Talk:Independent State of Croatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independent State of Croatia article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event in this article is a April 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Contents

[edit] Education for the Uneducated

First off - Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic was a "Poglavar" of an Independent Croatian state - he was a statesman, not for his Ustase - but to his Domobrani, his Legionnaires, and obviously the people which lived in his country. When we talk about J.F.K we refer to him as an American president. Croatia has had Kings, and now Presidents, and they have all earned their title, just as Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic had earned his.

Dr. .... no that was actually NOT just his honoric? (haha that's not even a word) 'proper' title. He had a PhD in law from the University of Zagreb, and was a "Dr." long before he became head of state.

Pavelic was a Croatian statesman and had a PhD in Law, giving a man his proper title is what he deserves - not necessarily glorifying him - more so, NOT giving him a title would be degrading him - which is even then NOT NEUTRAL.

Unfortunately, today "Fascism" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Fascism (even as outline in the wiki definition) is used today to simply denounce a political party or a state. You can give "Fascist" titles to nations which openly considered themselves fascist i.e Italy, Spain etc. The Ustasa movement was not established as a "fascist movement" and Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic did not consider himself a fascist - which he himself outlines in his own book "Strahote Zabluda" which was written and published prior to NDH.

Using terms such as "terrorists" etc is humorous and clearly shows that the article is not neutral at all.

After all, Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic himself put an end to "Divlje (wild) Ustase" in Herzegovina in 1941, and even sentenced Jasenovac camp guards to death for their mistreatment of inmates. To lable him as a terrorist, and all Ustase as terrorists is nothing but Serbian/Yugoslav propaganda. In the modern world, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and in the modern world, we can be realistic enough to know that not all soldiers of any nation are war criminals. If a Croatian peasant who took arms up for his country in 1941 is a 'terrorist' then every soldier who has ever taken up arms for his/her country is a terrorist. Ustase/Domobrani etc fought for what they perceived to be an Independent Croatian state, they did not go off conquering other states etc

OH - and may I add something for User:Joy the NDH was not only recognized by the Axis, it was recognized by 32 nations - last time I checked - that is many more nations then that of what made up the Axis. As for "historians" labeling the NDH as such - where do you think they got this information ? Many of these citations are prior to 1991 - meaning much of these historians were receiving their information from communist Yugoslavia - which has tainted Croatia's history in almost un-fixable ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC) AP1929 (talk)

Yes he has earned title poglavnik in way in which Quisling has earned title primeminister and Jozef Tiso has earned title Vodca. He has learned bootlicking art. --Rjecina (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Rjecina Listen, Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic was greeted with great enthusiasm and initially the Croatian people as a LARGE MAJORITY accepted him as their new leader - Macek and his HSS even urged their support to follow Poglavnik. President Tudman was elected by the Croatian people, and if within his term he made mistakes, and many of the people started to 'dislike' him, it doesn't matter, they still put him where he is and that is that. AP1929 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Rjecina Once again, thank you for deleting my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AP1929 said "haha that's not even a word" because someone wrote "honoric" when meaning "honorific". It might be better if he stopped such sneering while he continues to use words such as "lable" and to write nonsense such as "they have all earned their title" - as though they had just one title between them.
To say that Pavelić earned his poglavnik title is simply ludicrous. Apart from a week or two of euphoria in April 1941 he was never supported by more than a small minority of Croatians. Throughout his political career he was always eclipsed by Radić and Radić's successor Maček, who both had far greater popular support. He came to power only by default when Maček declined to form a government. Even then he was dependent on a deal between Ribbentrop and Mussolini. Hitler at that time just didn't rate him. Maybe Pavelić does bear comparison with Tuđman - but at least Tuđman started off by getting elected.Kirker (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Kirker

Small minority of Croatians ?! Do you have any idea how many Croatians there were in NDH ?! Ustaska Vojnica had over a hundred thousands soldiers, not to mention the PTS, Hrvatsko Domobranstvo (which was much larger), Ustaska Mladez, The thousands of Croatians in the Croatian Legion fighting on the Eastern front... To say that a 'minority' of Croats supported Poglavnik is ridiculous ! Do you know how many HSS 'soldiers' became Ustase ?! Dr. Vladko Macek himself co-operated with Poglavnik - not to mention some of the most notable HSS figures became Generals in NDH - which is outlined by Luburic AND Macek ! The people who did not support Poglavnik were communist Croats (which were a small minority), Yugoslavs, and Serbs ! Over a million people FLED from NDH in May of 1945 - why ? Because they DIDN'T support Dr. Pavelic ?! Not to mention how many of these people left their families behind, not to mention the amount of Domobrani/Ustase who stayed behind and gambled with their fate - not to mention the mass transfers into Partizan army in late 1945 - why ?! Because these people believed in communism, brotherhood and unity ? Because they didn't support Pavelic ? No. Because they saw the dream was coming to an end, and wanted to save their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Take a look at (simply) the amount of Croatians that migrated to: Canada, Argentina, and Australia in 1945. You think they left because they had no support for Dr. Pavelic ?! AP1929 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few very basic things

Those who want to glorify Pavelic and his Independent State of Croatia shall go somewhere else to do that.

About Pavelic's titles:

He was poglavnik for his Ustashi - for all others - just brigand, Nazi collaborator, nobody.

His "Dr." is a honoric title "dr iuris" that has nothing to do with the academic "PhD" today. So, in order to avoid any confusion and achieve a necessary level of accuracy - I removed from this article the words "Poglavnik" and "Dr".

Also, stories about Tito's partisans and Chetniks are not here to explain anything - rather a text that draws attention from the very nature of this puppet Nazi state.

I included this article sa a part of WIkiProject Fascism due to the fact that this puppet state was established and run by Nazis and fascists and lasted only during their reign in this geographical region.

For the record, I only wanted to change your "terrorists and saboteurs" back to "extremists", but ended up picking up the other title stuff as well when I used the earlier version of the article.--AHrvojic 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial details

The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia came into being later that year, with the same teritory as the preceeding Kingdom..

Does this mean the bits (near Trieste, i recall?) that the allies didn't hand over to Yugoslavia til later; were not part of the Kingdom? Morwen 17:53, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
Well, more or less. Italy had Istria, Zadar and Lastovo between the world wars. IMHO it's unfortunate that you added an article instead of adding a redirect to Ustase, now we get an analogous soap opera again... --Shallot 20:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What did I tell you... :< --Shallot 19:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from 193.198.144.54

There isn't a word about Bleiburg and what happened there in 1945. Well, more than 520.000 Croats (Croatian army+Croats civils) by Tito's partisans. Here is an most important name: Koča Popović, comandant of II. army, under his command a Bleiburg tragedy has been done. There are also Kosta Nađ (ex četnik) and Dapčević (I have forgotten name). Of course, all were executed without any trial. Croatian army had surenderred to Montgomery's eight army, but English army had returned them to comunists slayers. And after that, they surrender ti partisans with Geneva rights (with white flag, and they all gave their weapons). This is only one tiny reminder to history, only the truth. Also, same četniks did Vukovar in 1991. But, we Croats will defend our country from lies and enemies, because THE TRUTH IS MORE DEEPER IN THE SEA, THAT IT IS SEEMS TO BE.

This is called Bleiburg massacre. --Joy [shallot] 09:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(moved Talk from Talk:History of Croatia)

Yes, Yes, but don`t forget that Ustase died together with Chetnics

and they also fought together in Bosnia. This all has nothing to do

with Vukovar, unless you want to say that Croatian army were Ustase

and JNA were partisans? :-)

[user: Rastavox]

[edit] User Or

This Or guy is getting ridiculous. He keeps removing valuable information without explaining why he is doing this. It is, so far, his only contribution to Wikipedia, except that I suspect he was also behind erasing Jasenovac three times until he was banned. Danny

       Sergeus
       Isn't it obvious? He is probably one of those Croat nationalists. The one of those who      covered up most of Croatia's criminal work in WWII

[edit] Pavelic papers, Ustase

I deleted the crappy pavelic papaers link. It belongs to the Croatian history page as much as a PLO propaganda site to the history of Israel.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

The crap about ustaše CC has been removed. If the "Igor" personality (or similar obsessives) continue to pollute this page, then Serbian history page will be "exposed" in a similar manner-everything about Serbian imperialism and genocides, especially ideology of Greater Serbia-http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/
Anyway- this link, if I see it again, goes under NPOV label, while Serbian history will have "lovable" addenda.
Mir Harven

[edit] Chetniks

I'm reverting Igor's change "known to have" -> "accused of having" as several books have been written documenting chetnik crimes against civilians during the WWII. Cf. http://www.mzt.hr/projekti9095/6/02/101/rad_e.htm To put it bluntly, if the list of accused Ustashi clergy has a place here, so does this. --Shallot 15:32, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers of victims

Kakve su ovo bezvezne brojke o Jasenovcu, Bleiburgu i Oluji ? Otkud takve bljuzge ? Ispraviti to.

M H

AFAIR, I took the first two from the moderate approximations. I didn't add the number for the third, but didn't verify it further as it didn't seem too far off from what I heard elsewhere. Please explicate what numbers you think there should be. (And remember to write in English as well :) --Shallot 01:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Dojadila mi dosadna engleština, no, hajde de. Take a look on Žerjavić's figures, where he broke down victims according to perpetrators etc. Especially http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/ and the chapter http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p07.htm . Of course, there are indications that Žerjavić was, maybe, wrong: http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/19990912/novosti.htm , ie. that ca. 180 k Croats had been killed. But, although a few other articles appeared-http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20010228/novosti1.htm#bla - there has been no further reliable investigation, so therefore one must rely solely on Žerjavić's figures.
M H
I've used that number (45-50K -> "up to 50K") now. Some anonymous from a .cg.yu domain is constantly trying to decrease that number and increase the other one, too. --Shallot 17:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Pa-neka se samo trude. Svaka gica dodje na kolica.Mir Harven 17:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Let us translate this briliant prose by Mir Haven: Let them try. Every pig comes for slaughter. - This is pure

Racism, and if Shallot were a honest and neutral moderator, he would have banned Mir Haven immediately as per wikipedia policy. But he chooses to let this racist comment stand, as he thinks that, being in Serbo-Croatian it would not be understood by a wider wiki community. The fact that this is a grave insult to Serbs, slaughtered in WWII - a reference is to that, does not bother him a bit, as he probably agrees with his Serb-hating peer.Kmetsar 07:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death count during WW2 in NDH

Yeah, it's me (now logged). These figures about 400 k "Ustase victims" is clear nonsense, since statistical breakup shows that the number was ca, 320 k, and it included all and everyone. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p07.htm These numbers fit perfectly with Serbian demographer Kocovic's (who did not try to analyze details)-http://www.hr/darko/etf/bul2.html . Interestingly enough, Croat Zerjavic got higher figures for Serbian death toll and lower for Croatian, in comparison with the Serbian demographer,Mir Harven 18:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

213.149.106.11 said Shallot your number from Ustasa sources

Oh, that's a most convincing argument, given that they were mostly from Vladimir Zerjavic's stuff, and he was a partizan. I'm seriously not sure how you expect to be taken seriously... --Shallot 23:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To the anonymous user: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t081/t08100.html says 500,000, http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t034/t03448.html says 600,000. I'm not sure why they can't get their numbers consistent, but anyway, nobody's impressed with your insisting on really high numbers (you started with 900,000, remember?)... --Shallot

[edit] Pavelić after 1945

Zocky, where did you find this information that Ante Pavelić fled from .yu territory via pop Đujić and then to Spain? I have only seen some fairly exact references[1] to a Franciscan called Draganović in Rome, and then a trip to Argentina, no Chetniks involved... he did end up in Spain during Franco, where he died. --Shallot 16:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I learned it in school. Hmm... I'll try to find some references somewhere. Zocky 17:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't find any references, so I removed it. Zocky 18:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not impossible that some of it was pro-Partizan spin. Oh well :) That document I linked later does mention collaboration between exiles of both factions, but that's not the same. --Shallot 18:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More content elsewhere

I think there still may be some more content for the history section of this page to be extracted from Ustase#History. --Shallot 00:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links

First off, let me warn against having another Ustase#External links here.

Secondly, about the link to http://www.suc.org/culture/library/genocide/ -- that would need to be attributed as the book of Vasilije Krestic published in 1997 (which, if I may remind, was still the Milošević era in Serbia) and have its title quoted. But more importantly, that book includes things like:

The Serbs [...] uncovered the truth with astonishment and with a childish perplexity, wondered why they were hated by the Croats and why they are doing them harm.
[some bad shit] This was the spirit which imbued the Croatian circles, and as for the future relationships in this phantasmagorical great state dreamed about for centuries

Can we say overgeneralization, hyperbole? Malice and mischaracterization?

As opposed to them, the groups of the Croat society and political parties which [... have the] attitude that in Croatia there is only the Croatian "political" people and that the Serbs, in fact "Orthodox Croats", are only a part of this "political" people, were continually at odds, virtually at war with the Serbs, prepared to use even the most brutal means in order to bring them around to the policy which they preached. Such were [...], and today are the HDZ followers of Franjo Tudjman and many other actual politicians in Croatia.

