Talk:Ustaše/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Quisling organization in 1929?

The introduction states that the Ustase were a quisling organization during WWII - and that does seem to be the basis under which they gained and held power. But then it said they were a quisling nationalist organization at the time of their founding in 1929. I deleted that second "quisling" because that could not have been the case in 1929, when Hitler was four years away from being appointed Chancellor (note: appointed, not elected). It looks as though they were a nationalist organization at their founding, which gained power solely because of their willingness to be and value as quislings. If I'm mistaken, please explain. --Davecampbell 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't we all just get along?

I just waded through the discussion page above to see if anyone had talked about the changes I was about to make (see "quisling" above) and was shocked to see the venom being spewed. Let us not use profanity. Let us not assume things about the ideology, ethnicity, hygeine or parentage of other posters, based on the fact that we disagree with what they say. "Bullshit" is not an argument. Regardless of the explicit plea at the top of the page, only one cross-link reference appears above, and that's to a tangentially related event.

And through it all, I see legitimate points being posted on both sides, which if stripped of the acrimony could make for an interesting discussion - the kind of interesting discussion that makes Wikipedia such an outstanding resource, aside from its goal, and the goal of all Wikipedians -- to make all human knowledge freely available to all humans, everywhere. At least, that's what it means to me... --Davecampbell 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At least let's try

In the archived discussions from 2006 there was some serious intent to reach consensus on the Wikipedia entry under discussion, which is what these talk pages should be all about. I would urge those contributing here to confine their efforts to improving the article, whether by deleting or amending text or by adding references to reliable external sources.

The article as it stands is commendably well balanced, thanks largely to contributors who seem now to have deserted the project. No doubt it would still benefit from further editing, additional information and more references to external sources. But that is true of any Wikipedia entry. Does this one really need, still, to have a disputed tag at the top? In order to return all our thoughts to the article itself, I'm going to remove that tag. Anyone who disgrees is free to restore it, but it would be more constructive just to improve the entry.Kirker 11:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture discrepancy...

The Waffen SS picture is in colour, and seems to be filmed...Is that accurate? All the propaganda films I know of are in black and white. Is this real? 24.218.57.174 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide?

I have a question concerning the massacres on the Serb population during WW II because I'm writing a paper on this topic:

Are these massacres committed by the Ustasa regime on the Serb population during the Second World War recognised by the United Nations as genocide? If you have the answer, please site the reference!

Thanks a lot

Thomas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas vanh (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe they are, the victims are referred to as casualties of the war.

Actually, it is. But note that "genocide" was UN-sanctioned after WWII. --PaxEquilibrium 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pax, do you have sources on your claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusich (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rewrite this article and use a non-Serb and non-Croat historian to do so!

While many facts stated in the article are true, the article is very onesided and should include both sides of the story.

Since neither the Croats nor Serbs can agree on what is true and what not, I suggest a deletion of this article and to have it rewritten by a non-Serbian and non-Croat historian...preferably someone with no ties to either country...a Chinese or Indoesian person for example.

The article as is, is not worthy of the Wikipedia standards. Lusich 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. We don't delete articles just like that. Improve it, better. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Serbian, non-Croatian sources

This article should not be deleted, as it carries no contravercy whatsoever. The American Institute for Balkan Affairs confirms the exent at which the atrocities in Balkans were commited by the Croat Ustasha, as do many western scholars in regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Millex (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Current Status

I would like to add a point that hasnt been brought to light in this recent discussion. Many people are attacking what is said in this article and that is fine, but no one is taking a middle ground. When you want to prove who did what, hold up the different versions of history to what the current status of the country is now. Croatia is developing economically very fast, there are minorities from many different countries moving there, and they have passed laws banning hate symbols. In the mean time the Serbs are not developing economically. They kill each other and their government officials in the streets. Serbs are leaving Serbia to come to Croatia for jobs. And the CHETNIK symbols are part of their NATIONAL FLAG!! Seems their pride of a greater Serbia is slipping away. Who committed the acts of Srebrenica? Yes Croatians were accused of genocide as well, but no one is looking at the scale of genocide. Gen. Gotovina of the Croatia army was arrested for genocide and war crimes that amounted to less that 50 people. While the Serbs, with television crews watching, raped and murdered city after city. Sometimes with helpless UN troups watching. If you want to know which history to belive, look at what they have done recently and you will know what is right. Im not saying Croatia is never wrong, but the Serbian media has spent the time from after World War Two until now decrediting all Croatians because for the main part, they were the second largest group in Yugoslavia and a major political rival. The NDH (Independant state of Croatia)did some very horrible things, but it was also the first time in a long time Croatia had any type of national identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.102.131 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


While I do not know whether or not you are correct in noting that the Serbians have chetnik symbols in their national flag, I think it is worth noting that the Independent State of Croatia used the same red-and-white chequered motif on their flag as the modern country of Croatia does on theirs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't (The design was associated with Croatia long before the Ustahe hi-jacked it), but I do think that the point you are making about the Serbian flag is not a good one. Moreover the current economic state of Serbia versus Croatia has nothing do do with whether or not the Ustashe committed various war crimes against the Serbians. In short, stop ranting.

