Talk:Aloysius Stepinac/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

War Crimes

I think it's important to distinquish between several defenitions of this. A war crimes can mean "someone convicted of a war crime in a Croatian court", "Someone convicted of a war crime in a Yugoslavian court", "someone convicted of war crime in an international court (like the Hague)", or "someone who commits acts generally considered to be war crimes, whether or not they are convicted".

In Rwanda there are many people who have never been convicted in any court but are nonetheless clearly guilty of war crimes. Additionally, whether or not Croatian has overturned the guilty verdict, Stepinac is still in that sense a "convicted war criminal" because the entity Yugoslavia no longer exists and cannot therefore rescind verdicts, and because Croatia has no jurisdiction over Bosnia, where many of the crimes are said to have been commited.

Anytime the formulation "war criminal" is used, it should be noted which of these definitions is meant. If documentation can prove beyond a doubt that he commited acts which international laws say are criminal, this should be stated. Also, until a statement is issued, it should be assumed that Stepinac is still considered a war criminal in all ex-Yugoslav states except Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider adding

I don't want to start editing something that is clearly controversial, but I hope someone can add this quotation, from Stella Alexander's book (already mentioned as a source). It strikes me as a viewpoint independant of the two extremes (war criminal or saint), and gives an idea of how he is judged by literary and cultural critics not affiliated with one side or the other. "He lived in the midst of apocalyptic events, bearing responsibilites he had not sought...In the end one is left feeling that he was not quite great enough for the role. Given his limitations he behaved very well, certainly much better than most of his own people, and he grew in spiritual stature during the course of the long ordeal."

This seems important because it reflects the degree to which Stepinac changed during the war. Some people seem unwilling to admit that he was ever complicit in these atrocities, while others cannot admit that his experiences changed him and that by the end of the war he was actively trying to save lives.

Another important quote (from a memo Stepinac sent to Catholic priests) seems to reveal his development from accepting forced conversions to approving of conversions that would save lives (even if they were insincere). He says that these conversion are acceptable because of the circumstances. "The role and task of Christians is first of all to save people. When these sad and savage times are past [the converts] will return to their own when the danger is over"

It's impossible to deny that Stepinac was involved in forced conversions, but he seems to have thought that they might save people. It's easy to see how this was twisted to justify forcing conversion on people before executing them, ostensibly "saving their souls".

(These were both taken from Robert Kaplan's (deeply flawed but interesting) book "Balkan Ghosts" . He quotes them from the original sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Stub explanation

I figure that the article is pretty lengthy compared to an average stub, but it's still missing much content and context regarding his rise in prominence, the WWII-related events. Someone needs to read through the first page of the Google search for Alojzije Stepinac and summarize the available documentation regarding Stepinac's involvement in the war. --Joy [shallot] 18:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

mock trial; religious conversions

I explained the notion of mock trial in one instance, although I didn't yet delve into the discussion on whether and to which extent he supported the religious conversions during WWII. This is probably the issue that requires the most immediate attention. --Joy [shallot] 02:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

blessed, notable, infamous

WHy blessed and notable when he is infamous? HolyRomanEmperor 18:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Milan's comments about the direct involvement

The document is correct when it comes to the biographical background proper. However, it does omit a great deal of information pertaining to his direct involvement in the mass murder of Jews, Serbs, Romas and other non-Croats, through his blessing and overt approval of the murderous Ustase regime... I think that the Pavelic Papers contain a great deal of information that directly tie him to the regime. -Milan

Do you have any prove in Stepinac's direct involement in any murder? If so, please present it. Saying that he was involved, because he welcome the NDH or had good relationships with Ante Pavelić would be as absurd as calling Churchill a communist, because he was allied with Stalin. The only thing that can be said is that he was in favour of the independent Croatia (which annoyed the lovers of Yugoslavia) and he was anti-communist (which antaginized communists). But neither patriotism or anticommunism can be regarded a crime. Regards, Jasra 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop Edit War - "convicted criminal"

If you are doing revert, please explain why. Why are you insisting on the expression "convicted crimianal" when this is far from neutral point of view. I think we should stick to facts only, without making a Great-Serbian or Communist or any other propaganda. Jasra 21:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

it is a fact - he was a convicted war criminal Cicceroa 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet it is also a fact that another government of Croatia later entirely retracted that conviction, but you conveniently omitted that from your rationale. This is a non-argument - it's simply a slanted description that can and should be avoided. --Joy [shallot] 13:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither the Croatian government nor Croatian parliament do not have authority for overturning court decisions since that act would be unconstitutional. The "thing" you are pointing at is parliamentary declaration - act without any consequence nor validity; it is simple political act. So if you find legal court decision invalid or somehow "politicaly motivated" you should be more distrustful against notorious political act such as this declaration. Brunislav 09:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Could you elaborate a bit more why the annullation of the Yugoslav verdict was (...) part of a wider campagn to scare remaining Serbs and ethnically cleanse them from Croatia. I do not think anyone can be scared by one's rehabilitation, especially when a person is dead. Jasra 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

