Talk:Ante Pavelić

Most murderous regime I

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

Snowspinner ????

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

--Avala

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

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

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

:D--Avala 15:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

About the term "most murderous regime": this is first subjective and prone to edit wars as I see here and second, the situation in occupied parts of Soviet Union with partisan activity was possibly as bad or worse. I would recommend to stick with version [1] by 83.139.82.247. Pavel Vozenilek 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am by no means an apologist for the Croat fascists, but I think the label 'most murderous regime' needs some

The sourcing is given below. This regime is known for the bestialities that surpassed anything seen in the wartime. Even German and Italian occupying forces were prompted to stop Ustashi in commiting them - horrfied by what they had seen. I'm afraid that the numbers of the corpses per Ustashi capita are much bigger than the ones that could be calculated for Germans.--Purger 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

sourcing. For example, someone coming to this page who isn't an expert would probably assume Nazi Germany was the 'most murderous regime' of the period - concentration camps directly run by the Nazis were responsible for a good few million murders, even before we look at occupied Russia. So, to be blunt, if the Croats are going to beat the Germans they are not going to do it on sheer number of corpses. Maybe on some measure such as number of murders per German/Croat citizen, per square mile of occupied territory, or per head in teritory under their control. Quite possibly you're right, but we could do with a citation to demonstrate it.81.41.90.223 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Caputt quote

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

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

Oh, bleh, I didn't notice it was an anonymous edit at first, I just went by the name seen above the diff output. I'm sorry!

In any case, the comment itself stands, I'll go edit the paragraph. --Shallot 00:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most murderous regime II

There is a person claiming as if

1. (The last paragraph is a total bias opinion and should not be found in an encyclopedia, considering you can not label Ustase as the worst murderers in all of Europe)
2. (Ustase were not a fascist organization by definition even though they might have taken on many fascist ideologies. Also FICTIONAL books such as Kaputt should not be used as a refrence.)

The person's identification - 72.139.243.79 (IP Address)

To disjudge those who might trust this person - here are the quotes worth of reading:

<quote>

In April 1941 separatist Croats of the fascist terrorist organization 'Ustasha' set up in Zagreb an Independent Croat regime with Dr. Ante Pavelic as fuehrer, or "Poglavnik," and with Marshal Slavko Kvaternik as minister of war.

The new state, organized on strictly fascist and authoritarian lines, excelled quickly by the special ruthlessness and cruelty with which it persecuted, and partially exterminated the large Serb minority and the small Jewish population...

</quote>

"Encyclopedia Britannica, 1943 - Book of the year," page 215, Entry: 'Croatia' 

<quote>

Slavko Kvaternik explained [in a radio program on April 10, 1941, the day the 'Independent State of Croatia' was formed] how a pure Croatia should be built - by forcing one third of the Serbs to leave Croatia, one third to convert to Catholicism, and one third to be exterminated. Soon Ustasha bands initiated a bloody orgy of mass murder of Serbs unfortunate enough not to have converted or left Croatia on time.

The enormity of such criminal behavior shocked even the conscience of German commanders, but Pavelic had Hitler's personal support for such actions which resulted in the loss of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

</quote>

'Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations,' Europe, edition 1995, page 91, entry: 'Croatia.' 

<quote>

The Orthodox recipe of Ante Pavelic, Ustashi leader and Croatian Fuehrer, reminds one of the religious wars in [their] bloodiest aspects: one-third must become Catholic, one-third must leave the country and one-third must die. The last item was executed. When the leading men of the Ustashi movement are stating that they have slaughtered one million Serbs (including infants, children, women and aged) this in my opinion is a self-praising exaggeration. According to the reports that have reached me, my estimate is that the number of those defenseless slaughtered is some three-quarters of a million.

</quote>

Herman Neubacher, "Sonderauftrag Sudosten 1940-1945. Bericht eines fliegenden Diplomate," Goettingen, 1956

<quote>

In Croatia the indigenous fascist regime set about a policy of 'racial purification' that went beyond even Nazi practices. Minority groups such as Jews and Gypsies were to be eliminated, as were the Serbs: it was declared that one-third of the Serbian population would be deported, one-third converted to Roman Catholicism, and one third liquidated. ... Ustasha bands terrorized the countryside. The partial collaboration of the Catholic clergy in these practices continues to be a component of Serb-Croat suspicion.

</quote>

'Encyclopaedia Britannica,' Edition 1991, Macropedia, Vol. 29, page 1111. 

<quote>

Nonpartisan sources agree that mass genocide was authorized by the state of Croatia. They concur the state instigated, planned, and executed masses against the Serbian Orthodox minority... and that the Catholic clergy approved, led, or failed to denounce these massacres. The Croats' collective hatred of the Orthodox Serbs was explicit in folk sayings such as ["Srbe o vrbe" -] "Serbs to the willows [hang the Serbs]." ... By June 1941, signs on public establishments read, 'NO SERBS, JEWS, NOMADS ['Gypsies'] AND DOGS ALLOWED."

</quote>

Helen Fein, "Accounting for Genocide - Victims and Survivors of the Holocaust," The Free Press, New York, Edition 1979, pages 102, 103. 

<quote>

Even the most extraordinary massacres in the darkest era of history would not soil its name - Croatia... Kill, kill, scream the Ustashi against Serbs. And they cut their heads off and throw bodies away into the Sava River which flows slowly and gravely in the direction of Belgrade...

"Go back to your motherland, go back to your motherland.

"Neither Fascists nor Nazi have the remotest resemblance to the Ustashi, they are a fauna absolutely extraordinary and strange..."

</quote>

Alfio Russo, "Revoluzione in Jugoslavia," Roma 1944 

<quote>

For now I began to get news from Croatia that told of slowly rising tide of murders, of unrepeatable atrocities, of massacres of defenceless Serbs by berserk-mad Croatians and by [fascist] Moslems in Bosnian Croatia. In the little back parlors of trusty men, the tales were whispered. I could not believe a quarter of them. Unfortunately, I was soon to know that they were a weak understatement of the truth. Men were to arrive in Dubrovnik itself, hung with strings of Serbian tongues and with bowls of Serbian eyes for sale.

</quote>

Ruth Mitchell, "The Serbs Choose War," Doubleday, Doran, 1943, page 148

<quote>

Jasenovac [was] the largest concentration camp in Croatia. Jasenovac was in fact a complex of several subcamps, in close proximity to each other, on the bank of the Sava River... established in August 1941 and was dismantled only on April 1945...

Some six hundred thousand people were murdered at Jasenovac, mostly Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and opponents of the Ustasha regime... The living conditions in the camp were extremely severe... A particularly cruel regime, and unbelievably cruel behavior by the Ustashe guards...

