Talk:Bleiburg massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bleiburg massacre article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] The collaboration edit

It should be mentioned that the refugees were Ustashes and their collaborators. there were domobrans but among the civilians I think it is safe to say that they were mostly collaborators due to many obvious reasons. A vast majority of people cheerfully welcomed the partisans after all.

While there is no proof that the "vast majority of people" in the former Yugoslavia welcomed the partisans (who took power by brute violence), it is very clear that this article was written as an Ustasha whitewash.

[edit] question on sources

1. one operates with big numbers, and their contention is that somewhere between 250,000 and 600,000 Croats had been executed in Bleiburg, Slovenia and northern Croatia. While the upper limit is almost certainly false, the lower one has gained credibility in recent years, when Slovene authorities have estimated, in 1999 and 2000 that mass excavations in wider Maribor area have found ca. 180,000 human corpses, mostly Croats (judging from the remnants of military insignia). As reported elsewhere:

  • In 1999 the resources from the Republic of Slovenia reported of as many as 110 mass graves of Croats discovered in this state, victims of the "Way of the Cross" in 1945 immediately after the end of WW2. Among them there were not only soldiers, but also a large number of civilians. The Slovenian public was shocked by the size and number of these graves.
  • In 2001 Slovenian sources reported of as many as 296 mass graves on their territory, and an estimate of about 190,000 Croats killed immediately after the end of WW2 (May 1945 and later), mostly Croats. Only in the region of Tezno woods Slovenian sources estimate about 60-80,000 killed. Many children bones have been found among the remains victims.

I would like to know the sources for this. Zerjavic's investigations are well-documented and argumented but if this were true, it would throw them out of the window -- and open the question of why 100 000 more missing do not show up in demographic data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miranche (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 January 2005.

[edit] comments

There are two flagrant ommisions in the description of this regretable fact. The first one is that Josip Broz Tito was a Croat and that most Serbs ware royalists, and not communists. The second, is that during World War Two the Ante Pavelic Croat government organized and conducted bestial atrocities against large civilians populations, most of them Serbs.

For fear of payback, those criminals of war ware escaping from Croatia. However, the severity and complete bestial nature of the war in those regions, unfortunately put the situation out of what is right.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.76.205.14 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2005.

All killed croats in bleiburg, slovenia and coratia are criminals? Hard words!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.136.178 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 May 2005.

You are forgeting the amount of others were killed (slaughtered) in Jasenovac. Have you people heard of a srbosjek?

[edit] Two problems with the article

1. Pars pro toto confusion: Bleiburg massacre may refer to events near the village of Bleiburg on a particular day (deaths in triple digits at most), or events in the region (primarily Slovenia) over the course of the following weeks or perhaps months (mass murder, deaths in tens of thousands). Unfortunately, the term "Bleiburg massacre" has come to cover both meanings, and this needs to be spelled out clearly. One cannot just say (and I quote) "The number of those who met their death in Bleiburg is", and then shell out five- or six-digit numbers - because it simply isn't true.

This is a side-effect of translating from Croatian, where when one says "Bleiburg" then the whole massacre is implied, not just the village. Fixing. --Joy [shallot] 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
It's sligthly better now (with a change of wording) - but, of course, there's still the opening sentence. I was thinking about making some changes myself, but I feel somewhat underqualified. We'll see... GregorB 02:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

2. Bleiburg as an exclusively "Croatian thing": the victims were also Slovenians (Bela garda) and Serbs (Chetniks), in no small numbers. Not a single word in the article.

GregorB 16:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


"The Slovenian public was shocked by the size and number of these graves." Yes, the Slovenian public was shocked, because we were told these were mainly corpses of Slovenes in those mass graves.213.172.254.126 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag (March 13, 2006)

...And yes, I clearly prefer Serbs over Croats because Serbs never stained themselves by persecuting Jews - unlike the Croats, who traditionally express most savage forms of anti-Semitism, including their beloved "president" Tudjman. Aleverde 00:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC+2) (note: the date is wrong, should be March 13, 2006)


BTW, Belgrade in 1941. proudly declared itself "first Judenfrei city in Europe".

It was the German Nazis who declared Belgrad judenfrei not Serbs who in their entire history have never been antisemitic. Croats were massacred in Bleiburg yes and that is just, they got what they deserved.

Are you fogeting that Hitler and your Germans forced (some more or less willing) the entire Axis (includeing Mussolini) to kill jews? You say the GERMANS killed jews in Serbia and not Nedić? Who the f... do you think controlled our 'good friend' Pavelić anyway?! I can't believe you're so naive... Serbs murdered Croats and Partisans and collaborated with the Axis while the Croats were the first to oppose the antisemites. The chetniks were just as bad (if not worse) as the Ustashe, they just didn't have as much support. But as for the collaborators at Bleiburg, I more or less agree with you.. DIREKTOR P.S.: The traitorous Pavelić regime was anti-Serb, not antisemitic, originally

[edit] "British involvement in the affair"

The article talks about "British involvement in the affair" but does not explain what this is supposed to be (it's explained, for instance, in the German Wikipedia article about this topic). I think somebody should translate it or come up with reputable sources and include it in his or her own words. --84.137.43.81 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I cannot at present site sources (though they are easily found), relatives of victims, as well as locals from Bleiburg reported: Bleiburg is where the fleeing Croatians had to change trains as they were bound for Germany; British troops promised to guide them to safety, and allocated the refugees onto trains which they state that they "never knew" were heading back to Yugoslavia, even though there were dozens of trains over a long period of time, all heading in the same direction, which could only have sent them back to Yugoslavia as Bleiburg is so close to the Slovene border. I personally believe it as the whole thing looked excellently calculated. Evlekis 06:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
And it goes without saying, that whatever involvement the British may or may not have had, nobody from Communist Yugoslavia was ever internationally condemned, indicted, summoned to appear before an international court etc. even though the events of the 1990s were extremely minor by comparison. Evlekis 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Removed following line added by anonymous contributor: "It should be remembered, however, that there is high probability the majority of the refugees were collaborators with the occupying Axis forces, since they ran from the Partisans leaving all or most of their property behind, irregular behaviour unless with serious reason."

Represents original research & is a claim that cannot be proven or disproven. Those fleeing may have been anti-communist, or afraid of the red army. iruka 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE TRUTH

The above comment appears to be from an Ustaha supporter -- The Ustashas were so brutal that even the nazis thought they were crazy. An exact translation of the remark would be useful.Scott Adler 20:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Translation: Ustaše forever, SERBS ON WILLOWS. (A common anti-serb saying calling for hanging of Serbs) --78.0.95.241 09:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


The Ustasha had this coming, and there were chetniks that died in this massacre, so why the f... are some croatians so sympathetic to this? If they are then the're sympathtic to the Chetniks. You shouldn't hate a certain people because of a leader, they should hate the king and the government and his clan (the chetniks which are bad), not the people. BRATSTVO I JEDINSTVO!!! Fascism only gives you enemies, not friends!


Congradulations man, could not have said it better myself. You gotta remember one thing: there's a LOT of stupid people in this world.

[edit] Entirely POV

This article appears to be Ustasha propaganda and should be placed in the context of the crimes of that regime. I am therefore placing a POV tag on it.

[edit] stop being ignorant

you have no idea what you are talking about. I do not understand why this is called a massacre , it is insignificant to the numbers of Serbs killed by the Ustashe . yo say treated humanely, so what does that mean the ustashe are allowed to murder rape and slay whole villages of innocent people and you're saying they should be treated fairly. I can see that you're 15 and that you are getting fed a lot of this political crap from your parents, but for a minute you need to use your own brain and see who the real murderers are. My mother's uncle and aunt were forced locked inside their home , while the ustashas burned the house and the poor people inside. These were not people but animals commiting such crimes. How would you feel like when you knew that such people had slayed your family... I do not think you would spare them , the animals deserve an eternal suffering for their crimes.

is this what you are proud of. http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/gallery.html Take a good look of what you fellow Croats did. Unfortunately there are still Ustasha operating in Croatia and it is people like you who are allowing this. Wake up and see the truth ... pray for those innocent people who were slayed killed murdered raped and tortured for no reason but their faith .