it is analogous to rehabilitating hitler in the wake of new pogroms on jews. being from poland, you can imagine what it means Cicceroa 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did order to exterminate Jews and other nations, so his responsibility is direct. Stepinac did not order to kill anyone, neither he approved the killing. He was definitely in favour of the independent Croatia and the only force approving this independent in those times was Hitler with his allies. If you blame Stepinac for colaboration with Nazis - you should also blame let say Churchill and Rosevelt for the collaboration with Stalin (a mass murderer) and call them criminals (although not convicted). In Wiki articles you should present NPoV. The only certain thing about the verdict was that it was annulled. So I think it is better just to say that the Yugoslav verdict was overturned and do not write any comments. Jasra 20:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are few proofs of even hitler involvement. Comparison of Hitler and Stalin are very insultive indeed - they are not the same. Churchill was no saint either. Each person needs to be judged separately. Stepinac has blessed the Ustasha regime, he was involved in forced conversions of Ortodox Serbs into Catholicism, and indeed many Ortodox priests were hanged under his regime. So, he might be more involved in genocide than Hitler himself (nota bene - genocide is not only killing, but destroying of a nation by other means, and Ustashe did all that - forced conversions, organized by Stepinac clergy, killings in which clergy enthusiasticaly participated - take a look at what Catholic Crusaders did!). He was chief cleric in Ustasha regime, and clerics were actively commiting crimes in Jasenovac and all over NDH. You, if you are Catholic, should feel shame that such things happened - and not to protect this convicted war criminal. Cicceroa 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet you fail to notice that the article already says all that, just without spilling bile the way your comments do?
It's not "protection" of a "convicted war criminal" to state facts without excess emotion and ignoring the context, it's simply adherence to the neutrality policy. You would do us all a favour if you got acquainted with it.
--Joy [shallot] 13:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

image caption ("Ustasha establishment")

I don't think the use of the term "other members of Ustasha establisment" is a warrented caption under the image of Stepinac with members of Ustasha. The article in no way establishes that he was Ustasha. Until the article makes such a connection (I might add that I don't think that'll happen), I think that "other" should be removed from the caption. 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cicceroa wrote, repeatedly, stepinac was in the establishment.

I don't believe that this is an appropriate use of that word. The Catholic Church was not a governing body of the NDH, nor was it founded and/or united (established) for the purpose of being the administration of this entity. Sure, there is a general meaning of the establishment under which one can put the largest and the most influential religious entity of a state, however, by saying that Stepinac was part of the Ustasha establishment we imply that he was either a member of the Ustasha or at least that he was a sympathiser. As the article explains, he could have been considered sympathetic to them for a while in the beginning of the war, but not later. And even that is merely a weak link of sympathy; there is no reason whatsoever to consider him a member of the Ustasha organization. So, Cicceroa, please consider the above and kindly stop modifying that sentence. --Joy [shallot] 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To Croatian Historian

I looked at your corrections at Alojzije Stepinac article. Basically I do not object them, but I don't know if they will stay for long. I have two things:

  1. I think one should give more explanation why the trial did not meet proper standards.
  1. My objection is to the word "murdered". Unless any new facts are known, the communists caused his death due to the lack of proper treatment, bad conditions, etc., but it is too strong to say "murdered". (I have edited that, but I can be wrong).

BTW. I'm very interested in Croatian issues. I remember the whole process of restoring Croatia's independence. I wanted to contact you, but your userpage was blocked, so maybe you can mail me or write on my discussion page. Regards Jasra 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is no place for personal comments. Croatian historian is a banned vandal who posted on his page his hatred towards Ortodox Russians and Serbs. Is this the kind of Catholicism you want to associate with and defend? Cicceroa 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You say "This is not place for personal comments" and just exactly are making one :(. Read my message carefully and you will see that I am also critical to CH. Coming bac to the article - please explain the necessity of the phrase "convicted criminal". Jasra 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was warning you about the true nature of the person you are engaging with - you posted comments about him in the first place. As for your comments and reverts, I find it hard to think of something as a compromise if you are removing even the statement that he is contraversial (wich is at least what is undeniable). He is a war crime convict, and he died serving a sentence for his crimes. Note that not even Hitler didnt personally kill anyone. His soldiers did. And Catholic clergy had their hands fool of blood - Jasenovac had CLERICS as killers and organisers. So, he has command responsiblity at least.

No. That statement is false, to the best of my knowledge. Were the members of the clergy in Jasenovac concentration camp within the Church hierarchy, that is, were they acting in their official capacity as members of the hierarchy? Did they receive instructions or orders or anything from a bishop or an archbishop with regard to being there and/or doing anything against the Ten Commandments ("Do Not Kill" springs to mind, eh)? I have yet to see a substantive positive answer to any of these questions, and I've actually tried to find it (including on --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And he argued for forced conversions.

