serbs, Jews and Roma from Croatia and BiH by almost any means, including wholesale slaughter. But Rjecina is right - the focus of this article should be confined to Pavelić himself. More appropriate articles, such as those about the Ustaše and ISC/NDH, exist for most of the other stuff.
By the way, I had nothing to do with any of the editing AP1929 ascribed to me in his last comment above. As for AP1929's assertion that it was not Kvaternik who proclaimed the NDH, I am surprised. Numerous sources, including Maček, state unequivocally that Kvaternik did at least make the first public announcement of the puppet state, in a broadcast to the nation on 10 April 1942. Are they wrong, or was there some other proclamation in addition to the broadcast? I can see that AP1929 wallows with pride in Ustaša nostalgia, but I am not sure that this adds credibility to his no-doubt sincerely held belief that the movement was a model of sweet innocence.Kirker (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is saying that Ustaše are fascist organization --Rjecina (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, Rjecina, if I continue to question "fascist" I'll start off by tackling that point in the Ustaše article.Kirker (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP1929

@User:Rjecina My suggestions to you are as follows : Don't even go to school to be as credible as I am, don't study NDH like I do - but atleast learn how to speak/read/write in the english language before you plan on making contributions to an encyclopedic article. If you are fluent in Croatian, or Serbian, discuss and edit the Serbian/Croatian wikipedia versions, as you can clearly communicate and add to those articles in the language at hand.

NDH was not a "puppet state" and labeling it as so is against wikipedia regulations. End of story. NDH is only a puppet state in the former-Yugoslavia who either have very strong hatred toward NDH or want to distance it self from NDH. We here in the modern, civilized world have different means of communication. The parts that I had edited out were incorrect and bias, if I had the time to correct such nonsense I would have done so, but instead I left it open for everyone. You have deleted my vital information about HOP (which most non-Croats have means to find out what HOP even is), you have deleted my section about Islam in the NDH , and about the Orthodox church in NDH. You have also deleted the numerous image contributions I have made, which I find fairly offensive as I took the time to upload those images (from my own archives) and display them to the rest of the world. Next time I will make sure to copy/paste and save my version, so that I may do the exact same childish thing you just did to me - vise versa.

Now....

@User:Kirker Never once did I say that the NDH was innocent, but it is hard to remain 'neutral' with people spewing such undoubted Yugoslav/Zionist/Serbian propaganda ! I am giving you my two cents, which should be very valuable as I have access to actual NDH archives, books, information, eyewitness accounts ! Did you know that Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic had his own men sentenced to death for the mistreatment of inmates in Jasenovac ? Did you know that Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic put an end to the 'wild Ustase' (non-sworn herzegovinian peasants rampaging and slaughtering Serbian civilians in southeastern Herzegovina). Did you know that Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic founded the Croatian Orthodox church in 1942 to try to appease to the Serbs living within NDH who were rampaging and massacring all along the countryside? Did you know that Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic did not want anything to do with the persecution of the Jew in NDH and by 1943 released Jewish inmates to the Germans? Did you know that NDH did not have ONE not ONE death camp ? There were no places in NDH where people were systematically killed. People died of poor conditions in camps and at the hand of lunatic guards, but there was no actual camp policy (even at Jasenovac) that indicated the large scale systematic slaughter of the people there ? There were no gas chambers, no crematoriums like at Auschwitz - there were however lunatic Ustase guards who really hated serbs and chose to act on their own ! No one is denying that ! BUT, to generalize everyone, the entire group, is purely ridiculous and is unlike our civilized western society. My whole point here is, many myths have been created about NDH and people really need to look into them. No one is saying that NDH was some totally innocent country that committed no crimes, because that is as much nonsense as "NDH was a brutal killing machine and everyday it rained there because if a superior being was to put pathetic false on one place in the world at that time it was NDH because it was just that bad!" come on !

The NDH had many intellectual institutions, released an encyclopedia edition every year it existed, it had schools, theaters, people practiced their faith openly, celebrated culture - lived life !

AP1929 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, you wrote "....everyday it rained there because if a superior being was to put pathetic false on one place in the world at that time it was NDH because it was just that bad." This makes absolutely no sense in any language so you really are in no position to lecture others on their use of English. You asked if I knew that "Pavelic (sic) did not want anything to do with the persecution of the Jew in NDH and by 1943 released Jewish inmates to the Germans". Well yes, I did know. I believe he paid 30 deutchmarks a person for the Germans to take Jews off his hands. How very thoughtful of him. The Jews must have been delighted. I agree with a lot of what you say about the camps, though you are obviously carried away with zeal for your poglavnik. If you can cite credible sources or documentary evidence (for instance about any Ustaše executed for being unkind to Serbs) then of course put in that information. And put in something about that cynical creation the Croatian Orthodox if you must.Kirker (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Kirker Actually, I had simply made *one* spelling error, and that is pretaining to the word "fallacy" (as I had not used it in quite some time).

Pathetic Fallacy : or anthropomorphic fallacy is the description of inanimate natural objects in a manner that endows them with human feelings, thoughts and sensations.

Not to mention that it is a total run-on sentence without punctuation, thus making a mockery of Serbian/Zionist/Yugoslav propaganda, which isn't even well-written in the first place.

And now let's get something straight about my Poglavnik - to me, he is a Croatian hero, probably one of the greatest of all time (my opinion) but he is still a human being and I know his flaws and mistakes very well - and will acknowledge them. When my 'zeal' comes out is when some uneducated hoodlum comes on here trying to tell me completely made up garbage about him or NDH. I am not here to paint pretty pictures of Poglavnik, rather share the truth, and correct the incorrect. Thanks, AP1929 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008 edits

AP1929 has made sweeping changes to the content and balance of the article without attempting to explain them here. He has also removed a whole raft of references (including, for instance, Neubacher's contemporary, on-the-spot observations) presumably because they do not accord with his own views. Also some of his changes are decidedly POV - for instance it was "unfortunate" that Croatians came to feel betrayed by Pavelić. (My view is that it was not before time, but as with AP1929's, my view should not come into it.) As he understands how Wikipedia works, his editing borders on bad faith. Moreover the English he has used is at best slovenly, with bizarre lapses into the present tense, etc. Yet he presumes to lecture others on their spelling and use of English. The article was fairly poor to start with and I am not, myself, wholly opposed to everything AP1929 has tried to do. But I would suggest that he needs to stand back a little and take a more objective view of the guy he clearly adulates if he wants his edits to survive. However much he wants to pass the blame on to others, the fact is that vast and grotesque crimes occured on Pavelić's watch and no encyclopedia entry can overlook that. Maybe the best way forward is to undo all AP1929's recent edits, protect the article from further editing and only lift that protection when we have reached a consensus here about how to improve it. Any views? Kirker (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

@ User: Kirker
My version of the article is at least 20 times more accurate and neutral than the previous one. The reason I had been jumping tenses is because of the way I was clipping information out of my archives. I apologize that I find it 'unfortunate' that thousands of Croats were basically forced to become Yugoslav partizans even if they did not believe in communism, and basically brought down their own country and sent hundreds of thousands of their own people to their deaths. If you say that because of the term, the article is not neutral, I will gladly remove my term.
I see my version as a good start and await contributions. Look at it as a template. Add to it - polish up the writing etc. I admit I was working a little fast in fear of someone erasing what I was trying to put up as I did not have a hang of the editing feature here on wikipedia, and now I do.
Cheers,AP1929 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
AP1929's edits are in no way justified by his belated explanation (see section below). It is simply unacceptable for him to delete all references except those he has just contributed. I could live without the Ruth Mitchell book, and I don't like Wikipedia citing other encyclopedias (which is very uncyclopedic practice!) but the Fein, Manhatten and Paris books are entirely legitimate sources as is Cali Ruchala's essay. I think the article would benefit from the photos AP1920 has contributed, but if he insists on re-writing the whole article en masse like he has done, then he must live with it being reverted en measse as well. On a point of taste, his constant use of the Dr honorific and the poglavnik title is obsequious and misplaced in an encyclopedia. The man was poglavnik for only four years of his life anyway, and self-styled at that. It's akin to styling Joseph Goebbels as "Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda Dr Goebbels" at every mention, if I may draw comparison with another well-known anti-semite. I hope AP1929 will accept that we cannot have an article about someone as contentious as Pavelić written solely by one faithful disciple. The discussion page is provided so we can try to reach a consensus, and that's what we should be looking for.Kirker (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pederkovic Ante

Because this user and his puppets have edited this and many articles in times when they have been banned I will in this month revert all changes which has been writen against wikipedia rules. --Rjecina (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


@User:Rjecina How mature. You will not win. I guarantee it.

For the rest of the nonCroatian speaking world, Rjecina's above title "Pederkovic Ante" means "Faggot Ante".