Look there is no point getting uptight. Wikipedia and the whole web are scattered with details about what the Ustasha did, but also what their opponents did when Croats were the victims. The events of Bleiburg do amount to massacre, and that is what the page is all about. If Srebrenica was a massacre with not even 10,000 victims, and all male and over a certain age, and picked by intelligence, then how can Bleiburg not be a massacre? Not 10,000, but tens or hundreds of thousands, and not just boys over a certain age but every type of human being. They both saw the annialation of masses of people over a short period of time (weeks), they were both done on political grounds, so they are both massacres. Don't think me anti-Serb for saying this, it is not true. The Bleiburg massacre was carried out by a multi-ethnic organization with one thing in common, that they were communists - and the victims also had one thing in common - being fascists, or having openly supported fascists. I don't claim that all Bleiburg victims were Croat either. But a massacre, by one group of people to another, it was. Balkantropolis 11:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who killed who

It is important to note that Croats were the majority among the troops that hunted the nazis. The matter is quite simple really:

the Ustaše, the Chetnik scum and the Belogardists were joined with:
  1. civilian collaborators and nationalist, along with an undoubtably small proportion of frightened innocent civs;
  2. Domobran units.
The Domobrans were offered to surrender peacefully, many did, some wouldn't, the majority couldn't (they would be shot by their Ustaše commanders as deserters).
The majority of the civilians running away were not innocent, but those that were were now inextricably mixed with those that weren't, this is truly tragic and unavoidable.
The military units in the escaping columns were STILL FIGHTING when the war ended so there is no reason for the Partisans to honor any peace treaty. Add to that the horrible crimes commited by the collaborator armies (the Chetniks, the Ustaše and the Belogardists) and you have a burning desire to avenge their homeland (among the Partisans).
The British could not help the fascists even if they wanted to: this could lead to war with Yugoslavia and an international scandal.
The Partisans caught up and started killing people in the columns. The orders from Tito and the high command were to round them up and send them to the camps where they could be sorted, however the partisans spontaneously started killing some of them and the high command did nothing to prevent it.
They didn't kill the majority, the majority WERE sent out to camps in the Kolone (or the so called "križni put" which is a propagandist name) where they were sorted and many innocents were released. However, a portion of them were die hard fascists and these were killed in the camps. DIREKTOR

Before claiming something is POV, Nick, at least present an argument! Do you honestly doubt that the victims of Partisan crimes are not dwarfed by the numbers of the NDH holocaust alone (not counting the Italian concentration camps)? Bear in mind that Yugoslavia suffered 1 700 000 dead in the war, almost THREE times as many as the UK and the USA COMBINED. Please gather info before claiming this is untrue and POV. IF IT IS FACT IT CANNOT BE POV. DIREKTOR

Please source anything you add to this article. You are not permitted to add any original research to Wikipedia. Nick 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is widely known fact it needs no sourceing. I admit I wrote it in a perhaps too offensive manner, but the naked fact is very well known.

(USA casualties: 292 100 soldiers

UK casualties: 271 311 soldiers, 60 595 civilians

Yugoslav casualties: 1 700 000 (military and civilian undiscernable))

Are you unaware of the concentration camps built on Yugoslav territory, of the mass murders of Serbs, of the retributions and massacres of entire villages (because of vague suspicions of them having helped the Partisans), of the Chetnik murders an ethnic cleansing, of Italian punitive expeditions in Dalmatia, of the extermination of Jews etc...? Germans murdered 100 Yugoslav civilians for a dead German soldier, and yet the Ustaše were the kings of the orgy of killing, so much so that even Germans were appalled. The Partisans would have had to use nuclear weapons to kill so many people in so small a time frame. Therefore, it is not only the common knowledge of this fact, but also physical impossibility that shows this sentence needs no specific source. DIREKTOR

I understand you're not happy about the levels of Yugoslav casualties, but we do need sources for these estimates and we need everything to be written in neutral terms, even if the incident was vastly one sided, as you say. There's nothing we like more than to have accurate information on such incidents, but it can't represent the viewpoint of any one person or nation, it has to be reported as if it was seen from above but an uninvolved party. This sounds daft, but imagine you're a little martian and you saw the whole incident unfold from your spaceship in orbit. We want and need the article written from their perspective. Nick 15:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I appologise, I might have been somewhat one-sided in describing these events, but you have to understand my position, the Bleiburg massacre is often used in Croatia to make the Partisans seem equal to the NDH (the Independent State of Croatia). Which is (almost) like making the SS eaqually criminal to the US Army because of the executions of SS officer prisoners without trial. It is a fact that the Partisans were the only organisation that didn't have genocide in it's OFFICIAL agenda. (Ustaše kill Serbs, Gypsies, Jews; Chetniks kill Croats and muslims etc...)

I hope you approve of the new wording, if not, I will not write it again.

This statement: However, the number of deaths due to Partisan crimes is much smaller than the number of those killed by the Axis occupation forces and their collaborator movements, which does something to explain, if not excuse, the horrible Bleiburg massacre. The first part is true, the number of Bleiburg massacre is smaller than the number of those killed by occupation forces, however occupation forces were killing over a longer period of time and at the time when the war was going on. Bleiburg massacre was taking place AFTER the war. The second part of the sentence is clearly PoV. It contains author's judgement, which is unacceptable in the Wikipedia. I will remove the second part of the sentence and, im my opinion the first part should also be deleted, but maybe others can explain why it should stay. Or maybe it shoud be rewritten. Jasra 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Several points, Jasra: 1) The killings did take place after the war, but this was irrelevant in this theatre as the fleeing Axis forces continued to fight after the armistice, despite calls for surrender. (They did this in hopes of reaching the British.) 2) Does time frame of killings really matter in this context? 3) This is not my judgement, it is merely somewhat "stronger" wording for the explanation of motive behind the horrible crime. It should be rewritten in "colder" (encyclopedic) wording, perhaps. I will try to do this and would like your oppinion. DIREKTOR

[edit] Do not revert without discussion Duja

(moved from User talk:Duja)

Do not revert without discussion Duja, these "argumentative statements" are pure fact: the Chetniks were genocidal and they killed more than the partisans, etc... I did not state exact numbers, they ARE in dispute, but these naked facts are not! DIREKTOR 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "reverted" anything, but cleaned the article up from editors' opinions per WP:NPOV. Outright dismissing Chetniks of "genocidal" and Bela Garda (which I, admittedly, know little about) as "pro-Nazi", without using similar attributes for Ustašas (though the Croat part of the column was a mixed bag indeed) is not neutral. The last sentence:

However, the number of deaths due to Partisan crimes is much smaller than the number of those killed by the Axis occupation forces and their collaborator movements, a fact that did much to motivate this terrible crime.

is an editorializing attempt to justify what happened by comparing the crimes of partisans at Bleiburg with earlier crimes of their victims. Sorry, I have to make a comparison with Serbs' justification of Srebrenica massacre as a rightful (if too cruel) retaliation for Serb victims in Bratunac area.
Wikipedia doesn't work that way, sorry. We present readers only the facts and opinions of experts relevant to the subject, and let them reach their own conclusions. Currently, when the article has 0 (zero) references, it's almost impossible to do.
Somewhat paradoxically (which, I assure you, I say very rarely), the Serbian wiki article on the topic, apart from POV title and occasional bashing of recent Croatian mythization of the event, is much more value-neutral than this one, not to mention the hr:Masakr u Bleiburgu (which is by and large a copyvio of [1]).
So, in sum, your statement that "argumentative statements are pure fact" cannot hold. As you probably know, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. I don't think that Chetniks and Bela Garda were good guys—not at all—but see Wikipedia:Words to avoid, particularly "Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint" section. Duja► 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Duja, I know you're not an extremist so I will not take your message in that context. (On a "genocide scale" from 1 to 10, the Ustaše are 10 and the chetniks are 6.) I am not trying to display Ustaše in a better light (to use a Serbo-Croat expression). One important matter though: please read carefully the last sentence, it does not justify or excuse anything, IT MERELY DISPLAYS THE MOTIVES OF THE CRIME. Because of this it is INSTRUMENTAL in giving a reader a thorough insight into the matter, and I will not have it removed. Maybe you could rephrase it to a "colder" wording? As for the Srebrenica crack, I think it is well known who killed more people in the Bosnian conflict, so your comparison does not stand. DIREKTOR 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you're not an extremist either, so we can put this off the agenda. However, at least 2 persons above (Nick and Jasma) pointed out to you the unacceptability of such language in the articles: we aim to report the events in the manner of academic journals, books and high-standard journalists, not to judge. We should free the articles from our personal opinion; that's the entire background of WP:NPOV. Where there is judgement, we report only the judgements of relevant sides and the knowledgeable observers. The phrases like "genocidal Chetniks" and "pro-Nazi White Guard", no matter how justified, come out the same way as "Srbo-Četnički koljači" and "Ustaške horde" from Croatian and Serbian media in the 1990s. We let the readers reach their own conclusion by demonstrating facts, not by asserting opinions. Duja► 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I removed it all. One important thing though: not to mention the numbers ratio of the killings would be equivalent to writing propaganda for the Ustaše. Because it would display them in the context of poor victims, while they were actually so terrible even the SS was apalled! :P Wouldn't you agree?