I can't see how this is true, either. I don't see any reason to state that he *argued for* them, he implicitly condoned them (at least in the initial stages of the war) by not opposing them. That is still wrong, but it's clearly not the same thing. --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That his war crime sentence was overturned by the new croatian government is no surprise. They renamed streets after Mile Budak at the time - now do you think that is objective. I trust more the antifascist goverment than the new croatian goverment. Cicceroa 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, but it's also worth noting that Budak was rehabilitated for his literature, not for his political work. No other non-poet NDH politicians were rehabilitated, TTBOMK. --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement "controversial" from the very beginning of the article, but in the rest of the article it was clearly seen that he was cantroversial. I also removed "blessed" from the beginning (also because it is mentioned later). I wanted to leave at the beginning only the statements which are the FACTS and both you and Croatian User will be able to agree with them (he was a cardinal, he was Croatian, etc.). In the later part of the text, I think all the controversies are presented from both sides. It has not been proved that he ordered any clerics to kill anyone. The fact that there were clergymen involved in war crimes does not make the Archbishop guilty of these crimes. You can always say that he did not enough to prevent the crimes, but it can only be hypothetical to say whether it was possible to make more. As far as Mile Budak is concerned - it is a different issue and it is better to discuss it there. I don't know much of him, but it looks that he really was involved in crimes and his defenders only say that his literature work should be separated from his activities as a politician, but as I said I know there was a controversy, but I do not know Budak's exact involvement. When you talk about the antifascist government - it is of course your personal attitude whether you would trust them or not. Remeber that they were also responsibe for war crimes like Bleiburg massacre. So I would not trust them. I might not trust Tudjman's government, but I would rather trust present Croatian government. They try to stop the efforts towards the rehabilitation of Budak, but they fully agree with the rehabilitation of Stepinac. But of course it is a matter of your personal stand and in the article facts are needed. Jasra 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You could use the same argument against Churchill and in fact Dresden bombing was far worse than Bleiburg, that is blown out of proportion by Croatian neo-government. Facts on the table, and Ustashe, with Alojzije as their spiritual leader, were BY FAR the worst killers in WWII - they appaled even Hitler's SS who had to restrain them. And fact is that he was a war criminal convicted by the antifascist government - and both comunists and anti-comunists (there were TWO anti-fascist guerilla movements that fought occupation and Ustashe in WWII, and both were supported by the Allies) agree that Catholic clergy in Croatia headed by Stepinac were criminal. The Jasenovac camp was headed by a priest of Stepinac's church. That are the facts. Also, inserting claim that Stepinac was matryr - which is completely false info - can tell how POV you are. I can imagine that by standards of concentration camps in Poland Jasenovac is no big deal, but Croatia is 10 times smaller than Poland, and also, about a third of Serbian population in NDH were executed in the most henious chapter of Holocaust. Are you defending that? Cicceroa 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A matryr

Do you have any proof that Catholic church has declared him a matryr. I find it quite unbelievable that they would go so far in their clash with Tito, who at the time was a major international player. Please provide references, or this will be removed. Cicceroa

I am not sure about the OFFICIAL stand, however I've seen pictures of Aloizije Stepinac (before his beatification) with the caption Hrvatski mučenik. So at least in common belief he was a martyr. But I agree that it should be checked what an official stand of the Church is like. On the other hand the title "martyr" does not have as official significance as the title of "blessed" or "saint". The borders between martyr and non-martyr are not very strict. Jasra 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In what "common belief" he is/was a martyr?
Title "blessed" or "saint" have significance only for Christians.
Brunislav 09:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
So in fact you are admitting that you have no source for this. That there were pictures with such captions by his fans means really nothing - other that some fans consider him a matryr. You might as well say he is a hero, an idol or whatever. For some people, Hitler is a matryr too. Or, to much greater degree, Mohamed Atta, and many terrorists. A statement by Church is one thing (and there ARE people who are considered matryrs), the opinion of few is another. He certainly did not die a matryr death, if you say he is you are insulting real Christian matryrs. There is not even a widespread belief that he is a martryr among Croatian nationalists, let alone Croats or Catholics at large. Cicceroa 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A simple googling reveals this page which, despite arguing against Stepinac, mentions that pope John Paul II referred to him as a martyr. --Elephantus 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the outstanding figures of the Catholic Church, having endured in his own body and his own spirit the atrocities of the Communist system, is now entrusted to the memory of his fellow countrymen with the radiant badge of martyrdom."

this is what pope has said on his beatification. But that is not proclamation that he is matryr. The claim needs to be qualified. Cicceroa 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I believe i's absolutely riddiculous to state that a man who publicly sanctified Croatian 'Legions'(units formed to assist German war effort on the eastern front and perhaps the most dreaded killers, although the competition is strong, to be formed from Yugoslavian peoples) a martyr. The man almost certainly didn't have anything to fear from the Ustasha since they are unlikely to do anything against a catholic archbishop, so to refuse was definetly an option. Allso it is in my oppinion more remarkable that the SFRY's authorities actually endured his presence in the position for so long and didn't indite him. It is more probable they actually just wanted to be rid of this nationalist since religion is the main destabilising factor in Yugoslavia (as became apparent recently). I say this to disprove any allegations that his trial was an attack by the 'evil' communists on the croatian people: the man was a threat to Yugoslavia and an Ustashe supporter (in the least). dIRECTOR (a Croat BTW)

Cicceroa quotes Jean Paul II accurately but says his comment was not a proclamation of martyrdom. It was exactly that. The question of Stepinac's martyrdom was of fundamental importance for the Catholic church. John Paul II had previously determined that in the case of martyrdom it was permissible to promote a candidate towards sainthood (which is what beatification is) without the need for proof of a miraculous intercession by that candidate. No miracle in Stepinac's name had been proved, therefore martyrdom was the only route by which his cause could be advanced. Considering that Stepinac died peacefully at home, nine years after being released early from prison to live out his last years in his home village, I am inclined to have some sympathy with those who don't regard him as a martyr in any normal sense of the word.