The acts of murder and of the cruelty in the camp reached their peak in the late summer of 1942, when tens of thousands of Serbian villagers were deported to Jasenovac from the area of the fighting against the partisans in the Kozara Mountains.

</quote>

'Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,' Vol. 2, page 739. 

<quote>

In the concentration camp at Jasenovac, on the night of August 29, 1942, orders were issued for executions. Bets were made as to who could liquidate the largest number of inmates. Peter Brzica cut the throats of 1,360 prisoners with a specially sharp butcher's knife. Having been proclaimed the prizewinner of the competition, he was elected King of the Cutthroats. A gold watch, a silver service, and a roasted sucking pig and wine were his other rewards...

</quote>

Avro Manhattan, "The Vatican's Holocaust," 1986, page 48.

<quote>

The greatest genocide during World War II, in proportion to nation's population, took place, not in Nazi Germany but in Nazi-created puppet state of Croatia. There in years 1941-1945, some 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 Gypsies - men, women and children - perished in a gigantic holocaust. These are the figures used by most foreign authors, especially Germans, who were in the best position to know...

...The magnitude and the bestial nature of these atrocities makes it difficult to believe that such a thing could have happened in an alledgedly civilized part of the world...

</quote>

 Edmond Paris: Genocide in Satellite Croatia, Introduction, The American Institute for Balkan Affairs, 
 Chicago, Illinois. Published in 1961, 1962, 1990

<quote>

The Ustashi murdered and tortured Jews and Serbs in indescribably bestial fashion. One of the most notorious camps in Hitler's Europe, Jasenovac, was in Croatia. Here the Ustashi used primitive implements in putting their victims to death—knives, axes, hammers and other iron tools. A characteristic method was binding pairs of prisoners, back to back, and then throwing them into the Sava River. One source estimates that 770,000 Serbs, 40,000 Gypsies and 20,000 Jews were done to death in the Jasenovac camp

</quote>

 Dr. Nora Levin, The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945, Schocken Books, New York, 1973 ed.: p.515

Nuremberg testimonies

Misha Glenny, The Balkans, Penguin Books 1999 Page 500

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

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

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

The quote above comes from the Nuremberg Trials, quoted in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

page 31.

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

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

Translation of the capital lettering only:

When the leading men of the Ustashi movement are stating that they have slaughtered one million Serbs (including infants, children, women and aged) this in my opinion is a self-praising exaggeration. According to the reports that have reached me, my estimate is that the number of those defenseless slaughtered is some three quarter of a million.

End of translation

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

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

page 18.

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

Most muderous regime III

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

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

Ljubo Jadnak, Survivor, Yugoslavia

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

Milovan Zanic, Minister of Justice, Croatia

---

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

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

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

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

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

4. medical experiments into the perseverance of human organisms;

5. slitting open the bellies of pregnant women;

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

7. inducing cannibalism among camp inmates;

8. mutilation of the living and the dead;

9. raping schoolgirls before their mothers;

10. catching infants on bayonets;

11. inventing new methods of torture;

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

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

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

Malaparte's book

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

A basket of oysters

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

'Are they Dalmatian oysters?' I asked the Poglawnik

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

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

On Curzio Malaparte Talk page I argued that this (and other) stories should not be taken as documentary but as work of fiction. Since the story above is widely known its presence in article here is IMHO useful but it should be clearly labeled as narrative. Pavel Vozenilek 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fictions, cook-books, fitness, yoga are the book-shelvers classifications that might be seen in the book stores and libraries. The valid academic terms are: novels, dramas, tragedies, comedies, poems, short stories, essays, etc. About scholars - Sigmund Freud highly regarded Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov as a psychoanalytical study, Balsac's novels are regarded by French historians as social studies of the French society, Andric's The Bridge on the Drina is a scientific reference in the books of the world-renown historian W. H. McNeill (Europe, Ottoman Empire) and a part of the history curricula (University of Missoury, Kansas City Dr Carla Klausner: [[2]]). The same way Malaparte's Kaputt and The Skin are widely regarded as the WWII literary testimonies. As you might know, the testimonies that could be found in the Nuremberg Trial and in the Eichmann Trial (Tel Aviv, 1961) archives are the scientific, historic references - even though based on the words of common people.--Oesterling 14:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing about beletristic value of the books or their impact or Freud or Dostoyevsky. Simply: a novel should not serve as documentary reference in encyclopedia article (which I see happening here). Pavel Vozenilek 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Overblown

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholicism

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

To do otherwise is to be dishonest in every sense.

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

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

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

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

How to describe the regime?

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

Conjecture

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

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

More fiction

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

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

---

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

Fiction

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

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

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

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

Get real

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

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

Serbian Bodyguard

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert warring

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

fascist vs. Nazi - which is the more correct term and why? ✍

Just compare Italian fascists to the Ustashe

- Jews and Serbs in the war zone occupied by Italians were protected to a great extent; as per testimonies of the Jews and Serbs, Italian army was engaged in chasing the Ustashe bands when they entered the Italian zone.

Italians did not establish konzlagers in order to exterminate Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies nor they had it as their primary goal - Ustashe did it and were more ardent that Nazi Germans.

Pavelic's Independent State of Croatia mimicked the Nazy Germany and she run six larger konzlagers out of the 13 in the wartime Europe who were not established and run by Germans.

Conclusion - for the Ustashe and their regime Nazi is a more appropriate term than fascist--Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would use 'fascist', or more specifically 'clerical fascist'. The ustashe ideology was similar to in many respects, but differed from in others, both German Nazism and Italian Fascism. Fascism as it is generally used is the broader term - it can be used specifically to refer to the Italian variety, but also more widely for a range of related movements and positions. That is - the ustashe definitely can be filed under fascism (in the broad sense); Nazism is more debatable. Alternatively there is the more specific term clerical fascism which fits very well.Bengalski 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave some comparisons above to show that the Ustashe were close to the German Nazis. Also, 'Nazi' in this article is used as an attribute. Claiming that is a point of view is a nonsense. You could see, for example, that the world renown historian and the Oxford Universtity professor, A.J.P. Taylor, uses the term 'second German war' while reffering to the WWII. Nobody claimed ever that his term is not appropriate for the WWII.--Purger 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MalaparteOysters.JPG - this link is simply broken and needs to be left out.✍

I can fix it--Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"These bestialities were even recorded" vs. "Some of the actions of the Ustase have been recorded" - "bestialities" is a POV word and should really be changed. Let the reader judge accordingly. ✍

Not a single word is a POV. An idea might be a POV. As to the bestialities - how could you describe slashing people's throats, smashing their heads by mallets, gouging their eyes and sending them as a prezent to their leader Pavelic, raping then killing girls? Is there a better, more descriptive word? Just read the entries above starting with 'Most murderous regime'. You'll find there a great number of the bestialities described in details. --Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the only real argument against 'bestiality' here is it does a disservice to beasts. On the other hand, yes it's not really necessary - the actions speak for themselves.Bengalski 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"inspired by the widespread practices of Ustashe's gouging out the eyes of Serbs; Kovačić's Jama (The Pit), where Ustashe tied Serbs with barbed wire and dropped them into pits; " - can we have a cite for that please?

