Talk:Independent State of Croatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics / Fascism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Fascism task force.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Independent State of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Independent State of Croatia is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Serbia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yugoslavia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Independent State of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Pic of legionnaires[edit]

The pic of the 'legionnaires' is dubious, as the men in the foreground appear to be wearing the Albanian plisi hat. It seems unlikely that there were Albanians in the 'legionnaire' divisions or that they would have been permitted to wear non-Wehrmacht headgear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the Luftwaffe officers cap and has absolutely nothing to do with anything Albanian. More images of the legionnaires can be seen here. This can be easily verified by searching any of the multitude of websites and publications devoted to German WWII militaria. I'm not an expert, but it appears that the three men with silver piping on their caps are officers while the man on the right is an NCO.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not talking about the aircrew. I'm talking about the blokes with the machineguns over their shoulders.Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see. Forgive my confusion, that photo is actually from Bosnia so the soldiers aren't "legionnaires" in any sense (Bundesarchiv image descriptions have to be treated with a grain of salt). Judging from the period (sometime in the winter of 1943-44, it is likely the 13th Handžar division and those men are the Albanian recruits present in the division before their transfer to the 21st Skanderbeg division.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you're probably right. If this was a German unit, the Albanians should be fully equipped. I guess the most likely explanation is that they're collaborating Balli Kombëtar forces. The huge inaccuracy in the image description is somewhat bizarre though.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking Balli Kombetar myself. Very unlikely they were I/28 SS Handschar, mainly because of the lack of clear SS insignia and proper German equipment. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense about chetnik and ustashe colaboration![edit]

Ustashe murdered over 700,000 Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and others but main number of these were Serbs during 1941-1945. It is monstrous to say that Cheniks collaborated in any extent with the NDH. Please keep in mind that chetnik formations were Serbs. So its ludicrous to say that chetniks collaborated with regime which murdered over 700,000 Serbs in Jasenovac concetration camp. Chetniks did have some agreements with italians regarding fighting ustashe and preventing futher ustashe slaughter of Serbian population. This information about collaboration is inaccurate communist propaganda which was aimed to discredit chetnik movement and put them in the same box with beastial croatian ustashe. During 41'-45 sources claim that more then 1,200.200 Serbs were killed in Croatia, Bosnia and in parts of occupied Serbia.

Please be aware that Chetnik movement is hailed to be one of the first guerilla anti-nazi organisations during world war 2. Chetnik general Draza Mihailovic has been awarded a Legion of Merit from the Congress of United States for his contribution against nazi Germany and saving of over 500 american pilots shot down by german forces. Wikipedia will lose prestige, if everyone can contribute inaccurate information, and lately i find alot of inaccuracies, even lies written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

so you say. This is an encyclopedia so bring your sources and we will discuss.Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A great example of the sort of propaganda that runs rampant in Serbia. One will rarely find beliefs so widespread that are so far from the facts as in the myths about the "noble" Chetnik movement. These sort of deep-rooted perceptions about the "brave national heroes" are very hard to dispel with sources.
Portions of the Chetnik movement that came into contact with the Ustase authorities did collaborate with them. The facts about this "collaboration between collaborators" are known to the very finest details. The Chetnik movement collaborated to varying degrees with virtually every Axis authority in occupied Yugoslavia, NDH included. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:JosipBrozTitoandGenKochaPopovitch.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:JosipBrozTitoandGenKochaPopovitch.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JosipBrozTitoandGenKochaPopovitch.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New name[edit]

Can we name it: Kingdom of Croatia (1941-1945)? My reasons:

--Luis Molnar (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It was only a monarchy until the Italians capitulated in 1943 and its name as used by the governing body was the NDH. The titular 'King' never set foot on Croatian soil. WP:COMMONNAME applies here, as does WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Its debatable whether he really was even the titular king. According to some sources, he refused the title after the annexation of Dalmatia, and actually swore before his men never to assume the crown. -- Director (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the page back to "Independent State of Croatia" and nominated "Kingdom of Croatia (1991-1995)" for speed deletion, while there may be some controversy over the name at the moment given how wrong Luis Molnar (talk · contribs) got the dates I hope we can all agree the deletion is uncontroversial. --Thefrood (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed. And "Kingdom of Croatia (1941-1945)" would be no less ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I too think it would be better if the article name stayed as "Independent State of Croatia", as this leaves the exact form of Government and how it evolved open to explanation in the article. --Thefrood (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Replying to the OP - no, no, no, and irrelevant. Please do actually read some of these articles - the state's monarchical status was pathetic at best, and the modern-day constitution says exactly the opposite of what you said. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you seem to have a history in these botched renames - in July last year you moved the Serbian WWII article to "Serbian State" [1], which was summarily undone as well. Please, in the future, do think twice before causing more work for others. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthem?[edit]