Kirker 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant parts

I removed a part about a priest being a war criminal in Jasenovac, because there is no evidence that Stepinac had any connections with this priest and the article is about Stepinac. You can move this part to another article. There is also no evidence that the overturning the trial against Stepinac in any way encouraged ethnic cleansing or any attrocities against Serbs. Jasra 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the statement that the "Jasenovac camp was led by his priest" is incorrect at least in the case of Miroslav Filipović, who was ejected from his order before he became the commander of the camp. There is also little to no substantiation to the claims that the "Catholic Crusaders" were connected to Stepinac or vice versa. --Joy [shallot] 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
They were not excommunicated, and that is the least what Stepinac was to do - he had the power and, let us not forget that, the responsibility. The organization with a name "Catholic Crusaders" doing such bestialities, not being excommunicated, not even condemned by the Archbishop - in this case, silence is a sign of approval, and a consequence was hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Serbs. Stepinac blessed Ustashe, instead of doing what he was supposed to do. By not doing it, he granted legitimacy to "Catholic Crusaders" and other involved priests - how many of them would be able to do what they did if they were punished by their church, in the name of which they commited crimes - there is evidence that Italians were concerned for the horrible stain on reputation of Catholic church that by Croatian priests doing crimes made, but the Archbishop of NDH did nothing. It is very relevant piece, and it should stay. In modern war crime law, it is a war crime not to persecute those who commited crimes. The same morality logic applies to Stepinac - he allowed genocide to happen, he allowed his priests to take part in it, therefore, he is a war criminal, and in fact a person who damaged reputation of Catholic faith, as he chose to allow worst criminals to comit crimes in the name of Catholic faith, which he was supposed to protect. Serpen 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that kind of logic is just swell, you might as well also call Pope Pius XII a war criminal, or indeed any other Catholic priest who was not at the bottom of the hierarchy. Please stop pointing the finger without some actual substantiation. For example - if there is a rule in Roman Catholicism that says that an archbishop needs to excommunicate person A for doing action B, and Stepinac did not do that, say that. The excessive moralization is not conducive for a NPOV article. --Joy [shallot] 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cicceroa wrote: [wider campaign ...], which also included naming streets after Mile Budak, the ideologue of Ustasha genocide, who was also rehabilitated on that wave of Croatian nationalist euphoria. Serbs were deeply frightened by such developments, and the whole process ended in ethnic cleansing of over half million of Serbs, who were reduced from 12% to 2% minority in Croatia.

This addition is wrong on so many levels. First of all, conflating the issue of Budak to the issue of Stepinac is untidy to say the least. Budak actually was part of the Ustasha established discussed above, while Stepinac was not. And even if one disagrees with that claim, that's still just a matter of opinion, and not a pertinent fact that would need to be stated in the article. And the last sentence is first of all irrelevant, secondly it is wrong since the purported "half million of Serbs" were never all removed from Croatia, let alone "ethnically cleansed", and the 2001 census shows that they are a 4.5% minority so the number is also wrong. Besides, 50-year-old conspiracy theories don't kill/evict people, real people and real actions do. And finally, regardless of all these complaints, Wikipedia articles are not a place for semi-random rants about tangential topics. --Joy [shallot] 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, it is not like that at all. Both Stepinac and Budak incidents were part of the same campagn, certainly Serbs saw it like that. Also, the sentence is attributing the view to Serbs (part of the quote that you didnt include), so yes, Croats hold different opinion, but this paragraph is about feelings of Serbs.
Just because someone has *feelings* about something that doesn't make it an encyclopedic fact. Think about it. Imagine if we went on to describe the pain of every single victim of every single wrongdoing - would it still be an encyclopedia? --Joy [shallot]
Next, Croatia ethnically cleansed and expelled using subtler means of discrimination almost all of its Serbs, so that less than 100,000 remained. Given that there were 560,000 of Serbs and that some Serbs declared as Yugoslavs in 1991 (the ethnic hatred against Serbs had been boiling at the time), the claim about half milion is true. I would just say they were expelled, since some, living in inner Croatia, were expelled by discrimination rather than by brutal force.
This is still inference in a place where that is entirely inappropriate. And we can also disagree about the topic - not all Yugoslavs were Serbs, nor were all Serbs subject of discrimination and brutality, not nearly. But again, that's beside the point - the point is that there is no place in this article for this kind of tangentially relevant emotional writing. --Joy [shallot]
And the 4.5% is the percentage claimed now, when supposedly 100,000 Serbs returned. In fact, only a fraction really returned, many just took papers and fictively live in Croatia, but Croatia counts them to win favor from EU. Everyone knows that who has any idea about the problem of the Serbian refugees.
Well, if people didn't want to be counted in those percentages, they could have told the census recorders to skip them; arguing against the percentages on the basis that they are, well, percentages, that's pretty pointless. And the problem of Serbian refugees is discussed on Wikipedia already, but in the articles where this is *entirely relevant*. --Joy [shallot]
So, I find the claims founded, and find your assertion that description of Serbian Golgotha is random rant is just an attempt to add insult to injury. Serpen 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
See, this is the kind of discourse we're not supposed to be having when writing an *encyclopedia article*. --Joy [shallot]