Bitching about the old HSP and the Ustaše (the mention of which I skipped above just for the sake of brevity) is one thing, but translating it all onto Tudjman and HDZ is plain old false and nothing other than vicious propaganda that has no place in an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] 15:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "puppet state"

(I'm moving the scattered discussion with 83.109.x.y anonymous here --Joy [shallot])

Even if it is your opinion that the government of Croatia were "a group of unelected wannabe criminals", this is totally unacceptable in an encyclopedia article, and not in accordance with our Wikipedia:NPOV policy. It was previously dediced not to label any state "puppet state", as in the case of the German Democratic Republic and other states which were, from a western point of view, viewed as Soviet puppet states. Also, "attack" is not a neutral wording. Italy and Germany were allied with the King of Yugoslavia and the intervention was approved by the legal head of state. This needs to made clear in the article. I'm going to remove any POVs or attempts to rewrite history from Serbian POV which are inserted there. 83.109.161.6 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It was not the legal government of Croatia, because only the Axis Powers recognized it, after their tanks helped it come to power!
Also, when did the King of Yugoslavia allow for his country to be dismembered by his "allies"? I missed that little tidbit, honestly. :P
It is not Wikipedia here that is branding NDH as a puppet state, it is the prevalent opinion of the world's historians, and of the people and historians of the country in question.
Deal with it. --Joy [shallot] 14:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not for Wikipedia to decide which governments are "legal", which would have terrible implications and lead to endless disputes, and which have nothing with NPOV to do. The Croatian government was the actual government of Croatia, and we have to stick to it, just like we have to stick to the fact that the various communist governments of Eastern Europe were the actual government of those states, even if considered "illegal" by former or current governments. 83.109.161.6 15:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing being "decided" by Wikipedia - it describes the consensus. --Joy [shallot] 20:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
We cannot treat states differently. If "puppet state" as a description of Soviet puppet states is POV, it is also POV as a description of independent, souvereign states allied with the Axis powers. 83.109.157.88 08:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
What states are we treating differently? We're not talking about any Soviet states here, we're talking about the NDH. It was neither independent, nor sovereign. If any countries deserved the moniker "puppet state", this was one of them because it fits the definition perfectly. If you wish to change the definition, fine, but do it at that article first. --Joy [shallot] 13:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Basic facts: Croatia was de jure a souvereign state allied with Italy and Germany. You are accusing it of in reality having been a "puppet state" because of alleged Italian and German influence over Croatian politics. Fine. You may describe this in the article at length. But the lead section(s) should be based on the actual legal status of Croatia and its legal relationship to the Axis powers, not accusations which are in essence POV.
What do you base this de jure sovereignty on? Did the League of Nations recognize it as such? Did the Kingdom of Yugoslavia recognize it as such? If they signed the Tripartite Treaty with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, why did they dismember it without the consent of its King? I see no logic in this. --Joy [shallot] 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Compare Iraq. The US-installed government of the occupied country is not described as a "Bushist puppet government". I'm not going to tolerate that you enforce separate standards for different countries. You have to respect the NPOV policy like all others. 83.109.168.51 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The Iraq situation is simply not analogous to this one. Please judge this case on its own merit. And don't insist on applying some sort of a new NPOV policy in a place where the policy has already been applied. --Joy [shallot] 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting of this article

I suggest this article to be splitted and heavily modified. There are two main reasons. This article is part of "History of Croatia" series and most of the articles there (all except first two and this one) have a title starting with "Croatia_in_". I think there should be an article titled "Croatia during WWII" and that article "Independent State of Croatia" should be excluded from the History of Croatia series. In my oppinion there are two very good reasons for that.

First is there are lots of facts relevant for Independent State of Croatia article which are simply to detailed information to be put in Croatia during WWII. For instance, administrative divisions of NDH, economy of NDH, and such info. Therefore I think article about NDH should not be tied directly to "Croatia during WWII", my oppinion is article about Independent State of Croatia should be permitted to develop freely outside the "History of Croatia" series.

Second reason is the fact that today Croatia wasn't represented by NDH in WWII. That is not my POV, that is POV of every Croatian government since 1990. Croatia is based on fundations of ZAVNOH (or AVNOJ), not NDH. I'd like to state again this is not my point of view, but of modern Croatian state (for example, see speech of the president of Croatian parliament on 22.6.2005). Therefore, it is a bit awkward that "Croatia during WWII" links to "Independent State of Croatia".

So, action I propose is:

  • Duplicate this article as "Croatia during WWII".
  • Remove "Independent State of Croatia" from "History of Croatia" series
  • Remove excess information regarding partisan uprising from "Independent State of Croatia" (leave just facts which article about "Independent State of Croatia" needs)
  • Remove excess information regarding Independent State of Croatia from "Croatia during WWII" article; make clear that there were two different entities... "representing" (or whichever verb would be more adequate) Croatian people/state during WWII; maybe even rewrite the whole article

Now, I think this is a very good idea (I do not regard all of my ideas as very good, but this one I do). There fore, I'd like any editors which think this is a bad idea to state why they think this is a bad idea, not just "I like it his way". :-) --Dijxtra 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be a direct identification between "Croatia (1941-1945)" and "Independent State of Croatia" - it was merely convenient to put it like that in the template.
I'd just move this to Croatia during World War II, and keep the redirect IDC (and NDH etc), because if we split it off yet again, we will have even more duplication - notice how much excess information there is in Ustaše#History.
Having said that, the trivial information about NDH could be reorganized into better sections in the article titled CdWWII.
--Joy [shallot] 18:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hm. And why wouldn't we just be bold and reorganize everything? Take info from Ustaše#World_War_II and add it to NDH article, leave just a bit of info in Ustaše#World_War_II and add a {{main|NDH}}, then proceede as I sugested above? Then we would have Ustaše article that deals with Ustaše, not NDH, we would have NDH article which is nice and complete, and we would have the "Croatia_in_WWII" thingie. --Dijxtra 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
A bit hasty, are we?
It's not hasty at all - in the same template where it was convenient to link it, I had named it "Croatia during WWII" and it was like this for months.
October 4, 16:36: Dijxtra proposes move of the article. October 4, 18:29: Joy agrees. October 4, 19:33: Joy moves the article, with explanation "cf. Talk"! That IS hasty - or perhaps you think that three hours are enough for everyone interested to notice the discussion and participate? Nikola
Whatever, I was simply being bold. --Joy [shallot] 10:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, right. If you were simply being bold, then why have you put a misleading edit summary with your move? Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Misleading? I can't seem to figure out where that summary went, but I'm pretty sure I said "cf. Talk" at the end of it. Whatever the hell you thought was misleading in the preceding sentence was practically anulled by that, given that anyone could see the whole argument here in plain text. --Joy [shallot] 21:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
During the Second World War there existed a political entity called "Independent State of Croatia". It most definitely should have an article, and its article should be under its name, as is usually the case with political entities. I agree that there is no point in duplication, and so no need for a Croatia during WWII article.
I wouldn't agree. Take an example of this 3 articles (sections): History_of_the_United_States#Interwar_America_and_World_War_II_.281918-1945.29, History_of_the_United_States_(1918-1945)#Prohibition, Prohibition. My point is, you have a small and concise "Croatia in WWII" which incorporates short history of NDH and short history of ZAVNOH Croatia, and than another elaborative article about NDH (and possibly partisan uprising in Croatia specifficaly which doesn't exist yet). --Dijxtra 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Both in your original suggestion and here, you are backing your opinion with completely unrelated points. The example has nothing to do with this article, because the US has existed in complete continuity during these periods, while Croatia hasn't.
Yes, it has everything to do with it. The History of Croatia series talks about Croatian state in only 2 or 3 of it's articles (Medieval Croatian state and Modern Croatia, possibly NDH). Therefore, this is not "History of Croatian state" but "History of Croatian lands". And those lands existed in continuity (as any piece of land did). Therefore, I don't see why we couldn't have one condensed article (History of Croatia), one overview series, and then article about every event/person/entity/historical period mentioned in these articles? --Dijxtra 11:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, that is exactly what we do have. Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, let me count. One, two... no, we do not have 3 levels of articles. We have one condensed article, no article in overview series (at least I don't see an article named "Croatia during WWII") and badly fromed article detailing NDH (which includes some facts irrelevant for NDH and relevant for nonexistent "Croatia during WWII" article). That's what we have and I think that's wrong. --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with your point, and you have provided nothing to back it up. Article on NDH should incorporate history of NDH, on its entire territory. Nikola 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Please reread my writings. As you will see I second that "Article on NDH should incorporate history of NDH". And, of course, I will skip the part when you say "I have provided nothing to back my points up" since you did not quote problematic points, so you are probably just beeing destructive. If you'd like to discuss my points, please cite those problematic and say why you think they are problematic (as I think they are perfeclty OK). --Dijxtra 11:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey man, which points???? Article on NDH does incorporate history of NDH. That is not reason to move it anywhere. I have read and reread your writing multiple times. "There are lots of facts relevant for Independent State of Croatia article which are simply to detailed information to be put in Croatia during WWII" - this is actually reason against the split.
So, what other means do you suggest for creation of "Croatia during WWII" article? Let me remind you that article does not exist and this fuss is all about that. It is not natural to have article about "Independent State of Croatia" covering "Croatia during WWII" just as it is not natural to have article named "Axis powers" to cover "World during WWII". --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If that wasn't clear so far, I suggest that "Croatia during WWII" article is not created. And yes, it would be fully natural to have article named "Axis powers" to cover Axis powers during WWII. It's not as if the article on NDH covers entire Yugoslavia. Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Now I should again emphasise that parts of Croatia were submited to Italy and Hungary and Croatia statehood was represented by ZAVNOH since 1943... but, we were there already... I think we'll need some outside help here. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
"Second reason is the fact that today Croatia wasn't represented by NDH in WWII" - sorry, but it was. Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, would you please take a map of NDH. Then take a map of Democratic Republic of Croatia (formed in 1943, in case you wanted to say that country didn't exist in Croatia durin WWII). Now, please take a map of modern Croatia. Now please, tell me, does modern Croatia resemble NDH or ZAVNOH Croatia? Does modern Croatia have Istra, Dalmatia, Zadar, Rijeka? Does modern Croatia include Bosnia and Herzegovina, parts of Vojvodina, Zemun? Now, can you tell me which of these two countries was recognised by the side that won WWII? No, what does all of that tell you? --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
That tells me that you still consider a partisan military zone a country, and that you even think that republics of Yugoslavia were countries. It also tells me that you either think that Germany of today doesn't have continuity with WWII Germany because it doesn't resemble it, that Turkey of today doesn't have continuity with Ottoman Empire because it doesn't resemble it, etc. or that you have inconsistent view of history. Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No, see, the thing is ZAVNOH Croatia resembles todays Croatia because today Croatia is based on ZAVNOH Croatia. Furthermore, Constitution of Croatia states "... establishing the foundations of state sovereignty during the course of the Second World War, by the decisions of the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia ..." (more details). And, yes, I consider "partisan military zone" a country, just as I consider Nazi military zone a country, since they both had their parliament, their leader and their army. And were officially recognised at least by their allies. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any point in removing the political entity into its own article that would be a skinny stub, and keep the history elsewhere. This fragmentation can only cause information to be presented in a non-balanced manner, which will almost inevitably lead to edit wars when we're talking about such a controversial topic.
I don't see it also, but that's not what I have done or suggested. Nikola
The Partisans set up their own, different state during World War II in Croatia (and elsewhere) - there is little reason to have NDH statehood trump their statehood, especially given that theirs actually was not transient.
--Joy [shallot] 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please. You can't compare an established, organised and internationally recognised (by the Axis at least) country with a temporarily liberated territory. Nikola 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, the NDH clearly had as much establishment and organization in its first couple of years as the Partisans did in their first couple of years. Sure, they started controlling a pre-existing system, but that doesn't mean that their new state inherited the establishment or organization of it - they effectively shut down the legislature because they could not establish themselves over it. That's not really a decent state by 20th century standards. As far as international recognition, I don't consider recognition by Axis and other Axis-controlled countries a valid example of "international recognition". --Joy [shallot]
You don't have to, it was recognised anyway.
It was "recognized" and the recognizers were multiple countries which qualifies as "international", but the phrase "internationally recognized" is either used meaning "recognized by all relevant international factors", or not used at all because other use has no useful meaning! --Joy [shallot]
(By the way, at least by Finland too.)
Finland was probably "co-belligerent" at the time so that's a lousy alibi. --Joy [shallot]
As for "as much establishment and organisation" - where did you got that from? Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
From history books? :P Come on, let's not be naive. The invasion was done by Wehrmacht and other armies. Kvaternik, Pavelić and the rest of the gang (sic - lit.) were only able to enter the territory because of the former. They were not part of the establishment, or a shadow government, or anything like that. They seized power and started issuing decrees. They had no real army, no real police (at least I can't see how the royal gendarmerie could have had anything to do with them?!), no real legislature. The only thing they appear to have attempted to use was the judicial system, but for their purposes they couldn't even do that properly, and had to start numerous courts-martial ad hoc. Oh and they had the football federation which joined FIFA, yeah, although they didn't have Hajduk, which apparently defected. Not exactly a shining example of an organized state. --Joy [shallot]
And, by the way, this smells quite like presenting today's Croatia as completely unrelated to NDH, which it just isn't. Nikola 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no, I don't propose that! I propose making a "Cro during WWII" article that would balance between NDH and AVNOJ. The verb "balance" has nothing to do with who's right or who's wrong (as those ar POV things), but with amount of space allocated to each of the two. (Aprox.) half of the article to short history of NDH, and another half for partisans. If you wan't more info, go to speciffic articles. That's my idea. And I think "History of USA" is made that way... --Dijxtra 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You can "smell" anything you like from it - but today's Croatia is indeed as related to the NDH as it is to the Banovina Hrvatska or indeed SR Hrvatska - which is to say, they are part of its history, nothing less, nothing more. In fact, I would think that having NDH in an article that deviates from the titles used in the History of Croatia series makes an impression that it is a matter separate from the history of Croatia. D'oh! --Joy [shallot]
You should really stop with onomatopoeic sounds when discussing important topics. Nikola 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If history of Germany template has included articles Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, Croatian history template should include NDH article as well.

You are forgetting one very important thing. There was no other state in Germany apart from 3rd Reich. There were 2 diferent states (3, if you count London government in exile) in Croatia. Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany didn't coexist, they existed in different times. ZAVNOH Croatia ("led" by Andrija Hebrang (de facto Tito)) and NDH ("led" by Ante Pavelic (de facto Nazis)) did coexist on the same territory in the same time. See the difference? I think the fact of simultanous existence of this two entities isn't emphasized enough in current article and just can't be emphasized enough if the article is called "Independent State of Croatia". --Dijxtra 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The two entities were not of the same kind. You can't call ZAVNOH Croatia a state.
No? So, how do you call "Democratic Republic of Croatia"? --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
What are you referring to? Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, lapsus calami, not Democratic but Federal (Yugoslavia at the time was Democratic: Democratic Federal Yugoslavia). See Federal State of Croatia. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Either way, see for example History of Russia, which was also quite turbulent: Early History, Muscovy, Imperial Russia, Soviet Union, Russian Federation. Chapters are named after historical names of the country whenever applicable. I see no reason not to do the same. Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Because in this situation, historical name of the country is not applicable. Since there were 2 countries in same territory in same time, and modern Croatia is based on one not mentioned in the name of the chapter. --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
These weren't countries (and, two countries can't exist in the same territory in the same time). Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure thing they can. See Republic of Serbian Krajina. Only exception is that RSK wasn't officially recognized, while Federal State of Croatia (as a part of Democratic Federative Yugoslavia) was. You just need to have to sides of the world in a war, where one side recognises one country, and the other sire recognises the other country. And, voila, you have two countries existing in the same territory in the same time. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it might be a bleak part of Croatian history (so is Nazi era for Germany's history), but that is no reason for us at Wikipedia to try to erase it. And I don't see any weight in argument that it is POV of Croatian state today that their state has nothing to do with NDH - because I'm sure that Shroeder's government also doesn't see any corelation between Third Reich and BRD. Furthermore, earlier governments of modern Croatia have looked upon NDH tradition with a degree of appreciation (one Croat once told me that he dislike Croatian currency, Kuna, because he feels that it is chosen to emphasize continuity between NDH and today's Croatia). -- Obradović Goran (talk 12:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fact that some piece of info is a POV of Croatian government I was trying to prove that the info is NPOV (because, if Croatian governemnt denounces NDH, and we are aware of accusations that Croatia is trying to revitalize NDH, then modern Croatia obviously can't be based on NDH legacy). --Dijxtra 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your “syllogism” is logically very incorrect! You said:

if Croatian governemnt denounces NDH + and we are aware of accusations that Croatia is trying to revitalize NDH -> then modern Croatia obviously can't be based on NDH legacy

I simply fail to see how it is obvious for you that if someone denounces something, he can’t be based upon its legacy! Let’s follow your line of logic, and see where it leads us:

Thief denounces theft -> therefore Thief obviously can’t have stolen money. -- Obradović Goran (talk 18:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your "parallel" is quite strange. We are talking about supporting or denouncing something. This parallel would be more apropriate: if american government says "war in Iraq is a bad thing" than it obviously is because Americans are those who are to be accused of starting it.
But if you wish, I will agree that particular argument was ill-formed and even not neccessary since it is quite obvious that modern Croatia is not based on NDH legacy. If you do not agree that fact is obvious, I'll provide facts to make it clear. --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that Croatian government today denounces NDH, but that is not what we are discussing here. We're discussing if NDH article has its place in Croatian History series or not!