[edit] Numbers of victims section organisation issue

I don't understand why the professional "three schools" version was removed. Is there any particular reason for this degradation of the article? DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


There are several reasons, in fact. You can't talk about "schools" if only one group of sources (Kočović and Žerjavić) operate with genuine scientific facts. The second "school" is actually some Partisan generals who allegedly witnessed the massacre, but they are a biased party (after all, it was the Partisans who murdered those people). Believing their claims would be like believing Ustaše's claims about Jasenovac. Finally, I had added the article's only referenced chapter, which provides the facts on the recent findings about the mass graves in Slovenia. You turned that chapter into a "school"! Why did you do that? Why deliberately distort the plain facts and make them look like something controversial? --Zmaj 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


First of all, calm down. I will not revert before consensus is reached, but extreme prejudice about any of the sides is not the way here. Second, since when does lableing something a "school of thought" make it controversial?The theory presented there is part of another method of ascertaining the numbers by archeology. I don't know wether you are familiar with this, but from a scientific pint of view there are three ways to asertain the victims of any mass killing:

1) historiography and demography

2) witness accounts (preferraby by the officer in overall command)

3) archeological research

Why you removed this systematic method of displaying the thoeries about the numbers of victims is beyond me. One thing is for certain: your way of displaying the witness accounts (however dubious) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia as the tone you assume is that of underestimation of importance. (concentration camps are a completely different matter, I am sick of Jasenovac and Bleiburg going hand-in-hand like they are historically identical.) DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


If a thousand bodies are found in a pit, do I have to belong to a particular "school of thought" to acknowledge their existence? Please, this is ridiculous. --Zmaj 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Yes, the Archeological school of thought. (in mass killing research) Bodies found from Babilonian cultures are the same thing as bodies found in WW2 burial pits. They are archeologic evidence. I hope you can see the point I'm making here. We must be professional about this. DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Do those bodies exist outside of archeology? I'm not sure I understand your train of thought. --Zmaj 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


What's to understand? Yes, they do exist out outside of archeology. If thousands of bodies are found in a pit, they are archeological evidence. They "belong" to the Archeological method (or "school of thought") of determining the numbers in massacres. DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


If there are no ojections I have restored the "three schools" organisation (I didn't restore the sentence). Bear in mind that this ommits no information whatsoever. I hope we may at least settle this issue. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


OK, fine. I still find the "schools" pretty awkward, but I won't split hairs over them, as long as that sentence stays out. --Zmaj 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


I still do not see what is the problem with sentence. If we agree that it is basically correct. Motivation for such a terrible crime is certainly not irrelevant in this matter, nor is the broader historical context. I understand your disgust (indeed I'm disgusted myself), but this is an overall disgusting matter, such things need to be said.
I'd be happy to rewrite it with the possibility of ethnic motivation mentioned. DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


If you want to play it that way, suit yourself. But don't come complaining when I add my favorite motivations to yours. --Zmaj 22:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Threats are no way to discuss. I suggest we agree on a version here instead of edit warring. Here's my proposal:

While ethnic differences may have had some part in motivating the killings, it is well to remember that the number of deaths due to all the Partisan crimes combined is much smaller when compared to the vast number of those systematically exterminated by the Axis and their local puppet-regimes, wich does something to explain, if not to justify, the Bleiburg massacre.

While taking into consideration ethnic differences as a motivation, keep in mind these two facts:
1) The Partisans were a primarily Croatian force (led by Croats and founded in Croatia) wich adhered to the primary ideal of "brotherhood and unity" of the Yugoslav nations.
2) There were many Chetnik Serbs among the columns and they were all exterminated in the Bleiburg massacre. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm at a loss for words. How can I show you the ugliness of what you're trying to do? What would you say if I introduced this sentence in the article about the Croatian War of Independence: While ethnic differences may have had some part in motivating the killings, it is well to remember that the number of deaths due to all the Serb crimes combined is much smaller when compared to the vast number of those systematically exterminated by the Axis and their local puppet-regimes, which does something to explain, if not to justify, the Vukovar massacre. I'm not inventing this. The fear of another NDH was the favorite excuse of the Croatian Serbs when they started their recent uprising. In fact, whenever some Serbs decide to kill Croats in the future, we can introduce this motivation again. After all, according to you, there's still a long way to go to balance the victim counts. --Zmaj 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


FFS! Do I really have to explain this to you? OK, 1) those are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WARS, 2) the Serbian nationalists killed only for NATIONAL reasons.
In short, they could not have been directly afflicted by the crimes of NDH, they were primarily doing this to create Greater Serbia. Your comparison is COMPLETELY incorrect. You cannot compare Serb rebels (wich were, by the way, not present at Vukovar) with Yugoslav Partisans and you cannot compare the Yugoslav wars with the Second World War.
You would be completely correct if you wrote that the Axis crimes motivated the rebellion TO SOME EXTENT, but the primary motivator was not that, but the union of Serb-populated lands. I am not gonna go into this. The sentence concerns merely WW2 so keep it there.
DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


So, according to you, I am not allowed to make comparisons. Interesting. Who gave you the right to compare the Axis crimes with the Partisan crimes? --Zmaj 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


I am not comparing Axis crimes with Partisan crimes. I am merely saying the former had a role in motivating the latter (they both occured in the same war, it is a significant fact). You are right, Partisan crimes cannot be compared with Axis crimes. DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A revolting sentence

Some editors keep returning this sentence to the article:

One thing, however, is known for certain: the number of deaths due to all the partisan crimes combined dosen't come close to the vast number of those systematically exterminated by the fascist Ustaša regime wich does something to explain, if not to excuse, the Bleiburg massacre.

I'll always wonder at the moral pit in which some people live. How depraved must a person be to think that such a sentence is justified? I guess people who like this sentence are the same kind of people who operate death camps, torture prisoners and push the red button to kill billions. After all, they will always find something "to explain, if not to excuse" their atrocities. --Zmaj 13:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


There is no call for insults, I do not live in a moral pit. This sentence clearly does not attempt to excuse or justify the mass killings. It is encyclopedic statement of simple historic fact (Jasenovac alone, without the punitary expeditions and retributions outnumbers Bleiburg). Do you believe the Partisans went from village to village murdering people because of their religion, for four long years? Just so I know where you stand, I ask you who (in your personal oppinion) killed more civilians, the Ustaše (and their Chetnik allies) or the Partisans? DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry to offend your sensibilities, but your frame of mind in this issue is awful. Do you seriously expect me to engage in a game of who killed more civilians "in my personal opinion"? Are we playing poker with victim counts? --Zmaj 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Oh for heaven's sake... Look, I'm not playing games with victim numbers! All I am doing is trying to show you that the sentence is inherently true, however awful. This is the WW2 Yugoslav front. Such discussions must take place.
Once more, the Axis killed vastly more people than the Partisans, and this massacreing without a doubt played a part in the motivating the Partisans for their terrible crime. That's all I'm saying. DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


The Axis killed vastly more people than the Partisans. That's "inherently" (?) true, but irrelevant for the Bleiburg massacre. A civilized society (which I hope today's Croatia is) believes that no motivation can justify murder, not to mention mass murder. But, just for the sake of morbid curiosity, I'll think about their motivations for a moment. I can surely think of other reasons why the Partisans could have killed those people, a major one being some Serbs' hatred towards the Croats. Should we include that too? Also, I'm sure many of the butchers were psychopaths who simply enjoyed their dirty work. How about including that? If I think for a while, I'll come with more reasons, I'm sure. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? We'll end up with a chapter called "Possible motivations of the Partisans who committed the Bleiburg massacre". But I'm really not that eager to analyze the state of their righteous souls while they were cutting people's throats, so let's leave that sentence out, shall we? --Zmaj 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