Joy [shallot] states here - and elsewhere in Wikipedia talk - that Miroslav Filipović was ejected from the Franciscan order. Could Joy either remove such statements please, or support them with a reference? Kirker 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I have removed this phrase from the introductory paragraph: for Serbs and some Jews he is notorious for...
Let me explain.
An encyclopedic article about a man is not an article about what people think of that man.
It is about what that man did and what was done to him. It is about the facts of that man's life.
Let me use an example. George W. Bush is currently notorious in many parts of the world, but this isn't mentioned in his introductory paragraph. Why? Because the Bush article is not about other people's opinions of Bush, but about what Bush has done in his life.
What I'm saying is basic logic, but the removed phrase indicates that some people don't seem to understand it. --Zmaj 08:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that public perceptions of public figures is relevant? You use George W. Bush as an example, but check out these experts from his wiki page:

"Bush's upbringing in West Texas, his accent, his vacations on his Texas ranch, and his penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image."

"In 2007, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported that during the Bush presidency, attitudes towards the United States and the American people became less favorable around the world."

"This program is believed by some to be a positive aspect of Bush's legacy across the political spectrum."

The problem isn't that public opinion is not noteworthy, but that public opinion must have some source other than conjecture. If its possible to prove that Jews and Serbs find him notorious (probably not a big challenge), it's fine to mention. That said, it would never be acceptable to just say "he is infamous", and it would be dicey to say "infamous, according to some". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Gitman

Maayaa deleted this part about Dr. Gitman: and a recognized expert for Jews in the Independent State of Croatia. He asked: "recognized by whom?" and claimed this was a peacock phrase.
Maayaa, please inform yourself before throwing accusations. It is really not hard to check a person on the Internet. Dr. Gitman received her Ph. D. for the dissertation Rescue and Survival of Jews in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), 1941-1945. Her work on this topic also earned her a Fulbright scolarship for Zagreb, Croatia. In 2005, she was accepted into the post-doctoral program at Yad Vashem. This is more than enough to call someone "a recognized expert".
--Zmaj 12:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is responsibility of those who make claims to cite sources, and using weasel words is always suspicious. Also, your standards for being a recognized expert may be subjective, but the precise statement can be made. Maayaa 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, where did she earn PhD. This is very important. If she earned PhD in Zagreb, that may imply possible bias, and this information should be included. I will add a fact tag, since the claim has to be verified anyway. Maayaa 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

She earned it in New York, which you could have easily checked yourself. --Zmaj 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I will remove your fact tag, since it is unwarranted. Such tags should be used only for controversial claims, not for someone's PhD, otherwise you could put that tag after every word in the article. --Zmaj 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of unrelated sentence, explanation

I deleted this part of the sentence:

and the whole process ended in expulsion of over half million of Serbs, who were reduced from 12% to 3% minority in Croatia.


  • This is unrelated to the subject
  • Today, Serbs form 5% minority in Croatia
  • They did form 3% minority just after Operation Storm, but they fled out of fear, so word "expulsion" cannot be used here