I agree. I'm glad we can skip to the real topic now :-) --Dijxtra 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is that if Nazi Germany article is listed among other main articles of History of Germany, then NDH article must be listed among articles about History of Croatia. Croatian example is analogous with German in almost all aspects.. yes, there is a number of differences (for example, Germany has paid a certain part of war damage, unlike Croatia, and more importantly, in Germany was enforced process of de-nazification), but for our current problem these differences aren't of crucial importance. -- Obradović Goran (talk 13:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but I can't understand why everybody just refuses to acknowledge that NDH was a puppet state and that not all of Croatian people supported NDH, but in fact, some of Croatian people formed another state which was a federal unit in larger federal republic of Yugoslavia? Nazi Germany was sole country on German soil. There was no resistance in Germany, and there fore, no other state there. On Croatian soil, there existed two states. One of them ceased to exist in 1945, and the other in 1991. The problem is that the chapter in Croatian history series is called like the first one. My oppinion is the chapter about Croatia durin WWII should not be called after any of this two states. Take example of Serbian history. Not only you do not have an article about Nedić Serbia, you don't even mention it in you article about Serbia in WWII (which too de facto does not exist, but is incorporated into article about first Yugoslavia, which ceased to exist upon Nazi intervention). I am not proposing such a drastic meassure, to remove any mention of Nazi puppet state from History of Croatia series (as is the case with Serbian series), I am merely proposing equal coverage of both states in Croatia during WWII article, and then another article about NDH. We need to have neutral prospective, not right-wing prospective. And currently we have a right-wing POV here, just as if NDH was only thing of importance in Croatia during WWII. --Dijxtra 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, because it wasn't. NDH had support of Croatian population. No, not all, but most Croats did support it.
Now, this is a very, very, very wrong piece of information. Most of Croats suported NDH just few months, until Pavelić gave away Dalmatia, Rijeka, Zadar and islands and until Ustashe started terrorising the population. After initial few months, most of Croats weren't supportive of NDH.
Yes, some did organise a resistance, and that resistance ultimately did prevail.
Oh, come on! Resistance organised by minority of Croats, unsuported by population, prevailed over army supported by Axis powers? Hello? --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
But no, territory liberated by that resistance was not a country, even if it expanded so that, at the end of the war, it encompassed entire Croatia. True, it is not the same situation as if in Germany, but it wasn't different enough to warrant a specific article. For example, somewhat similar situation happened in France, and article about France in WWII is, lo, at Vichy France. Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
French independence movement had a assembly and proclaimed a state? --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not particularly gung-ho about the whole state vs. state argument. I think that we should instead focus on the plain facts - there were these two states formed, but the primary reason for all this was the Second World War; when the war ended, both of these states lost their previous form (the NDH disappeared completely; the FRH morphed into SRH in peaceful conditions). That's why the most pertinent title for the history chapter is "Croatia during World War II".
However, about that last bit, I can't say anything other than - hear, hear! Such a situation could actually be seen as a product of propaganda of both the right-wing Croats and the right-wing Serbs, which is quite ironic. --Joy [shallot]
Sorry, lost you there for a moment... which last bit? :-) --Dijxtra 23:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Your last sentence in the large paragraph above, basically. --Joy [shallot]
For all it matters, I agree with Joy. It really isn't right that "Croatia in WWII" redirects to an article that doesn't mention ZAVNOH with a single word. As much as I remember from history, the communists did make quite an effort to set up a parallel government structure; it was a part of their political program to turn the war of resistance into a regime change. There was also less of a chance the Allies would bring back the royal family and/or the Soviets introduce a government to their liking if one was already in place.
The French analogy fails on this account, and on one other: though Vichy France is the only article in this period the History of France template links to, the template links to "Vichy France", not "France in WWII". This is very imperfect: IMHO ideally "France in WWII" should exist, encompassing info about Vichy, the Free French, the French resistance and the history of the German occupation of the country, plus possibly the immediate aftermath up to the establishment of the Fourth Republic. But Wikipedia is imperfect, that's why we love it, right? :). In my view, there are two possibilities for Croatia:
  1. (very dodgy) The French way: no "WWII in Croatia" article, Cro history template links straight to NDH, and let's argue from here. Personally I would support including a separate link to ZAVNOH just below it, per chronological order (1943).
  2. (IMHO in the spirit of NPOV) Separate "Croatia in WWII" article that can be a stub at first and grow into a general overview with sections on NDH and the resistance, and links to the more detailed articles.
I may do this myself... I just might, but not tonight. Miranche 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Hm, I had idea of this kind: supporters of status quo say this is an article about Croatia in WWII. Then, lets fill it with relevant info - info about ZAVNOH and partisan movement. When amount of info about NDH and partisan movement comes to 50-50, it'll be obvious to everybody the article needs renaming. But, at the moment, I don't have enough time to do that... but you can help ;-) --Dijxtra 11:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll change the template and see how does it work... Nikola 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup this is more accurate, thanks :) I want to at least start on what I suggested under 2. but don't have time in the next couple of weeks to produce more than a stub, so whoever wants to... Miranche 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the talk in detail. Here's my take on it:

  1. The legitimacy of any entity that existed during WWII on present Croatian territory is questionable. NDH was recognized by the Axis powers and co-belligerents but partially occupied by them and constantly struggling to keep control of its territory. ZAVNOH Croatia was a political project gaining strength that struggled and eventually succeeded to gain Allied recognition as a federal unit of DFY.
  2. Unsigned, probably Obradović Goran: "You can't call ZAVNOH Croatia a state." -- I did not see a single argument in support of this claim except by Nikola: "You can't compare an established, organised and internationally recognised (by the Axis at least) country with a temporarily liberated territory." -- The transiency of territory of ZAVNOH Croatia does not imply legal transiency. Analogously you could claim that NDH wasn't established and organized because it lacked control of huge swaths of its territory. Legally ZAVNOH Croatia was a state at least from the moment it was mentioned in the founding document of DFY on 29 Nov 1943, see AVNOJ. Then there is a continuous legal succession from ZAVNOH Croatia to NRH to SRH to modern Croatia, which brings me to...
  3. Nikola: " 'Second reason is the fact that today Croatia wasn't represented by NDH in WWII' - sorry, but it was." and then again "And, by the way, this smells quite like presenting today's Croatia as completely unrelated to NDH, which it just isn't." Nikola sorry, I did not find any arguments supporting these claims. One may claim dual continuity at best, de jure from ZAVNOH and de facto only in part from NDH. HDZ toyed with this for political ends in the 90s, but its treatment of NDH was equivocal and largely opportunistic: supporting it to fire up extremists and scare/provoke the Serbs, but denouncing it to keep its political capital among moderates and abroad. IMHO any unbiased inquiry would show that in its territory, laws and symbols (the kuna being a notable exception), as well as in the view of a large majority of its citizens, today's RH primarily represents a continuation of SRH and/or of the historical Croatian kingdom/ part of Hungarian/ Habsburg/ Austro-Hungarian kingdoms and empires, not of NDH. Claiming otherwise represents a (both Croatian and Serbian) rightist POV and should be given its rightful place, but not be incorporated into the structure of the "History of Croatia" series.
  4. Dijxtra and Joy, I mostly agree with your argumentation why the article should be split but I think the original strategy Dijxtra proposed set this discussion on the wrong track. I see no reason to copy the NDH article and base the "Croatia in WWII" article upon it. Be bold, why fear the void: start "HR in WWII" from scratch, let NDH have this article, and let the articles develop from there. I think we can safely say HR in WWII is was a territory in the state of civil war among partisans, Ustaše, Chetniks, Germans, Italians and Hungarians. There's a (possible) start.
  5. But finally, I think this reveals the real motivation for the "Cro in WWII = NDH" argument, and the real point of contention here. Obradović Goran: "Yes it might be a bleak part of Croatian history (so is Nazi era for Germany's history), but that is no reason for us at Wikipedia to try to erase it." Removing NDH from the main "History of Croatia" track is not equal to erasing this, there is plenty the "Cro in WWII" article must say about Ustaše atrocities. What I see happening, the justified fear of Ustaše apologist revisionism motivates going one step too far into equating Cro in WWII with NDH, lest "the truth" be forgotten. In doing so, it ends up misrepresenting the facts on the ground, which were, in short, a huge mess -- enough of a mess that it's impossible for the NDH article to do justice to it within the main "History of Croatia" series.
  6. Finally, is there a history work we could sometimes refer to? Possibly??? Just for the data, we'll do the analysis ourselves.

Miranche 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Muslim Croats

Poglavnikova Dzamija was made for Muslim Croats. One of the highest ranking officials in NDH was a Muslim Croat: Džafer beg Kulenović, president of the NDH (as well as Osman Kulenović). Whether or not you believe the people who considered themselves Muslim Croats are misguided Bosniaks is irrelevant. They considered themselves as such, as did the NDH. Therefore, it is accurate to call them Muslim Croats.

Also, "This theory is today considered to be highly offensive and nationalistic, and Bosniaks recognize it as an attempt to "destroy" their Bosnianhood." This is total POV. Talking about "destroying Bosnianhood" has no place in an encyclopedia. It should be enough to say that "Many Bosniaks consider this idea offensive and a product of Croatian nationalism". --Thewanderer 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Many Bosniaks accepted the NDH (in some cases were forced to accept it) and immediately became involved." - In fact Bosnian Muslims fought on all sides (NDH, German, partisan and chetnik) in the war. A further statement says: "In respect to the soldiers of Muslim faith, a mosque was built in Zagreb - Croatia's capital city- known as "Poglavnikova Dzamija" or Poglavnik's Mosque." Well, I don't know if the reference to "soldiers" here is necessary but what do you call Poglavnikova dzamija? The Ustase had plans to build a mosque in Zagreb but later it'd been decided that Mestrovic's pavilion be turned into a mosque. This was not a new building but an existing building to which minarets were added. (The present Zagreb mosque is of a much later date).

I think the correct term would be "Bosnian Muslims". The term Bosniak is used after 1993 while Muslim Croat would refer only to that part of the population who regarded themselves Croats of Muslim faith. Dzafer Kulenovic was one such example but he was no representative of the Bosnian Muslims as he himself said. Cukor 17:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is this : 'Bosniaks' as a national identity did not exist in the 1940s or anywhere prior to 1960. Ther term "Bosniak" was used in history in the same context other Croatian provinces were titled i.e Dalmatians, Slavonians, Panonians, Istrians etc. Same thing with "Bosnian". Prior to NDH in the early 20th centuries, many of the muslims in the Yugoslav parliament identified themselves as Croats, only one identified himself as a Yugoslav muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map wrong

The map on this article is wrong. It doesn't show the Pindus-Macedonian Principality, but shows it a part of Bulgaria and Albania instead. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And what about Nedic’s Serbia?

I think it’s strange that this article doesn’t cite or even link to Nedic’s Serbia, which was also a Nazi collaborationist government created from the division of the First Yugoslavia. I’m putting a link in the “See also” section, but maybe it should be more on the body of the article.--MaGioZal 07:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And in the same time you are removing Ustaše from the See also section?? Please do not remove the most important article to also see for readers interested in the Independent State of Croatia. // Laughing Man 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I had removed the “Ustase” link from the “See also” section basically because the term is already present (and linked) in the first paragraph of the article and many times in the rest of the article, too. It wouldn’t add (or hide) any information from the readers. Anyway, I’ll keep the link, though I suspect of overlinking in this case.--MaGioZal 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged “History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945)” into this article

Hi,

Today I merged (and added to this article material from) the article History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) (see the last revision before merging) into the article “Independent State of Croatia” because:

01. The history of Bosnia and Herzegovina during this period (1941-1945) is basically integrated to the all the history of NDH;

02. The entire territory of nowadays Bosnia and Herzegovina was located inside the territory of the NDH, so is completely coherent to treat these articles as one.