I do agree - this is not needed to be pointed out. However, it can be read in 'Kozara' and 'Volcici'. Malaparte did not mention whose eyes he had seen during his meeting with Pavelic. Kovacic did not mention ethnicity of the blinded in hi poem 'Jama'--Purger 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I cannot accept this man's point of view without a grain of salt for finding him as a falsifier (see [[3]]). Also, the 'Nazi' term became an adjective used to mark the WWII war criminals. As per [[4]]

The Extradition of Nazi Criminals: Ryan, Artukovic, and Demjanjuk

by Henry Friedlander and Earlean M. McCarrick

Andrija Artukovic, the highest ranking Nazi criminal to find refuge in the United States, was born in 1899 in Austrian Herzegovina, which after World War I formed part of Yugoslavia. Trained as a lawyer, he participated in the prewar politics of Yugoslavia as a member of the extremist Ustasha, whose aim was the creation of an independent Croatia and thus the destruction of a unified Yugoslavia. During World War II,13 when the Ustasha assumed power in the Nazi puppet state of Croatia, Artukovic served as Minister of Internal Affairs. As such he was in charge of the police and paramilitary units that imposed the Ustasha system of terror. These forces established death camps where they murdered large numbers of men, women, and children including Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Moslems. As the second highest ranking member of the Ustasha regime and as the man in charge of internal security, Artukovic was implicated in these crimes.--Purger 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As per Merriam-Webster online dictionary [[5]]

Main Entry: Na·zi

Pronunciation: 'nät-sE, 'nat-

Function: noun

Etymology: German, by shortening & alteration from Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist

1 : a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler

2 often not capitalized : one who resembles a German Nazi

- nazi adjective, often capitalized

So, as the second meaning, the word 'Nazi' is applicable within this article--Purger 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific:

Britannica:

Pavelic, Ante, born July 14, 1889, Bradina, Bosnia, died Dec. 28, 1959, Madrid, Croatian fascist leader and revolutionist who headed a Croatian state subservient to Germany and Italy during World War II. ...

Great Soviet Encyclopedia

ПАВЕЛИЧ (Pavelić) Анте (14.7.1889, Брадина, – 28.12.1959, Мадрид), глава хорватской террористич. фаш. организации усташей, воен. преступник. ...

Pavelic Ante (14.7.1889, Bradina, – 28.12.1959, Madrid), head of the Croatian terrorist fascist organization Ustaše, war criminal. ...

Brockhaus

Pavelic, Ante, kroatischer Politiker, * Bradina (Herzegowina) 14. 7. 1889, + Madrid 28. 12. 1959; emigrierte 1929 nach Italien; gründete und leitete von dort aus, an den Ideen des italienischen Faschismus orientiert, die Ustascha...

--Elephantus 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, Britannica claims that Pavelic was 'revolutionist'? As much as Hitler was or maybe more? Very poor reference. Not a single serious history texbook ever references any encyclopedia. Brockhaus claims 'Pavelic, Ante, kroatischer Politiker'? All his life? So Bin Laden is a politician, nicht war? As to the term 'Nazi' and how to use it and when - it is the matter of living language: the vocabulary confirms it and there are examples of this term use.--Purger 12:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted what I think are reputable, representative reference works. Surely the fact that all of them call Pavelic a fascist and none of them calls him a Nazi has significance? "Revolutionist" - Pavelic certainly was one, because before he was installed in power in 1941 he had been a leader of what was a radical insurgent organization that proclamed its aim of overthrowing the Yugoslav state. He was also a politician (besides being a criminal and a mass murderer), just like Hitler, Stalin and Mao were politicians. --Elephantus 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And there's this introduction from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust by the Yad Vashem centre:

Pavelic, Ante (1889-1959), Leader of the fascist puppet state in Croatia from 1941-1945. Pavelic began his political career as a member of the Croatian Justice Party. ...

--Elephantus 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough! I do not want to deal with people who are expsed as falsifiers. You are one of them! Use of the English language adjective 'Nazi' has nothing to do with other points of view about this man. Also, I could add at least four far more reputable sources of information about Pavelic. Encyclopaedias are not strong references at all!--Purger 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Unprotect?

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

Please, do not unprotect the page, because the editor in question is involved in several edit wars across a number of articles related to Croatia. Otherwise, this page will again see a sudden surge in number of "new editors" and anonymous IPs whose only "contribution" to Wikipedia is reverting to one POV page version. See contributions of user:SrbIzLike, user:64.18.16.251, user:Petrinja, user:Purger etc. (in all likelyhood all sockpuppets). It suffices to check their "user contributions" to realize that every page where "they" are operating on has turned into a nightmare for Croatian contributors. Any constructive work has been brought to a standstill as our efforts there have been reduced to an attempt to sustain the vandalism of a large number of new editors familiar with 3RR who keep appearing out of nowhere sharing the predilection for the same pages on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This claim about sockpupets is frivolous and offensive. Among those who are reverting and claiming POV not substantiating the claim is EurowikiJ. This article is written almost solely by me!--64.18.16.251 12:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You??? All the article??? Who are you??? Teasing me or EurowikiJ?--Purger 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just you. A serious and a knowleable man is not epected to waste his time explaining meanings of the English language words —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.18.16.251 (talk • contribs).