Matisia 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My say means something...

I am the grandson of the brother of Major Rafael Boban, "the evil man". Is there anything evil about loving your country? Believe me I don't think its OK what my grandfather led. Although you Americans and all countries pinpoint stuff like this to cover up their own actions. Anyone here ever heard of "march of death"? No? It's a little story about hundreds of Croatian soldiers who surrendered to the British in WWII. They were led back back to Croatia by foot, anyone who fell would be shot on the spot. Britain knows any soldier who surrenders is not killed and led to a prison for a later trial. Getting back to the point what we did was bad, but in all non-facist, non-racist sentence I have to say, Gypsies aren't wanted or needed in ANY country, Serbs were cowards who would be killed just like a Croatian soldier would be killed,. So in all I don't justify killing. But in the end its a war. Don't expect flowers and nice things to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.36.236 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is war. A croatian agression by their fascists called Ustashi on their serb minority, just like nowadays. Ustashe are the deepest evil mankind can produce. Nothing on earth can be hated in such a manner like croats can hate serbs. And the product out of this haterage are Ustashi. In no other concentration camp the inmates where murdered with more bestiality than in Jasenovac by the Ustashi. That is a fact, although not known to the wide public nowadays.

Ok... so what's the point of this post? There's a lot of acrimony, particularly from the Croatian camp, on this page. My personal history is that my family was split on it and my grandfather was captured by the Nazis while some of his relatives went into hiding in Argentina. I understand the fervid patriotism involved in doing these unspeakable things, but they are pretty low. Then again, pretty much every conflict between Croats and Serbs ends in a crime against humanity? I actually found the article relatively balanced, since Ustase did in fact side with the Nazis to make ground on an ethnic conflict that predates the war. Maybe if someone could put this article in that broader context it might satisfy critics. Odd little story an uncle once told me: After Ustace were first comissioned by the Nazi army to kill as many partisans as possible. The officers came back with several bags of ears: men women and children. The Nazis were actually a bit disturbed by how gleeful they were about the job. Probably apocrypha, but the point is that the entirity of Yugoslav conflict has been especially cruel and violent. These guys were part of it.

[edit] So what Religion were they?

Was the Ustase Muslim- or Prot, I know I saw they they were affiliated with the Catholic church but I found it incredibly hard just to find a easy answer from ther article. Maybe who wrote this could clarify it!!


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AustinFoley (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Ustašas were catholic( most of them). However there were many muslims who joined after Bosnia became a part of Croatia. Still there are many debates even today in Croatia who were the good or the bad guys. Partisans and Ustašas were mostly living in rural areas and they just followed these ideologies without knowing why. By becoming an Ustaša many people thought that they are fighting for an independent Croatia which was controlled by others for more than 1000 years. So even today there are people who are in favour of this regime.

[edit] What Jasenovac truly is....

I just have to say few things about Jasenovac, Croatian concentration camp for Serbs and other non-Croats. There are different data about number of people who were killed. But, most the most likely is the the one about 300 000-400 000 killed during Second World War. Also, ustashe (like none other fascist nation in Europe) had concentration camps FOR CHILDREN. Chetniks are serbian military formation that have origins since Serb-Croatian dispute and war. War crimes commit in name of chetniks are crimes like every other, and every Serb are ashamed of them. Serb never wanted war, we were always dragged in. So, that thing about Serbs-killing machines is nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.152.223 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Poor Serbs ! They are really unlucky. In last 100 years they have been in 8 wars (Balkan war I (1912), Balkan war II (1913), World war I (1914 - 1918), World war II (1941 - 1945), Slovenia war(1991), Croatia war (1991 - 1995), Bosnia war (1991 - 1995), Kosovo war 1999) but they have never wanted war. Really, really unlucky people. Rjecina 14:20, 14 May 2006

[edit] Liberated?

It is completely incorrect to say that red army liberated Croatia (A political POV, communist propaganda, as Soviets were nothing but oppressors to many)), there has to be more accurate term for what happened.

