Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp

Yad-Vashem is Not Reliable Source

Yad-Vashem has a problem with credibility. It does not cite source of 500,000 Serb victims. Simon Wiesenthal source is also problematic. One would expect Simon Wiesenthal Center to criticize Israel for mass-killings of Palestinian children. Nope. They stand with Israel and attack anybody that criticize Israeli terrorism in the Middle East. [1] These sources should be treated with a grain of salt or removed completely. Bosniak (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The false slander and unbased accusations regarding the most canon source for anti-semitism and holocaust research in the world (regardless of Jasenovac and the related USSM project, that's not the disscussed point) is not worthy of any furthermore comment save this one, yet out of burning anger I will say this to be done with: Of course, an Israeli-situated institution should provoke the actions it supports :) (which are not terrorism or mass-killings, on my word). At least make up lies that make it seem as though if you know what you speak of, or say nothing. We are not Serbian terrorists or "the Zion elders", speak appropriatly and to the point. --ימך שמךGratius Pannonius (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOAP. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The most recognized and respected authorities on the Holocaust shouldn't be believed? Excellent point. AniMate^talk 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The most respectable source is the United States Holocaust museum, which lists about 40,000 Serb victims in Jasenovac including thousands of Muslims, Croats, and Jews. Yad-Vashem does not provide sources; you can't make up numbers, when the United States Holocaust Museum clearly lists about 40,000-50,000 Serbs, not 500,000. I go with what USHMM says, not what Yad-Vashem voluntarily alleges. The USHMMM has more credibility than Yad-Vashem.. Bosniak (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sulfur monoxide

Sulfur monoxide is a transient species that can't be stored or easily generated. "It is an unstable species only found in the gas phase ---". Perhaps it was carbon monoxide (which Nazis did use) or sulfur dioxide? --Vuo (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just left you a message on your talk page ;-) The reference actually stated "sulphur dioxide" - I've updated the article accordingly. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting Neubacher is not Cool

Neubacher's alleged statement was reported as following: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. On the basis of reports I received, I estimated that three quarters of a million defenceless people were slaughtered." Then, Edmond Paris who quoted this statement in his book inserted the following sentence that is not part of the original statement, quote: "(including babies, children, women and old men)." That's his opinion, not the part of the original statement by Neubacher. First of all, if anybody read Edmond Paris' book would know that he is similar to Edward S. Herman. He is siding with Serbs based on their socialist values. Neubacher's sentencing was in Belgrade. He was tortured and humiliated by Serbs, and no wonder he would sign that statement. But, what Edmond Paris did, he inserted into brackets info about children and babies to make these crimes more glamorous. A shame, pure politics. True, about 50,000 Serbs at most died in Jasenovac, as USHMM reported, plus Muslims, Jews, Croats, and Romas. We were all victims of Jasenovac. Remember, after the war, Serbs in Croatia remained majority on about one third of Croatia's territory. How did that happen if Croats killed at least 600 Serbs? Hmmm... If Croats killed 600,000 of Serbs in WWII in Croatia, then Serbs would certainly not be ethnic majority in areas where they claimed genocide. Bosniak (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In spite of your unpopular claims in other things, I have to agree on a couple of things: Edmund Paris, by himself, is not a reliable source. But the aformentioned quote of the "dear" dr. Neubacher is quoted from his own book, and I'm sorry if a note made by the none-the-less "dear" Mr. Paris was mistakenly put inside the quote. Anyhow, if I remember currectly than Neubacher was sentenced in Nuremberg, but if he was trailed in Belgrade, supposedly under Serbian communist torture or payroll (as falsly and maliciously claimed against the eye-witnesses), there is still one small, but nevertheless important as it is in time irritating-- its key words: sources, sources, sources!! (and better be reliable ones)