After being dormant for 4 days User:64.18.16.251 has resurfaced to "tease" the suspected sockpuppeteer User:Purger. Though annoying, even sockpuppetry can be occasionaly hillarious. EurowikiJ 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the anons and socks don't seem interested in discussing the matters under dispute, I'll reduce the protection to a semiprotect. That way good faith editors can still edit. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What a sensible decision. I can't wait for the "good faith editors" to resume their "editing". EurowikiJ 15:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Speaking of which... a message to Purger: Don't remove NPOV dispute templates unless the dispute is actually resolved, or there is a consensus on the talk page to remove it regardless. And especially don't use edit summaries that don't reflect what you actually did to the article; you removed a link, AND you removed the NPOV template. Be more precise next time, please. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's removed once more without consensus, that editor will be blocked. Can someone please delineate here what they feel is biased about this article? NPOV templates must be placed along with explanations of what the placer feels needs improvement. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First thing first - I do not want to deal with this user Elephantus for finding him as a falsifier (see [[6]]). Are you going to block him/her indefinitely? Yes or no?--Purger 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. We'll give folks a couple days to explain why this article needs an NPOV tag; if no explanations are forthcoming it can be removed. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do know it very well! After reading the [[7]], for sure. Go to the 'About Elephantus' title on that page. Tell us what is there. Honestly.--Purger 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've read it, but I still don't know what you're talking about. I'm only interested in what is happening at this article right now. I'm not here to adjudicate disputes between users; if you've had a problem with a user in the past, then use dispute resolution. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 21:48, 24 May 2006

(UTC)

I am actually in dispute state with you. I removed the POV tag not seeing any reason for its existence. Then you threatened: Please stop. If you remove this tag once more without consensus, I will block you for vandalism. I did not understand what were you talking about and asked: Please, elaborate where do you see the disputes related to this article. Who disputed it and how?. But, someone else had to elaborate your threat: Can someone please delineate here what they feel is biased about this article?. To me, looks like that you are vandalizing honest efforts to edit this article.

Anyway - to elaborate the last sentence above: I can reach consensus only with honest people. Those who weren't once - are not the ones that I want to deal with. That's what is happening at this article right now. Editorial policy of any serious publication does not have place for falsifiers. Here it is not the case. That is not my problem with a user in the past. So, there will be no consensus. Are you going to keep the tag forever?--Purger 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, people should be given adequate time to justify why the tag is needed. If nothing is put forth that's critical of the article, I'd say it can be removed by the weekend. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

There is no 64.18.16.251 user at all. The 64.18.16.251 IP address is of a proxy server used by thousands of people

• Please see User_talk:Ali-oops#Meaningless_tag for my response - Alison^✍ 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Abusing Kovacic!

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

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

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

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

War Criminal

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

Utter nonsense - he simply escaped the justice. His impartial judge are the people he victimized.

So maybe it's time to add Slobodan into this category either? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

Incorrect terminology

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

POV problems

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

The very bad thing that your 'POV problems' is a POV. You did not provide any valid references supporting your claim. Also, the existing edits preceding your changes, which I removed as not not sourced at all, is not POV due to the fact that it is very good editorial work where the editors did not put anything which cannot be found in the references.--BarryMar 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally Opinionated Article

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

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

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

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

The points you are revising are perfectly neutral. By any standard, NDH was a puppet state. If you take a look at Britannica under 'Ustase', 'Pavelic' etc. you will find him defined as a leader of a subservient state to Germany. Ditto all history books in the West, never mind Churchill and the lot. The term terrorism is, in principle, biased and there I agree with you. It is used for Ustase because a number of organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, refer to them as such - an organization that was responsible for inflicting terror on civilian population. Whether we find it appropriate to change the term into something different is a matter for discussion. The constant references to puppet state are there to make sure that nobody identifies the present Croatia with the crimes committed under the Pavelic regime.--As286 08:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The belief that any Axis nation was subservient to the Germans is misleading. The Italians, Turks and Romananians were not subservient, in the fact that they were given direct orders from the German government/military to perform a specific detail, or face the consequences. That was not the fact with them, and it wasn't a fact with the NDH.

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

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

NDH outdid any of these vassal states in willing brutality towards civilians and collaboration, which makes it a perfect fit for the term "puppet state". They could have chosen to fight against but did not. Fortunately for everybody, a huge number of Croats did not appreciate this nonsense and ended up in Partisans.

Wiesenthal has an agenda, oh yes, to clear the world of Nazi scum. I am afraid one cannot be neutral about Nazism and here things do happen to be mostly black and white. And the Center has a VERY thick dossier on various NDH officials.--As286 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

My the only comment is - user Nathraq does not provide any factual knowledge of the subject (s)he tried to 'correct' - which can be regarded only as a bad faith edit.

Once again.....missing the point. I began by editing words out of the article that were slanted. To claim the NDH was a "puppet-state" of Germany is opinion. To claim the Ustashe was a "terrorist organization" is opinion. To claim Pavelic was an "extremist, even in his youth" is conjecture. To say "Pavelić's quarrelsome nature became more and more apparent in the years immediately after the First World War" is non-factual". About the armed insurrection into Yugoslavia in '33, "This was unsuccessful but its lack of success probably was instrumental in the decision to assassinate King Alexander I of Yugoslavia" is also conjecture. Not one of these statements are fact; all are biased and slanted. To have a completely neutral article, these statements most definitely will need to be left out. Or we need a native English speaker to revise the article; as the slanted and biased edits are surely being written by persons with a less than 2nd level English proficiency.

Unlike the previous user I do not think that your edits are in bad faith, but I do think that we have a content dispute here. Let us take this one by one.

a) Puppet state - NDH was not recognized by any state other than Nazi Germany and a few of its allies. On top of this it entire foreign and most of its internal policy was created directly from Germany. There was not one thing that NDH did that did not need an approval from Berlin. Furthermore and more damagingly, NDH saw a huge German military presence, directly involved in anything from fighting Partisans, Cetniks and others to securing economic resources, etc. In terms of evidence this is more than sufficient to call it a 'puppet state'. NDH was not merely occupied by the Germans but created, supported and defended by them. NDH cannot be any less a 'puppet state' than Vichy France.

b) terrorism - a terrorist is one who resorts to terror to achieve aims (usually but not exclusively political). There is absolutely no dispute whatsoever that Ustase inflicted terror on a large scale. Evidence for this among Croatian historians is overwhelming. At best you can try to avoid the term "terrorism" as we got hopelessly muddled when modern West diluted it after 9/11.

c) Pavelic's extremism - extremism denotes an ideology or position of one who holds views well outside the mainstream of society, somebody who believes in extreme solutions. If exterminating Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and others in concentration camps does not fall into this than I do not know what does. To say that he was extremist in his youth means to say that he formed most of his opinions then. This is also relatively well-known.

d) quarrelsome nature - this refers to Pavelic's debates in the old Yugoslav parliament. If you read these you would not be able to label them anything but questionable, at best. His disputes with Radic and others are also well-known. If this was replicated in today's politics he would be put on the extreme right.

e) insurrection - this is not a NPOV problem but a quotation that needs source so you should put a 'source needed' marker and delete or change it only if source does not emerge.