Rjecina did nothing wrong. User:Pederkovic Ante is in fact the blocked person's chosen username. They were in fact blocked. Read up assuming good faith. AniMate 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Without assuming good faith policy account AP1929 will be blocked. In thinking of everybody who know Croatian history AP in this editor name is for Ante Pavelic and 1929 is for years when he has become member of Ustaša. This is very similar to name AH1919 (Adolf Hitler and year when he has become member of Nazi Party). All in all I am not guilty when somebody choose silly name.--Rjecina (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP1929 Edit

What I am doing is in good faith, I have presented the facts, and now will work on the tenses and such. User:AniMate had removed my article on the grounds that it ignores what happened during World War Two and because of improper tenses. The original edit ignores the majority of Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic's life, and basically goes into irrelevant ramblings in order to degrade him - not to mention that the punctuation and writing was even more brutal then my trouble with tenses which I agreed to fix up. I know what people like you, and Rjecina want, and it is the constant reminder of Croatia being a Nazi-ally, Ustase being Nazis, and 'crimes' of the "Ustasa regime". The fact of the matter is this, NDH crimes, belong in their own article which should be referenced in this one. To blame Dr.Pavelic for the crimes of individuals and to label him a fascist criminal is incorrect and is not a neutral description. AP1929 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to say that the current version is horribly POV. There's no mention of any connections between Pavelic and the Nazi party or of the actions that occurred under his regime, even though they are historically accepted. Pretending that nothing happened while he was in power is just ridiculous. Also, the reverential tone of the article is out of place as it is unencyclopedic to continuously refer to him as "Dr." Pavelic. Finally, AP1929's version still slips between present and past tense. AniMate 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There are connections between Poglavnik and the Axis forces. As for the "actions" they should be mentioned on this page (not have an entire section) and then have a link to a separate article on these so-called actions - I don't know if you have ever worked with 'balkan' history though, but you probably should believe every 'action' you hear about.

I used Poglavnik Title during WW2 and Dr. title throughout the rest of his life, if someone has the time, remove them and fix up my past/present mistakes.

I would like my article to be the template for this page (as it is much better than the one before), so if you would like to add to it, go right ahead ! Post your edits here and we will discuss (kind of fresh start).AP1929 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that you would like your version to be the template for this page, but it is also clear that you would like to remove any references to Pavelic's association with the Nazi's and the murders committed under his regime. Claiming that the deaths that occurred during WII were isolated instances perpetrated by a few rogue Ustase is just wrong. Adding more details you feel have een left out of his life is fine, but denying the truth about what happened during WWII isn't. Like it or not, Pavelic was an associate of Hitler's and his government carried out mass murders. Wikipedia doesn't deny the Holocaust.
In addition, youhave violated WP:3rr. In 24 hours, you have reverted this article four times. As a show of good faith, I think you should revert yourself, as I don't want to edit war. If anyone else undoes your change, and you revert it again, you're probably going to be blocked. This isn't a threat, but a fact about the way Wikipedia operates so that edit wars are avoided.AniMate 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Is too much weight being given to WWII

I've filed two RFCs in the History and Biography sections asking for some outside opinions. Obviously, the two "sides" are pretty far apart and this is a way for us to gain consensus about the direction of this article. AniMate 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Comparison

Problems...Version #1

Ante Pavelić (July 14, 1889 – December 28, 1959) was the Head (Poglavnik) and founding member of the Croatian fascist Ustaše movement in the 1930s and later the leader of the Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state[1] [2] of Nazi Germany during World War II.

My version:Dr. Ante Pavelic (July 14, 1889 – December 28, 1959) Croatian politician, head of state, and revolutionary. Dr. Ante Pavelic was the founder of "Ustasa - Croatian Revolutionary Organization" (UHRO) and later the leader - "Poglavnik" - of the Independent State of Croatia.

The Ustasa movement was NOT a "fascist" movement, if it was I'm sure they would have had no problem identifying themselves as that - this is moreso a branding from the YugoSerb perspective.

Taken from wikipedia's article on "fascism": The key attribute of fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc

Above I have written a quote coming from Pavelic himself, where he explains that he is completely against religious division within the state. The Ustasa movement had many Muslims in it, none of their traditions and or cultural practices were outlawed. The only people who were persecuted were Serbs who were against the state and Jews due to pressure coming from Germany. By 1943 NDH didn't want anything to do with the persecution of Jews and handed them to the Germans (not that that makes it any better but is proof that Croats didn't really want to be part of the Final solution), by 1942 Pavelic tried to appease to the Serbian minority in NDH by forming a Croatian Orthodox church - why, because any Orthodox church is a national church i.e Greek orthodox. Pavelic had no problem with Serbs who accepted Croatia as their homeland.

As for language - also widely acceptable in NDH. NDH had a "pravopis" which solidified the Croatian language after centuries of foreign adaptations etc, but it had nothing against other languages:

"9. Strane se riječi pišu:

1) kako se pišu u jeziku, iz kog potječu, na pr. Rousseau, Dumas, Goethe, Shakespeare; "

Translation : Foreign words are written: 1) how they are written in the language which they derive from i.e Rousseau, Dumas, Goethe, Shakespeare.

This is taken right from a proclamation made in Zagreb by Mile Budak in 1941 and is apart of the Law of NDH.

The only economic system that the NDH did not agree with was communism, which most of the modern world disagrees with and has proven time in and out to be inn affective.

AP1929 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

From article #1 : As the leader of the Ustaše he directly ordered, organized and conducted a campaign of terror against Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and communist Croats. It is possible that Pavelić's Ustaše regime was the most murderous Nazi puppet state in the whole of occupied Europe

If this isn't POV I don't know what is. Pavelic never directly ordered a 'campaign of terror' againse Serbs Jews Gypsies and Communist croats, and there is absolutely no proof of this. Anti-semetic laws were pushed upon Croatia by it's German ally, and everyone else that was prosecuted was "Enemy of the State", they weren't in those camps because of their nationality they were there because they were a possible threat to the existence of NDH - many Serbs lived normal lives in NDH - they were either a-political or found Croatia to be their homeland. Once again I disagree with the use of the term "puppet state" and it is a violation of wikipedia itself. Not to mention that that entire statement is simply crazy and doesn't hold any water.

The tales of Fra Majstorovic are simply irrelevant and have been proven to be complete nonsense i.e "Srbosjek", killing competitions which even with a margin of error don't make any mathematical sense. The Vatican deFacto recognized NDH and had a representative living in the country every year of it's existence.

From article #1 : In May 1945 Pavelić fled via Bleiburg to Austria, where he stayed for a few months before transferring to Rome, where he was hidden by members of the Roman Catholic Church (as is documented in de-classified US Intelligence documents

I'm pretty sure this was pulled frm "paveli-papers" which is not a credible source at all and is more of a conspiracy theory site built to deface Ustase and Pavelic more and more, and even this simple information is incorrect. Why ?

Ante Pavelic did not step foot in Rome when he went into exile, all this is is an attempt to tie Croatians to the Catholic church and make both of them look bad : the primary goal of Serbian radicals during the Croatian homeland war.

Pavelic went as following, according to Krizman and Pavelic's very own memoirs... (Not to mention that I know people that traveled with him as protection) ....

Zagreb ---> Slatina ---> Rogaska ----> Maribor ----> Leingreith----> Napulj----> Buenos Aires