Was there an anthem? -- Director (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was 'Lijepa nasha domovino' but not officially promulgated as such. I might have a ref to it somewhere. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
G'day Wustenfuchs, do you have a ref for the anthem? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't saw your reply earlier. Yes, I have a source: Šuvar, Stipe. Svi naši nacionalizmi [All of Our Nationalisms]. Milić-Rakić, 1986. "Za neke je hrvatska himna „Lijepa naša domovino" sumnjiva, jer im miriše na hrvatski nacionalizam, a opet drugi su nesretni ako se ona ne pjeva. I s tim treba računati. Bila je himna i u tzv. NDH... [It was a hymn in the NDH...]" (p. 35) --Wustenfuchs 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

Regarding the proposed merger of Italian occupation zone of the Independent State of Croatia and German occupation zone of the Independent State of Croatia - I support such a move completely. There's a bare-bones section in this article and the two separate articles are just stubs. If and when there's sufficient notable material to develop the articles that's fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the merger, after all, it wasn't an occupation zone, but only zone of influence, it's a big difference. --Wustenfuchs 01:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with that assertion, but we don't have to have that discussion now, we can do it after the merge. Strongly support. BTW, I think we could go ahead on this as it appears we are in fierce agreement about it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I supose we can move on with the merger... and Peacemaker, if you speak about my assertion, in Croatian literature only zone of influence are mentioned, no occupation zone, as ISC wasn't occupied territory, rather an, de iure, independent state. --Wustenfuchs 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We'll need to compare sources on that, I haven't had a chance to look at it as yet, but I will get to it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't rm sourced material please! Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but I think we shouldn't include Cohen as he didn't even delt with the administrative division of the ISC, but some Jews as I recall and mentioned those zones as occupational without explanation. --Wustenfuchs 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Orange was the color of ceremonial uniform of the Military Police of the Independent State of Croatia[edit]

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "The orange combines the energy of red and happiness of yellow. Is associated with joy, sunshine and warmth. Orange represents enthusiasm, fascination, happiness, creativity, determination, attraction, success, encouragement and stimulation. Orange is the hot color, so it gives the sensation of heat, but despite this, it is not as aggressive as red. Increases oxygen supply to the brain, produces an invigorating effect, and stimulates mental activity. It is very popular among young people, effective in raising mental capacity as it stimulates conversation and creativity. "Source: Croatian daily Glas Slavonia, Osijek. Orange is the official color, was the dress uniform of the Military Police of the Independent State of Croatia, which is worn only on Sundays to go to Mass or for the State holidays. 78.2.73.149 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV and significant whitewashing[edit]

There are significant issues with NPOV and whitewashing in this article. I have tagged the article and will shortly commence detailing issues in each section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Do go ahead, Peacemaker. -- Director (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation of NDH in various languages[edit]