That’s it.--MaGioZal 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That does not mean that we should merge the articles. I feel the history of History of Bosnia and Herzegovina in that time should be treated differently than the History of Croatia at that time. // Laughing Man 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There is no historiographic reasons to create a separate article for the History of Bosnia separated from the History of Croatia. This would just serve as a eventual promotion of a subtle political agenda, which is clearly POV.--MaGioZal 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a promotion of political agenda, it's that the history of two nations are separate, and instead of a unilateral delete and merge, you should have requested the original article be expanded/partially merged, and could have had a "See Also" to this article. Do you think readers clicking History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) link would expect to taken to an article about the history of Croatia? // Laughing Man 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But Croatia and Bosnia were contiguous parts of a same country between 1878 and 1991, and most spcefically between 1941-1945 inside NDH, which was an unitary state without political divisions (provinces, banovinas, republics, whatever…) inside. So it’s senseless to divide the history of Croatia and Bosnia during World War II, since they were part of the fascist NDH (in the same way that the history of Austria and the history of Germany were welded in the same World War II period as the history of Nazi Germany).--MaGioZal 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And lets’s check the current contents of the article History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945):
Once the kingdom of Yugoslavia was conquered by Nazi forces in World War II, all of Bosnia was ceded to the Nazi-puppet state of Croatia. The Nazi rule over Bosnia led to widespread persecution, murder, and near-total annihilation of the Jewish population, while the NDH Croatian state also specifically persecuted the country's Serbs. Many Serbs themselves took up arms and joined the Chetniks; a Serb nationalist and royalist resistance movement that both conducted guerrilla warfare against the occupying forces and committed numerous atrocities against chiefly Bosnian Muslim civilians in regions under their control.
Starting in 1941, Yugoslav communists under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito organized their own multi-ethnic resistance group, the partisans, who fought against both Axis and Chetnik forces. On November 25, 1943 the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia with Tito at its helm held a founding conference in Jajce where Bosnia and Herzegovina was reestablished as a republic within the Yugoslavian federation in its Ottoman borders. Military success eventually prompted the Allies to support the Partisan’s, and the end of the war resulted in the establishment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with the constitution of 1946 officially making Bosnia and Herzegovina one of six constituent republics in the new state.
The only Bosnia-specific citations in the article refers to Tito’s restauration of Bosnia-Herzegovina within the previous Ottoman-Austrian borders, which occurred after WWII in the Yugoslav Constitution of 1946, and the reference to the Sutjeska offensive. Both of these events could easily fit in the article about the history of NDH, and there’s no logical or historiographic reason (but maybe some kind of “ethnic pride” POV?) to create a separate article to Bosnia during this period.--MaGioZal 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to merge “Hanging in NDH” into this article

As I said on the page talk of the Hanging in NDH article, it seems like there’s no NPOV reason to not include the (rewritten) text of the article into this main article about NDH.--MaGioZal 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I added "mergeto" to Hanging in NDH, to complement the "mergefrom" here. --Aleph-4 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anon adding "quisling"

Please do not add "quisling" to the top section without a source (or explanation on talk). Thank you. // Laughing Man 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is in the article itself and on this very talk page. As well as in the Ustashe talk page as well. The "Indepedent State of Croatia" was clearly a nazi puppet state formed by the nationalist quisling organisation with the help of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis. If you aren't acquainted with the basic facts and with this subject then remove yourself and stop removing valid content from the article I am adding. --89.172.201.73 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Not quite - you see, the Independent State of Croatia's members were not national traitors & collaborators - the entity itself was formed by an Ustasha Army which invaded the Kingdom of Yugoslavia together with the Axis invasion force and then established itself on this territory, proclaiming an independent state - in which, at first, they enjoyed support of masses (allegedly majority) of its (ethnic Croat) inhabitants. As for was the NDH really a puppet state so harshly controlled by the other Axis - that's disputable. The NDH enjoyed more self-government and was more aligned to the Nazis than Vichy France, and yet there is no mention of "quisling" or any such things on that article at all. --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I some aspects, the NDH was as Quisling government, as it was never able to sustent itself without the help of Nazi German (which occupied the northand east of NDH) and Fascist Italian (which occupied the south and west of NDH) armies. The map in the articles shows this.--MaGioZal 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945)

Hi,

I’m suggesting merging this article with History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) article because personally I do not think they should be separated — during all the existence of WWII Croatian satte, Bosnia and Herzegovina was included inside it. So abviously all that happened inside the current territory of BiH happened in NDH, too.--MaGioZal 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1941–1945)#Merge_with_Independent_State_of_Croatia_article PANONIAN (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Chetn… ops, PANONIAN, you do not own any of these articles.--MaGioZal 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am from partisan family. Second: you did not answered my post. Third: calling somebody a chetnik only because he is a Serb is big insult based on racist prejudices - I believe that purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a place where every racist of this World can express his opinion...there are other web sites for that. PANONIAN (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
“Chetnik”, “Partisan”, “Serb Radical” or anything like that aren’t races, so I simply don’t feel myself racist. I even believe that there are many good Serbians (like Nataša Kandić) in this world.--MaGioZal 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you call somebody "chetnik" only because you read that his native language is Serbian, then it is clear that you are racist (no matter what you feel). PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not call you of anything by the language that you talk, but by the positions you defend.--MaGioZal 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? And what position that might be? PANONIAN (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I oppose any such merge. The NDH article is about a government, not a general history of the area it governed. Clearly a great many events occured in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina which were not directly related to the puppet government. For example, the article mentions atrocities committed by Chetniks against Bosniaks -- what does that have to do with the NDH? Eleland 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
But the article doesn’t talk just about the government, it talks also about the area it controlled — in fact, the Independent State of Croatia was a Axis-allied and Axis-dominated country between 1941 and 1945, as the same way as Serbia and Slovakia at that time.--MaGioZal 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? Your proposal for merging is simply not logical - following your logic we can also merge England article with United Kingdom article simply because England is part of United Kingdom, and both mergings are totally ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that in case of England it is a formal part of the United Kingdom; in the case of Bosnia, it was a not formal admnistrative unit of NDH (even because the former frontiers of the Kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenes were already dissolved in Banovinas by the time of the invasion of the Yugoslavia by the Axis); it was entirely located inside the NDH as an integral part of a unitarian country.--MaGioZal 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I can show you that even this "formal/informal part argument" is not valid: compare New England and United States of America articles. So, since New England is not an formal region, should we merge this article with United States of America? PANONIAN (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet state

I just added a few references to the NDH being an Axis puppet state as well as adding a few sentences from the strategic point of wiew. It is necessary for people to understand the greater military needs that played a great part in the creation of the state. DIREKTOR

[edit] Misleading cut & paste

Removed the following note on the Ustasha policy of persecution:

http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/tucker/hh367/OgnyanovaArticle.pdf. In fact, the roots of the Ustasha ideology can be found in the Croatian nationalism of the nineteenth century. The Ustasha ideological system was just a replica of the traditional pure Croatian nationalism of Ante Starcevic. His ideology contained all important elements of those of the extreme Croatian nationalism in the twentieth century. Starcevic’s writings reveal an attitude similar to that of the contemporary Croatian nationalists: Frankovci at the beginning of the twentieth century and Ustashas in the 1930s.

because the next line in the document that was excluded from the document talks of the idea of indpendent statehood & not persecution:

Mainly this is the idea that all political, social, and economic problems were subordinate to the national one and would be easily solved once national emancipation and statehood had been achieved.8 Ustasha’s ideological system contained some new elements that distinguished it from its predecessors and made it eclectic.

iruka 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that information could be re-integrated into the article, as long as it's clear this is the particular POV of apologists and not objective fact. Sadly, some people have tried to "rehabilitate" the Ustasha in recent years.
Eleland 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)



[edit] The death of Pavelić

Ante Pavelić did not die "of the old age". He was 70, maybe not you young, but it is hard to say "of old age". In the article about Pavelić it stays: Pavelić died on December 28, 1959, at the German hospital in Madrid, reportedly from complications of a bullet in his spine. I also corrected the edition Argentina-Spain. It was true that he went to Argentina and then to Spain. In another part of the section I also made reference to the Bleiburg massacre, becuse it is necessary to mention it as the event marking the period directly after the end of the NDH. Jasra 12:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

The whole section is not supported by a valid reference.--72.75.47.110 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Population data are more or less OK. Census of 1931 for territory which will become Independent State of Croatia is:
Croats 547,949 (Bosnia) + 2,480,000 (Croatia) + 117,000 (Syrmia) = 3,144,949
Serbs 1,028,139 (Bosnia) + 633,000 (Croatia) + 210,000 (Syrmia) = 1,871,139
Muslims 718,079 (Bosnia) + 4,000 (Croatia) = 722,079
This is last census data before 1948 so nobody know 100 % exact population number in 1941 but this is close enough. --Rjecina (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
For 1941 minority estimates are 2,100,000 Serbs, 750,000 Muslims and 30,000 Jews. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January edits

The sockpuppeteer Standshown/Stagalj reverted my recent edit allegedly because I provided no references. He seems happily oblivious of the fact that the material he restored (his own?) equally has no references. Specifically he has restored text which describes Ustaše as racist, terrorist saboteurs. They well have been, but at least one of these terms is potentially contentious/POV and would need references if it was to stay in. He also restored text - again without citations - which states that the Ustaša "conquered" BiH. I can find no source that supports this view and this view is contradicted by two earlier statements in the same article. (Standshown/Stagalj has not bothered to "correct" these earlier "mistakes".) In this case I have simply deleted an erroneous and unsupported statement, and I don't need to give a citation for that.

I would argue that my own version is more robust and does not need specific citations. I described Ustaše as fanatical Croat nationalists, a description surely beyond argument, to the extent that Ustaše themselves could hardly quarrel with it. I have described the Ustaša as an "insurgent" movement, again beyond argument since the term is a reasonable derivation from the English translation of its name. And I have said the movement was "ultimately genocidal" since, whatever its policy was at inception, it certainly embraced genocide by July 1941 and probably sooner. I have not bothered with a citation for this because the very same paragraph includes the notorious pronouncement by Budak, which fits almost to perfection the definitions of genocide as determined by Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word, and by the UN. It is surely more useful to say the regime was genocidal than that it was racist or terrorist in character, particularly since it is almost impossible to reach consensus about when the term "terrorist" is legitimate.

I didn't mention in the note covering my initial edit that I also deleted a comment that had been included with one of the footnotes. A Wikipedia footnote is not the place for a discussion forum.Kirker (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Stagalj reverted the edit explained above, claiming it to be POV. It was in fact an honest stab at being NPOV and I think most people would see it that way. Even if it IS in some degree opinionated it is less contentious, and more easily defended, than the language to which Stagalj has reverted. (But then he does his wholesale reversions without any serious attempt to explain them anyway.) The text I removed from a footnote was NOT a reference but a gratuitous and unattributed opinion. As it stood, it was also completely meaningless.Kirker (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic map

Here's a good demographic map of NDH: http://velisarajicevic.tripod.com/Image287.jpg We should draw it up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of Independent State of Croatia

I think that we need use this sources [2] [3] in article , because they very good to explain reasons for creation of Ustaše, creation of Independent State of Croatia and hate towards Serbs. First is showing Albert Einstein thinking about Croat situation in Yugoslavia and second is speaking about killing of Croat parliament members in Yugoslavia.--Rjecina (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't resentment a better word. Murder of Milan Sufflay may have had an effect on certain Croatian emigration and certain university circles but on masses - hardly. As for Stjepan Radić is concernd there is imaginable that peasants as well as workers and "urban" population would be horrified by that blatent murder and feel deep resentment towards Puniša Račić and Cincar clique that "controled" the Crown and the King himself but "hate towards Serbs" and coming from you seem like an over reaction and not objective historical analysis. Ordinary Serb peasants (and workers and "urban" citizens) were not affected with this but the represion aparatus like (Serb majority in police, post office, railroad, judiciary, army, state and local officials ..................................................................). The list could be as long as you want. -- Imbris (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008 edits

Rjecina's recent changes remove significant referenced content and in some cases mislead. For instance some readers would now infer that the delegates who visited Alexander in 1918 had some kind of legitimacy, whereas the council that sent them was unaccountable to anyone, and was in no sense representative of opinion either in the south Slav states generally or in Croatia. My version did make clear that Croatian interests and rights were over-ridden in Belgrade, but it is going too far to say Croatia had enjoyed protected autonomy for 800 years, as there had been periods of serious oppression by Hungary and the Dual Monarchy (hence Jalačić's campaign etc). Also, if the background section goes back to WW1 (and I agree that it should) it is important to make the point that attitudes and behaviour among many Croats and Dalmatians, initially at least, was influenced by concern to stop Italy getting its hands on Dalmatia.

The document Rjecina references in respect of Radić's murder is interesting, but to be acceptable we need to know where it was published and when. If those details can be added then it should certainly be included. But I would argue that it should be added to the account of the murders as I had drafted it, which reads well and is well sourced.

I would suggest the background section does need to take serious account of Maček's views, whether or not other views are cited. Maček became Radić's closest aide. Radić's was unquestionably the voice most representative of majority Croatian opinion, and Maček succeeded him in that role.

I do accept that of Rjecina's changes/references are valid and I hope he will agree to apply them to the article as I had redrafted it. I would be willing to tidy up the English if necessary.Kirker (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirker you need to make simple decision:
Do you know Croatian language or not ?
Reason for question is that you use source on Croatian language like confirmation of your statement !
This source [4] clearly speak that delegation sent from Zagreb to regent Alexander must respect 10 points.
  • 1 Organization of new state must be decided by National Assembly od Serbs, Croats and Slovenes with 2/3 majority of votes. This constitution assembly must happen 6 months after end of war.....
  • In the end constitution assembly has happened in 1920 and it has voted for new constitution with 50 % + 1 vote.
I will not write about other points because they are not in dispute.
In rewriting I have missed part "protected autonomy". This has not been writen by me :)
Can you please tell me reason for deleting New York Times of May 6 1931 . I am really interested to hear why ??
Your reverts in part of article Establishment of NDH I will revert because your edit has been clearly POV. Can you please explain me how you know that Ustaša guard is standing between bodies of Serbs in Jasenovac. Not even US Holocaust Museum do not know this fact. You need to inform USHM about that :)
You are having internet book on english language which clearly speak about Maček september events.
You have returned false statement about Rapallo contract because he has given to Italy Istria and islands. Not Dalmatia !!!
In Yugoslav Dalmatia there has not been Italians (or there has been very small number).See demography data--Rjecina (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
About Rappallo see article Treaty of Rapallo, 1920 . Must of edits in article Independent State of Croatia has been made by banned user and all statement which are confirmed by obscure books will be deleted :)--Rjecina (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
1) Croatian/Serbian: I can read slowly an ijekavian version of these languages which is used in BiH. I can usually cope ok (but even slower) with Croatian. The grammar is similar to that in BiH but the vocabulary can defeat me, as that is sometimes different - particularly in work written since 1990s. If you are referring to the Šišić reference, I waded through that with a student from Bjelovar in April last year.
2) At first I didn't understand your point about the two-thirds majority needed in the national assembly but do now. If you put that back in, I will tidy it up. Or I can try to say it, and you can change it if I am wrong. I don't think it contradicts anything that is there now?
3) The newspaper cutting does not seem to have any indication that it is from NYT, May 6 1931. If I have overlooked something, sorry.
4) Re Dalmatia: Using the "undo" button meant that some good points were lost. I intended that they should go back in. I thought this would be easier than editing your version. I've now gone back and done some more work in that section. Maybe you will think it is ok now, or at least better.
5)Again I agree with you about the photo caption. In fact I don't like to see those pictures used, and I have deleted them from Wikipedia articles a couple of times. In most cases I don't think the USHMM or anyone else knows the history of those photos or can say with certainty where they were taken. And some have obviously been faked.
6) Lastly I never intend to be POV one way or the other, but if I am, I must rely on others telling me! Kirker (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We both agree that parts of article Background and Establishment of NDH are neutral. My only problem is that background part is having too much lines.--Rjecina (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial period

I will write here important points for this part of article so that you can use it for writing. This points are:

  • We agree that first 5 lines can stay ?
  • Proclamation of laws for protection of state. In this law from 17 April is clearly writen that anybody who "offend" or try to "offend" Croatian nation will recieve death penalty. This law is legal base for latter killing of anybody (law is on http://www.crohis.com/izvori/ustzk.pdf )
  • First antisemit law of 18 April 1941, but you must now forget that there has been antisemit laws even in Kingdom of Yugoslavia and this has been only continuation of policy (source ofr antisemit laws in Yugoslavia is Ivo Goldstein:Jews in Yugoslavia 1918-41 )
  • Antisemit laws of 30 April 1941 where it is clear difference between members of Aryan race and others ( law is on http://www.crohis.com/izvori/ustzk.pdf )
  • Law about religion conversion of 3 May 1941 ( law is on http://www.crohis.com/izvori/ustzk.pdf ). This law will become more clear after Mile Budak ( minister of education ) famous speach on 2 July 1941: "We will kill one third of all Serbs. We will deport another third, and the rest of them will be forced to become Catholic"
  • Creation of concentration camps. All will be closed until 1942 and prisoners will be send to extermination camp Jasenovac.
  • Creation of Chetnik forces and Partisans (Yugoslavia) on NDH territory. Creation of First Sisak Partisan Squad on 22 June 1941. This day is today national holliday in Croatia.