AP1929 (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, don't you think you might be a little biased and close to the subject? AniMate 05:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the entire time I was trying to keep a reasonable and neutral outlook - which I apparently only slipped off-path once or twice. I did not live during that time, I can simply do as the rest : search for the truth and learn. AP1929 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In the WW2 section of the article there is mention of Majstorovic and the reference is to "The Holocaust Chronicle" which describes Majstorovic as some lunatic that killed countless serbs with his own bare hands, thus tying it self to the old Serbian folktale of the Croatian priest turned Ustasa who went on some rampage killing some ridiculous amount of Serbs in a 24 hour period thus winning some kind of Jasenovac competition... My friend, who is an engineer has proved this completely wrong on a separate forum:Now, I'm taking for granted that this is absolutely true, like all jugoslav propaganda, but as an industrial engineer, I'm sort of trained to look at this sort of stuff analytically, so lets discount bad grammar and spelling (e.g. especially designed, roasted sucking pig, etc.) and pick these numbers apart.If we assume this contest ran from 6-11pm ("the night of"), we have 300 minutes of competition time to work with.
Doing the math, 1360 dead srbi in 300 minutes gives us 4.53 dead gypsies per minute (dgpm), or the metric equivalent of 13.2 seconds per dead chetnik (spdc). Amazing statistics, but we're not quite done yet.In work analysis, the industrial engineer gives consideration for human factors called Personal Fatigue and Delay (PFD). This takes into account inevitable activities such as breaks, tool failure/maintenance, and the tendency of workers/atheletes/ priests to slow down due to fatigue through the course of any long term activity. As a percentage, PFD typically runs between 10-15%.For the purposes of this analysis, we'll assume two 10 minute intermissions during which "srbosjek" was being cared for by the pit crew, and two five minute breaks during which Father Brzica had a cigarette, went to the pisser, and refreshed himself with a drink of water. This gives us a total of 30 minutes, or a PFD of 10%, well within typical range. Recalculating, Brzica's statistics are even more incredible: just over 5 dgpm, or 11.9 spdc.Now, because none of the sources of this story give us the details as to the condition of the special guests at Jasenovac, it's difficult to know how any of this is possible. To wrestle down, rope, and slit the throat of a single free-range, grain-fed chetnik in less than 12 seconds seems like a difficult task even for the strongest of men, but repeating this 1360 times in one night is impossible. Any takers? AP1929 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well your mind is certainly made up. I think everyone here can see that. I am far from an expert on WWII, as I only began researching it and the Holocaust in relation to an upcoming graphic project. That having been said, the events you describe make WWII seem slightly unpleasant. A few enemies of the state were put into the concentration camp and the only murders were committed by a few rogue Ustase. Sorry my friend, absolutely nothing I can find back that claims up, and it seems to be the prevailing sentiment on this page that your edits aren't backed up by the facts either. I'm here to edit an encyclopedia, not to push an agenda. I'm trying to assume good faith, but can you say the same? You speak of Pavelic in glowing terms, but you make him sound almost absent during WWII? Does a man who had so little to do with the internal workings of his country at such a critical time really deserve the praise you seem to want to heap on him? Also, if you're talking to his former body guards you absolutely cannot incorporate anything they have told you unless there are secondary independent sources to back it up. That's original research. Finally, the consensus on this talk page seems to be against your edits. I'm glad you decided to bring this debate to the talkpage, rather than reverting the article... but as the consensus is against you, you should probably try to work within the frame of the current article, not the one you prefer. AniMate 05:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No where did I say "a few" enemies of the state were imprisoned, the numbers are clearly in the 100 thousand rage - and Jasenovac was a labor camp and doesn't meet the requirements of a concentration camp - at Jasenovac, death was an acceptable by-product, not camp policy. Thousands still lost their lives, and I am NOT denying that, I am just trying to bring correctness into the picture - or at least the "view from the other side" (even though I think I've been fairly neutral) so that non-Croats/Serbs/Muslims can come to a neutral conclusion and a better understanding of the situation. Pavelic became more of a figure mid-NDH, the people who had the actual power were known as the "rasovi" and you may want to look that up on the Axis History Forum, where actual specialists of World War Two come together to come to facts Vs fiction. The 'consensus' on this talk page are compliments of "Antifascist" in otherwords, communist 'croats' and even Serbs (look at their profiles - user Rjecina even has a little box that says "I am an anti-fascist therefor i do not like the NDH and the third reich), if you would like me to make the situation much different - by brining a pack of people who REALLY 'glorify' the man we are here debating about I will be glad to do so ! Try to not do so much research on NDH, rather research simply the terms that are being used to describe it and the people who are writing about it. AP1929 (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Threats to bring in meatpuppets certainly won't help. Also, you should quote what Rjecina's userbox actually says: This user is Anti-fascist who is against rasist ideology of 3rd Reich, Fascist Italy, NDH i Nedić Serbia. Personally, I think those types of userboxes aren't useful at all, are deliberately provocative, and go against the spirit of Wikipedia (so we agree on something!). Finally, I would caution against using proof you found on other boards as well, as that is clearly original research. My argument boils down to what is generally accepted as fact. Jasenovac meets the criteria of a concentration camp according to everything I've read, and as this topic has grown more heated, I certainly haven't just limited myself to things found on the web or Wikipedia. I think the conflict between Serbs and Croats won't be solved on this talk page or by this encyclopedia. Glossing over what happened during WWII isn't going to make things better either. That atrocities were committed by the NDH under Ante Pavelic is an accepted fact by most reliable sources. Of course there is room for dissent, and I wouldn't be opposed at all to a section in this biography that discusses the fact that many of his supporters disagree with the accepted view of him... as long as it is supported by reliable sources.
I definitely agree that the use of Malaparte's Kaputt as a source is just ridiculous. This kind of propaganda needs to be kept out of all Wikipedia's articles, and especially one as contentious as this. However, well sourced events under Pavelic's rule need to stay. We aren't as far apart as you might think. Kirker, more than anyone on this page, has been fighting to keep things neutral. I think he's quite knowledgeable about the events surround Pavelic, WWII, and the Ustase, and you should try editing with him in an attempt to find some middle ground. AniMate 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Jasenovac does NOT meet the requirements of a concentration camp in the lone fact that it was at no time camp policy to systematically kill, and there were absolutely no facilities which were created to conduct mass executions - if you have proof that shows otherwise, I would LOVE to see it. You have not refuted any of my points, and the references in my version are 100 percent legitimate and reliable sources. If Kirker has been trying to "keep things neutral" he is doing a horrible job as the article at hand is completely one-sided and not neutral at all ! The entire articles skims over his life and focus' on WW2, and even then, the information at hand doesn't have much to do with Pavelic himself.AP1929 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we might be getting somewhere.
AP1929 has raised some valid points. For instance if the article says P "directly ordered" the terror, then that does need to be supported with a valid citation. Clear evidence either way would be welcome and helpful. If there is no documented audit trail establishing that P was the prime mover, I think we could at least say he "presided over" a campaign of terror since there is evidence of such a campaign, and evidence that he was in charge.
Again "the most murderous puppet" needs to be underpinned if it is to stay. My guess is that there will be some measure by which the statement can be justified (say murders in proportion to target group, or murders per murderer, or whatever). But if so, it needs to be specified with citation.
Re Jasenovac: If by this we are talking about the whole system of inter-related camps that went under that name then is clearly was a concentration camp in the classic sense (ie taking as a model the camps set up by the British in South Africa during the Boer Wars). There is much evidence, even from Ustaša sources, that civilians from a wide area and from other camps were increasingly concentrated there as the war progressed. The question is, was it a death camp? For my part, I simply don't know. Clearly it was not an industrialised killing factory a la Auschwitz-Birkenau, but many, many thousands of people were slaughtered there, even if we exclude the somewhat hyperbolic Brzica anecdote that AP1929 took issue with. Survivors I've spoken to (one of whom has published a memoir, so this is not entirely primary research) had too limited a view of the whole complex to be reliable witnesses on the question of whether the camp's primary purpose was killing or labour. Neither "side" seems to have turned up really convincing evidence one way or the other - and not for the want of trying. So I fear this might never be resolved.
I could never accept that P and/or his regime were tolerant of the Serb Orthodox church. Had that been so, he would not have needed to create a new church for them, and the huge numbers of conversions to catholicism (Archbishop Stepinac claimed 250,000 in a report to the Vatican) would be inexplicable. And what of the wholesale slaughter of Serbs in dozens of villages? To take a significant example, almost the entire populations of Motike, Šargovac and Drakulic were murdered in a single day in a project to eradicate Serbs from villages around Banja Luka (which P had long identified as his preferred capital for the NDH). Elite Ustaša troops took part in that premeditated enterprise, drawn from a unit of the Poglavnik's bodyguard.
AP1929 is perhaps disingenuous (as the Vatican itself certainly was) when he talks about the status of the NDH. Pius XII did grant P an audience, but without according him the protocols appropriate to a head of state. The Vatican did NOT send a nuncio (ambassador) to Zagreb, as would have been appropriate for a sovereign state, but merely a lesser representative. Moreover the Vatican retained a nuncio in Belgrade throughout the war who maintained relations with Yugoslavia. In international law Yugoslavia embraced the territory of the NDH, a view that has been endorsed by international jurists ever since. NDH came into existence only as a result of Yugoslavia being forcibly occupied by the Axis Powers. On that point surely we can all agree. Consequently it was indeed a puppet state and could have had no legitimacy even if the Vatican had recognised it as a sovereign state.Kirker (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is not a single country in the world that can not thank another for it's existence. The NDH was recognized by 32 countries (which obviously only a percentage was those which were apart of the Axis considering that the Axis did not have 32 states) and became legal in every sense. The law on the territory was that of NDH, not of Yugoslavia, the police were that of NDH, not of Yugoslavia, the constitution was that of NDH and not Yugoslavia. Croatia declared independence legally in 1990 and was internationally recognized in 1992 - only two nationas (officially one) recognized the Republic of Croatia in 1991 - that's a heck of a lot less then the number of nations that recognized NDH in 1941 - does that mean that Croatia and it's law did not exist in 1991 ? Of course not. Could the Republic of Croatia exist today if it did not have the support of the European community ? Of course not. The first Yugoslavia was illegal, as was the second, unfortunately the Yugoslavs always found themselves on the side of major powers such as Great Britain etc. The second Yugoslavia was formed on an illegal constitution undemocratically and was still international recognized as legal - why, because of time. If NDH had existed for 10 years instead of 4, obviously more nations would have had to acknowledge it, even simply to gain from it's natural resources - Hitler himself said that he wanted to see Croats as friends as the economic benefit was extraordinary.
You also have to understand that Croatia was declared by Croatians, and greatly embraced by the vast majority of the Croatian people - Germany didn't even recognize it until April 15th - 5 days after, and Croatia did not become a member of the Axis war effort until July of 1941. Also, German soldiers in the NDH were under the command of the local authority and not the Germans situated in Belgrade - this was a direct order from Hitler himself. In Augsust of 1944 German General Kasche's notes of his meetings indicated that: Germany (accordint to Hitler) had no negative viewpoints toward the Croatian state and it's development and that Germany would do everything to support it but that the Croats should fear the anglo-americans as much as the Bolsheviks. Numerous German Generals within NDH wanted Germany to take over military control when times got rough, but Hitler would not allow it and insisted that they remain loyal to the Croatian state and it's leadership - this is solid fact. Hitler did not "control" Croatia, he feared the Croats turning on him and the so called resistance growing much stronger thus creating another extremely energetic front from him to fight. The Croats brought their own country to themselves through the right to self determination and it's governing body governed the sate, the only thing that was imposed upon NDH by Germany was racial laws but that was in away through some type of respect for the help - which even fell apart by 1943 - Ustase didn't want anything to do with it.AP1929 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Recognition of the NDH as put out by me and my personal archive :
The following nations recognized the NDH :
Hungary, April 10th 1941
Germany, April 15th 1941
Italy, April 15th 1941
Slovakia, April 15th 1941
Bulgaria April 21st 1941
Romania May 6th 1941
Japan June 7th 1941
Spain, June 27th 1941
China (National) July 1st, 1941
Finland, July 3rd 1941
Denmark, July 10th 1941
Manchoukuo, August 2nd 1941
DeFacto by the Vatican 1941
DeFacto France : "Gospodarski Ugovor" September 10th 1941, general consulate in Zagreb, reciprocal cultural delegations in Zagreb and Paris.
DeFacto Switzerland : "Gospodarski Ugovor" March 16th 1942
Thailand, April 27th 1943
Burma, August 7th 1943
Philippines, October 16th 1943
These are simply some Asian and European countries which can be listed having recognized NDH with actual date etc. Amongst these there are also many South American countries that recognized NDH.AP1929 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, for the sake of clarity please be consistent with your indenting. (I've tidied them up for you again.)