Please sign your username so we can have an idea of who is writing what. It is the most well accepted term; pro-Nazi apologism is, certainly, not part of mainstream scholarship. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Will do, as soon as I figure which email account I used to register my username the last time, formatted the computer a while ago and havent edited wiki under my own name for a good while.

pro-nazi apologism? Oh please, its certainly not worse than pro-soviet propaganda.

It is highly questionable, on the part of your single-purpose editing, not to distinguish between overthrowin Nazi power wherever and what happned after. El_C 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The TRUTH

The Ustase had not commited geocide they where just protecting there country. The the only people the Croatians killed where the ones that attacked Croatia. 1 source that I have is that when the Croatians lost the war the English gave up the Croatians to the Partizani which later the Partzani Killed more then 300 000 thousand Croats and Civilians But all Serbians think that Croatians hate them the Partizan are the ones who started a genocide agianst the Croats.

LUKAPENDES 06:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor Ustase ! Really, really sad story about them. They have been really unlucky. Regards of croatian user from Croatia.Rjecina 10:46, 23 May 2007 (CET)

To the TRUTH: We wonder why the world is in the state it is in? People's POV and sense of reality has become so twisted and obtuse. Everyone who has SERIOUSLY studied Balkan History know the truth..and my friend it's no your version.

I am a non-serb, non-croat who has travelled to both countries. I must tell everyone that the people I encountered in Beograd were both welcoming and very sophisticated, a multi-cultural city. I had a very different and difficult time in Zagreb. There seems to be some huge inferiorty complex with croations. I have croation friends who have told me of the lack of tolerance in Croatia.. And I witnessed it first hand.

Bill Zelinski

--Racerx11080 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) My grandfather lived in Croatia during World War II, he was the menager of rail road station,and he was burned live in ortodox church by Ustashe, with village teacher, and ortodox priest. ALL of them were civiliants, so claim that Ustashe didn't kill anyone unless they attacked Croatia is LIE! THEY COMMITED GENOCID (by today's standards!!!) P.S. I'm half Croat, half Serbian, so I am probabbly the most objectiv person on this page!

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia

Has anyone researched the catholic encyclopedia for information about Ustaše, Miroslav Filipović, or World War II? I did and found nothing. I would like to read the Catholic perspective on these subjects.

Oliverte 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ustaše/Ustasha etc - how to spell

In making my last revisions I changed Ustasha etc to Ustaše wherever I noticed variants, except where a variant was clearly intended for a specific purpose or was in a quote. I've done this (and will continue to do it as I stumble on other spellings) because inconsistency will not help the article's credibility. It could be argued that as this is English-language Wikipedia, the English phonetic approximation of "Ustasha" would be more appropriate. But for better or worse the article main heading is "Ustaše" and that spelling, along with other spellings, is clearly explained at the beginning of the article. Until or unless the article main heading is changed, I would suggest that we stick to "Ustaše." I would ask others to correct any variants they see, bearing in mind that such spellings may continue to be introduced by people who are unable to use characters like š, đ etc.Kirker 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] June 30 2007: Neutrality still disputed?

It seems to be Giorgio who put the NPOV tag back on. I think his reasons were flimsy. (See Very Dubious Text above and my response.) Obviously any Wikipedia entry can go on being improved for ever, as hopefully this one will be. In the meantime can we not agree that whatever its flaws, the article as it now stands reflects an honest attempt at neutrality by a fairly broad spread of people, most of whom have tried to respect Wikipedia principles? If we can, the NPOV tag can surely come off. Kirker 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 07 reversions

When I redrafted NovaNova's opening paragraph, the version that he/she had started from (by The Myotis) had not been visible to me for some reason. Otherwise I would simply have reverted to it. But having done the work, I think my version should stand. Three reasons. First, Wikipedia should not rely on definitions supplied by other works of reference. It is no better practice to cite a dictionary than to cite Encyclopedia Brittanica. Second, it is wrong to state that the Ustaše "ruled Croatia." Third, to say the Ustaše ruled with Nazi support implies that the Nazis provided encouragement or assistance to the Ustaše regime, whereas they frequentlz found Ustaše policies and activities counter-productive; sometimes nauseating. Their presence did however ensure that the regime was unhindered by interference from the Allies. It is appropriate to characterise that role as protection. Fourth, even without these caveats it is hard to see that NovaNova's edits in any way improve either mine or those by The Myotis that NovaNova revised in the first place.Kirker 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: use non-Croat & non-Serb historian to write article

fair enough -- any suggestions?