As for your criticism of USSM vs. Yad Va-Shem claims: There is no "war" between the sources, none is brought to "defeat" another. Still, if you want, I would swiftly compare the two: USSM's investigation derives from source material brought from the memorial museum, hence it's alledged credibility and authority regarding Jasenovac. However, this still is not enough to refute the fact that Yad Va-Shem is an unbelievably massive research institution, the highest authority of the holocaust in the world. As much as the "US" in "USSM" is impressive, Yad Va-Shem is simply hugh and reliable beyond expression. Still, although I do not agree with your false assertion about the institution, I would say that the institution has a tendency to take the "higher" numbers, and I myself--regardless of the article--think that the figures are lower and I am trying to get attention in the institution for this fact. As for sources, Yad Va-Shem relays not only on the fantastic research of Menachem Shelach and Josef Lewinger, which is not so foundamentally based on Yugoslav historiography as it is on the sources of the local Jewish community and of other foregien sources, but also on a general research made by the Simon Wiesentall center, I believe. The USSM information is based on things like small artifacts: personal belongings of poor victims, a knife or two, a mallet (not to mention a map of Stara-Gradiska and a couple of letters). Still, this is too not enough to refute the credibility of USSM either. Thus are both sources brought toghether, and you may take each one to yourself as canon, but yo yourself only, while the article remains as is. --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Neubacher is correctly quoted

Here is clearly visible that Edmond Paris correctly quoted Hermann Neubacher's book: Sonderauftrag Südost, Musterschmit-Verlag, 1958, page 31--71.191.31.183 (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Liquidated" ??

Why is the word "liquidated" used three times in this article?

"...were immediately liquidated for confessing of their Serbian..."

"...where ill inmates were concentrated to die or be liquidated."

"...were liquidated at the Sava bank in between the two locations."

In the second sentence, the word "liquidated" is ambiguous and implies an outcome other than death. Yet I am supposing that what "liquidated" really implies, in fact, is an outcome of death. So - is there some fundamental issue with using the word "killed" instead of "liquidated"? Beyond the ambiguity of the latter, it seems like an attempt at being "politically correct" or simply "softening" the harshness of what was really done.

"Liquidation" commonly refers to the conversion of assets into cash. Are readers to gain the impression that the afforementioned people were seen as valuable and were henceforth exchanged in some type of transaction for their monetary value? This interpretation is even more likely in the third sentence, where the word "bank" is used in the same sentence and thus might confuse readers.

I hope that someone views this discussion as important enough to replace the word "liquidated" in all three of its occurances. I implore a respected Wikipedia editor to make the change to a more accurate and appropriate word such as "killed". Thank you. 24.247.170.144 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• English language words are so often of polysemantic meaning - see http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/liquidate --138.88.103.233 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It's a manner of linguistic license. Frankly, I don't know how anyone could find "liquidation" a softening of "killing", but that's just me. The article is not protected, so feel free to work on the language if you guys wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's more to it than simply linguistics. The term actually appears in this form within the documentation of the Ustase (Croatian "Liqvidirati" and etc). This term is also in times incorprated within other holocaust related articles.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Roman Catholic Church

The article should maybe have a special section on the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the partial extermination of Croatian Serbs. There are various conspiracy theories out there that attribute the massacres to the Vatican itself, when in fact they probably have more to do with radicalized Franciscans in Croatia that were manipulated by the pro-Nazi regime. For instance, there is a highly polemical and controversial book on the subject called The Vatican's Holocaust by anti-Catholic writer Avro Manhattan, who goes to great lenghts in order to "prove" the Vatican's alleged role in the massacres. [2] ADM (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the mess at Involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that just because anti-Catholic writers "prove" alleged roles, that really doesn't make them worthy of inclusion. See WP:UNDUE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Serbs were never exterminated in Croatia. After the 2nd World War war, Serbs in Croatia remained majority on about one third of Croatia's territory. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, they committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims during World War II. If Croats killed 600,000 of Serbs in WWII in Croatia, then Serbs would certainly not be ethnic majority in areas where they claimed genocide. Bosniak (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

References from blog and non-institutional website links should be removed from the article

There are a number of very bad sources on this article including blog and independently operated websites that are not associated with institutions. Particularly the website srpska-mreza.com, which is a Serb nationalist website that completely misrepresents information on a variety of topics and has highly controversial claims such as denying that the Srebrenica massacre happened and promotes conspiracy theories that are not backed up by scholarly academic sources. Such blog websites that have political agendas should not be used in this article, they can discredit the article in spite of good scholarly sources being on it. Scholarly sources should replace blog or non-institutional website links in this article. Information that can only be found on blog and independently operated websites that promote fringe theories that are not backed up from scholarly sources is not credible. Probably most of the material on this article is accurate, I am not that familiar with the specific topic of Jasenovac so I cannot judge the non-website sources that well, but more scholarly sources are needed to replace the blog-type website links in the references.--R-41 (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Authenticity of the images