Take away Axis signatories and countries that were invaded by the Axis, and your list above begins to look very feeble. And when you're talking about the law, de facto doesn't come into it. Only de jure counts. Another point: "Croatia" is not acceptable shorthand for ISC/NDH. The latter, by German decree, also included the Bosnia and Hercegovina regions of Yugoslavia. Much as some Croats in Hercegovina may have welcomed the Nazis with open arms, the population of Bosnia certainly did not. And it speaks volumes that the NDH could not win recognition even from a Holy See that, at the time, was at least sanguine about nazism and fascism.

You have made some valid points. It might be best to concentrate on those first, before moving on to battles that you're never likely to win. Kirker (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I still do not have a grip of this indenting thing but I am trying to do my best. In the 1940s the Axis signatories were KEY. A German signature in the late 30s and 40s would have been like modern day Russia or America backing you up - Germany was a world super power at that time. I am very well aware of what de facto and de jure mean. Croatia WAS and IS an acceptable term, and "BiH" are also Croatian lands (note : Croatians TODAY are one of the three constituted people in BiH). Some Croats in Herzegovina ? Vast MAJORITY of Croats in Herzegovina, and huge Croatian pockets of Bosna which are to this day die hard Croatia i.e places in central Bosna, Posavina (norther Bosna) are the homes of many Ustase. During NDH the army was the Croatian army not the Independent Croatian State army, the fact that the "majority of Bosnia" wouldn't have welcomed NDH is a statement that holds no ground, especially because of the amount of muslims who had very strong Croatian sentiment at that time - Poglavnik himself wanted to make Banja Luka the capital of NDH - you can not look at NDH and compare it with the ethnic maps of today. In 1941 Banja Luka was 90 percent Croatian - there is even a popular "Sevdah" folk song which sings "Banja Luka puna Ustasa" meaning "Banja Luka full of Ustasa" and look at it today. For ever 1 Croat, there are 3 "Bosnians" and 9 Serbs. Bosna and Hercegovina are historical Croatian lands and that is that - at that time there was no such thing as "BiH" as a republic, as a nation - as anything, only Croatia / Serbia / Or Yugoslavia. And who was there first before all ? The Croats. And for you to say such unfounded things makes me laugh because there was no census, you don't know who lived there, and 60 years of communist tainting of history couldn't give you the slightest idea let alone to me - someone who is from there.AP1929 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution By Thomas D. Grant
On pages 58-59, he cites a case the Socony Vacuum Oil Company Claim which was decided by the US International Claims Commission. The company was seized by NDH and the company argued that Yugoslavia was the successor country and therefore had to pay damages. The Commission detemined that Yugoslavia always had de jure recognition but recognized NDH as achieving state-like responsibility. Like the author said, it was tortured reasoning: NDH was not an internationally recognized state but it had enough state-like features to be solely responsible for bad actions even though the territory NDH claimed was always recognized in this period as Yugoslav! posted by AP1929 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

Edits of AP1929 and Stagalj (aka Velebit aka Purger aka ...) are very interesting. Now is possible to see difference in 1 article when we use POV croatian and POV serbian sources. I will use this versions of article every time when another editor in another controversial article use obscure books like his source. In our discussions all books are obscure because other editors are not having possibility to look this "sources".--Rjecina (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying ?! Go BACK TO SCHOOL, learn HOW to speak and write in ENGLISH, and THEN come to the here and debate ! For now I am putting my article back, edit war or not. AP1929 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Genius ! I do not know if you have noticed but I have not reverted your article. There is no point because I see in near future that you will be blocked because of edit warring and Stagalj will be blocked because of me.--Rjecina (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
AP1929, I sorted out your indenting again. This time you managed OK for two paragraphs in a row. I suppose three was just too much for you? (If you to want to know how to achieve an effect, why not learn by looking at how other people achieve the same effect?)
On the point about Croats in Hercegovina, please check back and you will find that I did not say anything anywhere to suggest that they were not in a majority. When I said some Croats in Hercegovina supported the NDH I meant exactly that. Some did, some didn't. Or do you want the world to believe that every Croat in Hercegovina worshipped your god Pavelić? Go away and practice your understanding of English. When you have done so, I will be interested to see your next lecture. Or to quote your words, "THEN come to the here and debate" LOL.
Rjecina, are Velebit and Purger (as well as Standshown) all sockpuppets of Stagalj? How do you keep track of it all??? Kirker (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
User Laveol has connected users Standshown and Stagalj ( Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Standshown ) but he has failed because of different IP address. I have looked further away. Best article to see connection between Purger and Stagalj is this. Only real difference between this 2 versions is adding of reference. It is important to notice that this references are added by another puppet of user:Velebit. Connection between users Velebit (aka Purger aka Pederkovic Ante aka Guinon aka NovaNova) and Smerdyakoff is best seen in article Ante Starčević where there is no difference between 2 versions [8] . Because first version is IP account you maybe think that I am wrong so there is decision of administator Duje to protect article from user Velebit (IP account 4.249.x.xxx) [9] . Looking that and another evidence this 3 are nothing else but puppets of banned user--Rjecina (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Kirker "thEn come to the here" - clearly that was a poke at User:Rjecina, but I guess my whit is no good here.

As for what is written below .... The fact that many people credit Kaputt does not make it true, it just goes to show how little they know, and how much research they actually did. The book is a work of fiction, end of story.AP1929 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a wonderfully convincing explanation, AP1929. And is that why you wrote "whit" when you meant "wit"? By the way, your paragraphs are still all over the place. Who was it who said GO BACK TO SCHOOL? Kirker (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You got me there...AP1929 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article "Clean-Up"

I have revised the article and am preparing my references, which will be posted here on the discussion page and compared to the previous references, and then we will decided which ones are actually credible and which ones are not.

I have removed Pavelic's titles "Dr." and or "Poglavnik" from the article for neutral ground. Any future editing should be to this brushed up version of the article, which is very fair/neutral and unbias - we are speaking of events, and the life of this man - not Ustasa attrocities or Jasenovac - which are to be on their own page and mentioned on this one.