To sum it up, all the statements except the last one are formulations of internationally well-recognized facts. Actually, they are so to the extent that there is little need to prove them any more than you need to prove that Hitler was extreme or quarrelsome or that you'd call Franco's regime an extreme-right one. At best, you can demand that sources and quotations be put for those who remain unsure. As I said before, similar or identical statements are found in anything from Britannica to Soviet encyclopedias, not to mention wealth of info on the WWW.--As286 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely a bad faith edit (I am referring to Nathraq). Bluntly disqualifying somebody's work without any relevant knowledge of the subject is even uncivil and a public slander. As to the pupet state notion - it is an international law valid notion and the Independent State of Croatia is cathegorised that way:

• International Law Reports By Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood Published 1957 Cambridge University Press
  • Page 69 - "Croatia is defined by contemporary writers as a 'puppet-state' or 'puppet-government', terms which apperar to be of comparatively recent adoption in the field of international law.

• International Law in Historical Perspective by Jan Hendrik Willem Verzijl Published 1974 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
  • Page 313 CROATIA A very special case is that of the puppet State of Croatia, called into being with the help of Fascist Italy in April 1941

Also, the same notion of the puppet state is widely accepted by historians

• Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism Since 1750 By Frank Tallett, Nicholas Atkin
  • Page 248 Croatia was also to become a Nazi puppet state, although this could not necessarily have been foreseen in April 1941 when Hitler's invasion of Yugoslavia ...

• The Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflict by John Coakley Published 2003 Routledge
  • Page 271 This first Yugoslavia survived intil 1941, when the country was occupied by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, which dismembered it, turning Croatia into a puppet state, the so-called 'Independent State of Croatia' (1941-45).

• Balkan Ghosts: A Journey Through History by Robert D. Kaplan Published 2005 Picador
  • Page 17 The archbishop evidently didn't realize that Croatia under the Ustashe was nothing but a puppet state divided between Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.

As regarding Ustashe as a terrorist organization - it's more than obvoius:

• Political Parties of Europe By Skowronski, Sharon, Vincent E. McHale Published 1983 Greenwood Press
  • Page 1046 USTASHE. The Ustashe was a Croatian terrorist organization formed on January 8 1929 by Ante Pavelic, secretary of Party of Rights merged into and provided the political core of the Ustashe ...

• Croatia: between Europe and the Balkans by William Bartlett Published 2003 Routledge
  • Page 18 Croatian Party of Right, had established a terrorist organization known as the Ustashe Croatian Revolutionary Organization

• Organizing for Total War by American Academy of Political and Social Science, Francis James Brown published 1942 American Academy of Political and Social Science
  • Page 225 As an interesting detail for the American public it may be reported that the terrorist organization Ustashe, paid by the Italians, was sending money to the ...

• Croatia: A History By Goldstein, Ivo Translated by Nikolina Jovanovic Published 1999 McGill-Queen's Press
  • Page 147 ... General Glaise von Horstenau, warned that the 'bestial behavour of the Ustasha authorities is causing unrest and rebellion' damaging to German interests

• Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans Nationalism and the Destruction of Tradition by Cathie Carmichael,Published 2003 Routledge
  • Page 53The anti-Serb sentiment of the Ustasa was of realitvely recent historical vintage, having been initiated by the ninetheenth-century Croat writer Starcevic, founder of the Croatian Party of Rights (Hrvatska Stranka Prava HSP)

• All Or Nothing: The Axis and the Holocaust, 1941-1943 By Jonathan Steinberg Published 2002 Routledge
  • Pages 29-30 By 28 June (1941) Glaise von Horstenau reported that 'according to reliable reports from countless German military and civil observers during the last few weeks the Ustasi have gone raging mad" Serbian and Jewish men, women were literary hacked to death. Whole villages were razed to the ground and the people driven into barns to which the Ustasi set fire.

• Hitler's Renegades: Foreign Nationals in the Service of the Third Reich by Christopher J Ailsby
  • Page 156 One of the Horstenau's reports stated: " We saw no sign of guerillas but there were plenty of ownerless horses and cattle, not to mention innumerable geese. At Crkveni Bok, an unhappy place where, under the leadership of Ustase lieutenant-colonel, some 500 country folk from 15 to 20 years had met their end, all murdered, the women raped then tortured, the chidren killed. I saw in the River Sava a woman's corpse with the eyes gouged out and a stick showed into the sexual parts. The woman was at most 20 years old when she fell into the hands of these monsters. Anywhere in a corner, the pigs are gorging themselves on an unburied human being. All the houses were looted. The 'lucky'inhabitants were consigned to one of the fearsome boxar trains; many of these involuntary 'passengers' cut their veins on the journey"

---

I did not edit any parts of the article pertaining to Pavelic or the atrocities committed by the Ustashe, as they are fact. The Ustashe, though, was a nationalist party/movement, and not a terrorist organization, any more than the Americans were terrorists during the Revolutionary War, or any organized group that fought to throw off the Ottoman yoke between the 1600's and the 20th century.

The Ustashe was a movement for Croatian independance before the German invasion of Yugoslavia. They would have attained those goals with or without the Germans, so using the term "puppet-state" is suggesting that the Croats were at the will of the Germans, when in fact that was not true.

The above - is just a sensless comparison of Ustashe to the Americans. You got more than needed references saying who were Ustashe.

IMRO was a terrorist organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. The fact that other people have said IMRO members were terrorists does not compel Wikipedia to take a position on the matter, though of course it is fair to mention (in the appropriate place) that such views exist. But the place to discuss IMRO status is the IMRO article. The Pavelić article could get by without a description; a link to the other article is enough. But if you and Laveol think a description would help, it is surely not beyond the two of you to do it in unemotive, neutral language. You may be interested to note that the BBC World Service never uses the term "terrorist" exept when it is attributed to third parties. The reason? Its use implies a judgment and a point of view. And the World Service, like Wikipedia, strives not to have a point of view. Kirker (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just your personal point of view. IMRO is here mentioned in a very particluar historical context. The 'other people' are reputable historians. So, we are not discussing IMRO here - we are trying to correctly name events and people participating in these events. Also, my language is neutral - based on the language of the references cited.--Standshown (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT is just my personal view? If you mean what I said about how articles should be written, then everything I said was in line with Wikipedia guidelines and my personal view has nothing to do with it. Now, I suspect you know perfectly well that the term "terrorist" implies a judgment. That makes it unacceptable for Wikipedia. It could be argued that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist because he was convicted in a court of law. And so he might be in the view of some. In that case it would be legitimate under the guidelines for Wikipedia to record that such a view exists. But for Wikipedia itself to apply that term to him would be farcical. I happen to believe that IMRO was a terrorist organisation, but Wikipedia is not the place for me to peddle my personal views. Equally it's not the place for you to push your views up my nose. If you want to say that respected historians have called IMRO members terrorists, be my guest. But preferably do it in a more relevant article.Kirker (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing above is in the line with Wikipedia guidelines - rather an attempt to sell the rules you had invented on spot - as Wikipedia rules. That can be considered only as an unethical attempt to derail discussion about this topic.--Standshown (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think I am trying to derail discussion then you are simply stupid. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. If you don't understand that, go and study the guidelines and stop editing in the meantime. To say someone is a terrorist requires a judgment to be made, and judgments can always be questioned, just as Laveol questioned yours. As I have tried to explain, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to record the opinions of responsible commentators, but it should have no opinions of its own. If you still have difficuilty understanding, perhaps your problem is with the English language, in which case take a break from the English-language Wikipedia until your English is better. Kirker (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• For lacking effective knowledge of the subject - you slipped into presonal attacks and incivilty. Yes, neutral point of view is something I follow strictly- by utilizing the knowledge coming form reputable and verifiable resources!