Why is necessary to include Italian and German? See the Soviet Union as an example. And second, why should we use SC insted of Croatian? --Wüstenfuchs 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I find the translations in Italian and German unremarkable. The NDH was a creation of the Germans, and was occupied by both countries. I'll leave Director to respond re hr vs sc. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but why is that matter? NDH's position towards other countries is insignificant regarding the translation. --Wüstenfuchs 20:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Once again, it just reflects the political reality, I fail to see why including those translations would be controversial. It underlines the nature of the state. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets not get into just how completely this state was controlled by the Germans (in their half) and Italians (in theirs). This was a German puppet state and an Italian protectorate, it even had an Italian "king" (sort of). The addition of these languages is relevant in view of the fact that the state was an extension of these two states. And Serbo-Croatian is there because there were a whole lot of non-Croats living there. -- Director (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were, but that isn't the point... take Estonia for example. Also consider the new grammar implemented in 1941. --Wüstenfuchs 05:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that the official language of the NDH was Croatian, however that is a separate isue from what language tag we use in the text, especially in the lead. The sh tag seems most appropriate there. But that aside, do you accept the argument regarding the German and Italian? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes. But let us go back to the SC. It's not more appropriate. It's not just about this language being official, every signle document was writen in Croatian, people learned Croatian in schools etc. No matter were those Serbs, Germans or Hungarians, they were all citizens of the NDH, except the Jews. Also, it's about part of Croatian history. Serbs or Bosniaks don't pay much attention to the NDH in schoolbooks etc. And if we go by what language people speak then we should use Serbian and Croatian etc, even though Croatian only should be used. --Wüstenfuchs 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
What absolute nonsense. It's honestly difficult to believe someone would write a comment like that. Are we supposed to bow to the Croatian fascist policies that were present at the time? ...or accept the ridiculous notion that this part of history is exclusive to only Croats and that it is not in the interest of non-Croat pupils of former Yugoslavia? Again what rubbish. Articles like Brazil have "Portuguese" in the lead not "Brazilian Portuguese" likewise Mexico does not have "Mexican Spanish" in its lead, but rather "Spanish". The reliable sources of linguists are clear on the language matter there as they are here. --PRODUCER (TALK) 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not nonsense. You know well the problem with SC. It's not like British or American English, the things are more complicated then that. Still, see Estonia and the Soviet Union as an example. And yes, don't label other people and their edits as fascist... you, PRODUCER, won't accept fascist policy by any means while writing on Wikipedia, what are we talking about here? I believe that majority of people that lived in the NDH speaks either Croatian or Serbian, adding SC is rather a political move. --Wüstenfuchs 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances did I call any editor or their contributions fascist. You brought up its officiality as an argument and I simply recalled that policies in place at the time were based on Croatian fascism which is factually correct. My justification on Serbo-Croatian is on linguistic lines. On the other hand the addition of Croatian and indeed its supposed existence is purely political. --PRODUCER (TALK) 16:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not political... who lived on the territory of the NDH, Croats and Serbs. Those two speak Croatian and Serbian not Serbo-Croatian, this represents a problem. Adding SC is actually political. Besides officiality, Croatian was used on its whole territory, in schools, courts, hospitals etc. No matter if NDH's regime was fascist or communist, Wikipedia is about facts. Internationally recognised or not, the state, de facto, existed and used Croatian language, widely. Once again I'll mention that none of those people that lived on the territory of the NDH speaks Serbo-Croatian. I know what lingustis say, and the thing is it's disputed and highly controversial. --Wüstenfuchs 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Wustenfuchs, I understand your point of view, and it is this view that actually kept me from realizing this is the most logical language entry.
1. The lead language entries include relevant modern-day languages, whereas the historical native official name is in the infobox.
2. As this state included vast numbers of Bosniaks and Serbs, it concerns Bosniak and Serbian history as well. hence we would need to list the Serbian and Bosnian languages.
3. Wherever its necessary to list all three standards of the Serbo-Croatian language, its logical simply to include the Serbo-Croatian language as such.
4. Finally, this state was an extension of the German and Italian states. It was a protectorate of Italy (like Albania, for example), and a puppet state of Germany. As such it is relevant to include the languages of the puppet-master states as well, thsi state being a part of their history as well.
At the risk of repeating what has been said about a thousand times on the relevant talkpages: there is no dispute whatsoever among linguists and the scientific community in general regarding the fact that Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are registered standards of a single language. This view (as far as the Croatian language is concerned) is only "controversial" in Croatia. -- Director (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
And yet DIREKTOR, you have a problem there. Bosniaks speak Bosnian/Bosniak language, in which we have a wrong translation. It's Nezavisna država Hrvatska, only "nezavisna" and "Hrvatska" use capital letters. It's the reason why I brought up 1941 grammar etc. --Wüstenfuchs 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you are alone on this one, Wustenfuchs. Language templates on these articles are a constant irritation and it would be must better if everyone agreed to a neutral position on them and kept the national variety for the info box. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
We can use standard Serbo-Croatian capitalization, Wustenfuchs. Bosnian (like Croatian and Serbian) isn't really a language as such, and does not require a separate entry next to Serbo-Croatian. -- Director (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Problems I see here:
  • (1)The state did not use Cyrillic text.
  • (2) "Serbo-Croatian" as a title of the language did not exist then, the language from 1918 to 1929 was referred to as "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" and after 1929 "Yugoslavian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the title adopted during Tito-era Yugoslavia. Furthermore the state was led by a Croatian ultra-nationalist, anti-Yugoslav, and anti-Serb movement, so why would the language authorized in its territory be referred to using either the existing Yugoslavian-originated terms "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" or "Yugoslavian"?
  • (3) the use of the languages of German or Italian are dubious. If and only if through Italy's protectorate agreement with Croatia that involved an official Italian king ruling Croatia and through the agreement's statements of cultural and economic connection between Italy and Croatia, can it be considered that the Italian language would be a language admissible in the state, due to Croatia being de jure identified as within the sphere of the Italian Empire. Outside of that, there would not be justification, as the government of the NDH wrote its documents in Latin Croatian/Serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian/whatever you want to call it.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Culture section[edit]