For the last time, I am NOT trying to justify the murders!! This can clearly be seen in the setence. What I am doing is making a note of the only motivation we can be certain of. The others you mentioned are personal and cannot be known for certain.
Do not attempt to make a simple sentence too complicated, it will not work.
  • I think it would be good for you to remember that most Partisans (especially so in the north) were Croats (mostly from Dalmatia). The ethnic motivation you suggested is riddiculous, or at the very least an assumption.
  • You assume the Partisans were full of sychopaths... Curious how you do not mention, as a possible motivation, that the fascists were full of sychopaths. After all, they were the ones to continue fighting after the armistice. This is also pretty riddiculous, as it is mear assumption (unlike the WW2 death toll).
If you have other, less speculative, reasons I'd be happy to include them as well.
Lets keep this simple, however. (Yes or no.)
  • Do you agree that the fascists killed more civilians than the Partisans?
  • Do you agree that this played a part in motivating (NOT justifying) the killings?
Oh, and you should really get off your high horse. Thus is a massacre we are discusing, not a chili cook-off. DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


What makes you think that your favorite motivation is the only one we can be certain of? Revenge is not one bit more plausible than the motivations I proposed. I feel you are genuinely trying to promote the truth, and I respect you for that, but it's not the first time you have mistaken your prejudices for facts. So it's ridiculous if I suggest ethnic-motivated murder in a war in the Balkans? Oh dear... I never said the Partisans were full of psychopaths. Please don't put words in my mouth. This is what I said: I'm sure many of the butchers were psychopaths. By the way, I sincerely believe most mass murderers are psychopaths regardless of their political affiliation, but if you think that the mass murderers among the Partisans were somehow "nobler" than the fascist mass murderers, I'd like to hear your reasons for that. As for your questions, what can I say? It's quite probable that the answer is "yes" to both, but as I already explained, it's irrelevant for this article and I'm not in the mood for idle discussions just to make you feel better. --Zmaj 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Hmm as I know, partisans who were after caravans were from everywhere, for example divisions from Serbia previously engaged in liberation of Zagreb. We know that Chetniks massively transformed into Partisans during 1944. North of Zagreb is full of mass graveyards (for example Maksimir) - not yet classified. Bleiburg was just the end of the story. As I heard there was a lot of innocent people. Politics was important. WWII was not started only by Germany. It was started by Russia in the same time. 2 European forces started agressive colonization of Europe, Russia in the east, Germany in the central and western Europe. Both built on strong "social" ideologies - Nazism and Communism. From the point of view of many Croats, communists were just another evil after nazis, they expected the coming of Englishmen or other western allies. It didn't happen so many people simply tried to escape from (at that stage still) pro-Russia coloured communism. Such people were mixed with those involved in the war. It was all messed up. Zenanarh 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Zenanarh, Croats formed the majority of Partisan units (look it up), their supreme commander (Broz) and most of their generals were Croats. Partisans are not Serbs. And you cannot compare the Partisans with the murderous Red Army.
But this is besides the point, it is well documented that the Ustaše, the Chetniks, the Germans (including the SS) and the Italians (including the CCNN) killed uncomparably more civilians than the Partisans. That much is beyond dispute (for a further insight read the article Miroslav Filipović).
Also, please remember that I am by no means attempting to justify the crimes of the Partisans. I am mearly attempting to display the full context of the time.
Zmaj, please read and answer my questions above. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


(To Zmaj) Look, if we basically agree both facts presented in the sentence are true, there is no need to leave it out. The motivations of the massacre and the wider historic context can hardly be called irrelevant for the article.
We can also mention the possibility of ethnic motivation, but this is highly unprobable, as the majority of the "people" doing the killing were of the same ethnicity as the killed. (Also please bear in mind that I harbour no illusions whatsoever about the ugly story of the WW2 Yugoslav front as that is the part of history I have explored in greatest detail.) DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Direktor I agree with you, but I was talking about politics in that moment. Many people were not involved directly in the war. In WWII nobody was clean. All sides had their light and dark moments. And for some people it was saving of their own heads no matter on which side of the barrel in Bleiburg massacre. And from 1945 to 1948 it was very important for living to be nice to the communists, wasn't it. Zenanarh 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Of course, like I said above, I harbour no illusions about WW2 Yugoslavia whatsoever. It was a veritable killing ground with circa 1,200,000 victims. All I'm trying to do is place the Bleiburg massacre into context of that horrible time and place. It must be remembered that the Partisans believed they have the right for retribution even though they killed civilians as well (though until the very end of the war it was mostly people who refused to give up their chickens in the name of communism, or things like that; not because one just happened to be a Serb or a Croat). DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Direktor, here's a minor point. While I agree with what you are saying, if it's the truth we're trying to find, is it true to say that Tito was a Croat? Surely he was half Slovene - Slovene mother, Croatian father, born on (what's now) the border between the two. He himself, to the best of my knowledge, never once referred to himself as either Croatian or Slovene.
Could somebody explain to me why the first sentence of this article says that the massacre took place before the end of the Second World War? I'd say it would be correct to put that it took place after the formal end of the war in Europe (whether you are referring to the general surrender signed by Jodl on 7 May, or Lohr's surrender of Army Group E on 9 May), but when local hostilities were still ongoing. AlasdairGreen27 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I was refering to him being born in Croatia, I am aware he was half-Slovene by ancestry.
You are absolutely right, this should be clarified in detail. I think the sentence was refering to the end of the Second World War in Yugoslavia. Anyway, I agree with your wording. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I know you know about Tito's origins. I've read your contributions. Regarding the first sentence, it's a bad start to an article that's full of emotion and low on facts. AlasdairGreen27 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree, I edited the first sentence. How's the current wording? DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's fine. AlasdairGreen27 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a Croat and I find this a pathetic attempt to whitewash the Ustashe war criminals who killed members of my family and of thousands of Croats. Apparently history is being rewritten in many parts of eastern Europe. Former Nazi collaborators and murdering traitors are now regarded patriots. My family and the majority of my countrymen fought on the side of the YUGOSLAV Partisans. You Chetniks, Ustashe, Handzars might have destroyed our country, but no matter what you do, you will NEVER erase our memory and historic conscience. Smrt fašizmu, sloboda narodu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.145.106 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement of the paragraph you deleted and link to Jasenovac

To Thewanderer,

The paragraph is not POV and the link to Jasenovac is not irrelevant. The reason the paragraph and link are there is to attempt to put into context what happened after Bleiburg. How can you understand what happened unless there is at least a little background information about why these people fled to Austria and why there were reprisals after they were returned?

Instead of simply deleting things that you don't like, may I suggest that you add something useful and factual, such as dates, documentary evidence, citations etc, in which the whole article is sadly lacking. AlasdairGreen27 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is someone's personal opinion. It is totally unverifiable and full of nonencyclopedic language. There is no evidence linking Jasenovac and Bleiburg (much of the victims at Bleiburg were Home Guards, who had nothing to do with Jasenovac).
We have certain facts. The Croatian Armed Forces were supposed to surrender to the British Army. The remaining leadership led by Ivo Herenčić attempted to work out a deal with the British which failed. The Croatian forces were then surrendered to the Partisans who then killed one part of their numbers in Bleiburg area and in other parts of Slovenia, while rest were taken back in "death marches" to other parts of Yugoslavia where they awaited an uncertain fate (either release, imprisonment, or death). The reasons for this are not so simple as some of you would like to claim.
Just as we don't excuse the Jasenovac camp by saying that Croats were victimized by Serbs in Kingdom of Yugoslavia system, we don't excuse Bleiburg either. --Thewanderer 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is "full of non encyclopedic language", not just the paragraph you have removed.
While you are right that "there is no evidence linking Jasenovac and Bleiburg", the point, surely, is that it helps to put into context the reprisals that happened against the people who were at Bleiburg. By using Jasenovac as an example of what was done by the Ustaše, who were without doubt among the exodus, people who don't know are helped to see why there were reprisals. The point is that it was the highest profile and largest scale case.