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

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

• Black Hand
• Hamas
• PLO

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

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

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

First claim

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

Second claim

• Hamas
• PLO

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

From Wikipedia

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

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General, the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union, the United States Department of State, the Australian Government, Public Safety Canada, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook, South Korean Foreign Ministry, the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service, the United Kingdom Home Office, Russia, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and the Swiss Government.

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

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

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

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

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

Well you've gone to a lot of trouble, Standshown, but all you have managed to do is emphasise the point I made at the start. In none of the cases you mentioned has Wikipedia described anyone or anything as "terrorist." Thus in the Al Qaeda article, for instance, the term is ascribed to third parties (i.e. the United Nations, etc). It is they, and NOT Wikipedia, which used that description. Wikipedia is simply recording that they hold that view. Similarly the PLO is described as a terrorist organisation only in a quote plainly attributed to the NCIS. I have said all along that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to record views expressed by third parties such as responsible commentators and organisations. (I still think that in the case of IMRO the right place is in the article about IMRO, not this one.) Kirker (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, be civil if you want to carry this discusson seriously and read what you have vritten before. Wikipedia collects and represents information from credible and verifiable resources and nothing comes from Wikipedia directly. So, everything comes from "third party" - do not play with logical inconsistencies this way! What I offered here - is the knowledge from references - which is not my point of view or Wikipedia's view. Also, here is not discussion about IMRO - rather about an event particluar to this biography. Case closed.--Standshown (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Point is that IMRO has been terrorist organization in Yugoslav goverment eyes. In Macedonians eyes this has been organization for liberation of Macedonia. They are even having in 1 time period partisan groups which are fighting from time to time with Yugoslav forces. I want to say that it is not possible to say that this is terrorist organization because Macedonians are not having this thinking.

Comments that Hamas and PLO are terrorist organization because goverments which control only 30 % of world population say that is funny. This statement will be OK if majority of states and population think that or if palestinians think that.--Rjecina (talk) 19:49 29. December 2007

Which bit was uncivil Standshown? And where have I contradicted what I said earlier? Let me give you an example. Wikipedia guidelines discourage a statement such as "Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation." (But of course such a statement may appear on Wikipedia because we are all free to ignore the guidelines if we choose.) On the other hand it is fine to say: "Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation according to the UN." In other words judgmental statements should be used only where they can be attributed to specific people/organisations (ie "third parties"). If English is not your first language, you might not have appreciated the difference.Kirker (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to leave editing of the article to those who are more familiar with the subject but Standshown made a good addition and I saw a way to take it further. Please note that I changed "Serbian authorities" to "national government in Belgrade" to make it more accurate(I hope?) I would have been OK with "Yugoslavian authorities" but of course that name had not yet been officially adopted, and the actual name of the Kingdom seemed too longwinded. Kirker (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, wasn't this my addition actually? --Laveol ^T 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed your addition Laveol. I'm glad you did it and I'm sorry for mis-attributing it. Kirker (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;) --Laveol ^T 09:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Skopje Trial and "Revolutionaries"

Here are five references coming from impartial and world-renown sources (such as Columbia University, Oxford University) defeating idea about IMRO "revolutionaries".

The Lights that Failed: European International History 1919-1933 by Zara S. Steiner, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0198221142 pages 270-271

The terrorist group IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, founded in 1893) was the most powerful terrorist movement in the Balkans, and proved to be a highly disruptive political force. Assisted and funded by backer is Sofia, IMRO was divided between those wanting the whole of Macedonia annexed to Bulgaria and those who favoured a separate Macedonia in a Balkan Federation. Repeated incursions across the frontiers threatened Bulgaria's relations with both Yugoslavia and Greece.

The Assassination of King Alexander: A Case Study of the League of Nations by James Wilson Alexander - 1956 - page 29

This was the dreaded IMRO - the Internal Revolutionary Macedonian Organization. This organization was an illegal government, with its own army, exceutioners, and secret service. It was a terrorist organization which condemned its victims to death in trials from which they were usually absent.

Terrorism, U.S. Strategy, and Reagan Policies by Marc A. Celmer Praeger/Greenwood, 1987, ISBN 0313256322, page 6.

The second incident was the assassination fo King Alexander of Yugoslavia. On October 9, 1934, King Alexander and French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou were assassinated in the streets of Marseilles, France, by members of the Ustasa-Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO). This incident led to the formulation and adoption by the League of Nations of the 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, the first International attempt at dealing with terrorism.

International Relations and World Politics Since 1919 by Sailendra Nath Dhar - World politics - 1965 - Page 79

THE BALKAN NATIONS BULGARIA Defeated in the Second Balkan War and the First World War, Bulgaria had to cede territories to her neighbours—Serbia under an organization called IMRO. Their raids on the territories of Greece and Yugoslavia drew angry protests from the aggrieved governments, but Bulgaria pleaded her inability to control

The Columbia History of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth by Joseph Held, Columbia University Press, 1992, ISBN 0231076975, page 320

The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) split after World War I into two wings. The first demanded annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria. During the 1920s it played an important role in Bulgarian domestic politics and organized terrorist groups to perpetrate sabotage in Yugoslavia. The other wing favored communism and a Balkan Federation, to include Macedonia.