It's possible to find any type of reference indicating that these images are of Ustase? How is possible to determine it's veracity? For sample, the picture in the wich there is an ustase soldier with his suspected victims, how determining this, and how determining that this is not from other? If someone has a answer I thank him. --190.172.241.32 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jasenovac Lies by Big Bird

This is response to the comment left on my profile page by user "Big Bird". You cannot censor other people's opinions and historical facts. Your hateful actions and Srebrenica genocide denial should be censored to the fullest extent. Only 26,000 Serbs died in Jasenovac. THat's about it. Serbs inflated figures to over 700,000. You should be ashamed of yourself from spreading this hateful propaganda of Serb victimhood, which aims to diminish the importance of genocides that Serbs had committed against Muslims in WWII. Bosniak (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, responses to comments left on your page should usually be made on your talk page or the posting editor's talk page, not a talk page of an indirectly related article since this really does nothing to improve article development which, coincidentally, is the exact purpose of an article talk page. Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of Macedonians?

If you go through the victims list on the jasenovac website: https://cp13.heritagewebdesign.com/~lituchy/victimlist.php you'll find a good chunk of Macedonian people died at the concentration camp too. 2 of my relatives amongst them, yet there is no mention of Macedonian people? Could somebody edit the page so that there is mention since they also died fighting for their freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very POV webpage which has caused several disputes. Long story short, that's actually a list of all casualties in Yugoslavia, and has nothing to do specifically with Jasenovac.--Thewanderer (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Jasenovac? I don't understand what you mean by that? The website lists all the people who died at the concentration camp of Jasenovac (2 of my relatives, they're even on the list to confirm it), and this page is about that. I still find it unfair that there is no mention of Macedonians being amongst the casualties, since they also contributed to the liberation of Yugoslavia, and many of them died in that process (not only in Jasenovac); some of my relatives amongst them. I can tell that the website is somewhat pro-Serbian, yet that shouldn't devalue the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not a list of Jasenovac victims. It is a list of casualties in Yugoslavia. Naturally, the list of Jasenovac victims is a subset of that, so they would also be on this list.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

lies

the truth is that in jasenovac died about 50 000 people, mostly croatians, then serbs, and then jews, roms, etc. i am not saying that to justify jasenovac, but it's the truth. in croatia lived 500 000 serbs. how can the number be 700 000? so 200 000 serbs must have comed here just to be slaughered? and not saying that many serbs fled, and that many weren't killed at all. you all forget that draža mihajlović killed many innocent muslims and croats before jasenovac, and that he killed everybody, i MEAN EVERYBODY in whole villages. and not to speak about partisan crimes. when the war ended, many ustashe surrendered, and were killed. i read a book which says about 500 000 people, or ever 100 000 more. the truth is that ustashe didn't want to kill every serb-they wanted ethnic clean croatia, but did that on not good way to do-jasenovac. they wanted independent state of croatia in a wrong way-they became allies with germany, and that is their biggest mistake thex ever did, of course, after genocide in jasenovac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.176.226 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how to improve this article or do you just feel like discussing the subject in general? If you don't have a specific suggestion on how to improve the article, please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to take into account the Serbs living in Bosnia, in 1931 there were 1,028,139 Serbs living in Bosnia. Then there are the parts of Vojvodina which were controlled by the NDH. Although 700 000 does seem like a very high number, there were definitely more than 50 000 Serbs killed at Jasenovac. - Gradanin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradanin (talk • contribs) 02:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Research

Losses of population of Yugoslavia in World War 2-how many serbs died abroad serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.176.226 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jasenovac was Genocide, but numbers were Smaller in Scale (26,170 Serbs not 700,000)

According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which I deem to be reputable institution, “The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustasha between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac” (not 700,000 as alleged by Dr. Milan Bulajic and other Serbian ultra-nationalists). In 1998, the Bosniak Institute published SFR Yugoslavia’s final and the most credible List of war victims from the Jasenovac camp (created in 1992 with names of living people and duplicate names removed). The list contained the names of 49,602 victims at Jasenovac, including 26,170 Serbs, 8,121 Jews, 5,900 Croats, 1471 Romanies, 787 Bosniaks, 6,792 of unidentifiable ethnicity, and some listed simply as “others”. (Use 'Google translate' http://www.bosnjackiinstitut.ba/ )Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I also support this, most accurate death toll is about 50.000 serbs. Not 700.000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.91.7 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Photographs used

For two photographs used in this article the location is questionable or different. In some of the books their location and explanation was not Jasenovac.