What you have added is a good start to improving this low quality Wiki article (but please add more citations) and I'd say to you and to everyone else that we should start with the facts (dated, cited etc), not opinion or attempts at explanation, and go from there. AlasdairGreen27 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Thewanderer, let's cool it with the "Croatian Armed Forces" nonsense. The "NDH" and its institutions are not recognised by anyone as anything other than a collaboration movmement. In other words, while I truly do applaud your valuable objective additions, I feel I must warn you that legitimizing random fascist movements is not reccomended on the English Wiki. In historiographic (i.e. encyclopedic) terms, the Partisan movement is more of a Croatian Army than the NDH military. I remind you that at that time the Federal State of Croatia was more in existance (in 1945) and far more recognised (by the UN for example) than the so-called "NDH".
Croatia traces its official statehood and heritage not from the so called NDH, but from the Federal State of Croatia (founded in Split much earlier than Bleiburg). Before you say this was the Croatian army because it was comprised of ethnic Croats, bare in mind that the Partisan movement was also comprised for the most part of ethnic Croats, and that its leader along with much of its command structure was of the same nationality.
Jasenovac is an important background information on the wider situation, more importantly it is directly related to the retreating government. It should NOT be removed. DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am an encyclopedist, not some sort of arbiter of history. You can go write down whatever revised history you like in your personal work. But not on Wikipedia. Neither you nor me can change the name. They were officially known as the Croatian Armed Forces (an easily verifiable piece of info, which I have sourced), and anything else is nonsense. If you disagree with me find sources, don't start some ideological arguments totally detached from verifiability.
Also, if you want to make some sort of connection between Jasenovac and Bleiburg source it. It is not common knowledge that there is such a close link. For instance, if the Partisans were so set on punishing the Croats for Jasenovac, why did they never attack it themselves despite controlling large swaths of nearby Bosnia for a good chunk of the war? --Thewanderer 01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You're an ecyclopedist? Really?, so am I (I suppose you knew Diderot?). Let's stop with the overbaring attitudes, here's one problem: the Croatian Armed Forces are a modern organization that has nothing to do with the Ustaše and the Domobrans. The link is misleading, so is the name. I suggest a compromise, would you find NDH Armed Forces an acceptable term? As for the rest of the stuff, I'm very busy with exams right now, but I will return to Wiki shortly to have a look. Congradz on adding so much info. DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The modern Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia, or the Armed Forces of Croatia, were intentionally named to avoid confusion with World War II's Croatian Armed Forces. You can't just rename it because you think it's confusing. I've included disambig links in both articles.--Thewanderer 17:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you're right there, but we should at the very least make a note of this distinction in the article (possibly in brackets). This is a HUGE potential misunderstanding. A person reading Croatian Armed Forces may (naturally) assume they have something to do with Croatia, don't you think? DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is part of Croatia's history. For better or for worse. There is no need to make such a distinction in the article as the wikilink obviously leads to the corect article which explains the situation. The article also makes clear that the NDH was defeated and that Croatia was no longer a state after the war, so obviously there was no continuity. --Thewanderer 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
What0s the problem with just adding "(not to be confused with...)"? It's certainly a possible error...
The SS was subject to the Wehrmacht Supreme Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW), the comparison is frequently noted and is legitemate, and was not part of the military force only on paper. This should definetly be noted. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background section

Please no personal research in the background section. None of your sources have anything to do with Partisans, so attempting to explain their actions using them is your own personal opinion. --Thewanderer 16:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think I said to you a couple of weeks ago that it'd be good if you didn't just wander around Wiki deleting things that you didn't like. You, as someone that describes himself as "an encyclopaedist", should recognise that this is an attempt to deny people access to knowledge. Your explanation for deleting the background section was that the Ustaše actions were already "well documented". Well, I have to tell you that in the wider world, of which Wiki is a part, these actions are not well documented. 99% of the people of the world have never heard of the Ustaše, nor of what they did. You are simply deleting things that you assume everyone knows about, and, it seems to me that you always delete things that put what happened into context so that things like Bleiburg cannot be understood properly. In addition, looking at the things you delete, I think it's clear that you are coming with an anti-Partisan agenda. Wiki is not a place for agendas. It's about increasing knowledge.

Next, there is no personal research in the background section. You may not like these letters of protest by senior figures in the Wehrmacht about what the Ustaše did, but they exist, and you deleting references to them does not stop them existing. You say that "None of your sources have anything to do with Partisans, so attempting to explain their actions using them is your own personal opinion". No, it is not my personal opinion. It is a contextualisation of what happened, without which history cannot be understood. It seems to me that you would like the article here to say only that "Many thousands of disarmed soldiers and civilians were massacred brutally by the Partisans after the war and thrown into holes in the ground". That, Wanderer, is useless information from which you want people to draw conclusions without the necessary background knowledge.

The reason that I described the title of the article as 'controversial and emotive' speaks for itself. Look at the length of this talk page, and read some of the contributions. It is highly controversial and emotive. If you managed to break your deletion addiction for a while so that some of us could add some facts, dates, citations and context then perhaps a little light could be shone onto the subject. My specific reason for making the point about he title of the page is that the majority of historians prefer to use the term 'Bleiburg tragedy', which, in English, is a far more neutral and encyclopaedic term. Tolstoy uses the term 'Bleiburg massacres', but his 'masterpiece' also includes bizarre phrases such as Tito's "genocidal policy", so he can be discarded in our search for useful historians (although I'm happy to use his quotations of British documents).

You deleted the reference to the forced marches (again, another deletion of something you don't like) saying that "also this article is only about Bleiburg, not Yugoslav Death Marches" (your phrase). Well, I'd say that the two are inextricably linked, parts of the same overall event. Especially given that there was no 'massacre' at Bleiburg, with virtually all of the deaths occurring after the transportation of the people back to Yugoslavia, in many cases on forced marches. I think the reference to the forced marches, and especially the survivor's account, are extremely helpful for people who want to understand what happened.

I have restored the things you don't like, so if I were you I'd leave them there. If this talk page is flooded with messages in support of your deleting policy then I'll let them go, but, until then, they stay.

AlasdairGreen27 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Croatian Armed Forces which retreated to the Austrian border were not led their by the NDH's government, but by their military leadership (the state had de facto ceased to exist). Attributing all of the NDH's crimes to a column of Ustashe, Home Guards and civilians is personal opinion, especially since Ustashe formed a minority in this march. Also, what the Germans said about the Ustashe, what crimes Ustashe actually committed and what the Partisans knew are all three separate issues. Specifically, you are insinuating that Partisans committed the massacres to "even the score" without providing any references as such. That is original research.
Second of all, I don't think you are really informed about Bleiburg and the Death Marches. Croats were not "returned to Yugoslavia" as they were never allowed to cross the border out. Academically, the term Bleiburg massacre is used to refer to the killings which took place en masse within the first few weeks of Croatian surrender. The Yugoslav death marches were the forced marches back into Croatia, BiH, Montenegro and Serbia through a series of transit camps, where killings took place in a vastly less concentrated manner. All sources on these topics split the two up (in Croatian sources, usually "Bleiburg" and the "Way of the Cross").--Thewanderer 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not insinuating anything. Nor am I attributing all of the NDH's crimes to anyone. What I am doing, however, is pointing out that events such as Bleiburg cannot be viewed in isolation. All history is contextual. Specifically, I am not insinuating that the Partisans committed the massacres to "even the score". I am trying to make sure that anyone who reads this article has sufficient information from which they can draw conclusions for themselves.
Personal abuse about how much I or anyone else knows is foolish. You know nothing about me. In response to your claim that "Croats were not returned to Yugoslavia as they were never allowed to cross the border out", perhaps you should be aware of Gen Alexander's words of 16 May that "Commander of Allied troops in Austria reports that approximately 200,000 Yugoslav Nationals who were serving in German armed forces have surrendered to him. We should like to turn over immediately to Marshal Tito’s forces and would be grateful if Marshal Tito would agree to instruct his commanders to accept them and to arrange with GOC Five Corps the rate at which they can be received, and handing-over point on Austrian frontier south of Klagenfurt for return to Yugoslavia".
Lastly, I'm quite fond of the following words, which you may (or may not) recognise: "To debate whether the suffering of the Croatians at Bleiburg and beyond surpassed that of the Cossacks, Russians, Ukrainians or the millions of others of all nations during and after World War II, or to attempt to quantify whether the collective fate of the victims of Bleiburg was worse than that of the citizens of Hiroshima or Dresden, serves neither an academic or humanistic purpose. One half century after the fact, continuing to lay blame, access guilt or call for vengeance serves no purpose.
"What is clearly needed is further study. Serious, unemotional, study by historians, political scientists, legal scholars, sociologists, psychologists, forensic criminologists and others. The study must be separated from political or ethnic considerations. The task at hand is to learn the true impact of Bleiburg on post-War Croatia, the psyche and self-image of the Croatian nation. The mere recognition that Bleiburg did occur, that questions exist, and that in all things there are causes, actions, and effects, is a giant first step toward understanding the tragedy and healing the wounds still felt by so many". AlasdairGreen27 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "540" mass graves in Slovenia