Also, I have fixed-up tenses and other grammatical errors, if anyone spots any others, please feel free to correct. Cheers.AP1929 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP1929 "mistakes"

[edit] Early life

  • "begin his political career amongst the people he admired most - hard working Croats". :))
  • "head of a major party" ??
  • "goes into exile with the hopes of the destruction of Yugoslavia"
Pavelic founded the Hrvatski Radnicki Savez, and that alone shows that he cared most about the working Croat people. The other two points I see nothing wrong with.AP1929 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exile I

  • "Belgrade officially sentences him to death without trial" (Why ?)
  • "Yugoslav (Serb) King" (Serbs ?)
  • "Pavelic was caught and apprehended, and then sentenced to death (second time)" (Where ?)
They sentence him for speaking out against Yugoslavia and because they see him as a threat (obviously), this is common sense I do not see why one should ask why. "Yugoslav (Serb) King - Kralj Aleksander, was a Serb."15 Listopada 1934 Poglavnik uhicen u Terinu. " (Italy).AP1929 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

  • "Axis forces invaded Yugoslavia (primarily Serbia)" (Serbia ??)
  • After Maček and other Croatian politicans has refused job of poglavnik offered by SS-Brigadeführer Edmund Veesenmayer (which has been sent by Hitler) job has fallen in hands of Pavelić. I do not see this in article.
  • NDH has been monarchy until October 1943 [10] !!!
  • "officially re-opened Croatian parliament in 1942. The parliament or "Hrvatski Sabor" was short lived due to the war..." (false ! It has been only 1 session of parliament)
  • Killings in NDH ??? How is possible not to write about that ??
  • "Tito and his partizan army, which resulted in the greatest post-World War Two massacre to date" :))
  • "Croatia forced into the newly created communist Yugoslav state" (forced, newly created)
Point one, yes, Serbia, in Yugoslavia there were provinces - parts of the Kraljevina, and Serbia was one of them, the Axis invaded Belgrade heavily on April 6th 1941, and Belgrade is in Serbia. They did not invade Zagreb (Croatia). After Macek and other politicians refused ? Only Macek refused and that was because he did not have faith in the Croatian people nor in a independent Croatian state, Macek did not want to be held responsible, he had always lobbied for a Croatia within a federation. NDH was not a monarchy, just as Canada today is not a monarchy, Queen Elizabeth is a symbol of Canada, and is recognized as the queen, but Canada is not a monarchy. As for the sabor, it was not one session, and I have many video clips from the actual sabor if you would like to see them, but it was "short lived" as I had said. So I don't see what is wrong with that ? There is actually nothing false about it, I think you don't know what "short lived" means. Killings in NDH are mentioned at the bottom of the article in the WW2 section, clearly you did not read it all. Bleiburg is the greatest post world war two massacre to date. The war was over, there was no war, and Tito decided to kill Croats en masse, and this is historical fact. Croatia was forced into the newly created communist state, there was no real "election", the majority of Croats had been fighting FOR Croatia and not Tito, and the simple fact that waves of Croats fled from Yugoslavia in 1945 is even more proof. Croats did not want Yugoslavia. Croats wanted Croatia, and they worked (the majority) outside of Croatia in the diaspora to break it down, and this eventually happened (1990). And yes SFRJ was newly created, it was not the successor of Kraljevina, it became it's legal successor thanks to time and international recognition, just as NDH would have had it lived an extra 10 years. AP1929 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exile II

  • "communist tyranny. HOP became very popular amongst a new wave of Croatian immigrants in Canada, the U.S, and Australia - who were fleeing from communist Yugoslavia" (???)
  • "bring down Yugoslavia by any means - even with the ones you hate."

In writing last lines I have become tired of writing new comments.

It is fact that more Croatians live outside of Croatia than in present day Croatia. The largest waves of immigrants from Yugoslavia were in 1945 and during the 60s. If you do not know about the thousands of members HOP had or the thousands that OTPOR had then you have no clue what you are talking about. One of the largest demonstrations in front of the White house in Washington, was that of Croats protesting against Yugoslavia in the 70s. 3 Croats in the diaspora (even those of you who live in Canada, America, Australia etc) why they left, and they will tell you Tito.

"Bring down Yugoslavia" - by any means, is the only goal of HNO - and this is outlined by Maks Luburic himself : "Nas stav je jasan : Rusiti svaku Jugoslaviju, Rusite je s Rusima i Amerikancima, s komunistima i nekomunistima i s antikomunistima: rusite ju sa svakim koji ju rusi; rusite ju dialektom rijeci i dinamitom ali ju rusite, jer i ako jedna drzava nema pravo obstajati jest samo i jedino Jugoslavija !"

-Vjekoslav "Maks" Luburic

Translation: Our stance is loud and clear : To bring down every Yugoslavia, bring it down with Russians, Americans, with communists and anti-communists: bring it down with everyone else who is bringing it down; bring it down with words and with dynamite but bring it down, because if there is one country that doesn't have the right to exist, it is Yugoslavia !" - Maks Luburic AP1929 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP1929's total rewrite

(I have reorganised my recent arguments with AP1929 into this separate section so that is easier for others to bypass if they wish!)

First, AP1929, when you discuss things here, please don't put your responses in the middle of other people's comments, as you seem to have done above. I assume the comments were made by Rjecina, who possibly did not sign off. But even if he did, your interruptions would still have made it very difficult for others to understand who was saying what.

Now... Your rewrite is a shoddy piece of work. I have already suggested it would be better if you introduced changes one by one, so that we could discuss, find consensus and move forward a step at a time. When you chuck away a whole load of work that had involved many people over a long period, you run the risk of having the whole of your contribution thrown away in a single "undo". And as it stands now, that is the best thing that could happen to it.

To suggest that P led a "major party" in 1923 or thereabouts is ridiculous. Stjepan Radić was the almost unquestioned voice of Yugoslavia's Croatians and P was a tiny figure in comparison.

Maček did not in any sense proclaim the NDH, he merely wrote a statement (read in a radio broadcast by someone else) asking Croatians to support the new authorities.

A Belgrade court sentenced P to death for, among other things, an agreement he reached with Mihailov. If you don't explain exactly why he got so severe a sentence, obviously anyone is entitled to ask. (Your reference to the other death sentence is a muddle. He was arrested and detained in Italy, but the death sentence was passed in France. That is far from clear from what you have written.)

Both P and Budak made statements explaining their crude plan to dispose of all Serbs in the NDH and to leave out all mention of such matters is just to whitewash the man. You turn to your Rasovi article to defend yourself, but where in that article - either as you wrote it, or as I edited it - is there any suggestion that Eugen Kvaternik, Maks Luburić, etc were beyond P's control? They were P's closest and most trusted aides and they were running a reign of terror. To imply that P had nothing to do with it is risible.

Why no mention of Vatican authorities giving P safe haven when he was en route to South America? You may not think that happened, but you know very well that documents were found in the files of America's CIA that say it did happen. Any neutral article should mention that claim, even if it is balanced by another conflicting claim.