The Culture section is currently a coatrack for a whole range of things, including education, the Croatian Red Cross, the Geneva Conventions, holidays (including religious ones), workers housing (although this is perhaps meant to represent architecture), as well as the media and sport. I suggest a look at Nazi Germany#Culture and that this section be trimmed, and the Red Cross info be moved to the Foreign relations subsection of the Politics section, where the Geneva Conventions are already mentioned. I don't really understand why the religious holidays are even there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Languages issue again[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since no one responded to what I posted before on the discussion on the languages issue, I am cutting and pasting what I said, for people to look at.

Problems with the current languages used in the intro and infobox:
  • (1)The state did not use Cyrillic text.
  • (2) "Serbo-Croatian" as a title of the language did not exist then, the language from 1918 to 1929 was referred to as "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" and after 1929 "Yugoslavian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the title adopted during Tito-era Yugoslavia. Furthermore the state was led by a Croatian ultra-nationalist, anti-Yugoslav, and anti-Serb movement, so why would the language authorized in its territory be referred to using either the existing Yugoslavian-originated terms "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" or "Yugoslavian"?
  • (3) the use of the languages of German or Italian are dubious. If and only if through Italy's protectorate agreement with Croatia that involved an official Italian king ruling Croatia and through the agreement's statements of cultural and economic connection between Italy and Croatia, can it be considered that the Italian language would be a language admissible in the state, due to Croatia being de jure identified as within the sphere of the Italian Empire. Outside of that, there would not be justification, as the government of the NDH wrote its documents in Latin Croatian/Serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian/whatever you want to call it.--R-41 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you are confusing two things. The first is the official language (which was Croatian and is in the infobox). No-one is arguing that Cyrillic was used in the NDH, in fact it was outlawed in order to further marginalise the Serb community. The second is the question of which current languages it is appropriate for the article title to be translated into in the lead. They are two very separate issues. The most appropriate current language for translation is Serbo-Croatian, in both its scripts. As far as Italian and German are concerned, the state wouldn't even have existed without them. The Italians and Germans also effectively occupied their respective zones, in fact the Italians excluded NDH forces from large areas for considerable periods of time. On that basis they are both appropriate. I don't see the problem. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
1. On Wikipedia, Croatian is Serbo-Croatian, so its in the lede as well as the infobox (which is kinda obvious from the identical name). These are not two different languages. And yes, Serbo-Croatian did exist before 1945, except under a different name ("Yugoslav language", "Serbian or Croatian", etc.).
2. The translations in the lede are not supposed to reflect official historical use, they are there to assist modern-day readers with relevant translations, not provide historical information on official languages and such. Usually the official native name(s) as used by the former country is displayed in the infobox.
3. It has been established that the state was a protectorate of Italy (hence Italian) and a puppet state of Germany (hence German). I suppose one might argue for the removal of these languages (i.e. that is the only debateable issue), but I myself see them as relevant and useful. -- Director (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The Italian language perhaps can be shown in the infobox because the state was officially a protectorate of Italy in accordance to the Treaties of Rome of 1941. However there is no evidence of official use of the Italian language by the state, nor is there evidence of official use of the Cyrillic version of Serbo-Croatian by the state, nor German. There was no agreement with Germany that declared the state to be officially within its control. The issue of usefulness is disputable - since this is an English language version of Wikipedia, how does including a German translation of the name of the state help here? The translation that should be included is from its root name in its original language. If Italian was an official language of the state via its protectorate status, then that should be included. Beyond those two circumstances, it does not help English readers to see other translations, the readers can clearly read that the state was under de facto control of Germany. German-speaking people can find this material on German Wikipedia with that translation.