Thewanderer, I've seen your fact tag where I put that there's no "evidence to support this claim". Mitja Ferenc (about whom I'll not comment) was reported on a Slovenian government press release (9 August 2007) as saying that a total of 550 potential locations have been earmarked for probing, with only a minor share actually having been checked so far. See http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng/slovenia/publications/slovenia-news/5264/5270/

This was the origin of the '540' claim.

The numbers have been on the up for years. In 1999 it was 110. In 2001 up to 296.

What I can tell you is the following, if it helps, which I hope it does. There are currently 16 sites either fully or partially excavated or under investigation in Slovenia:

• Teharje • Karst caves and pits in Kočevski rog • Anti-tank trench near Brežice • Anti-tank trench near Bistrica ob Sotli (formerly Šempeter pod Svetimi Gorami) • Anti-tank trench at Tezno, Maribor (1179 bodies found so far on the route of the Slivnica-Pesnica highway) • Hrastovec near Lenart • Areh on Pohorje • Pohorje above Hoče • Kidričevo (formerly Strnišče) • Anti-aircraft shelter at Zgornja Bistrica (around 231 ossified bodies) • Tepanje near Oplotnica • Huda cave - Barbarin pit near Laško • Karst caves around Logatec • Brezar abyss near Podutik, Ljubljana • Žančani near Slovenj Gradec • Hrastnik hill

AlasdairGreen27 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I should clarify that. Among the 16 sites, some cover more than one location, notably those on Pohorje, Karst caves and pits at Kočevski rog, and those around Logatec. I apologise.

In addition, I am not saying that there are not 550 mass graves, and I am certainly not trying to downplay these appalling, dreadful, merciless killings. Please don't misunderstand me. It's just that in the vast majority of the potential locations, work has yet to start and thus nobody knows. My original point was that we should be cautious and unemotional until the forensic archaeologists and others have done their work. AlasdairGreen27 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I placed a fact tag because you were making a claim which countered the only source on that information the article had. You eventually placed a source to back your claim. That's how Wikipedia works. Why should I be mad? :P All that I ask of other editors is to act in good faith and to make verifiable edits, rather than passionate ones. Cheers. --Thewanderer 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comparing Massacres, who died the most???

wow, that is really interesting perspective, i suppose if you want to ask the question why that is fine. However, it is interesting how when comparing Jasenovac to Bleiburg, the minimum estimate for Bleiburg is always used (15,000). Where it could be easilty argued that Bleiburg took 50,000 - 200,000 lives. By the way, 50,000 is roughfly equal to the best estimate of number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac (NOT 70,000 NOT 700,000 NOT 1.5 million). So Jugoslavs and Serbs, don't lecture Croats on propaganda. We all know you had a free shot on Croats during 50 years of your rule. Where you had all the time in the world to make rediculous "estimates" of "700,000 Serbs" and more. Being Croatian and being proud of your land was turned into a bad thing for 50 years, at least Germany and Japan got to have countries....anyways, this article is full of Yugoslav propaganda, with the underlying goal of convincing people that Yugoslavia is the only viable solution for the Balkans. Why don't you go tell the Irish to join the UK again, cause Croats are sick of your shit. Stop looking at our land, it's not yours. You have no idea what it takes to make a multi-ethnic society, you are way to forcfull about it. You don't know how to make it work, you failed twice. It has to happen naturally through trade and commerce, over time. Not over night, by the next regime that takes over. You are the ones that fuck up our nations. By. By the way, everything I said here HAS EVERYTHING TO DO with this article. I read between the lines, and I am NOT off topic. SELF-DETERMINATION and RESPECT, not SUPPRESSION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.83.23 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Look, you can assume the moral high ground all you want, that does not change the fact that the Jasenovac and countless other massacres form a significant historic background to the Bleiburg massacre. The Partisans did not win for no reason: their numbers were constantly filled with the thousands who (in one way or the other) were influenced by the, to use an understatement, truly apalling conduct of the Ustaše, the Germans and their allies. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass graves in Slovenia section

How many times will I have to explain this thing?! The mass graves in Slovenia are part of the archeological evidence surrounding the massacre. ALL archeological evidence surrounding the massacre is explained in the Third school subsection. Why should the info rearranged in your own, less organised and systematic, way? DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


The mass graves exist. Bodies have been found. This is not a "school" of victim counting. A school may be based on study of the number of mass graves. This entire section is there to confirm that the massacre did occur, regardless of victim counts. Also, the entire section should not be placed on an equal footing with the second school (which denies that the massacre even took place!). The third school section of victim counts should only include the number of exhumed and estimated bodies. --Thewanderer 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I fear you may have misunderstood, noone is disputing the existance of mass graves in Slovenia. On the contrary, I've seen some of them myself. They are (obviously) archeological evidence, they thus, belong to the "Third school" of victim estimation in WW2 massacre investigation. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm not accusing you of anything. Estimation of victims does belong in the third school section. However, the existence and location of mass grave sites, their exploration, etc. belong in the main section of the article. Victim estimates can be disputed (that's why there's three different schools, with three different estimates), but the existence of mass graves cannot - thus that information doesn't expressly belong to any school. --Thewanderer 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I know you're not accusing me of anything, I just fear we may have a misunderstanding: you see, as you put it, the existence and location of mass grave sites, their exploration, etc... exactly belong in the "Third school" of massacre victims estimates. After all, this is what those graves, whose existance you mention, are all about: victim estimates based on archeological evidence. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender

I came upon this piece of text:
"If the British troops considered the retreating Croatian Armed Forces members of the German army, they could legally only have been repatriated by the British, to whom the Germans were surrendering. If the British did not consider the Croatian Armed Forces as members of the German army it also would not legally have been required to surrender them to the Partisans as the Yugoslav royal government in exile still had de jure control over government of Yugoslavia until November 29, 1945."

This is jut plain wrong: If the British did not consider the Croatian Armed Forces as members of the German army, it would legally have been required to surrender them to the Partisans, because the Partisans were recognised by the Yugoslav government in exile (the Tito-Šubašić agreement) as representing Yugosalvia. i.e. they were the internationally recognized Allied forces of Yugoslavia.
This sort of talk is heard often when people try to demonize the British for handing the HOS over to their country. One must be very careful when making such claims. It is also incorrect to say the fascists surrendered to the British, as it was formally the Partisans who accepted their surrender. DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


The second part of the quoted text is debatable, but the first is not. If the Croatian Armed Forces were considered part of the German army they could not legally have been repatriated by the Partisans.
Also, who did the Croatian forces surrender their arms to? The British. That is de facto surrender. It is also specifically referred to as surrender in its source.--Thewanderer 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


While the first part of the sentence is udoubtably true, the second part is a well known Ustaše supporter line (I'm not saying you're one of them), and is simply untrue (because of the stated reasons). This is what it would sound:
"If the British troops considered the retreating Croatian Armed Forces members of the German army, they could legally only have been repatriated by the British, to whom the Germans were surrendering. However, they appear to have considered them Yugoslav rebels (quislings) and were thus legally obligated to surrender them to the Yugoslav Partisans."