Like Rjecina I could go on and on, but I've run out of stamina. Kirker (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again I apologize for the confusion, I thought that way would be easier, but I guess it is not. The HSP was a major party in Croatian politics since Ante Starcevic, and still is to this day, even though today the actual party itself (not including it's denominations) does not have more than a few seats in Croatian parliament - prior to recent Croatian history, it has always been the party of the right.
Macek did do a broadcast and he even says so himself in "Vespa sa Macekom" an interview after all was said and done - post 1945. As for details concerning the death sentences - that was to be added in once I could find it, but since you know and it is at question, I don't see why you yourself wouldn't put it in there.
Yes, Kvatrenik and Maks were very trusted, and therefor they did a lot of their own operations without questioning anyone - even Pavelic himself, both of them admit to it in their own writings - especially Kvatrenik who later became one of Pavelic's greatest critics. Vokic and Lorkovic also tried to do things on their own, and we all know how that ended up. I am not saying that Pavelic had NOTHING to do with it, I am simply saying that he didn't have everything to do with it, as many people had A LOT of military control - just as in the Croatian homeland war, many Croatian generals did things on their own without consulting Tudman, which has been proved over and over again.
The Vatican and CIA documents are nothing but Yugoslav propaganda which was later brought out again by Serbian radicals in the 1990s who wanted to discredit the Croatian nation amongst the international community after it had gained support by Germany and the Pope himself - which showed an eerie parallel to 1941. Once again Pavelic's route was :
Zagreb--->Rogaska Slatina--->Maribor--->Leingreith--->Napulj---> Buenos Aires
and since people who were with him that tell me so are not credible sources, I'm sure Bogdan Krizman is, and you can find a map of this on the very front cover of "Pavelic u Bjekstvu" which was published in the 80s during Yugoslavia. These CIA accusations sound like conspiracy theories which are found on total propaganda sites like "The Pavelic Papers" (which no longer exists) or "Srpska Mreza" - however they forgot to mention the supposed secret bank account at the Vatican where Pavelic stored all the riches that he stole from Croatia and the jews (rolls eyes) - sounds more like a cheesy movie rather than historical events. If you wish to put the "second side" in, go right ahead - but then you might as well put in Fra Majstorovic and the Srbosjek, along with the basket of 'oysters' on Pavelic's desk LOL. AP1929 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet again I have sorted out your indenting. This time you managed OK for one paragraph. It is like tidying up after a child.
Talking about childishness, that is how your styling of P looks to me. You call yourself a historian but you know very little about encycopedic style. Look at the article about Churchill. His titles and honours are clearly stated for the record,but throughout the article he is plain "Churchill" - not "Sir Winston." Unlike a knighthood, "Dr" is a mere courtesy title anyway - one which many reputable publications decline to recognise, eg the (London) Financial Times. But if you insist on it, you should confine its use to where you would insert the "Mr" for a lesser mortal. But perhaps P is such an inadequate that you must boost him up whatever way you can.
I can understand why you would have found the Pavelicpapers website somewhat distasteful. (Much of its content has migrated to another site now of course.) It is largely based on CIA documents which the US government was forced into disclosing in the course of litigation in a US district court. How those documents could be "Yugoslav propoganda" I fail to understand.
Re Maček:
After a lengthy haggle [with two Germans] we agreed that I would issue a proclamation... stating that the Germans had occupied Zagreb and the better part of Croatia and given power to Col Kvaternik who, in his turn, had proclaimed the "Independent State of Croatia." I would furthermore appeal to the people to accept these new facts peacefully since there was no other choice. When this was settled, the two telephoned Kvaternik to come to my house to obtain the text of a proclamation to the above effect. Vladko Maček: In the Struggle for Freedom, New York 1957.
Re Maks etc, what exactly are you saying? That P gave these trusted aides carte blanche to indulge in their depravities? That P had no idea what they were doing? That he was powerless to control them? P was in charge and had appointed those guys. He had the ultimate responsibility. In what sense was he NOT guilty of their crimes?
You invite me to add "the other side" - yet you have just wiped out "the other side" completely with your hagiographic rewrite. You have wasted your time because your efforts will not survive until you go at all this is a more reasonable manner. Kirker (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What you have on Vladko Macek, and what I have are two completely different things and would make sense coming from a self-proclaimed spineless Yugoslav as Macek was.
As for Maks and gang - there is no possible way for Pavelic to know of and give ever single command - that would be the duty of the military leaders themselves, after all, that is why they are there.
I had not wiped out the "other side" about Pavelic - I had wiped out the other side which was full of bias propaganda usually relating to inflated Ustasa atrocities and the discrediting of NDH - which does not make for a neutral page about Ante Pavelic. As for his titles - I have removed them from everywhere other than the very top - as you should have seen as this is one of the first steps I took. AP1929 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the "Dr" stuff, a Wikipedia administrator has sorted that problem for you.
Re Maks & Co you are obviously saying P had no knowledge of what was going on. Given the scale of the atrocities and the fact that a senior German officer and a senior German diplomat complained about them repeatedly (if only because the atrocities were counterproductive to their own interests) this is just laughable.
Re Maček, perhaps you would like to quote and cite whatever source you have that contradicts Maček's autobiography. As for your assessment of him, you have every reason to feel so bitter. After all, it was he and not P whom Yugoslavia's Croatians regarded as their leader. Incidentally he was jailed at least twice by the Belgrade government and put in Jasenovac by the Ustaša (I can't say by P, because P of course did not have a clue what was going on in the NDH). Not bad for a "spineless Yugoslav."
Unless you come up with sensible arguments and some valid sources I intend to delete sizeable chunks of your rewrite and restore some of what you yourself deleted. Kirker (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"The NDH is also responsible for it's own atrocities which may or may not have been in direct control of Pavelic - due to the fact that many other ministers in NDH had strong military control (see: rasovi), some of these atrocities took place in the infamous Jasenovac camp (and others), and against Serbian civilians in NDH."
The above is exactly what the article reads - which clearly indicates that he may or may not have been in control of all atrocities - however, since that sounds like praise to you I will now rewrite this to read:
"The NDH is also responsible for it's own atrocities (as is Pavelic) which may or may not have all been in direct control of Pavelic (however it is undoubted that many atrocities were in his direct control) - due to the fact that many other ministers in NDH had strong military control (see: rasovi), some of these atrocities took place in the infamous Jasenovac camp (and others), and against Serbian civilians in NDH."
As for Vladko Macek - I personally do not appreciate him because his panslavic views did not do anything good for the Croatian people - whereas at the time of his popularity hight he could have done very much however in April of 1941 prior to the 10th when NDH declared independence, he made an oath to Simovic's Yugoslavian government. Sure he had the support of the Croatian people - because he was basically the only option - the fact is that the majority of these HSS-ovci (peasant party members) became NDH soldiers and Generals - and the fact is that Macek did not believe in Croatian independence and was a self proclaimed Yugoslav:
"Ja sam radije za Jugoslaviju u kojoj bi Hrvati bili slobodni nego li za Državu Hrvatsku u kojoj bi se vladalo diktatorskim metodama. Osim toga kažem vam otvoreno, ja ne vjerujem u mogućnost opstanka hrvatske državne nezavisnosti." - Vladko Macek (V.Singer i Macek)
Translation:
"I am more for a Yugoslavia where Croats would be free then a Croatian state which would be governed with dictator-like methods. Otherwise, I'll tell you openly, I do not believe in the existence of Croatian statehood." - Vladko Macek, taken from interview with V.Singer from "V.Singer & Macek"
(if you would like the entire thing put here and translated I would be more than glad to do so to prove my point.
Another lovable quote by Macek from his later days prior to death: "Jugoslaven sam bio čitav život i kao takav ću i umrijeti" Translation: "I was a Yugoslav my whole life and I will die one."
As for Macek being in Jasenovac - Yes, Macek was in Jasenovac, the city, not the camp, he stayed at Vjekoslav Maks Luburic's own residence then moved to Luburic's mothers house in Zagreb - this whole controversy was sorted out in an issue of "DRINA" which was published by Hrvatski Narodni Odpor after NDH, which Macek himself approved - (Maks and Macek were friends - believe it or not - and even though Maks hated Macek's politics he still wrote him a very nice piece when he died. The piece which explains Macek's whereabouts and "stay" 'in' Jasenovac and at Mak's mothers house in Zagreb are all found within "Moj Kompleks "Slovenca" Vladka Maceka" by Vjekoslav Maks Luburic himself - the title translates : "My complex with Vladko Macek 'The Slovenian'" , once again, I will post the entire thing here and translate it, but I would rather not have to translate the whole thing and this would all be much easier (material wise) if you spoke Croatian (?). AP1929 (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"Given the scale of the atrocities and the fact that a senior German officer and a senior German diplomat complained about them repeatedly (if only because the atrocities were counterproductive to their own interests) this is just laughable"
Which senior officer, which German diplomat - which complaints ? If you are talking about General Kasche - I have tons of his documentations archived which are usually the complete opposite of what Serbian sources have credited to him.
In August of 1944 there is a well documented meeting between General Kasche and Hitler himself in regards to the situation in NDH : Kasches notes from the meeting show the following:
That Hitler in the name of Germany had no reservations or negative views toward the Croatian state and it's development - he said that Germany would continue to help Croatia in all ways possible and he wanted Kasche to warn the Croats of the anglo-americans which were just as big of a threat as the Bolsheviks were (according to Hitler) - General Kasche brought up (once again) General von Weichs' concerns that the German army should take control of the situation - but as Hitler ordered immediately in 1941, "The German soldiers should become and stay loyal to the NDH and local authorities&quot" - In 1941 Hitler told Pavelic that the German forces on the ground were not to receive any orders from the Germans who had set up their headquarters in Belgrade -
Serbian documents of Kasche claim that weeks after this meeting (literally) Hitler told his close associates that he was disappointed with the Croats and that he doesn't think that Croats would ever grasp statehood - the document claims Hitler said that if they (the croats) haven't been able to grasp it in 500 years how could they do so now? However it is well known that Croatia had not seen independence in well over 800 years prior to NDH, so the figure of 500 makes me question this alleged proof - and the fact that this alleged meeting is not documented at all nor can it be found in any reich documentations - however the meeting between Kasche and Hitler weeks prior to this "documentation" according to Serbian sources is very well documented makes me ponder... AP1929 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Which senior officer, which German diplomat - which complaints? Glaise and Neubacher respectively. You know the complaints because you removed references to such critics from the article. But I will remind you of one observation by Neubacher:
"When senior Ustaše say a million Orthodox Serbs were murdered (including babies, children, women and old men), they are claiming too much for themselves in my view.... When at HQ I repeated yet again the reality of the atrocities taking place across the Croatian territory within my sphere, Adolph Hitler replied: "I also told the Poglavnik that it is not that easy to wipe out such a minority. It is just too big." (Sonder-Auftrag Suedost 1940-1945, Frankfurt 1956 - my translation, which is probably not word-perfect).
Kasche and Glaise, as you will know, had a strained working relationship entirely because of their differing attitudes to the Ustaša terror, which in Glaise's view was driving Serbs out of the villages and into the forests - and ultimately into the swelling ranks Partisans. Still, what a comfort for you to know that despite everything "Hitler in the name of Germany had no reservations or negative views toward the Croatian state."
Now you have edited your words to acknowledge that P was a mass murderer, do you think it might be reasonable for that aspect of the guy to be a little more in evidence in the article as a whole?
There was NO "city" at Jasenovac. Maček was confined in a house within the brickyard at the heart of the camp complex, the windows of which were covered with paper "to prevent me me from seeing what was happening, and even more to prevent mz being seen by prisoners below." According to his own account "The screams and wails of despair and extreme suffering, the tortured outcries of the victims, broken by intermittent shooting, accompanied all my waking hours and accompanied me into my sleep. [...] I stayed in this hellish place of Jasenovac for fully five months." I am still waiting for your proof that he proclaimed the NDH by the way. And if the Singer you mention is the one who was an Ustaša police commissioner, could you say when he was interviewed? I believe he was himself killed by the Ustaša. Oh, and yes, post the stuff in Croatian by all means and I will be able to struggle through it. We should not overdo non-English text on the English-language Wikipedia, but maybe someone else will post a translation if it is of any relevance.
Last thought: many Croatians who became NDH soldiers did not join the Ustaša and only signed up at all in a misguided hope that "independence" was some kind of Holy Grail. (Pusti snovi!) You need to keep in mind that many others were among the first to rally to Tito and join the partisans - easy to overlook these days as Serbs also sometimes forget that detail. Kirker (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Edmund von Glaise-Horstenau was an Austrian national socialist and is very conveniently incorrectly referenced in those so-called "sources" as Glaise Von Hosrstenau. He most definitely was a big time player in the Austrian situation in the 30's, however, he really didn't have anything to do with NDH. I find it very 'convenient' that his name is often misspelled in these so-called "sources" which are almost always Serbian - not to mention that it is very 'convenient' that he is described as a German General - even though he was an Austrian no-body that no one knows much about post 1940.
Dr. Hermann Neubacher was the German minister to the Balkans referring to everything over the Drina river - he was stationed in Belgrade, Serbia (the exact station which Hitler told Kasche NOT to take orders from - but from the local authorities of NDH). Neubacher was a Serbian sympathizer, and commander of Serbian Chetnik and SS forces - I find it hilarious how he is the "Balkan Minister" and has so much to say about NDH - even though he was stationed in Belgrade, and was obviously working for the Serbs. The only time he entered NDH - at least what is documented, is in the Italian occupied zones where Cetniks were working with the Italians.
As for my use of the English language - I'm trying to keep up with this discussion and go through my own archives at the same time which is often very difficult as by the time I write out something properly, someone else may have already written something new. Macek's anger towards NDH came after NDH - all of his descriptions are nonsense and are totally contradicted by other witnesses who weren't even Ustase. Vespa & Macek will be up ASAP.AP1929 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Maček's anger about the NDH came after the NDH. (Well, also "during.") How could anyone have foreseen what depravities would accompany P's regime? I'm sorry, but your bland dismissal of all sources less than adulatory about P suggest to me that you have a very narrow perspective on the subject of this article. And it was simply wrong-headed to delete an article to which many had contributed in favour of your own hopelessly skewed version. Kirker (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"During" huh ? Did you know that Macek used to put on Luburic's hat and joke around with some high NDH officials - and that the hat was branded the name "Macek's hat" - did you know that many times during NDH Macek was quoted as saying "It's all in Poglavnik's hands" or "Poglavnik knows what he's doing" - Macek played nice during NDH, till it fell, and then he could continue with his Yugoslav ways and say "See! Good thing I didn't put my name to that country!" As for dismissing sources - yes I do, because go look at these "sources" and see what their "sources" are - and try to find out if every detail is correct. Most of these sources are prior to 1991 - which is a bad start right off the bat unless it was coming from Ustase or NDH officials themselves and not Serbian/ Yugoslav accounts - The Yugoslavs could write anything they wanted about NDH - which they did and no one could stop them, and the western world bought into Yugoslavia's new text book. Your mention of those "German Generals" (lol) just goes to show how good those sources are. AP1929 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
1) So they were not all German and they were not all generals. But I would not gloat too much in that pyrrhic victory. Glaise may have been Austrian but by the time he was in Zagreb Austria was part of Germany and its army had been absorbed into the Wehrmacht. So although not German, Glaise was a Wehrmacht officer at the relevant time. The fact that you know nothing about him post-1940 does explain a lot about your narrow perspective. It certainly explains your statement: he really didn't have anything to do with NDH. Post-1940 he became the Wehrmacht representative in Zagreb (that was the NDH's seat of government by the way). He was one of the few officers to question Ustaša depravities on strategic as well as humanitarian grounds, and was still protesting as late as 1944. Sadly for Pavelić apologists, he left a wealth of diaries, correspondence etc which is still available to researchers. Incidentally there is nothing sinister about his name being styled two different ways. It hasn't helped anyone, and such confusions have often arisen with German and Austrian names.
2) Neubacher was Hitler's plenipotentiary to Southeast Europe. He had an interest in German operations throughout the territory, and there were plenty such in the NDH - eg the Kozara/Prozara offensive.
3) You might also like to consult (since you obviously haven't done so yet) the correspondence of General Alexander Loehr (German, or Austrian? I don't know) and intelligence reports from the general staff of the Wehrmacht's 714th division. Etc. But maybe not. I suspect you were born into your prejudices and haven't had the vision to see beyond them. For my part I have no attachment, family or otherwise, to any part of the former Yugoslavia and can view the whole imbroglio with fascinated but cool detachment.
4) How convenient that we must ignore all pre-1991 Yugoslav sources and rely only on those that bolster your prejudices. But you have overlooked that much has been published in Britain, the US, France etc, making extensive use of extant documentation from all parts of WW2 Yugoslavia.
5) If you want to make puerile remarks about other Wikipedia editors, please don't do it on my talk page.
Kirker (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirker has put this better than I ever could. My current participation on Wikipedia is limited due to an influx of work with the end of the US screenwriters strike. That being said, my opinion is that this rewrite is absolutely terrible. There's a huge difference between adding balance, and adding bias. You've added bias, rather poorly I might add, and I'm tempted to simply revert you but cannot muster the energy to really care enough right now. Frankly, I'm stunned no one has gone back to the better version already.