--R-41 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with adding Italian as an official language. What source do you have for that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I will not try too hard to explain, because it seems impossible for people in Western Europe to understand that Serbian and Croatian are not the same language. That name was imposed. If you want to imply that Serbian and Croatian are one and the same language, then why don't you just call it Croatian? Why Serbocroatian? Do you even know what is THE ONLY reason for such name? To show that Croats and Serbs are brothers, and that we are same nation. There was a lot of violence over croatian language, and many changes, to make it as more simillar to serbian as possible. So in here, in Croatia, language was named "hrvatskosrpski" (croato-serbian), and in Serbia it was named "srpskohrvatski" (serbo-croatian). So, if you continue to claim that it is the same language, you should look in history, and in literature, where you will realise that language can only be croatian. Then you should say that Croats speak croatian, and Serbs speak Serbocroatian. That would be more accurate. Also, you should keep in mind, that wikipedia sources for such stupid claims about our language are sources that no one in Croatia takes seriously, including university professors. No language expert, no one. In eyes of most Croatians (sadly not all), Wikipedia in English sometimes looks really stupid, and we laugh a lot when we read some stupid claims about us, and sources you use on en.wiki. Also, one more thing. It doesn't matter what language we speak. We write totally different, and Wikipedia is about writing and reading, not about talking and listening. Serbian is mostly understandable, also Slovenian, Bosnian, and Macedonian to some point, but... Reading Serbian is something totally different. Not only because of cyrilic. But because the way they write. But I'll let someone else try to explain, because I have a feeling that it will be just a loss of time. It will not help you to understand, because your mind is already made, and stupid references will support your claims... How ignorant people can be... Anyway, in every article about Croatia, there should be no serbocroatian, or cyrilic. PS - no, cyrilic wasn't forbidden to further marginalise Serbs. Because before that Serbs were not marginalised at all. Croats were. By pro serbian rulers. In heart of Croatia. After over 20 years of occupation, Croats had enough cultural and language devastation, too many murdered croats, and claims that Croats are only Serbs that were converted to catholicism. So whoever said that cyrilic was forbidden to further marginalise Serbs is - WRONG. --Zekoslavac (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Edit and reversion regarding Cyrillic text[edit]

User:TRAJAN117 has made what I consider a controversial edit, mainly around the use of Cyrillic in the infobox for the native name, changing the nature of the government in the infobox, removing the Lutheran Church and Islam from the religion field and translation of the anthem into Cyrillic. TRAJAN117 has also changed the link for the field "Prime Ministers" from List of leaders of Independent State of Croatia to Prime Minister of Croatia, effectively equating the NDH with the current state of Croatia. I reverted this edit on the basis of good faith, and asked that TRAJAN117 bring these matters to talk. He did not do this, but instead reverted my reversion. Given that the use of Cyrillic was in fact banned in the NDH, and that Volksdeutsche and Muslims continued to practice their religions undisturbed, I am beginning to suspect that TRAJAN117 has a particular POV to push here. This is reinforced by the link change to the current Prime Minister of Croatia article. I am reverting TRAJAN117's edits on the basis of the above discussion, which TRAJAN117 should himself have initiated per WP:BRD and my message on his talkpage here [2], which he immediately deleted. Please engage in discussion here without reverting. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aimone initially rejected the crown over Dalmatia, but he later accepted when pressured by Italy's King Victor Emmanuel III but never moved to Croatia to rule[edit]

I am adjusting the intro because it is missing the fact that in spite of Aimone's initial rejection of the crown, Aimone did accept the crown after Italy's King Victor Emmanuel III pressured him to do so, but never moved to Croatia to rule. Thus he did legally accept the position, but he never took up residence in Croatia to actually exercise it. The source for this is the following: reference #45 of Fascism's European Empire: Italian Occupation during the Second World War by Davide Rodogno.--R-41 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Bosniaks[edit]