--Stagalj (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, Standshown. Let me then give you a few references for the opposite:

1. ..."with its most prominent expression being the revolutionary struggle for freedom and equality. As the vanguard of this people's movement IMRO was..." This comes from John R Lampe and Mark Mazower Ideologies and National Identities the Case of Twentieth-century, Central European University Press.
2. "... supported by key figures in Bulgarian IMRO carried on insurrectionary activities in Yugoslav Macedonia..." - "Italian Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period, 1918-1940" p.45 by H. James Burgwyn.
3. Just to add what an encyclopedia says (that is what Wikipedi as I hope you'll understand) "The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern", "Encyclopedia of the Developing World", "Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups" have not mentioned the movement as a terrorist.

So what's the conclusion - encyclopedias tend to avoid one-point statements on controversial subjects. IMRO is a terrorist organization in someone's eyes and revolutionary in others (it is probably both) but this does not give you the right to determine this on your own. We can battle with sources for a hundred years and what would we achieve. The mention that Serbia considers it a terrorist organization seems the fairest, but you insist on edit-warring (as you do on a great number of articles). This is not constructive and not helping the encyclopedia. I hope I've highlighted it enough for you to understand what Wikipedia is. --Laveol ^T 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagali wants to go back to a text which, for instance, refers to "Serbian authorities" even though there was no Serbia at the time in question, and which refers to "the Skopje trials" even though there were hundreds of trials in Skopje. So it is wrong in this situation to throw around the word "correct." On the main question, it could never be "correct" to say IMRO was a terrorist organisation, just like it could never be "correct" to say that red is the best colour. These are matters of opinion. And however important Stagali thinks his/her own opinion is, it can never be right for Wikipedia to present Stagali's opinion as a fact. Not even if 100 of the finest historians and academics had the same opinion. The entire population of the world could agree that red was the best colour, but that would still not make it a fact. As for all the references, it is simply unhelpful to clutter up an article about Pavelić with stuff that has nothing to do with the subject. The place to argue about IMRO's status is in the article about IMRO.Kirker (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To Laveol:

a) The above text was written by me - Stagalj - not by Standshown

b) You falsely quoted two references:

Italian Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period, 1918-1940 By H. James Burgwyn page 45

Chamberlain's exhortation that Mussolini join him in urging Sofia to put end to IMRO terrorism arrived at the moment when he was about to sign the second Tirana pact

Encyclopedia of the Developing World by Thomas M. Leonard Routledge, 2006 ISBN 157958388 page 285

In the meantime, terrorists operated in Macedonia (the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - IMRO).

c) About the other references - The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups - are both about the 1983-192 period. Here we are talking about 1920ieths. Also the encyclopedias are not primary sources of information and therefore weak references

d) It would be nice to know why the authors - John R Lampe and Mark Mazower - avoided ever mentioning well-documented and well-known terrorist activity of this group in the period 1913-1941???

--Stagalj (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've been using Google books a lot haven't you. I did not intend to put full details cause this is not an actual article but just a talkpage and everybody can find out the info on their own. I have not misquoted anybody - this is just another example of what I meant - the organization is mentioned as both revolutionary and terrorist in a single book. What I was trying to explain to you since December last year. About this sentence:Also the encyclopedias are not primary sources of information and therefore weak references - I advice you to get familiar with Wikipedia rules (maybe for the 20th time) - usage of primary sources is not encouraged. Another thing - you said we're talking about the 20s here -- but IMRO has operated long before that? I notice you like to put a lot of details in your evidence (isbns and so on) in order to get a certain impression - which does not work cause a simple google book search with the words IMRO+terrorism shows just what you have described. This is equally true for the portions of text you posted befor. --Laveol ^T 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line. User Laveol acted unethically by falsely referencing two sources (evidence given above), by calling upon weak (and irrelevant) references (encyclopedias are never referenced by any serious scholar in any serious scholar work), by selecting a biased and inaccurate work (John R Lampe and Mark Mazower) as a "proof" that IMRO weren't terrorists.--Stagalj (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew it - so only sources you have found using Google books are not biased and certainly not weak. You're right and everybody else wrong. That about sums it up, ey? --Laveol ^T 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagalj, apologies for misreading your name previously. Your refusal, or inability, to understand what is meant by "neutral point of view" is becoming tiresome. Please carefully read the Wikipedia guidance at WP:NPOV which, as you will see, is an absolute principle and non-negotiable. Please also see related articles and examples. And please, if you are determined to pursue your obsession, do so in the right place - ie the IMRO article. If you continue to mess up this article I will formally register the matter as a dispute. You will see I tidied up your references, making punctuation for the publication year consistent and removing ISBN numbers and other gratuitous matter. I assume you did not intent to say the Columbia book was "by" Held? Oh, and I restored "Century" which you left out of that title. For the future please note that it would be helpful to state place of publication for any title you cite, and if you insist on cluttering up references with ISBNs, please at least break the 10 and 13-digit strings into their appropriate groups.Kirker (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are already asked (by other user) to be civil - as to your Your refusal, or inability, to understand what is meant by "neutral point of view" is becoming tiresome. Yes, I did read the Wikipedia guidance at WP:NPOV and understand it thoroughly. Did you???

Could you, please stop falsely referencing your changes??? Your change a society of Macedonian separatists regarded as terrorists by the national government in Belgrade, and in 1927 defended Macedonians charged in Skopje with terrorism offences does not come from The Lights that Failed: European International History 1919-1933 by Zara S. Steiner, Oxford University Press, 2005, pages 270-271!!!
What right you have to remove my quote of the reference from the text??? Dr. Steiner does not say regarded as terrorists by the national government in Belgrade rather
The terrorist group IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, founded in 1893) was the most powerful terrorist movement in the Balkans, and proved to be a highly disruptive political force. Assisted and funded by backers in Sofia, IMRO was divided between those wanting the whole of Macedonia annexed to Bulgaria and those who favoured a separate Macedonia in a Balkan Federation. Repeated incursions across the frontiers threatened Bulgaria's relations with both Yugoslavia and Greece. Stagalj (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say this is getting really ridiculous. Are you sure you have read WP:NPOV? Cause it does not seem so. Neither did User:Standshown. How could we explain it to you - it is not up to your opinion - and it does not matter exactly how much source you can google or whatever exactly you did. We've already tried to explain you that this is an encyclopedia not some dissertation on how bad these guys were and how good the others. There are principles to which you should adhere and not only when they suit your POV. --Laveol ^T 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagalj, I would be surprised if Oxford University Press ever published a phrase such as "Assisted and funded by backer is Sofia," regardless of who wrote it, because in the English language it is sheer nonsense. I wonder if you can see the absurdity of an interminable wrangle, here in pages concerned with Pavelic, about what IMRO was and was not when readers need only click on IMRO within the text to go a whole article devoted to IMRO? If you think that article is unfair or inaccurate then that is where you should be directing your present editing effort.Kirker (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagalj continues to insist that IMRO was a terrorist organisation. We are in agreement on that, but neither his nor my views have any place in this article, or this encyclopedia or any encyclopedia. His claim that my edit was unreferenced was rather pathetic since Pavelić's dealings with IMRO are clearly established in several of the sources cited below the article. Nevertheless I have pandered to his whining and duly added specific references. I hope this will not result in a stampede to add a reference at the end of every sentence. In a subsequent edit I have added some new stuff and this did need proper referencing, which I have provided. If Stagalj still wants to push his IMRO agenda I would again suggest he does so in a more appropriate place - IMRO is only one small part of the Pavelić story.Kirker (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly Kirker demonstrates incivilty and false referencing. I am not insiting that IMRO is a terrorist organization - it is - according to numerous (more than 20) cited references written by world renown historians.