I think that this is enough for initial period. --Rjecina (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina do you think the whole of the second paragraph, as it stands now, should be deleted? Your points about the legislation are fine, but I think something should be retained about army structure, strength and equipment as it was at the launch of NDH. These details don't seem to have sources at present, but I think I can find some. The reference to Dalmatia can go in the following section. Kirker (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Army of Independent State of Croatia

I think that it will be best for us to create this new part of article where we will write anything about army. For this part we will use site ( http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/independent-state-of-croatia/ ) and other similar sites. Your thinking ? --Rjecina (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In October 1944 there has been 17 regular divisions [5] --Rjecina (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's already some articles on individual branches and units, which should help: Croatian Home Guard, Navy of the Independent State of Croatia, Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia, Crna Legija, Croatian Armed Forces.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A separate section would make sense, maybe with the heading Military strength. No doubt those articles mentioned by Thewanderer should be consulted but I would favour Vojska.net as the primary source. (That website has been redesigned by the way, and the active link is now here [6].Kirker (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We all agree that there will be separate section for Army (name of section is not important).
In my thinking we need new sections:Crimes (maybe under name Jasenovac), Church, War (maybe 2 sections War 1941-43 and 44-45). Your thinking ? --Rjecina (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1) I am intending to have a go at rewriting the "initial period" section along the lines you (ie Rjecina) suggested.
2) I am completely against dealing with the crimes of the regime under the heading "Jasenovac" for two reasons. First the atrocities at Jasenovac, grotesque as they were, have often been wildly exaggerated, and in any case it is difficult for historians to be sure about exactly what happened there. Second, many atrocities - quite literally dozens - took place completely outside the camps system, in towns and villages and there has been a tendency for these to be overlooked because of the emphasis always placed on Jasenovac. I am not sure that "crimes" would be appropriate either since the word has legal significance (ie it could be argued that crimes are for courts to determine). I would be OK with "Atrocities" but that might be too contentious as well. Kirker (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Like sources for atrocities (or other name ?) we will use internationally accepted sources: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449 (USHMM), http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Jasenovac.html (Jewish Virtual Library) and maybe Yad Vashem center. If you ask why only maybe Yad Vashem center reason is that they are having problem with numbers. They have accepted Serbian claims about 600,000 victims of Jasenovac [7] , but they are still using international accepted numbers (more or less) for total victims number in NDH which is 500,000 [8]. --Rjecina (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(We have finished up talking about more than the Army in this section, but never mind.) I suspect Rjecina has put his last two references the wrong way round. Either way, Yad Vashem (like Simon Wiesenthal Centre on which it has sometimes relied) is not a sound source. The figure of 600,000 is way too high; the other figure, 500,000 in total, might be OK. But there are better sources, for instance the book "Hitler's Pope" which has a chapter devoted to Croatia. The author, John Cornwell came up with figures (slightly lower) based on analysis of many other estimates.
I'm not sure that we should have a sub-section within "history" headed "Racial (or Racist?) legislation." It would be best to put the new material into "initial period" and move the present stuff in that section to a new section called "Military strength" which need not be under "History." Or.... if the new sub-section stays as it is, it should be moved out of the "history" section. Kirker (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

About army we are having agreement so I have stoped to talk (write) about that. About legislation maybe best thing will be to use section name from Nazi Germany. In this article name is Racial and social persecution and because of that I have given name to section Racial legislation. When we speak about sources for section about crimes we agree that best will be USHMM and Jewish Virtual Library ? Maybe this section of article we can call Racial persecution ? --Rjecina (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea re "Racial persecution," which again need not be under "History." But I don't think we should put too much faith in the Jewish sources. Even the USHMM has been far from objective about NDH, especially during the Clinton years. Those sources should be used, but others should be too. Don't forget that there is a fair amount of documentary evidence around, for instance the trials of Artuković and Dinkić. Also there were huge Nazi crimes in NDH. (They played a leading part in the assault on many thousands of civilians around Kozara/Prozara during the offensive of June-July 1942.) We must try to be precise in dealing with atrocitiies, citing specific incidents where possible, as so much of the stuff that's been written is unsubstantiated and even fanciful. Kirker (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please avoid adding false references

The ref name="Atlas of World War II, David Jordan and Andrew West" does not supported the added text. Please avoid damaging credibility of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.157 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The source (I didn't even actually include in the article) shows the extent of Partisan control of the NDH during the war. But you must be interested only in the parts of the text that concern upholding the "honour" of the Croats/Serbs or what not, am I right? (a rhetorical question) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The 'source' is non-existent. So - you are a primitive liar. Any seriuos editorial board would automatically exclude you from contributing anything. But this is Wikipedia - a 'source' disqualified as a valid one by many universities and other academic instittutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.187 (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism in this article

This article is a veritable battleground of various nationalist views. On the one hand we have the standard edits by Croatian neo-nazism affiliates, on the other we have nationalist Serbs (Croatian or not) that are trying to depict the Partisan movement and its formation as a Serb uprising in the NDH. The widely known facts remain, however:

  • The Independent State of Croatia is the definition of a puppet-state, and one would be hard pressed to find a better example of one. Yet, because of the various NDH-nostalgic (to say the least) IP editors this must not be stated.
  • Up until the winter of 1944, Croats formed the majority of the Partisan detachments (brigades). Only when Serbia was liberated with the assistance of the Red Army in November and December 1944, and the Chetnik movement de-facto destroyed, did the area become an important source for recruitment (of inexperienced units) for the Partisans. Up until that point, excluding the Užice Republic, Yugoslavs of Serbian nationality formed a minority in the ranks of the resistance. This is military history of the Yugoslav front. This is not an attempt to belittle the Serbian contribution to the war effort, it is an attempt to bring to light a well known fact that has lately been suppressed on Wikipedia out of nationalistic/political reasons.

Needless to say, I will find sources for these facts within a few days at the latest. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So, everythnig above comes from the Tudjman's Wastelands of Historic Reality. Germans were clear - most of partizans' ranks were the Serbs. What kind of credibility has this man is seen above where I discovered that his 'source' is non-existent.


The following are links to the exact number of NOVJ units per Federal Republic (and autonomous region):

- Bosnia and Herzegovina (33)
- Croatia (48)
- Macedonia (23)
- Montenegro, Boka and Sandžak (8)
- Slovenia (23)
- Serbia (31)
- Kosovo (9)
- Vojvodina (14)


- Bosnia and Herzegovina (59)
- Croatia (72)
- Macedonia (20)
- Montenegro (14)
- Slovenia (29)
- Serbia (41)
- Kosovo (6)
- Vojvodina (36)


Furthermore, it is obvious that units from the territory of the so-called Independent State of Croatia constitute more than half of the fighting strength of the Yugoslav Partisans. It thus cannot be biased to state that the Axis attempt to pacify the area by creating a false sense of independence failed. (At the time Serbs formed around 13% of the population of what was to become FR Croatia.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For my part I have no quarrel with "puppet state" which is what it was. But no-one can deny that the term has a pejorative aspect, no doubt intentionally, whereas the more general term "client state" is relatively neutral. For that reason I thought we could stick with the general term rather than the particular, at least until the present squabbling dies down. Re Croats in the partisan ranks, again I have no quarrel with that, but I haven't time to go tracking down references at present and it's surely best to leave the point unstated until it is sourced (otherwise it just becomes another hostage to fortune in the nationalistic warring). As a general point I would say print sources are better rather than websites because they are more durable. There are exceptions of course, among which vojska.net is a notable example. Kirker (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term "puppet state" has a pejorative aspect, however, be that as it may, it is also a more accurate term to describe the exact condition that state was in. It is not a profane expression, nor is it necessarily an insult. I for one feel no particular need to go around insulting countries, but I do not like it when text is altered and generalized on account of some people who find more accurate expressions disturbing.
Considering vojska.net, the site is a very accurate and unbiased source of information. It merely deals with cold hard facts (military history) which makes it less POV than Wikipedia, one might say. Anyway, I'm glad we agree on this issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So, everything above is in full accordence to Tudjman's Wastelands of Historic Reality. The truth was said by Germans - most of the Tito's partizans ranks were the Serbs. How much credibility has this person is visible through his/her attempt to offer a non-existent 'source' - to support nonsense claimed by him/her stubbornly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.187 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what Tuđman wrote in his book, I certainly didn't read it nor do I intend to. There is no need to insult my credibility as I am not using it in support of my edits. I'm using reliable references, and being so fond of them I suggest you get some too. "The Germans" said only that Serbs were the most important source of recruits at the time when that text was written, nothing more. Furthermore, this statement is not based on any objective intelligence report, but appears to be a personal approximation. And even if this was the official stance of the Nazi intelligence services in Yugoslavia at the time (which it is not), this would not prove anything due to the faulty nature of Axis intelligence that was gathered on the Partisans as a whole, throughout the war.
What exactly are your objections to the presented evidence, Mr. IP? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, DIREKTOR. Sort your references out. Of three recent ones, two don't work at all and the third is just a list of partisan detachments with not a word about their constituent elements. I won't argue with your petty insistence on "puppet" rather than "client." You must regret that your favoured term didn't exist when Edmund Paris wrote "Genocide in Satellite Croatia." Who on earth could have guessed what sort of a state he was talking about with that description? LOL Kirker (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as simple as it seems, apparently, as all the references I posted yesterday work perfectly (5/5). If they didn't work, then the site might be experiencing temporary technical difficulties, try again. "petty insistence"? I resent that, I rather found the unnecessary shift to "client state" petty. I think you'll find "puppet state" is a more frequent term, not to mention more accurate and less generalized.
The list, of course, does not have the exact demographical composition of each and every detachment, but it does clearly state from which federal unit the soldiers came from. What's the problem Kirker?, I hope we have no disagreements here, I was merely reacting to the provocative post by the IP. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me that introduced "client state," but it proved to be less contentious than "puppet" state, hence I tried to put it back. I wonder which particular aspect of NDH's status you feel to be short-changed by that terminology?
The problem with the list of detachments is that the geographic locations of those detachments say nothing about the proportions of Serbs and Croats. Such a list doesn't begin to justify an assertion that "Croats, not Serbs, formed a majority...." To repeat (and I assume this was what "153.39.144.187" meant by non-existent sources) the other two links don't work. (Those numbered 25 and 29 at present.)Kirker (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I clearly stated that approximately 13% of what-was-to-be FR Croatia's population were Serbs, of which a large proportion were massacred and/or detained in concentration camps in the starting months of the War (in Yugoslavia). It is highly irrational (i.e., nationalist) to state that the Croatian brigades and detachments were formed of Serbs. I suppose Slovenian brigades were actually Serbian, as well? Now I'm not saying you support that view, I'm just a little annoyed by the lengths some people would take to defend their nationalism-inspired (indoctrinated) point of view.
Concerning "puppet"/"client", the "petty" change was made to "client" for no apparent reason other than to "appease" pro-NDH editors. Accuracy must not be sacrificed for "political" reasons, especially when the state fits the puppet-state profile so fully and obviously. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Two of your links are still broken. If you can't fix them I'll be happy to delete them. The one that does work in respect of parisan demographics lists, for instance, 101 detachments in Croatia and Slovenia and 100 in Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina. (We are talking about the "Partisan movement" here, right?) Considering we don't even have respective strengths for the various detachments,I don't see how any of this resolves anything. Maybe there is better evidence in those broken links, if you can get them to work. Concerning NDH's puppet/client status, you would be closer to Wikipedia ethos if you assumed that the less emotive term was adopted in good faith. I would still be interested to know what point is left unaddressed by the "client state" definition.Kirker (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


LINK 1: http://www.indopedia.org/Independent_State_of_Croatia.html
Works fine.

LINK 2: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/independent-state-of-croatia
Works fine.

LINK 3: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Puppet_state_-_Accusations_of_puppet_states_since_1900/id/4692221
Also works, but the text seems to have been edited. I will remove it, its redundant anyway.

LINK 4: http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/brigade/
Works fine.

LINK 5: http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/detachment/partisan/
Works fine.