NDH regime targeted Bosniaks? Citation? That's completely wrong - Bosniaks were considered as Muslim Croats and held important positions in NDH government, army and ustasha military. Check out Croatian subarticle on NDH relations towards Bosniaks (named like that in 1993). --Povjesnicar (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Italy[edit]

Also small part of todays Italy was part of NDH (f.e. Trieste was in NDH as Trst) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.180.227 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Word "poglavnik"[edit]

Word "poglavnik" was NOT coined by Ustaše. It was recorded in 19th century (maybe even earlier) in similar meanings (chief, leader, headman...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.250.17 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing[edit]

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Influence of Nazi Germany - false data[edit]

In this paragraph you have two german sources which are labeled "citation needed". How does someone know exact citation from report, but doesn't know where he/she took it from? It more looks like quote from some Serbian or Yugoslavian book, than real report.

Gestapo report, even if exists, probably is not true. Evidence, testimonies, and documents revealed and published in last two decades show that Ustaše regime punished so called "wild ustashe" for crimes against orthodox. They were called "wild ustashe" (translated from croatian), and Ustashe Government had no control over them. In this 1999 documentary made by Croatian Radiotelevision (HRT), about events in small place called Srb, and massacre over Croats, including frying catholic priest like a pig on a stick, a document (serbian propaganda) is shown at 16:48 (youtube video). It is in latin, written by Serbs. It says that Croats have tortured and brutally killed 382.000 Serbs. That propaganda material is very simmilar to Gestapo report. But reality is that after the war, no one ever brings that up. They bring up 700.000 victims in Jasenovac, some of them went even to 1.400.000... Now number of victims is ESTIMATED to 70.000, but in reality only a little bit over 400 skeletons were found. So we in Croatia have two major sources of documents. One is Serbian and communist propaganda that justifies slaughter they made, and the other is documents and testemonies that show otherwise. However, many documents from Independent State of Croatia were taken to Belgrade, and are still there. (Neither of those sources denied crimes, but they vary in numbers). Reality is also that Croats didn't have such army or weapons to carry out execution of 300.000 people in such short time. And if Croats were able to do that, there would be no more Serbs left. Demographic research also show that this was impossible. Enemy (Serbs) were well armed and their massacres in 1941 unstoppable. Only crimes that can reach hundreds of thousands were those made by joined foreces of Yugoslav partisans, serbian chetniks (many joined partisan movement), ordered by communists. It took them more than one month of exterminations when the war ended. So how did Croats massacre 300.000 Serbs at the beginning of the war, if Serbs were well armed, and croatian defence forces still in beginning? Makes no sense, not even Serbs in Croatia today mention that, and there is no evidence what so ever to support that claim.

General's report, if true and if exists, is probably also based on propaganda. There was no slaughterhouse in Croatia that they could have found upon their arrival, because Croats did not have army or weapons, and Serbs ruled Croatia until it's "liberation" (German occupation) in 1941.

If there is no citation to support such claims, I recommend deleting this propaganda.

(Please keep in mind, english is not my native, and I don't want to change something on my own, while you can do it much better than me.)--Zekoslavac (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014[edit]

Partisan Resistance >> The Partisan commander, Marshall Josip Broz Tito, was half Croatian, half Slovenian.


not in order of; half Slovenian half Croatian. (Primarily) As he was born in Croatia of Croatian father with Croatian surname,(secondly) mother Slovenian [1]

References
  1. ^ Josip Broz Tito Wikipedia

Nazorin (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sam Sing! 07:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014[edit]

NDH wasn't Nazi puppet state, it was Independent state. Educate before writing lies. 78.3.125.219 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't independent (except in name), there are multiple reliable sources that call it a puppet state. Sadly, some continue to push this nonsense about it's so-called "independence". It was essentially occupied by the Axis throughout, and couldn't have existed without their support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement in the article is nonsense[edit]

The following statement is in the article: "Military forces from other Axis powers, including Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria made few gains during the invasion."

That is nonsense, Italy controlled the entire Adriatic coastline of what was Yugoslavia, Hungary took a large portion of Vojvodina, and Bulgaria took Vardar Macedonia. These were not "few gains". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.74.119 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)