First false reference:In the early 1920s, Pavelić began to establish contacts with Croat émigrées in Vienna and Budapest and later entered into close accord with the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization.

The change above is not supported by Edmond Paris: Genocide in Satellite Croatia, American Institute for Balkan Affairs (Chicago 1961) p21.

Second false reference: In 1927 he defended Macedonians charged in Skopje with terrorist offences is not supported by http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/pavelic/--Stagalj (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a hasty response - I'll come back to this when I have more time. Stagali is quite right to say that the references I gave were inappropriate/inadequate. In respect of the Pavelic Papers link (which Stagalj has reproduced above, but with a tyupo) I should have give it as http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/pavelic/ap0047.html. Apologies. In respect of the second, I modified an earlier edit, which mentioned Budapest and Vienna, and should not have applied the Paris citation to the mentioning of those cities. In other respects there was much in my editing which was valid and which I will restore (with better care) as soon as I have time. In the meantime I would ask that Laveol and others do not seek to revert to my version since it does contain the errors identified by Stagalj. Kirker (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 edits

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

All above changes are meaningless - IMRO was even branded by the League of Nations as a terrorist organization - so this organization was widely seen that way. So, this 'embellishment' is not necessary nor it is supported by proper references. Talking that 'IMRO has sometimes been described ...' - is just another nonsense i.e a personal point of view., All comment about is good only for a chat room or a blog.

Moreover, the Edmond Paris book was again put in the wrong context.--Stagalj (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Stagalj could explain what exactly he challenges about the Edmond Paris reference? On his point about IMRO there is absolutely no need to describe IMRO in this article, not least because anyone interested can click on the name of that organisation and go to a Wikipedia article devoted to that organisation. If Stagalj has some problem with that article then that, quite obviously, is where he should be starting. If anyone insists on defining IMRO in the Pavelić article, it would be uncontentious to say it "has been described as a terrorist organisation" because it is a FACT. In his own comment on this point above, Stagalj has shown, yet again, that he has no intention of honouring Wikipedia policy re NPOV. I would argue that he should be banned except that I suppose he would re-emerge hiding behind yet another identity.Kirker (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So, instead pursuing an honest discussion - a story about irrelevant points - I'd say a sort of personal attacks? Definitively, the text changes are not justified by the references added nor it was justified to remove the existing ones. As to the Edmond Paris book - it definitively does not support "to show that IMRO has sometimes been described as a terrorist organisation". Or, maybe, Kirker wants to tell us what exactly is on the 21-22 pages that supports his changes??? I have a copy of this book available in the academic institution I am affiliated with. --Stagalj (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not citing Paris to justify the changes I made but to support the text as it read after I amended it. Some elements of the original text previously had no references at all, and the ones you gave did not solve that problem. Together with the other references I gave, the Paris book took care of that. I ever intended the Paris reference to justify defining IMRO as "terrorist" because I have aimed all along to have the "terrorist" description removed. When you get chance to check out the relevant pages in Paris, it might be worth checking that you are looking in the edition that I cited (ie the first English-language edition) as the page numbering may be different in other editions. If you remain unconvinced I will type out the relevant paragraphs and put them on your user page.Kirker (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

references

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

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

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

I trust you are not suggesting that sources are wrong just because they are Serbian or Jewish. The views of Slavko Goldstein (a survivor) for instance cannot be dismissed on the basis that he is Jewish. If you want to include material from other sources, and to cite those, you are perfectly entitled to do so, and that may make for a more balanced article. But as you may have seen, you must then be prepared to fight to defend your contributions! However the aim should be to stick to facts and to avoid personal opinions (POV = point of view).Kirker (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily saying that Jewish or Serbian sources are incorrect but time in and out they have proved (especially Serbian ones) to be extremely inflated and tainted. To write a encyclopedic article about Dr. Ante Pavelic and only use Serbian/Jewish sources is like writing a page on George W. Bush and using Al Quada (?) sources. I too am for a factual article, but people have to take into consideration that Croatian history is very tainted thanks to 50plus years of communist rule - in other words, people writing things about Ustase prior to the 90's were usually referencing Yugoslav pieces/documents/ books etc.AP1929 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Michael McAdams was a property manager of University of San Francisco’s Sacramento campus . Retired at age of 51 years - never held any academic position nor was a scholar.--Stagalj (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pavelić, fascism and genocide

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

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

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

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

Dr. Ante Pavelic said it himself :

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

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

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

In case AP1929 missed my comment on the history page for this discussion, I have reorganised the recent exchanges between him and me. It seems tidier this way and doesn't interrupt the separate argument I've been having with STagalj! Please undo or correct at will if not happy with changes.

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

@ User:Kirker

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

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

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

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

Let as say clear that both versions have been POV. I will now give reasons why:

SPA account AP1929 your version is POV because you have deleted many important facts. This facts are: NDH has been puppet state, Ante Pavelić has been in prison and he has been member of Yugoslav parliament and nothing is writen about NDH crimes.

Version before AP1929 changes has been POV because in that article it has been writen 31 lines about Ustaša crimes and only only 4 lines about Ante Pavelić poglavnik of NDH. This article is about Ante Pavelić not about Ustaša crimes !!!

Now there is time to write about POV sources which I have deleted. This are:

www.jasenovac-info.com , www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_catholic_church.htm , http://www.gorgelink.org/freebooks/vaknin/terrorism.pdf , http://samvak.tripod.com/pp55.html , This can be neutral sources only in jokes.

Similar funny are statements about poetry. Writing that works of Kovačić and others are inspired by Ustaša crimes is POV because for example Kovačić is not writing who is killer and in the end he is killed by Chetnik forces !! --Rjecina (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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