Finally, do not insult other editors on my page either. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the subject. AniMate 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Step BACKWARD

This new article is completely useless and has totally ignored the entire discussion page and the conclusions that we have come to. You can not label Croatia as a "puppet state" nor was the Ustasa movement "national socialist/fascist".AP1929 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Step FORWARD

I have returned the article to 'my' - much more factual version. This article should be a template for future editing. If non-Croat/Serb users see parts of the article which appear to be POV I would like them to present that particular part of the article here on the discussion page where we can come to a conclusion. I plan on (with the help of others) creating a Holocaust / Atrocities section on this page, however up until then, this article is much more factual and has many more references to actual events in Pavelic's life with dates included and political life post-NDH. I am trying to come to a clean/neutral encyclopedic article on Pavelic without the terms "puppet state" or "fascist" - which are both terms of political criticism - thus not POV - not to mention that term "puppet state" in relation to Croatia is against wiki rules and regulations.AP1929 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AP1929 has arrived here from nowhere and attempted to throw away an article which has been the subject of lengthy discussions, and to which several editors had contributed from various differing perspectives over many months. He wants to replace it with an article strongly skewed his own singular viewpoint - that of a self-confessed loyal (I would say besotted) disciple of the subject in question. He has raised some valid points (one or two of which I have myself tried to take on board) but this in no way justifies wholesale rejection of all that has gone before. In my view AP1929's behaviour is completely unacceptable. Kirker (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I stopped editing for a little while - and I see no movement here - seems to me that you simply do not want a neutral article, you don't want any of my input, you would rather have this bogus piece of propaganda rather than any of my findings.AP1929 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the article is not perfect. Why don't you (AP1929) take one aspect of it which you think is wrong, change it, and explain why, citing credible sources? Get consensus on that point before going on to another. I know you don't like consensus, but it's the only way Wikipedia is going to work. If you simply replace a whole article you don't like with one you do like, you are just wasting your time - as you have perhaps begun to realise. Kirker (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for 'concensus'

Article : 1889 – December 28, 1959) was the Head (Poglavnik) and founding member of the Croatian fascist Ustaše movement in the 1930s and later the leader of the Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state[1] [2] of Nazi Germany during World War II.

Suggested change : 1889 Dember 28, 1959) was a Croatian writer, politician, revolutionary and the founding member of the Croatian "Ustasa" movement - UHRO [Ustasa - Hrvatska Revolucionarna Organizacija] [Ustasa - Croatian Revolutionary Organization]and later the leader (Poglavnik) of the Independent State of Croatia, a minor Axis nation during the second World War. AP1929 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be OK from my point of view, with certain modifications, thus:
... was a Croatian politician and, in the 1930s, a founding member and Poglavnik (literal translation: Headman) of the Croatian Ustaša insurgency movement. For the four years of its existence from April 1941, again under the Poglavnik title, he served as leader of the Independent State of Croatia, a client state of the Axis Powers. Shortly after Germany's surrender he escaped abroad, and died in Madrid in 1959.
So... 1) I am suggesting "revolutionary" is omitted as some editors would find it contentious. 2) Provided there is a link to the Ustase article, I don't think the full name in Croatian needs to be spelt out here. 3) As far as I know, DIREKTOR is still holding out for "puppet state." That would be my own preference too, but I'll settle for "client state" if it has a better chance of consensus. To my mind "minor Axis Power" seriously understates NDH's inferiority within the Axis community. 4) I don't think writing was a sufficient element in P's life to warrant mention in the intro. Not like with Budak for instance.
I've not been around Wikipedia much of late during travels in Yugoslavia. I'm now going back there for a few weeks so may may not be around much again until mid-May. Kirker (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No reaction. so I made the change. From personal preference I left out cross-reference tags to avoid cluttering the intro (they are all there lower in the article). I could put back in. Sources have gone too - they seemed to be only justifying "puppet state" definition.Kirker (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the other changes, but we had two references stating that it was a puppet state, not a client state. AniMate 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, in case AniMate's comment is misinterpreted, there were no references saying it was NOT a client state. It clearly was. But (at least, according to Wikipedia) "puppet" is more precise. It's not clear to me what the term adds beyond a bit more opprobrium, but I wouldn't hold my hand in the fire for either definition. Kirker (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Disagree

For starters Kirker, it is 2008 and there is no such thing as "Yugoslavia" - I, and millions of Croatians globe-wide find people like you calling Croatia "Yugoslavia" today despicably offensive.