The vojska.net links work perfectly, besides, you don't think I just invented all those numbers do you?! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Indopedia reference is not valid. Along with having no references and the fact that anyone can edit it (although it actually only has a grand total of 1 edit!), the Independent State of Croatia page is an exact copy/paste of this article from 2004.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spiritus Temporis link also cites Wikipedia as its reference and seems to have ripped most, if not all, of its content from this article. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a valid reference, so a site which has simply copied the info is not valid either. You now have no reliable "puppet-state" references.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The references I listed were merely to show that the state is known as a "puppet state" far more than a "client state" (I found them in exactly 30 seconds). We all know that "puppet state" and "client state" are de-facto synonyms, and the "puppet state" phrase is FAR more common and must thus be used. Like I said earlier, just Google it. I mainly listed these particular references in the text as a method of preventing IPs from reverting the thing (before the article was protected). In the future Thewanderer, I would like you to actually wait for the response before reverting, as this is the best way to start another stupid edit-war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thewanderer, do you intend to respond? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I could chip in sgsin in the meantime, Direktor. First, the respective strengths of Serbs and Croats in the partisans. I am quite familiar with vojska.net and rate it very high. If Ivan said Croats outnumbered Serbs in the partisans until 1944 I would accept that without question. But as far as I have been able to find, he hasn't said that. To understand the problem with broken links, click the first of the two endnote reference numbers that appear at the end of the penultimate paragraph in the "uprising" section. It goes to an endnote which shows as a hyperlink. Click the hyperlink. Repeat the same exercise with the endnote reference number at the end of the first paragraph (same section). In both cases the links fail. Proper referencing is particularly important in this case since your text challenges referenced text immediately above it. (I am fully open to the likelihood that what you have said is accurate.)
Regarding NDH puppet status, there is no "must" about it. Neither have I seen convincing evidence that "puppet" is the term that has been most widely applied to the state. Certainly in the 1950s and 1960s "satellite" was frequently used. "Client state" is a perfectly understandable, and the only shortoming you have found in it is that it is not pejorative. If that's more important to you than consensus, leave "puppet" in, as I can't be bothered any more. Kirker (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, your sources were obviously unreliable, so I deleted them. I personally think you should've known better than to use them. I left puppet state in the intro with a fact tag. I left "client state" in the infobox because that's a blanket term, until you can find a valid reference. I am not interested in revert warring, but finding verifiable info.
I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems that Client state is the most general term, and Puppet states are a subset of those. They are not equivalent.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Of course I should have known better, and I did; I told you I only placed the references in the text as a temporary means of preventing IPs from reverting. I don't really see why you guys are so against the "puppet state" phrase.
I repeat, "Client state" is used incredibly rarely to describe the NDH, as can be seen on Google. Generally, the state is known as a puppet state, and the term is much more used than "client state" which is less accurate. You will be hard pressed to find any state that better fits the description "puppet state", with Germany actually dictating the composition of the cabinet as well as the organization of the internal security forces (see text). Puppet state was initially used, but was later removed to accommodate POV IPs.
Like I said, its silly to go searching for references on what amounts to word games. The state is known far more widely under the phrase "puppet state", and this is the main reason why it should be used. "Client state" is less accurate, less widely used, and is only here to appease POV IP users.

Concerning Croats and Serbs in the Partisans. I'd first like to make it clear that I'm not pushing this due to some indoctrinated belief of mine. I actually thought Serbs formed the majority due to their larger population and the involvement of Croats in the Domobranstvo and Ustaška vojnica, I didn't believe it when told otherwise. But the Vojska.net reference clearly states that a significant majority of the Partisan units were formed in the territory of modern-day Croatia, at that time possessing a 13% Serb population (a large number of which was detained in concentration camps at the start of the war). In order for the Serbs to actually form the majority of the Partisan forces, this 13% would have to form around an unrealistic percentage of the Croatian detachments. I seriously hope no one here is going to believe that 40 or 50% of these were Serbian.
Furthermore, it is a historical fact that Serbia was unfertile ground for Partisan recruiting for the majority of the war, as it was under strong German and Chetnik control after the collapse of the Užice Republic. Only when the arrival of the Red Army in late autumn of 1944 facilitated the Partisan takeover did the area suddenly become a source for a large number of raw recruits. While Croatia, and especially Dalmatia, was under the control of the relatively incompetent Ustaše and Italians, with large parts being ceded to a foreign power. Resentment for the Italian annexation in particular made Dalmatia a source of recruits.
This (and more) is why I do not believe an explicite source about Partisan nationality is required. It is also likely not to exist at all, given the Partisans lack of emphasis on the nationality of their troops and the fact that they were a relatively disorganized guerrilla force much of the war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible English in Racial legislation section

Could someone please improve the wording in the Racial legislation section? I don't want to attempt to fix that section because the English language is so butchered that I'm not 100 percent sure what all the sentences are trying to convey. Spylab (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Helm quote

This part of the text:


Hans Helm, the appointed head of the Gestapo in the Independent State of Croatia, wrote in his confidential January 14, 1943 report (titled as "Basis of the partisan danger" and sent to General Kasche):

"Most of the partisan ranks are coming from the Serbs - due to the fact that they are the most villainous way persecuted ... the new regime in Croatia started the programs of annihilation and destruction of the Serbs, which (the programs) are publicly supported by the highest ranks of the Croatian government, and (the programs) adopted as the main government goal. The fact that a different talk was coming from the official Ustashe side - under the rebellion pressure and due to the course of events - even a reconciliation was mentioned - leaves no possibility to compensate the harm caused by, for example, Dr. Mile Budak, the actual (Croatian) minister in Berlin ..."[1]


is correctly quoted and referenced. However, while the Gestapo may have thought this at the time, the information they had was obviously incorrect (as per the following references from vojska.net). Therefore we can't have the Wikipedia reader influenced by faulty German intelligence. I suggest we return it to the text in this form, removing the incorrect info:


Hans Helm, the appointed head of the Gestapo in the Independent State of Croatia, wrote in his confidential January 14, 1943 report (titled as "Basis of the partisan danger" and sent to General Kasche):

“ The new regime in Croatia started programs of annihilation and destruction of the Serbs, which [the programs] are publicly supported by the highest ranks of the Croatian government, and adopted as the main government goal. The fact that different talk is coming from the official Ustaše side - under pressure by the rebellion and due to the course of events, even a reconciliation was mentioned - leaves no possibility to compensate the harm caused by, for example, Dr. Mile Budak, the actual [Croatian] minister in Berlin...[1] ”
This is inconsistent. You can't source half of a reference and consider the other half as "undesirable". Either you leave the whole text (with adequate explanation), or you remove it all. Helm is obviously writing this letter because he thinks that the uprising in NDH is caused by Serb persection. Removing the "uprising" part of the letter and quoting the "persecution" part misses the whole essence of the report.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose you're right. But I don't understand your edit about the sixth division, I mean why is that division so special that it warrants inclusion in the text, for example, the entire 8th Dalmatian Corps was formed out of Croats. I could cite around 10 divisions made up from Croatian soldiers right now, what's the point? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, right now you have an unreferenced claim that Croats constituted a majority in the Partisans. I have made a referenced claim which shows that in at least one division in Croatia "proper", Serbs constituted a vast majority. I think that is very notable and Wikipedia does not regulate notability of article content, anyway. If you want to bring in information about the ethnic composition of other units, go ahead. It's certainly more useful than making unsourced statements about the ethnic composition on the whole.--Thewanderer (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Unsourced statement"? According to the information included in the references for the statement, a small, massacred, incarcerated, and prosecuted 13% national minority would have to be the basis for the foundation of 30 or 40% of the Croatian brigades and detachments in order to form an actual majority. To suggest this is the case is highly irrational, not only because of the references I included, but also due to the history of the Yugoslav front. There are other references from vojska.net that confirm Serbia as an "infertile" ground for recruitment and Partisan operations throughout the war (read up on that, if you like, I'm not a fan of overreferencing statements). Without Serbia, Serbs do not form even the overall majority of the population in the remainder of Yugoslavia (including the FR Bosnia and Herzegovina).
So you're suggesting the article should contain the ethnic compositions of all 81 brigades, 131 detachments and 28 divisions formed on the territory of the NDH? I ask you again: what relevance does one division's composition have, there were 55 of them!? Where are you going with this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If we could find such information it should certainly be included on Wikipedia. By that point it would probably merit it's own section, perhaps in another article. Again, Wikipedia has no regulations on the notability of info. If you think I'm performing some POV violation, say so.
You are talking about republican borders which did not exist until after the war. The Independent State of Croatia had nearly a third Serb population. It's entirely possible that Serbs made up the majority, as Croats were divided between two or three armies (Croatian, Yugoslav, and to a lesser extent German). I personally couldn't care who made up the majority. However, you have to find sources if you're going to make such bold claims. All I see now is original research with a link to a bunch of detachments as your apparent "reference".--Thewanderer (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not need a history lesson, and I know when the borders were internationally recognized. However, you may not know that the KPY already stated its intention of acknowledging the independence of each of the 6 states before the war (as opposed to the "unitarianism" of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), including the (proposed) borders. These later happened to be realized, with some minor changes. By the end of the war (1944) provisional governments of each geographically defined Republic were established, and the state of origin of each and every Partisan unit was well known. The link to a bunch of detachments with a Croatian majority is indeed a sufficient source for any intelligent person whose rational thought is not clouded by his/her POV.
Indeed a list of the units may be a good subject for a separate article, however, if you believe such a list would be desirable in Wikipedia, why do you not include the list without the explicite ethnic info?
While I'm aware you breached no Wikipedia rules, I'll ask you again: what bearing does the ethnic composition of a minor fragment of the NDH Partisan forces have on anything at all, let alone this unrelated article? Why is it worth including, and why did you include it? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A source which provides a fragment of the ethnic composition is more useful than unreferenced, original research on the ethnic composition on the whole. Luckily, I have added the necessary source for Communist Croatia's Partisans. I have also marked your other sketchy claims with fact tags until you can find some proof. I am not interested in having debates here. You don't need to prove to me your personal knowledge: Wikipedia does not require it, and I'm not asking for it either. You just have to find verifiable and reliable info from a source.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had a feeling you'd dismiss discussion any time now. Once more:
1) This is NOT original research, it can be directly derived from the refs I've provided (as I've pointed out numerous times).
2) Do not remove references, it is against Wiki policy.
You're turning out to be one of the more arrogant editors I've had the displeasure of dealing with on Wikipedia. You presume to teach people history, and then belittle their own historical knowledge when they correct you in your mistaken presumptions. You hide your POV well, but considering your origins it is pretty obvious to anyone from these parts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you're interested in constructive discussion, I'm all for it. However, I'm not interested in hearing how you're personally proving some info from sources which obviously do not support you. What does a list of detachments alone prove? Nothing. The accusations of POV are ridiculous: I have provided the reference for the very info that I was asking you to source. I don't care whether Serbs, Croats or Martians proved the majority in Partisans. However, if we're going to make such heavy claims that "Croats made up the majority throughout the war", we should have sufficient sources rather than one user's "logical conclusion" on the matter. Verifiability and no original research are the core policies of Wikipedia. That's why I'm looking for more sources on the ethnic breakdown.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, I lost my temper and I apologize. I'm sure we can reach a compromise, what I want to know is what do you think about rephrasing the problematic sentence? What would you say to:
"It should be noted that Croatian units were significantly more numerous than Serbian units among the Partisan ranks. By 1944, Croats formed 60% of the Partisan units within the territory of the Federal State of Croatia." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I did:
1) I rewrote the first sentence of the paragraph to a form supported by the vojska.net sources. I hope we can leave it at that.
2) I rewrote the last sentence of the paragraph and removed the fact tag. I don't have to bring in sources to confirm the NDH failed to pacify the populace, do I? We're talking about the most numerous resistance movement of the War, after all.
3) Replaced People's Republic of Croatia, with Federal State of Croatia. The former didn't exist before the end of the war.
4) Made minor sentence construction fixes. And sources state Croatia had the most operational units in the Partisan movement (not second most), I assume that was a lapsus calami? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No mistake on my part. According to Vojska.net, Serbia had 83 detachments (Central Serbia 41, Kosovo 6, Vojvodina 36) compared to Croatia's 72. Serbia had 54 brigades (Central Serbia 31, Kosovo 9, Vojvodina 14) compared to 48 Croatian brigades.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second, Croatia did field more units than any other federal unit (I thought I made it clear we were speaking in those terms). I appear not to have noticed you stated "Republics" in the text, my mistake indeed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status of NDH

Does anyone have any idea what the legal status of NDH property is when it comes to copyrights? Images belonging to Yugoslavia fall under Template:PD-Yugoslavia. What is the status of images (mostly flags and emblems, I guess) which belonged to the NDH?--Thewanderer (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The NDH never legally existed, a fact often forgot it would seem. The UN never recognized it, indeed, there isn't a single government on this planet that recognizes the existence of the Independent State of Croatia. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis, never dissolved throughout World War 2. The NDH is merely a form of German/Italian occupation, no more than Nedić's Serbia or the General Government. Perhaps Croatian president Mesić calling it a "fantasy" is an understatement, "nightmare" would be more appropriate, I think. I suppose images should also fall under Template:PD-Yugoslavia, no matter how wrong that may seem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, legally NDH didn't exist, but that's the exact problem when trying to deal with copyright status of its state property. See, Template:PD-Yugoslavia seems to only cover state property of SFR Yugoslavia (I'm also not clear why this tag clears images of copyright, as the agreement it cites doesn't appear to say this). I don't think it covers individual intellectual property within SFR Yugoslavia (individual groups should retain their own copyrights). The Independent State of Croatia's intellectual property did not fall into the state ownership of Yugoslavia, as the NDH can legally be considered as some sort of private organization.
I've tested the waters for using this tag at Image:Flag of rank of Commander of HOS.PNG. However, I don't believe it really applies. It seems to me that flags and other such property should belong to the UHRO, which hasn't existed for 63 years. Very confusing.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the property of the UHRO was confiscated (nationalized) by the federal government in '45, and all its assets seized (much like the NSDAP). All property belongs to the state, i.e., SFR Yugoslavia and its successor states. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge Problems with Article

Greeting all - apparently, all of my wikipedia 'problems' with articles that relate to the Independent State of Croatia are to be solved here - so I have been redirected to this discussion page. I would first like to state how it is ridiculously humorous that a man who is "Pro Yuoglsav" and speaks "Serbo Croatian" (A language that doesn't exist and never did) is one of the main editors on this page - and it shows.

First thing is first, the Independent State of Croatia was not a Puppet State, nor was it a monarchy. The Independent State of Croatia did not breach the rules of sovereign succession from the Kingdom of "Yugoslavia" - it was declared by the Croatian people at the will of the Croatian people. If the Independent State of Croatia was a monarchy from 1941 1943, it would be safe to say that present day Canada and Australia are also monarchies.

As for NDH not "existing legally" - this is an ongoing battle, and most specialists of International law see the state as having enough state characteristics to be held accountable for it's actions. DeFacto it was undoubtedly there - DeJure - here is a debate. The Indpendent State of Croatia was recognized by 32 countries - the Axis did not have 'that many friends" and Axis recognition is not less significant than Allied recognition. The Independent State of Croatia was a member of the Universal postal Union and FIFA - along with many other international organizations.

Next point, Hitler and Mussolini did not "install" the Ustasa. The Ustasha movement installed it self with the support of the Axis. The Independent State of Croatia was proclaimed on April 10th, 1941, and was not even recognized by Germany until 5 days following.

Next point - I disagree with the use of the terms "almost all of" when speaking of Dalmatia and the Rome Agreements. I think whoever jotted that part down has to review his/her Croatian history/geography and figure out what exactly Dalmatia is, because Italy didn't even anex 30 percent of Dalmatia - let alone "almost all of it". population started rebelling on the day the state was proclaimed - Serbian Cetniks began massacring in Bijelovar on April 10th of '41 and this event is commemorated every year in Croatia, if you would like to view a clip of the commemoration I believe there is a nice long one on youtube. As for the 'partizan rebellion'. The partizans were not a reaction to the Independent State of Croatia, the KPH (Communist party of Croatia) existed years if not decades prior to the existence of NDH - they took the oppourtunity to invite more people into their 'belief system' by attacking the state from day one - using heavy propaganda to persuade people to join their movement - and they were undoubtedly successful.