I hope this explanation is good enough. --Ante Perkovic 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very related to the subject of the paragraph. You cant just delete images and paragraphs you dont like. As for expulsion, this might be contraversial (Croats of course deny their crimes), but the more neutral way to state this important fact can be used. Maayaa 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that someone does not like some information, but that this information is irrelevant to the subject. It is enough to write that saw Serbs the rehabilitation of cardinal Stepinac a part of attempt to rehabilitate NDH in general, but expulsion (or fleeing) of Serbs was the result of military operations, which had nothing to do with Stepinac. I don't think this article should cover all the aspects of Serbo-Croatian relationships. This is the article about one person and should not much go beyond this. Jasra 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it not relevant. Stepinac is accused of approving forced conversions to Catholicism, part of plan to eradicate Serbs from Croatia. The Stepinac is rehabilitated, the Serbs dissapear. All the facts should be presented, as these things are related. Maayaa 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a name for your logic, Maayaa: conspiracy theory. --Zmaj 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you (Maayaa) insist, everything is somehow related to everything else in the universe, but the main question here is - is it related enough to be included in the article. I think not.
One of the mail problem with many pro-serbian users here is that they would, if they only could, put information about NDH in every possible article from Daisy to Dusseldorf.
There is a name for such a behaviour - disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. And guess what - it si against the rules. --Ante Perkovic 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Stepinac is not just any article. It is an article about a convinced war criminal, who cooperated with the regime of NDH. So, what you say is ridicilous. As for your acusations of disruption, they are insultive indeed. The real disruption is in obscuring the facts related to NDH by Croatian users, who shamelessly want to censor wikipedia - from removing images that they dislike, to deleting relevant paragraphs, that show truth about Croatian crimes. Maayaa 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Obscuring the facts??? Why do you change the subject? Is Stepinac is also responsable for Serbs exodus in 1995? Yes or no? If he isn't, let's keep the exodus out of the article. Clear as a a day. --Ante Perkovic 07:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Heck, if he was even directly related to these events, they could stay in the article. But he wasn't.
The difference between talking about other things that happened related to him long after his death is that they directly related to him. The Parliament did something about him - direct link. The Pope did something about him - direct link. The Wiesenthal Center did something about him - direct link. Yad Vashem did something about him - direct link. That contested scholar said something about him - direct link. You get my drift. Somebody thinking something about someone else who did something related to Stepinac - that is not a direct link, not by a long shot. --Joy [shallot]
You seem to fail to understand the relevance of Budak at all. Saying Stepinac sentence was withdrawn might give a false impression that he was indeed not guilty for his war crimes. However, giving the whole context - renaming streets after Mile Budak, erecting monuments to Francetic, expelling Serbs from constitution (and later from Croatia) etc. gives the reader the opportunity to see this revocation of sentence as it was - just a part of nationalistic hysteria, that made heros out of WWII criminals, tried to rebury bones of killers with their victims - hundreds of thousands of Serbs killed in perhaps the most bestial genocide in history, that appaled SS who were, as a consequence, seeking less brutal ways to kill Jews after they concluded Croatian methods were too savage, etc. - hiding this context makes Stepinac look as he deserved to be seen as merely a victim of communist opression. Deleting information about Serbs is precisely serving this purpose. Maayaa 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Try and write all that in a (neutral) article first. In other words, establish context from an actual part of history, rather than tangential assertions that look like nothing more than conspiracy theory.
Also notice how all this context, exactly the way you said it, in sequence and making it sound like one big orchestrated effort, was the story that the likes of Milošević used to lead the Serbs all over Yugoslavia into a series of wars. Therefore it's not likely that any history article will actually include this context written like that because much of the world thinks it's propaganda.
Another thing. All that context, even if all of it is true, doesn't actually prove that Stepinac wasn't a victim of the communists. One can stage a trial of a guilty person, too. Just because a person is guilty that doesn't make a trial any less staged. --Joy [shallot] 20:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this part - and the whole process ended in expulsion of over half million of Serbs, who were reduced from 12% to 3% minority in Croatia. - is extremely POV. Maayaa is trying to simplify things so much that he is trying to persuade the reader that the entire war is result of renaimng streets and rehabilitation of a few Ustasa.

--Ante Perkovic 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[...]might give a false impression that he was indeed not guilty for his war crimes. This is not false impression. There is no proof that Stepinac was guilty of war crimes. He never ordered anyone to kill/imprison/expell anybody. Even if he approved converting Orthodox Christians into Catholicism - he never gave any orders to threaten anyone and force him/her into conversion. So his partial involvement in the issue of conversions cannot be seen as a war crime. Even if he partially supported NDH, he did not support genocide. He did support the independence of Croatia and this can be the reason why he was tried and sentenced. He also was strongly anti-communist. These two reasons were enough to find him guilty from the PoV of Titoist Yugoslavia, but they do not make him criminal.

This is speculation. Brunislav 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW. If one really wants to put Stepinac's rehabilitation in a wider context - Why not to put the trial in the wider context of repressions inflicted by the Tito's regime (križni putevi, etc.).

Using the term "križni put" for returning of the fascist colaborators to their homeland (and puting them on trial, in prison or in grave) also says something about colaboration between Church and fascism. Brunislav 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly in favour of such a solution, but if you want wider context - you should put it everywhere.

Talking about Budak - he was NOT officially rehabilitated. Some local city/town councils named streets after him, but there was no act of official rehabilitation (correct me if I am wrong). Those who wanted to honor Budak claimed that one should separate his literary work from his political activities (I do not agree with such a statement, but it is not the same as rehabilitation of genocide).Jasra 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I put POV template on WWII section. Most of the section is about the crimes committed by the NDH supporters, but the relevance with Stepinac is only that he did not do enough to prevent these crimes. The only source to support this was a BBC broadcast aired during the war. Britain was at war against Germany and NDH sided with Germany, so Britain had to be against NDH. They were not only genocide carried out by the Pavelić regime, but against any independent Croatia. Stepinac was against the genocide, but he was in favour of independent Croatia and in those time there was no other serious political power supporting the independence of Croatia. Taking all this into account the objectivity of the broadcast must be disputed.

I don't think any compromise can be reached in this article. The best would be just remove the whole sections (they can be put in some other articles, e.g. about crimes committed during WWII or NDH or alike). In this article it is just enough to say that the critics say Stepinac did not do enough to prevent genocide against Serbs. However, I realize it is impossible, so I think another section should be written from the point of view of supporters of Stepinac. In both sections it should be said that one is from the POV of opponets and the other from supporters.

BTW: it is unclear to me the expresion "his ex-priest" (about the Jasenovac guard) - if he was "ex" - Stepinac was not responsible for his actions.

Jasra 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally see nothing wrong with calling a moral coward a moral coward. Maybe I'm just crazy or something, but no true Christian (or moderately decent human being, actually) would support an independent Croatia built on Serbian blood.