The Ustasa movement WAS a Revolutionary movement by all definitions, however the NDH was not a 'client' or 'puppet' state. Croatia only really had one policy that was 'determined' from outside, moreso imposed, and those were racial laws against Jews, which were abolished by 1943. In 1941, Croatia did NOT breach the rules of sovereign succession - it was created by the Croatian people at the will of the Croatian people - and both terms are nothing but terms of political criticism which does not make for a NEUTRAL article.AP1929 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, when I want to edit something, it gets changed immediately without any type of consensus. Kirker has constantly agreed that the article 'isn't that great', and without me here it seems to be left at a standstill - I wonder why - maybe because the other editors are dreaming of "Yugoslavia". "Pavelic's quarrelsome nature" - like how is that encyclopedic ? "....he sulked in his seat" - "Pavelic fled through Austria to Rome where he was hidden by the Pope himself" - who writes this garbage ? The historical committee of "Yugoslavia" as Kirker calls it? OH - and BIG NEWS - guess what Kirker - I found Vladko Macek's proclamation of NDH and NDH newspapers with his proclamation on them - like I said and promised to present. A REFERENCE on this page - is to a website that claims that Fr. Majstorovic killed 'countless Serbs with his BARE HANDS". This article is a JOKE ! Where is the neutrality ? The two of you govern this page and have not a clue as to what Ustase were let alone what Croatia is - heck, one of the 'main editors' here just called Croatia "Yugoslavia" ! The wikipedia page on HITLER is more neutral than it is on Pavelic ! The references are nothing but Serbian/Zionist/Serbo-Communist "Yugoslav" propaganda.AP1929 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Such ranting, without any reason, makes you sound a bit hysterical, AP1929. I supported most of what you suggested, and though I proposed some minor changes, I allowed plenty of time for discussion before changing the article. If you can show me where I called Croatia Yugoslavia I suppose I had better apologise. It will have been a mistake or else I was perhaps teasing. But really I don't think I did it. Kirker (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Without any reason ? I am Croatian, and to me, Dr. Ante Pavelic is a NATIONAL HERO - one of the greatest Croatian sons of all time ! Dozens in my family DIED fighting for that "puppet state" - I demand a neutral article! Non-Croats do not understand what 60 years of communist hegemony has done to Croats and to Croatian history - find me MODERN studies on NDH or the Ustasha movement that dont trace back to "YUGOSLAVIAN" references or Serbian "TRUTH" websites with millions of spelling errors and no sources at all ! As for your 'mistake' : here it is :
I've not been around Wikipedia much of late during travels in Yugoslavia. I'm now going back there for a few weeks so may may not be around much again until mid-May. Kirker (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
AP1929
To be precise, I am travelling around in Croatia, Bosnia, Hercegovina and Serbia. Mostly Bosnia (RS). The easiest way for me to say all that is to say Yugoslavia. That is not the same as calling Croatia Yugoslavia. If you want to take offence, I'm comfortable with that. Kirker (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
LoL tantrum... :D --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check out the truth with references and all!

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia.pdf

This is the same material but in a different format> http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link Two bullits for Pavelic doesn't work

It's inactive,so i removed it.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:CAj7dvnx_10J:www.politikforum.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-68598.html+%22Two+bullets+for+Pavelic%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph One

New change : Dr. Ante Pavelic (July 14, 1889 – December 28, 1959) Croatian politician, head of state, and revolutionary.Ante Pavelic was the founder of "Ustasa - Croatian Revolutionary Organization" (UHRO) and later the leader - "Poglavnik" - of the Independent State of Croatia.

If anyone here thinks that Jozo Tomasevic's book about the Serbian Chetnik movement is a reliable source to brand NDH a "puppet" state - why don't they look at the actual reference and see what it says. A proclamation of NDH occurred without 'German/Italian bayonets' - Germany didn't even recognize Croatia until 5 days after it was proclaimed!AP1929 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is that the Independent State of Croatia was a puppet state. This article is only one of dozens that describes it as such. I'd argue that you need to actually need to change the Independent State of Croatia to reflect your beliefs rather than focusing solely on this article. AniMate 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about 'my beliefs' - there is no beliefs here, I am here to neutralize the article with hard FACT.AP1929 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The sheer number of sources that say that NDH was a puppet state belie your claims about hard facts. AniMate 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
They are also incorrect, and most of the time you can't blame them - they were referencing "Yugoslavian" text. There is not one modern study of NDH, the Ustasa movement or Dr. Ante Pavelic. Make a list of "characteristics" - even by wikipedia's definition of puppet state, and I will show you and everyone here very clearly how NDH was NOT a "puppet state" AP1929 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is incorrect except you. Good to know. AniMate 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, even Encyclopedia Britannica, the standard bearer for English encyclopedias, states that the NDH was a puppet state. You're fighting a battle you cannot win. AniMate 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the thing about me, I always win, I was born to - that's the difference between you and I. Hilariously enough, Encyclopedia Britannica makes thousands of errors every year, and there is even a Wikipedia article about it; view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

So I guess you could say you will be amongst the select few who were the first to note the mistake of labeling the NDH as a "puppet".AP1929 (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another hilarious fact is that even Serbian propagandists are now going to help me prove my point; visit : http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/ustashi.html - The author cites numerous editions of Encyclopedia Britannica where they do NOT label the NDH as a "puppet state" - and make numerous unjust, unproven claims which any normal person today knows as incorrect.AP1929 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet state (not again)

This matter was concluded long ago on the NDH article. Sources overwhelmingly refer to the NDH as a puppet state. Not a "member" state, not a "client" state, not a "satellite" state, but simply puppet state. Of course the "country" was a member of the Axis, but it was also most certainly a puppet state of Nazi Germany. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is never "concluded." You shouldn't have held out for "puppet state" if you're not ready to defend it for ever more. "Client state" would have been the obvious compromise, reflecting subordinate status (which Beaglespanner's anodyne term did not do) but without the blatently pejorative element associated with "puppet state." Cluttering an article that's supposed to be about Pavelić with screeds of references justifying "puppet state" is just ridiculous. (Incidentally, under the Axis terms NDH was no more sobordinate to Germany than to Italy, which installed a monarch and annexed a substantial part of the territory.) Kirker (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am having similar situation in article Ivo Andrić. Nationalistic vandals are deleting statement confirmed with internet sources because they hate fact that he is born in Croat family (they write that he is born in Serb family). Last vandal has been puppet of user Velebit. Now in reference we are having 5 sources and all 5 are saying that his parents are Croats. First user which now delete this statement without very good reasongs will recieve last warning or block :) --Rjecina (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, with all due respect, please don't preach Wikipedia values. Objectively speaking, if one wanted to present an example of a typically "puppet state", I can't think of a better example. In other words, it would be very hard to find a country that was more thoroughly under the control of another. Furthermore, "puppet" state is not a pejorative, "puppet" is not an insult. It may be an insult to the national pride of those who support the state's existence and consider it "their own", but this does not qualify the term as "pejorative". The sources we have are hardly insignificant, and I can think of no better source for public usage of a scientific term than Britannica.
Also, I am fully aware of the politics in occupied Yugoslavia, and I do know that Aimone of Spoleto was given the title, I also know that Pavelić was in Mussolini's debt for his pre-war support, and that he was Italy's candidate for Croatian dictator. However, these nominal facts are irrelevant, as Italy exerted incomparably less influence over the country than Germany due to Italy's annexation of Dalmatia. The NDH (backed by Germany) and Italy were constantly in conflict over this issue. Italy was also getting weaker (diplomatically and militarily) by the month, being a far weaker country than Germany from the start. In short, "equal" influence between Italy and Germany was the original diplomatically conceived idea, but de-facto existed only in the first months, if even then. Also, one should note that when the state ceased to exist, it was a puppet state of Germany alone. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Ante Pavelic did not hold any such title as "Head of the NDH" from 1941 to 1945. Pavelic's role as Poglavnik was a title which was held within the UHRO, and not directly a governmental position. As head of the UHRO he controlled the Glavni Ustaski Stan one of the main institutions in the NDH. He held the position of president of the government (premier) from 1941 to 1943. After this point he exited the government. Although heading the Ustashe may have been a more powerful position than president of the government, as the NDH didn't have a constitution it is impossible to say which of the two actually functioned as head of state. Pavelic's successor as president, Nikola Mandic, is the one who remained in Zagreb the longest and actually attempted to engage the Allies with the remaining Croatian state apparatus in the waning days of the war. --Thewanderer (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)