"It should be noted that Croatian units were significantly more numerous than Serbian units among the Partisan ranks.[37][38] In 1944, the third year of the war in Yugoslavia, Croats formed 60% of the Partisan operational units originating from the Federal State of Croatia."

I WONDER who put this load of nonsense in the article.... This is nothing but a play on words - what is the "federal state of Croatia" ? That didn't exist anywhere deFacto OR deJure - why don't you tell everyone how many Croatians were in the partizans from all of Croatia (obviously at the time) or all of "Yugoslavia". The percentages of Croatians enlisted in the partizans were only high from 1944 and on (in Croatia modern), otherwise that is a very feebly 'fact' - made to create the illusion that the majority of Croats "joined the resistance" - they did not - not even close.

Tons of errors, I don't even know where to begin, so once some of you take the above in, I shall continue. AP1929 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that it is hilarious that all sources are internet sources, and that this "DIREKTOR"'s arguement is "google it". Out of the first 100 sites that call the NDH a "Puppet State", 80 were Serbian, 10 were Jewish and the rest had no sources whatsoever. The term "puppet state" has to go - in order to make a neutral article - not to simple "appease" anyone. "Puppet state" is political criticism, and NDH does not meet the requirements of even wikipedia's definitions of "Puppet State".AP1929 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to google books in regards to the Independent State of Croatia as a puppet state with many books written by people who are not Serbian or Jewish (though being Serbian or Jewish should not in any way disallow a non-biased source to be used). Similar results occurred when searching for NDH and puppet state. AniMate 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I expect you were referring to me? I suggest you stop before you get reported. We've had a lot of Croatian nationalists and Ustaše-nostalgics on this article, and I'd like to happily point out that little or nothing is left of their "contributions". I don't know you, so all I'll say at this point is that you discuss all your edits and use reliable sources. I won't hesitate to report any vandalism. All the stuff you brought up is properly sourced, please do not start an edit war. How did you like my Userpage? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is according to him that any source that doesn't agree with him is wrong. AniMate 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he knows the TRUTH? Kidding, sources on those claims are reliable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
@Ani-Mate - Would you let neo-nazis write Jewish history ? As for the books in google books - every single last one was Serbian or Jewish other than Jozo TomasevicH's book about NDH which was written in the 60s or 70s I believe, I actually have a copy of it, and it's only references are "Yugoslavian" ones. I can find tons of "sources" that claim that the Holocaust never happen - does that mean that it is correct ? If you look at what "puppet state" refers to, I can simply show you that Croatia was NOT a "puppet state" during WW2.
@DIREKTOR - Thank you for proving my point - this is not a neutral article : I suggest you look up what the term neutral means; but I am glad you agree with me. As for your user page, it almost made me sick to my stomach, but to each his own - everyone is entitled to their own opinion in the modern free world unlike they were in Yugoslavia. It's almost a bit ironic that a communist such as yourself would threaten to "report me" because we all know that that is exactly what Yugoslavs did best, and is what landed thousands of innocent people on Goli Otok. Even though I didn't like your page, I find comfort in the fact that Yugoslavia is long gone, and that Croatia exists, and that your "home city" Split, is the most right-wing city in all of present day Croatia.AP1929 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR, you previously had the oppourtunity to meet average people seeking the truth. I am a History Major and I KNOW the truth through thousands of documents, and personal archiving / research. Not to mention hundreds of interviews with actual Ustase, Domobrani, members of NOB, the UDBA and the KPJ (who knows maybe I know someone in your family).Tell me what you would like me to reference and I will do so, I don't see you arguing any of my points. AP1929 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Please read this quote and the corresponding link from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of the highest quality sources available on the Web:
"When Germany invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, Ante Pavelic, the Ustaša's leader, became head of a German PUPPET STATE, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH)..."
This is the link: [9], it is also in the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Now to other matters
1) Split? Right-wing?! Oh you mean the rural suburbs, oh yes they are quite right-wing, but I would not call them "Split" in the "narrow" sense of the word (we call it the "Radunica line"). The center districts of the town are not very much like that. In any case, "stari Splićani" know a little better. btw, HDZ has 6, and the SDP has 5 seats in the city council.
And I don't like you writing "home city" in that manner, I'll have you know my family lived in Split for around 350 years.
2) Goli Otok was a maximum security prison, mainly used for Stalinists, I take it that, besides the Ustaše, you like those guys too?
3) Finally, if you read my Userpage you should know that "I am not a communist". And that Yugoslavia was by far the most liberal of all the Socialist states, it was considering joining the European Union.
Oh, and I'm the Secretary General of the United Nations, I'm actually from Korea ;D My point is that you could be Tuđman risen from the grave, you'd still have to use sources and discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Why do you write "@" in front of people's names? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated on other discussion pages, that is one of many errors in Encyclopedia Britannica - there are so many, that even Wikipedia has a page set a side for it. Take a look at what else Britannica wrote about NDH in previous editions (Thanks Serb propagandists for the site !) : http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/ustashi.html
Other matters - I do not care, what you consider to be "Split", I care about WHAT IS Split, and that includes those "rural-suburb" areas - LOL - you're going to tell me, I know Split like the back of my hand. As for Goli Otok - who told you that ? Denis Latin ? LOL - The fact of the matter is that most of the people that were initially there for being branded "Stalinists" weren't actually Stalinist at all, but were simply "reported" as so by members of the UDBA. Goli Otok was in existence LONG after 1948 Druze Direktore. As for Yugoslavia joining the European Union - anyone can 'consider' joining - but can they get in ? Croatia (modern) seems to be having many difficulties let alone the state the 'flicked off' over a million Croats. Yugoslavia was most "liberal" at face value to the rest of the world because the rest of the world would not and could not look into anything going on there - Yugoslavia was a buffer zone during the Cold War and played a huge role in those political issues (made lots of friends in the west). Here is an example of "Yugoslav" liberalism : "We let the Croats go to church" meanwhile they are also sending members of OZNA and UDBA to church to see who is going, and those who go are deprived of very basic human rights - yes how "liberal" of "Yugoslavia". Please do not compare me to Tudman, he is yours not mine.AP1929 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok, please do not remove Britannica referenced info, as that is vandalism. You can start your own website where you can tell people all about the eeevil Serb conspiracies (there's more than one, right?), there you can also tell them all about the Serb control over the Encyclopaedia Britannica and how it is wrong and you're right. For a "history major", you don't know much about the Tito-Stalin split and the threat of Stalinist invasion that Marshal Tito avoided (he was the only one that succeeded). Tell me, where did you study?
As for Split, yes, there's only around 60,000 of us, but the "starosjedioci" are still there. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, you need to change the tone of your comments. You are very close to, if not already, violating WP:NPA in your characterizations of DIREKTOR and his user page. AniMate 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove any Britannica sources, I simply stated that Britannica has written many DIFFERENT things of the topic at hand which aren't very encyclopedic at all and anyone can go see for themselves. I don't know much about the split ? How do you know that ? I simply pointed out the the majority of people who were sent to Goli Otok were suspected Stalinists, and very few of them actually WERE Stalinists. The communist dictator and one of the most notorious mega killers of the 21st century Tito didn't 'escape' anything. Yugoslavs tend to think that Tito made some kind of heroic move by saying no to Stalin, even though Tito himself was a Stalinist prior to the war - he didn't, Stalin could have over-run Yugoslavia in a matter of days if he really wanted to so that there would be no trace of Tito or the Partija. AP1929 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The "country" was a PUPPET STATE, its properly referenced, its explained, its concluded.
So you're saying that Stalin didn't invade Yugoslavia because of charity? Stalin?! Tito's diplomatic connections and maneuvers in the west (more specificly with the USA) ensured that such a move would probably start WW3. That's why he didn't invade. Tito is known as one of history's greatest diplomats and leaders of the non-aligned movement. His state funeral was attended by more diplomats and statesmen than any other. They included four kings, thirty-one presidents, six princes, twenty-two prime ministers and forty-seven ministers of foreign affairs. Or is that also Serb propaganda? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "puppet state" in regards to NDH is incorrect, and is also a term of political criticism which does not make for a NEUTRAL article. I do not care who went to Tito's funeral, that doesn't "make the man" more than half of those people aren't people to "be proud of" and the other half had no idea what Tito was doing or had done. Professor Rummel of the U.Sof A is a specialist of genocide and has put Tito in the top 10 list of "worlds greatest Mega-Killers".AP1929 (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica trumps almost anything. There are a lot of historians in this world with almost as many differing views. Tito's funeral was just an example of his diplomatic accomplishments, of course it is generally irrelevant. btw, have you ever imagined that Andrija Hebrang could have been a Croatian patriot and a Stalinist? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica does not trump everything a trump is a trump - trumps don't 'almost' trump anything they trump or they don't, didn't your dida teach you how to play Briskule like mine did ? Hebrang was a follower of the wind. AP1929 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I said it trumps almost everything, you don't have that "almost". I can play briškule just fine, and as a matter of fact, my Dida (grandfather) did teach me how to play :) I always kicked ass playing dupla.
Anyway, come on, "old Juga" wasn't that bad. Like the TBF guys say: "znam, ni onda nije sve bilo bajno, al' pari mi se mnogo lipše". People had a far higher standard of living and a far lower suicide rate. Besides, half of Split was built by the Federal government: Riva, Poljud, terminal, Gradska luka, Marjanski tunel, Sjeverna luka, Škver, uređenje Marjana, bazeni, lučice (osim Matejuške), skoro sva industrija, hoteli, Gripe etc, etc... not to mention that Hajduk was one of the best clubs in Yugoslavia, and far more succesful in general. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Old Juga" sent millions of Croatians into the diaspora - maybe because the standard of living was 'so great'. As for suicide rates - I don't suppose you forgot to take into the consideration the Homeland war, and what people went though, and the thousands of Croatian soldiers who have committed suicide in these past few years....Many parts of Split might have been well funded by Yugoslavia, but rural 'pro-Ustasa' regions were left completely neglected in the third world, and I am living proof of it - I'm living proof of all of it, thankfully, because of "old juga" I was born and grew up in a FREE true democracy called Canada, where I was educated and can now use everything I have learned "against Juga". You are talking to someone who spent vary many days protesting and being politically active against that monstrosity of "country" or should I say killing machine of Croats. The only thing that was 'better' in those days was Music and Soccer, and soccer only because we couldn't wait to play the Serbs. Don't talk to me about Hajduk Split, you are talking to a lifelong member of both Hajduk and Torcida Split. AP1929 (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why your folks left, I can only suppose they (correctly) assumed life would be better in Canada (as did even more Serbs, to my knowledge), or they had some very good reason to get out as fast as they could ("OZNA sve dozna", hehehe). If you lived in Canada how can you truly know what happened here? If rural areas were less developed, its because they were rural areas. Oh, and using plain mathematics, it is possible to assert the significant drop in tourist numbers, GDP, and employment levels that was caused by the destruction of the unified federal market (long before the escalation of the Yugoslav wars). You see, the economy of SFR Yugoslavia was well planned to function as a unified whole (with Croatia actually being more developed than Serbia, one of the causes of the war), destroy the whole, destroy the economy. Let me assure you, as a "living proof", life was generally better before the so-called "diaspora" imported their bitter, bottled-up nationalist hatred. Nothing ever comes of irrational, nationalist hatred, especially towards a nation that is closer to us than any other.
There are larger linguistic differences between the kajkavian of northern Croatia and shtokavian of Dalmatia, than there are between the shtokavian of Dalmatia and the shtakavian of Serbia. This is fact.
I ask you, can you perhaps see that you are not very objective in this matter due to your family's experience? Can you even consider accepting that working together is better than hating each other? There was no need for the country to have remained socialist, it could simply have remained a mostly economic union, to the benefit of us all (not that it would greatly affect any of you guys safely tucked away in the pine trees ;) Croatia is still essentially an economic fragment of a greater whole, unable to function as anything other than a market for EU products. I guess my point is this: its far too easy to sell economic prosperity for nationalist pride when you live thousands of miles away, eh? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I have figured out a perfect solution to this. Since AP1929 believes that any Western source that states the NDH was a puppet state has been unduly influenced by Serbs, perhaps we should try to get them to change WP:RS. We should insert a sentence along the lines of:

All reliable sources, no matter how established or well respected, must agree with exactly what AP1929 knows to be The Truth.TM If he disagrees with them, they are no longer reliable sources.

Isn't that essentially what you're arguing here? AniMate 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters, it is none of your business why my parents left, and secondly I am not one to simply judge from the 'outside', if you would like to have coffee on the riva one day, I would gladly join you. However, I'm probably not as friendly in person towards people like you as I am on here. I do not hate anyone, but I do however know that I love Croatia above all - I can not hate anyone more than I love my country and people. This article is about NDH and not why you think "Yugoslavia" was a good idea - if it was a good idea, it would exist today. The NDH was a formidable idea, and thankfully, a Croatia exists today. I am not objective, at least not as objective as you are in this particular matter - I mean, common, someone who openly praises Tito and Yugoslavia is going to write about NDH. Thats like letting the grand wizard of the KKK write about black history. My family was heavily involved in the Second World War, during SFRJ in the diaspora, and during the homeland war.
As for Ani-Mates sarcasm : Note for the last time that there are no modern studies on NDH, the Ustasa movement, or Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic. Britannica is simply re-using the information which they have always had - even during the Yugo years. Does Britannica have a definition for "Puppet State" ? And for the last time, the term, is political criticism and does not make for a good neutral article.AP1929 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, no reliable sources are reliable. We should then change the policy to :

AP1929 is the only reliable source. He is the only one who knows The Truth.TM

That sound about right? That being said any speculation or discussion about another user's personal life is way off topic and needs to be avoided by both parties. AniMate 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that states :

"The NDH existed for four years and had seven governments, only five of which were headed by Ante Pavelić. Contrary to popular opinion, the Ustaša state was not a puppet regime, far from it, in fact. Both the Italians and the Germans expressed their continued frustration at being unable to control and manipulate the Ustaša. Despite their military presence and economic support, both Axis powers lacked real leverage over the ever more frantic activities of the Ustaša."http://www.ce-review.org/00/19/vaknin19.html I don't like the last part, but there is truth to the fact that both Italian and German sides were very frustrated with lac of control, and there is tons of proof of that. Hitler would not even allow Kasche to take control of the German soldiers in Croatia - he stated that all German soldiers were to answer to the local authorities of Croatia.AP1929 (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


(I apologize, it would appear I have allowed myself to be dragged off into a meaningless Wiki debate, by the same person criticizing me for it, no less :) Congratulations on your source, but I have found another one, it states: "When Germany invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, Ante Pavelic, the Ustaša's leader, became head of a German PUPPET STATE, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH)...". Fortunately, there is no need for a lengthy debate as to whose source is more valid, since this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you have a problem with it, then I suggest you e-mail them with a detailed description of The TruthTM, I am sure they will immediately rewrite their article, provided their Serb masters let them of course.
There is no need for discussion here, this matter is settled. All I have to say is that should you rewrite any text referenced by proper sources such as Britannica, I will revert and report. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
USHMM puppet state --Rjecina (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of these articles say that the Ustasa movement was a "fascist" movement - which it was not - so if MOST sources are WRONG about that, how can they not be wrong about anything else ? AP1929 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!!! The Ustaše were not fascists? I know Canada's pretty far away, I just had no idea it was on another planet. Trust me on this one, ok? The sources are not wrong:
-> YOU ARE <-
You know, you're even far too radical for Croatia's right-wing extremists... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascism today, at least here seems to be an epithet - only you poor 'balkanci' tend to still label everything as "fascist". The Ustasa movement was not and never will be a fascist one - take a look at the AMAC reference on the actual NDH article, which I believe is there thanks to you. AP1929 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leave Puppetry to the Puppets, Not Croatia

If Croatia was such a "puppet state" then WHY:

did Italy not recognize Croatia until 2 days after the CROATS had proclaimed the state, Germany five days after.

did Croatia not join the Axis until July of 1941.


did Poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelic reclaim Istra and the small portion of Dalmatia on September 11th on 1943 without consulting anyone?

did the NDH initiate racial laws in May of 1941 instead of April ?

did the NDH abolish anti-semetic laws in 1943?

did the NDH send it's jews to Germany for monetary gain ?

did German soldiers on NDH soil answer and take orders from local authority only and not the German base in Belgrade ?

did NDH exist even after both Italy, Germany - the entire axis - had fallen ?

did criminals answer to the Law of NDH and not the law of Germany or Italy ?