1. Photo [3] used here [4]. In a book Prva godina narodno-oslobodilačkog rata na području Korduna, Gline, Like, Gorskog kotra, Pokuplja i Žumberka, Zbornik III, Historijski arhiv u Karlovcu, Karlovac, 1971. Location for that photograph was said to be in Lika 1942.

In a book Katalog izložbe: Jasenovac, sistem ustaških logora smrti - Jasenovac, autor izložbe i kataloga: Mladenko Kumović, Novi Sad, 1994. The location was said to be East Herzegovina, Summer of 1941.

2. Photo [5] used here [6] At page 21 (Photo F3) of the book "Jasenovac Fotomonografija', Nataša Mataušić, Spomen područje Jasenovac, Zagreb, 2008. ISBN 978-953-99169-4-5 Its location is said to be Sisak. Photograph of victims killed in Sisak 4.-5. May 1945.

For more explanation look at pages 38-40. "Jasenovac Fotomonografija', Nataša Mataušić, Spomen područje Jasenovac, Zagreb, 2008. ISBN 978-953-99169-4-5 Rovoobo oboovoR 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anybody to add here?Rovoobo oboovoR 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Srbosjek

I merged this content per Talk:Srbosjek#standalone article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Will all the disscussion on Talk:Srbosjek#standalone article be lost after a while or will it be accessable? If its to be deleted can you transfer it to this page talk before it is lost?--Rovoobo oboovoR 11:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it (quite the contrary), it will remain accessible over there. We could also move it to a sub-page of this talk page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think also it should also be moved to a sub-page of this talk page.--Rovoobo oboovoR 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's moved now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That is now Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp/Srbosjek/Archive 3. An anonymous user said something over there in the meantime. Please repeat any comments here if you want them to apply properly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

protection?

I haven't paid attention in quite a while, but now I find myself surprised that no form of Wikipedia:Protection policy was applied on this page, despite the fact anonymous vandalism persists. I noticed that the article Srbosjek is under pending changes. Maybe that could be useful here, too? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a valid reasoning for semi-protection. As of March 21, there have been a total of eight edits by IPs since the year began and I don't know that a single one was actually vandalism. They may not have been helpful but they're still too few and far between that protection is really not necessary. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

NDH legislation

The text, as given,

Some of the first legal orders issued by the NDH reflected the acceptance of the ideology of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with an emphasis placed on Croatian national issues. The "Legal order for the defense of the people and the state" dated 17 April 1941 ordered the death penalty for "infringement of the honour and vital interests of the Croatian people and the survival of the Independent State of Croatia". It was soon followed by the "Legal order of races" and the "Legal order of the protection of Aryan blood and the honour of the Croatian people" dated 30 April 1941, as well as the "Order of the creation and definition of the racial-political committee" dated 4 June 1941. These decrees were enforced not only through the regular court system, but also through new special courts and mobile courts-martial with extended jurisdiction. In July, 1941, when existing jails could no longer contain the growing number of new inmates, the Ustaša government began clearing ground for what would become the Jasenovac concentration camp.[3]

is very poor and not necessary here:

a) "Croatian national issues" are laughable here. A national issue cannot be explanation or reason for a brutal extermination of other people, namely the Serbs, Jews, and Roma.

b) The people doomed to be exterminated were brutally exterminated without calling upon any legal order nor any legality be ever given to such extermination.

Here the legislation shall be under quotes and seen the way given by prof. Broszat in his book.--71.163.236.199 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, so why are you pretending that the above text is assigning such a laughable meaning to the presented factoids? It's not an explanation of events, it's a chronology. An encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Encyclopaedia shall provide a valid knowledge. What is the valid knowledge comes from people like prof Broszat, not from amateurs calling upon nonsense ("does not prescribe"). So, I am going to mark the "Croatian national issues" properly in the text--71.163.236.199 (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're ranting against something that's completely off base. That sentence isn't excusing the racist legislation, it's describing it. What they mean as their "national interests" is clearly elaborated with direct quotes in the very next sentence. You seem to be reading way too much into that sentence, an offensive meaning that is simply not there. What may be confusing here is the conflation of "Croatian national" with NDH. That should have been clear from the context, but I guess not, so let rephrase it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am not "ranting", I am pointing at scholastic attitude I saw in the prof. Broszat's book: legislation is a mockery, i.e. "legislation". "Croatian national issues" are in the line of Ustashi ideology. --71.163.236.199 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)