Calling a spade a spade isn't an NPOV violation.

"The purpose of all this terror was to destroy the enemies of Catholicism. Yet, while the Catholic Church, whenever given total power, can become a ruthless destroyer of her enemies, bursting with dreams of expansion, she can simultaneously follow a no less ruthless campaign of absorption."

This isn't NPOV at all! This has nothing to do with the article, it's just ordinary anti-catholicism! The Catholic Church hadn't "total power" in Ustacshe Croatia, they had a small influence (which they maybe missused), but this is rather conspiratory theories than history.

The influence of Catholic Church in ISC (Independent State of Croatia) was not smaller then it is in the present-day Republic of Croatia - it is bigger then it should be. Brunislav 08:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


I moved the POV warning to the begining of the article. I think that the word 'unfair' in the statement: "He was convicted by the Yugoslav authorities in 1946 for collaborating with the Ustashe in an unfair trial," is POV.

NO, it is not. Read the book CROATIA by Macus Tanner, and look at practically every article written about Stepinac's trial. It was an unfair trial because 1) Every member on the jury was a member of the communist party hand-selected specifically based on their loyalty to Tito 2) "Evidence" was allowed into the trial where its legitamacy was questionable. 3) it was already predetermined that the jury would vote guilty no matter what 4) The trial was staged by the communists because of Stepinac's opposition to the communist regime, not because of his alleged actions during NDH; if Stepinac had accepted Tito's terms on the stance of the church (ie breaking from Rome) he never would have been arrested 5) In 1992, the Croatian government overturned the guilty verdict on the grounds that the trial was staged and unfair.

Do not put the POV tag just because YOU personally don't like something. I am taking it off based on FACTS. --Dalma84 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Dalma84. Your so-called facts are incorrect.
1. If somebody is a member of Communist party that does not mean that he would not be fair. Stating such thing is a clear racism against communists and you can be persecuted for that. Also, I doubt in the fact that all of them were members of the party (although that is not important).
2. Legitimacy of the court is not under any question. Republic of Croatia has accepted all decisions of all courts from 1945. to 1990. as its own. It is in the power of judge to decide whether an evidence (without quotations) is eligible or ilegible for the trial. Your opinions, or the opinions of ANYBODY else, are not important.
3. You cannot prove that.
4. Everybody can be put on trial whether the person is guilty or not. It is a job of the judge to determine is somebody guilty or not.
5. Croatian government or parliament mustn't overturn the court decision. That act would be unconstitutional. Croatian parliament had enacted the law by which every court decision adopted between 1945. and 1990. could be challenged ON THE COURT and eventually (not necessarily) overturned. Verdict against Stepinac has never been challenged and cannot be challenged anymore since the law give two years deadline for those revisions. All that means that Croatia definitely accepts that verdict and this trial cannot legaly be considered unfair. Brunislav 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All right oh wise one, where are your sources backing ANY of your "facts" up? Your reasoning is extremeley laughable, you can hardly expect me to take you seriously with such statements as "Stating such thing is a clear racism against communists and you can be persecuted for that." I won't even attempt to respond to that. Here's what I tell you--all of my FACTS are in the book I mentioned, also, Vatican investigations and the overturning the verdict by the Croatian government is more evidence than your unsourced "facts." Are you able to find one reliable source to back up your claims?? 1) You are beyond hope. There was a reason the jury was handpicked, they were all close to Tito. Once again, read that book. You might actually learn something. 2) This is yet further proof that you don't have any facts. Explaining any facts to you would be the equivalent of explaining rocket science to a five year old. Therefore, I won't even try. 3) Please read it. For your own good, and for the good of Wikipedia, so you can stop vandalizing its pages. 4)Read the book 5) I cannot believe you just wrote that. I honesly can not. Read the book