The list can go on and on....

The "puppet state" adjective was imposed on the Croatian nation by Yugoslav communists in order to make it sound as if Croatia never really existed and therefor wouldn't (too bad for them it does today), and it is also used so that Croatia can not make closer reference in history to the Croatian historical right to Bosna and Hercegovina. AP1929 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing wikipedia's "Axis Nations" article - I have noted that out of all the "Axis Nations", only ONE of the "Minor Axis Nations" is branded a "Puppet State" while the rest are not. You can not compare Croatia to actual puppet states such as Manchukuo or Montenegro. Heck, the Slovaks are briefly mentioned at as a "German puppet" in this article, but in the actual article about the Slovak Republic in the 40's "puppet state" is no where to be seen. I would like the wikipedia editors who are not rooted from Croatia / Serbia etc. to make note of the 'twists' in history from our disastrous area all over wikipedia and the internet - and to take fresh CRITICAL eyes to these problems. AP1929 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


None of this means anything (duh!), a country can still be a puppet state. Why do you think this excludes a puppet state? Also the NDH was far more of a puppet state and even less of a state than Manchukuo. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AP1929, I'm interested in what form of words you would prefer to describe the NDH? Could you make a suggestion as to what you would rather see please? Enthusiastic ally of Nazi Germany maybe? So overenthusiastic that even hardened Nazis were shocked by the excesses? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the TRUTH - "Minor Axis Nation" instead of "Puppet State" - even if many sources state "puppet state", the whole point of wikipedia is to provide neutral articles - and "puppet state" is nothing but political criticism which does NOT make for a neutral article. AP1929 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's put it this way - Anti-Croats label the NDH as a puppet state, whereas others do not. You can all see for yourself right here. I am a Croat, I do not label it as such - whereas DIREKTOR is a "Croat" (maybe in regional terms considering he is supports pan-Slavic views) and he is the one who put that term back in. A neutral article should not "lean" one way - in this case, DIREKTOR's view, a neutral article should not include political criticisms as they are not the views of all. AP1929 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Britannica is an anti-Croatian source? We'd better let them know... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Britannica has created an un-neutral article of the NDH based on anti-Croatian sources. Nice try though.AP1929 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racial Legislation

Contrary to popular belief there was never a formal statement/document made by Dr. Mile Budak in regards to "Kill one third, convert one third, expel one third". There should also be mention of the fact that the government of NDH tried to appease it's Serbian population by creating a Croatian Orthodox Church, in an attempt to make ethnic Serbs loyal to the Croatian state. There is a very "iffy" article about the Croatian Orthodox church on wikipedia already, and in it, it claims that Vladimir Singer (Jewish Ustasa) was the one that had "said" that the NDH should "Kill one third..." etc which completely contradicts this part of this article. AP1929 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain this [10] then? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What is that supposed to prove ? Can you read Croatian ? This says nothing about Dr. Mile Budak, and it is issued in 1941 - The issue states that Jews and Serbs move out of homes in certain Zagreb neighborhoods (not all of Zagreb), it doesn't even say anything directly about killing, it simply states that those who do not move out of the neighborhoods within 8 days will be evacuated. AP1929 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to prove (and indeed does prove) that the Ustaše were not quite as nice as you seem to believe. I put it there in response to your remark that "the government of NDH tried to appease it's Serbian population ... in an attempt to make ethnic Serbs loyal to the Croatian state". And yes, I can read Croatian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No one said that the Ustase were "nice", but they aren't "the most inhumane monsters of all time" as some sources would like to label. Every war brings war crimes, and every war brings fanatic thinkers to act. I am not here to deny crimes against humanity, I am here to help contribute to the creation of a neutral article. The government of NDH was often criticized by German officials for not actually enforcing Racial laws in NDH - Dr. Ivan Gabelica's last book has tons of interesting transcripts and documents all about it. And YOU have to understand, that no matter where Serbs live throughout the Balkans - they consider it to be "Serbia" - not all Serbs, but a majority, even recent political figures have been threatening Croatia with "Greater Serbia" borders. The same day that the NDH was declared, Serbs started massacring - Bijelovar is only one example. People have to realize, that time and again, Serbs in Croatia have rebelled against any shape of Croatian independence - take a look at the war in Croatia in the 90's. There are no actual documents that show this "One third" idea, it is often credited to many different Ustasa, and the creation of the Croatian Orthodox church in 1942 is hisotrical fact - why would this be created if the NDH government wanted to kill off the serbs/convert/expell them. The fact of the matter is, there are many Serbian families - whom I have personally interviewed - who lived perfectly normal lives throughout NDH. AP1929 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The government of NDH was much more often "criticised by German officials" for the scale and savagery of their atrocities, as is well documented. Hardened Nazis were frankly appalled by what they had to witness. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Too bad more than half of those "documents" are fake.AP1929 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are they? I've never seen anyone saying that before. Interesting. The main point to bear in mind about NDH is that it was an integral part of Hitler's strategy to divide and rule in Yugoslavia. To see Slav fighting Slav. He accomplished that rather well. The 'Independent' State of Croatia was as 'independent' as the German 'Democratic' Republic was 'democratic'. If Pavelić had woken up one morning and decided he didn't want to be Hitler's buddy anymore then Kasche would've had him replaced before lunchtime. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Alasdair, the guy's obviously in denial here. Though I must say I'm finding the strength of his POV hard to believe. He is willing to denounce every source, every quote, as Serb conspiracy/propaganda. How do you work with this guy?
AP1929, please, on Wikipedia we have rules about the reliability of sources. If something is sourced properly, it cannot be removed on the basis of someone's personal convictions (no matter how strong). Historians supporting your view are obviously less reliable than the sources already provided. I can't make it any clearer than that. These are all facts, trying to deny them is ridiculous and does not warrant a response. Furthermore, I intend to have a look at your contribs to see if other articles have been edited in such a manner as you propose here.
I also suppose, as an interesting digression, that your name means "Ante Pavelić 1929", referring to the year of the formation of the Ustaša movement. Are you a supporter of the Ustaše? (despite what you may think, the Ustaše most certainly are fascists, created and financed by fascist Italy from the beginning) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You've never seen or heard anyone say that before because most Croats don't bother arguing with Yugoslavs like DIREKTOR - we know how it was and we just leave it be, but even that is slowly changing. Everything I have to say is somehow "not allowed" because you aren't "allowed" to go against the norm. You have to understand that this part of Croatian history is beyond tainted thanks to 60 years of communist hegemony over the Croatian people. After 1945 the only people who were allowed to write history were people who were pre-approved by the communists. Hitler needed Croats much more than Croats needed Hitler in later stages. Your last 'statement' is nothing but nonsense. And FYI, Croats are not slavs, and never were.
Direktor, the day you know more about NDH then I do is the day I quit my job and join the partija.AP1929 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no way anyone can convince you they know something you don't, because you know the TRUTH, don't you? Perhaps we should let the fascists and the Nazis write history?
We're not Slavs? Well some Croats do sound more like Turks than Slavs, but I don't think they can deny their culture... (I am familiar with all theories of the origin of the Croats) Hitler needed Croats! LOL ROTFLMAO!! Why because of the few lousy divisions the Ustaše gave him (his army consisted of over 200 divisions)? Please answer: 1) do your beliefs differ in any way from the Ustaše doctrine, my dear history major? 2) Do you support the elimination of Serbs undertaken by the Ustaše government? (I wonder if you have the guts to write up the answers for Wikipedia to see...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"Fascism" is an epithet, and there are no such people that exist today. And no, Croats are not Slavs, Croats speak a Slavic language, but are definitely not Slavs - Croats (majority) have some of the highest percentages of the EU8 Haplotip in Europe along with the Scandinavians - and my very own DNA analysis, and the other 150 that I conducted - proved that to me (along with previous studies). And Yes, Hitler needed the Croats because had we not sided with him, he would have had a 3rd front. There is tons of proof as to why Hitler did not want to 'control' the area - he wanted the Croats to be satisfied so that they did not join the red army en-mass as many did. What is to you the "Ustase doctorine" ? If you are referring to the "Nacela Ustaskog Pokreta", then yes, I do completely agree with them 100 percent, as does any normal Croat. Do I support 'elimination' of anyone ? No. I do not support the elimination of any peoples, killing is not something to take pride in, however, at that time, the entire globe was at war. Once again, I can openly say, that I do not HATE anyone based upon their race or nationality. I LOVE my country and my people, and would stand between anyone who was against it, to defend it and our right to be independent and free. I'm not coming on here to spread HATE - which YOU are doing - I am coming on here to shed some much needed light on a historical topic.AP1929 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
AP, this is extraordinary stuff. So Croats are not Slavs? A quite revolutionary theory that goes against everything that all the other historians, scientists and linguists think. Wow. A further thing that interests me is the breadth of your skills. Not only are you a history major, but you run around personally interviewing Serbian families and conducting DNA analysis on people as well. Where do you find the time for all this endeavour? Truly impressive. As a further point, in response to your comment that "If the Independent State of Croatia was a monarchy from 1941 1943, it would be safe to say that present day Canada and Australia are also monarchies", well, yes, it would be perfectly safe to say that, as both are constitutional monarchies with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State. I'll leave this post there as to do otherwise would lead me to correct more or less everything you have written on this page, except that finally I'd like to point out how frankly daft it is to say "I LOVE my country and my people" because wherever you go in the world you meet good and bad people, irrespective of race, religion, nationality etc. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My dear Alasdair, perhaps you do not know of a theory right-wing Croats developed to justify their existence and ideas of supremacy over other Slavs: there is a "theory" that says Croats are not actually Slavs, but are some weird Arian-like people that came to this area and were oh-so-tragically assimilated by Slavs. Now crusaders for the TRUTH like our friend AntePavelić1929 labor incessantly to enlighten the rest of us as to our true destiny (probably to rule the world, or something). Fortunately DNA haplogroup tests have established that genetic differences between Serbs and Croats are on the whole completely insignificant.
AntePavelić, your sentence that all Croats support the "nacela ustaškog pokreta" are offensive and baseless, not to mention outright stupid considering the current composition of the Croatian Parliament, which consists of almost no right-wing parties (the HDZ is center-right and does certainly not support the "nacela ustaškog pokreta"). But then your lot don't place much stock in democracy do they?

Again, I ask whether you've got the courage to answer my question in a straightforward manner (a simple YES or NO would suffice in this type of question).
Do you, or do you not support the Ustaše movement? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchy

The NDH was never an actual absolute monarchy; the formal "King" never stepped foot in Croatia let alone had any actual power or social influence. Also, the government re-established the Croatian parliament Hrvatski Sabor in 1942 with no mention of it's "King". AP1929 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you then vote accordingly in the discussion on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta? Monarchists would like to picture the NDH as an Italian-controlled state... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ustaše movement

AP1929, as someone who's always been interested in history, I'm delighted to meet someone with non-conventional views. It's great for my education. It's easy to find anti-fascists, but much harder to find the other side. They tend to be pretty covert, sort of shadows in the night, you know. Therefore, to come across someone who is so openly pro-Ustaše as you are is an excellent academic opportunity. If you don't mind, I'd love to hear your rationale about a few things, if you'd be generous enough to take the time to answer a couple of my questions. Namely, could you explain in honest terms what you find so attractive about Pavelić and the Ustaše? What draws you to them, both emotionally and rationally? If you are pro-Pavelić is it automatically true that you are pro-Hitler as well, or are you able to separate the two? Does it ever feel very lonely out there when the mainstream is so against you, or is that isolation a source of strength that makes you even more determined? What do you think were the best qualities about the Ustaše? Why do you think most people are so opposed to the Ustaše?

I've got more questions but those'll do for now. My friend, many thanks in advance for taking the time to answer, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article cleanup

Someone requested a cleanup of this article. I fixed a few grammatical errors, but the section "Tomislav II?" needs major work, not just of the grammar but the references too, so I'll leave a rewrite to someone familiar with the topic. I've removed the general cleanup tag for the article and put one on this section to make it clearer for future editors which text needs work. --83.67.23.108 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please write what is problem with this section or better to say which statements are problem so that I can help you here ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would appear that you are not a native English speaker. Much of what you have written is grammatically incorrect, and much of it doesn't make sense. AniMate 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know for my grammaticall problems but other stuff ?? Let discuss statements on talk page.
Because of Alexander I of Yugoslavia assasination reputation of Pavelić has been king killer. About this there has been agreement between Allies and Axis so Radio London has been speaking about that and Adolf Hitler has been speaking similar stuff on meeting in Bulgaria.
He has not entered Croatia but after becoming king he has proclaimed Raffaelle Guariglia his consultant for Croatian affairs.
Now is possible to understand this part of section ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)