I'll clarify the whole matter. They de facto surrendered to the British, but de jure to the Partisans. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


First off, "However, they appear to have considered them Yugoslav rebels (quislings) and were thus legally obligated to surrender them to the Yugoslav Partisans" will need a reference. It does not follow directly from the previous statement as it is not obvious that the British were not contravening international law.
Secondly, there's no such thing as de jure surrender, only laws relating to status of those surrendering. The Croats surrendered to the British who disarmed them and gave them specific orders, before handing them to the Partisans. Croatian Armed Forces never directly surrendered to Partisans.--Thewanderer 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok, here's the new wording:
"However, they acted as if they considered them Yugoslav rebels (quislings) and surrendered them to the Yugoslav Partisans as if acting per such legal obligations"

Fine, write they surrendered to the British, for the time being. I will have a better look into the matter and see about this... DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


You need a reference to support "as if acting per such legal obligations". The only source we have right now states that those forces were considered by the British command to be German. Apparently, what the British then did contravenes international law. Good-faith (in terms of international law) on the part of the British must be proven, not assumed. Also, about that other sentence's rewording, see: Words to Avoid. --Thewanderer 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm doing my best to understand your meaning. If we accept that the British appear to have considered them Yugoslav rebels (quislings) (and correctly I might add, since the HOS is not a Wehrmacht force), then we say so on the basis that they acted by the legal requirements of exactly such a situation. What's the problem?

Also, it is very arrogant to assume your wording is "better" than someone elses. When you changed my sentence "...unfortunately branded them all as traitors..." into "lumped the whole exodus together as collaborators" you neither corrected a mistake nor added any info. The meaning is the same, don't revert it. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would we accept that the "British appear to have considered them Yugoslav rebels (quislings)" when a British commander declared them German forces?
Also, for the second time: About that sentence's rewording, see: Words to Avoid. "Unfortunately" is a word to be avoided. Please don't call me arrogant, and try to remember Wikipedia has a manual of style --Thewanderer 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Hold on a second. What were the "legal requirements" or "legal obligations" that the British were supposed to have had? I've been looking into this, and all there seems to be is Hague IV of 1907 that "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible". Even Tolstoy, who's not the most impartial on these matters, admits that "Certainly there exists nothing in international law which requires a belligerent to accept the surrender of units demanding to be taken prisoner".
If there's anything in international law, or any treaty or other document that sets down what the British were supposed to do or not to do, it'd be helpful if someone could find it.
AlasdairGreen27 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Why are we even having this debate? The Bitish appear to have considered them Yugoslav rebel troops and handed them over to the Partisans, simple as that. (Why would they even consider them German troops, anyway?) DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Good question. Someone's put into the article that "If the British troops did consider the retreating Croatian Armed Forces as members of the German army, they could legally (my italics) only have been repatriated by the British, to whom the Germans were surrendering". Unless anyone can find a basis in law for that statement, I'd say it has to go.
I don't think they were considered as being German troops. Alexander referred to "Yugoslav Nationals who were serving in German armed forces", which is quite different.
Meanwhile, if anyone's disputing who the internationally recognised representatives of Yugoslavia were, then under the terms of the Tito-Šubašić agreement it was the Partisans. This is what was agreed at Yalta:
"VIII. YUGOSLAVIA
It was agreed to recommend to Marshal Tito and to Dr. Ivan Subasitch:
(a) That the Tito-Subasitch agreement should immediately be put into effect and a new government formed on the basis of the agreement.
(b) That as soon as the new Government has been formed it should declare:
(I) That the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the National Liberation (AVNOJ) will be extended to include members of the last Yugoslav Skupstina who have not compromised themselves by collaboration with the enemy, thus forming a body to be known as a temporary Parliament and
(II) That legislative acts passed by the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the National Liberation (AVNOJ) will be subject to subsequent ratification by a Constituent Assembly; and that this statement should be published in the communiqué of the conference.
AlasdairGreen27 06:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


I've heard that evil British/Partisan conspiracy line about a million times, it's just plain right-wing propaganda. Thewanderer, I don't know what you're reading, but you should definetly take it con granum sale, so to speak, it's definetly not a neutral work.
Anyway, please provide a source for your statement. DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


There is quite a double standard if I need another source, and you apparently don't have any. The command is this: "'All surrendered personnel of established Yugoslav nationality who were serving in German Forces should be disarmed and handed over to Yugoslav forces". My source (Tolstoy) says, The accepted interpretation of the Geneva Convention is that uniform determines citizenship. Quite frankly, I don't where you're getting this "propaganda" from (evil conspiracies? what are you talking about?). Find a source to verify your info or academically dispute my sources - something which meets Wikipedia's standards (they're certainly not my own invention). Again, I have not inserted any claims which says that British committed any crimes - I have only inserted claims which are supported by sources, and if you want to do anything constructive you should help me improve them. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth". --Thewanderer 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for that informative speech. But it is absurd to say we need to verify that the "British appear to have considered them Yugoslav rebels and handed them over to the Partisans" statement. Like you say, uniform determines citizenship: HOS were wearing Croatian uniforms. Croatia is in Yugoslavia, so they handed them over to the Yugoslav Allies. What's to be verified?
It makes no sense that the British would consider them German. Why would they? While it is true that if they actually were German troops, they should have been handed over to the british, they werent German troops, they were Yugoslavs. That sentence has nothing to do with the text.

As for the propaganda you added into the article, the statement that the HOS should not have been handed over to the Yugoslav Allied troops is propaganda. Quite simply (according to your own sources) they should have been handed over to the Partisans because they must be repatriated to their own country, and because they wear Croatian HOS (Yugoslav rebel) uniforms. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


That's not what my source is saying. If the British command considered the Axis forces in Yugoslavia as "German Forces", then the uniforms of those forces would make them German according to my source. Again, It makes no sense that the British would consider them German. Why would they? is not for me to personally answer. What's important is that, General Robertson did consider them as such, according to our source.
I modified the claim. The British should have accepted their surrender and allowed them entry into Austria (German Forces being barred into Austria?!), and repatriated them as their nationality was verified. The British turned them over instantly because they were afraid Partisans would follow fleeing forces entering Austria, with little capacity on their part to stop them. In the weeks that followed repatriation stopped as British found out what had happened, and began allowing those who had escaped into camps in the rest of central Europe. --Thewanderer 13:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


(The question os not for anyone to answer, it's rethorical.) So basically what you're (your source) saying is that the British did (wrongly) consider them German troops, but actually did the (acoording to your sources) proper (legal) thing for some other reason, even though it differed from their perception of the fleeing troops? Then the sentence should read:

Even though the British wrongly percieved the fleeing troops as German, they nevertheless handed them over to the Partisans, wich as it happens, was the legal thing to do. DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps we should avoid Tolstoy as a credible source. I'll point up a few choice quotes about his writing on Bleiburg, Yalta etc in an article about the Aldington v Tolstoy libel case.
"Trying to weave a way through the tangled cobweb of truths, half-truths, and downright inaccuracies woven by Tolstoy proved to be one of the longest and most arduous tasks I have ever undertaken as a writer".
"...his writing came increasingly to reveal a fanatical obsessiveness that was more Slav than Anglo-Saxon. Appalled by the injustice inflicted upon his fellow White Russians, and dedicated to the cause of seeing that it should be requited on a public platform, Tolstoy progressively persuaded himself that the repatriations had flowed from an evil conspiracy".
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-8313967.html
AlasdairGreen27 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Makes perfect sense... I agree. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In the same article Horne goes on to say "...in it (The Minister and the Massacres) Tolstoy jeopardized what claim he had to be a serious and objective historian by his tendency to shape the facts around conclusions he had already formed". AlasdairGreen27 17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Return of Mass graves in Slovenia section

I don't want to stir up an old topic but...

I've been trying to sort out definitive knowledge/a factual basis for the information about Tezno, Kočevje etc. It's very hard to sort out what is currently known. This has led me to re-introduce the mass graves in Slo section. This means that this article now has information that is not actually relevant to Bleiburg (eg the grave found last year at Lesce), but I'm not sure how we can go forward unless it's all there. We know that people were forcibly returned and there were forced marches, and we know that there are at least several 'mass' graves in Slovenia (and, I believe, in northern Croatia?). The question we face is how to sort this information.

The question, as I see it, is how the article can fairly and accurately represent the current body of knowledge. What is known is this:

Tezno. In 1999, 1,179 bodies (skeletons) were found at Tezno. Excavations resumed in August. The wild speculation by Dežman and Ferenc that there could be 15,000 bodies there was based on the bodies being evenly distributed throughout the pit. This is an assumption that the killers did not put bodies into the pit at the nearest end - you get the idea.

Other sites. I've listed the numbers of bodies found so far at various places. This information may be incomplete. Please add to it if you have any more information.

Something I'd stress is as follows. The '540' or '550' list is a total list of all potential places that should be looked into (it includes Foibe), and does not just refer to sites related to Bleiburg. The list is also based on the oral and written testimony of those who remember hearing shootings in the night, and their relatives, who report conversations with people who are no longer alive. Each individual report is, of course, recorded as a case to be investigated, but is included on the 540 list, where, logically, it might be the case that different people are recalling the same incidents.

Dežman and Ferenc, public employees and supposed historians, running around Štajerska and other places comparing Slovenia to Pol Pot should be ashamed of themselves. They do a disservice to the actual victims of these terrible events by throwing melodrama at the media. AlasdairGreen27 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I do approve of the skeptic approach to the Slovenian graves, not only are the numbers astronomicly blown-up with assumptions, but it is apparently forgotten that these graves could just as easily contain victims from various previous engagements in the area (1943).
I wonder, though, why this needs another section? We have allocated all archeological evidence and such to the Third school subsection, we should simply expand that with all the info you suggested. DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It can go into the 3rd school subsection. I don't see an actual need for a subsection on mass graves, just a need for what is known to be presented, without speculation or comparisons to Pol Pot etc.
Perhaps the answer would be to write a new article on Slovenian mass graves. It would have a long list of graves of people killed by the Italians and Germans and their supporters, and a (currently) much shorter list of graves of people killed by the Partisans. AlasdairGreen27 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

It seems that we're not all using the same system for reference tags, so that in the current edit, 11 is followed by 1 which is followed by 12.

Let's use the same system. AlasdairGreen27 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of reversion to previous edit

Nice try, anonymous, but removing the link to Jasenovac while leaving the one to Allied War Crimes is hardly helpful. AlasdairGreen27 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croat + Bosniak Victims of Bleiburg Massacre

"...the total number of the slain Croatians and Muslims (Bosniaks) could be estimated at between 45 and 55 thousand. source This was a horrible war crime committed against Croats and Bosniaks in the 2nd world war. May souls of two brotherly nations rest in peace. Bosniak 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out on numerous occasions on this talk page, those who died were people from all parts of the former Yugoslavia, as well as Russians, Ukrainians etc. It is not known how many of them there were, but what is known for certain is that they were not targeted for any reason of race, religion or ethnicity. If you want to ascribe reasons why, the two that stand up to scrutiny are a) reprisal for opposition to the Partisans during the war, Ustaše and Slo Domobranci atrocities etc and b) a political desire to eliminate a potential source of opposition to the new government.
And, if it helps, before you take Žerjavić's table and try to use it to make some ethnically-based political point, in Gubici stanovništva Jugoslavije u drugom svjetskom ratu (1989 edition) he says that around 1,100,000 people died during the war in Yugoslavia (5.8% of the population). Among the parts of Yugoslavia, most victims in percentage terms were in BiH (328,000 or more than 10% of inhabitants), followed by Črna gora 37,000 (almost 8%), Croatia 295,000 (more than 7%), Slovenia around 89,000 (around 6%), Vojvodina 73,000 (more than 5%), Serbia 303,000 (more than 4%), Kosovo 24,000 (almost 2%) in Macedonia 24,000 (almost 2%). AlasdairGreen27 07:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV show?

Will you please explain of what relevance to this tragedy is one unprofessional TV-show poll?
This is not a sociological research you're quoting, its one stupid TV show gimic. It has no bearing whatsoever on the Croatian public's view, it does not provide any useful information, it polarizes the article away from an NPOV version, and I'd go as far as to say its insulting to the memory of the victims. Maybe I should include the personal opinion of me and my buddies in the article? I can provide a reference. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanderer, I have to say I'm also surprised. Of what possible relevance or reliability could this "information" be? I've always considered you as one of Wiki's more serious editors. I'd put you in the category of a person who'd delete such nonsenses on sight, not add them AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Bleiburg issue is very polarizing. It's significant to have polls like this to show that a segment of the Croatian public is very passionate on the issue. 23,000 people responded, which is certainly larger than the vast majority of public opinion polls in Croatia. However, it's obviously not a scientific poll, which I can stress in the article if necessary.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the issue is obviously polarizing enough on its own without the inclusion of various "polls" from TV shows like "Latinica" or "Nedjeljom u Dva". If its not real scientific information, why include it in the first place? Even if you do mention the unreliability of the sentence, it will still have a negative effect on the neutrality of the article (people tend to ignore background info on stats). And for what? Generally speaking it has no more importance than a poll I could do with my pals from college or wherever. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When nearly 24,000 people phone in to the show, with 17,000 phoning in to voice an opinion which essentially runs counter to the country's socialist Constitutional foundation, it's significant. The shear amount of responses and the result of the poll (whichever way it went) make it noteworthy.
Also, I can assure you that rarely do polls on such "second-rate TV shows from various ex-Yugoslav channels" gather as much media attention as this one got, with all large outlets covering it. Which again underlines its significance, if not its accuracy.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear your own agenda to show the "error" of Croatia's constitutional system and its foundation is the primary motivator here. Socialism is not communism, and the opinion they voiced is unfortunately not unconstitutional. And no, 17,000 people is NOT significant. Why? not because the number is too small, but because that was not a scientific poll. Now, when I say its not a scientific poll, I mean that were the number 17 or 170,000 the information would still be unreliable.
What's are the differences between a sociological poll and this stuff?
1) The same person could have called all 17,000 times for all we know.
2) (more importantly) the audience of the show is not random like in a real poll, but is strongly determined by the subject and the guest of the episode. For a stupid example, if the guest was Tito or Mesić, the "poll" results could have been distinctly different perhaps even reversed.
3) The movies shown in the show could have strongly influenced callers.
The number of people does not matter, the results do not matter, a phone in is nothing more than a way for the show to earn more money. I assure you, were the results reversed I would make the exact same argument. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming it was a scientific poll (I have actually specified the exact opposite). I have only verified that such a poll existed and its result. The high rate of response for the show (be it legitimate or not) is significant, as is the fact that this story made most news outlets in Croatia for its controversy.
For some reason every dispute between us seems to stray too far from actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not interested in whether you personally like some info or not. Likewise you should not be interested in my personal opinion (although you seem to enjoy making assumptions about me at every turn). Tell me what Wikipedia policy this information runs counter to, and I'll respond. If you can find how this runs counter to some rule on content, I'm more than glad to listen.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you're not claiming it was a scientific poll (it actually isn't a "poll" at all, the TV show just calls it that), but you seem not to realize what that means. This is why I wrote what I did, You keep mentioning 17,000 people as an argument for inclusion, without realizing that the numbers here are as irrelevant as they are incorrect.
I do not make assumptions, I just surmise the information you give me about yourself ("...counter to the country's socialist Constitutional foundation", what!?). Did I say at any time the addition of that text was a breach of any policy? However, POV "info" like that is discouraged in controversial articles, and I'm sure any admin would tell you the same. Speaking of assumptions, I 'm going to make another one: you may be a serious editor, and you may be anti-fascist, but you're also very much right-wing and nationalistic.
I don't have time for this right now, but I hope an admin can settle this problem before it turns into an edit-war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And you are a Titoist Yugonostalgic. So what? Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist so that we do not have to agree. We have to make compromises to work together. If something violates a specific part of WP:NPOV (which is a policy), you should just come out and say so right away.
As a compromise, would you agree to move the poll claim away from its results, to something along the lines of: the issue of war crimes in World War II Yugoslavia is still a polarizing issue in Croatia which often attracts media attention?--Thewanderer (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(I am a "Yugonostalgic", but I wouldn't call myself a titoist.) Let me get this straight, do you propose removing the "poll" and replacing it with the sentence you suggested? In which case I would agree, of course. However, I cannot support the inclusion of the results in any form, as they are, after all, the main problem here. I objected to the sentence in the first place because they deteriorate the neutrality of the article (didn't I mention that in my first post?!). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, "deteriorating the neutrality" is rather vague, and I'm not sure where this is found in WP:NPOV. Regardless, I'll reword it within the next few days sans the poll result.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear, glad we could agree on this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)