A reminder: reverting anything without facts is considered vandalism. You have been warned. --Dalma84 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You do not have to take me seriously but you still can be persecuted. Your statement is clearly against the 106th article of the so-called "Kazneni zakon RH". Please feel free to read it:
2. Your book represents POV and not a fact. How can the book be more valuable then a court decision?
3. Vatican investigations? Where is court decision from Vatican?
4. Croatian government cannot and must not overturn the court decision. By the Constitution legislative and executive branches are separated from judiciary (4th article - Please do not mention parliamentary declaration. Parlamentary declaration is a (political) opinion of the parliament (again POV) and in any case cannot be legaly above the court decision. (Please, read also the column of the priest Živko Kustić:,10,13,Kustic_kolumna,46198.jl)
5. The jury is ALWAYS handpicked. A job of defender is to oppose and a job of the judge is to make final approval of the jury. Please ask some lawyer for the further explanation.
6. Republic of Croatia is a legal successor of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (Consitution, Preamble - There are also several decrees on the takeover of the former SRC and SFRY laws (Decrees are divided by domains). Please tell me what is the purpose of the judge if not making decisions on the court?
7. You are vandal. And you cannot prove what somebody is thinking. Are you enlighten by God to have that ability.
8. Please learn something about law.
9. I shall try to find the law in "Narodne novine" during following days.
On the end, I must say that you are POV pusher without any knowledge of law and please stop with vandalization of Wikipedia with your POVs.Brunislav 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have some maturity issues, therefore, I will not attempt to answer your petty backlash. You refering me as a vandal was only a response to your hurt pride it seems, because you make absolutely no sense. How do you know that book it POV? Have you read it? Why are you judging something that you have never seen? That book has been used as reference to countless of Wikipedia articles. That is how I found it. You have failed to add any facts stating it is an unfair trial. Any at all. And who is going to "persecute me?" Buddy, I live in the United States of America, not your fantasy communist land, because even if I did live in the Republic of Croatia, no one can "persecute" (or do you mean prosecute?) me. I know because my uncle is a politician there, very anti-communist. I hope you will refrain from personal attacks and adapt a more professional manner, because it is not in my interests to carry out an edit war with you. I want this article to be as NPOV as possible. Anyone who has seen me edit here knows I don't deliberatly change articles without proof. I have added my facts and another link. It seems that you object to the fact that the cardinal's trial was unfair. Well, just show some proof. --Dalma84 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, as I promised under 9, I have found an evidence and you can read it here: . You called me a vandal without any proof, and when I give a proof to you then you are angry. The book is by default POV when you put it in the contrast with some court decision. I can also cite, for example, "Marxist concept of religion" and you can disapprove with that opinion. I have not failed in proving anything. OK, I made a mistake in spelling but you still can be prosecuted not for anti-communism but for depriving the right to somebody for becoming a member of the jury because of it's political opinion (and I believe that such thing is also illegal in the USA or there is possible to deprive somebody to be member of the jury if he is, let's say, republican). You have also stated that a communists are liars just because they are communists. Your uncle also can be prosecuted if he does any such thing (if he deprives somebody of his civil rights). The other side of the medal is, of course, the one that says that this trial will probably be postponed long enough to fail. Especially with such high level of corruption as it is in Croatia. What would happen if I say that you and your uncles are liars and not eligible to be a members of the jury just because you are anti-communists? I also want this article to be as neutral as possible, and that is the reason for moving words such as "unfair" form your edition. If you do not understand Croatian, then I am very sorry if you will be unable to understand what is written under those link that I have provided. Maybe you should ask your uncle for explanation or translation. You cannot call this trial unfair because of some insignificant declaration or some book or your personal opinion. If you find that trial to be unfair, give me the verdict which proves that. Otherwise, the article will be more neutral without the word "unfair" and it would still be correct enough. As I see from your comments, you call this trial unfair just because of the fact that it was conducted during socialist times in Yugoslavia. And one more thing, there is no such thing as a "communist land". "Communist land" cannot exist because communism cannot be achieved while countries still exist. Those countries were socialist. I am sorry in advance for possible spelling or grammar mistakes made in my comments.Brunislav 08:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand you. The only "evidence" you have is that court decision from the mid 20th century. And if I take it, you are familiar with law, you would know that cases can be overturned (though it is rare). And please, keep my uncle out of this. You know nothing of him or me to be making such wild assumptions. I just brought him up as an example of how your logic is wrong; but don't you worry about him--he finished law school and has a PhD. And stop makinig up lies about me. I never said communists were liars. Your words.

"You cannot call this trial unfair because of some insignificant declaration or some book or your personal opinion"--no I call it unfair based on facts. From books and other resources, including my own knowledge of law. I have already given you the rationale for that.

"If you find that trial to be unfair, give me the verdict which proves that." Are you sure you know law? According to you then, the Dred Scott case back in the 19th century was the right one because the court ruled that Scott was indeed property because he was a slave and not a person. It took many, many years for that to change in this country. --Dalma84 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Text removed

I removed the following text in an "undo" but it might be of some value to some editors.

Since my name Dr.Esther Gtman was mentioned in this article I must make a correction. In the file submitted by the Croatian Archives to Yad Vashem there was a large file of documents under cover Ivo Politeo, Stepinac. In this file there was a list of 60 names of Jews who were rescued by Stepinac during the regime of NDH. In additon Amiel Shomry (then Emil Shwartz submitted his own testimony. He was at that time the personal assistant to the Chief Rabbi of Croatia Rabbi Misoslav Shalom Frieberger. Among those who testified are: Dan Baram from Jerusalem, Ljudevit Stein from Zagreb, Dank Stockhammer and his wife Lea Kon Stockhammer. All these individuals survived through the efforts of Stepinac.

For the spokeswoman of Yad Vashem to say that there were no personal testimonies written by those who were rescued by him is plain worng. To suggest that his life was not in danger is to revise history. It is enough to read Hans Helm's, the Police German attace to Zagreb HDA Hans Helm file, box 33, book XIV, letter dated 23.3.1943, to realize what they thought of Stepinac. They called him 'judenfreundlich'(Jew Lover) and 'protector of Jews'. Stepinac's life was in danger such subversive behavior was not favorably viewed. I think that it would be just right and proper to review the material carefully and reach a decison based on facts and not on rummors.

--Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war strikes back

There was a time when the article was coming close to neutrality. Unfortunately this balance has been destroyed. In the introduction only facts should be given. The interpretation and different points of view can be presented in a further part of the article. However, if you really want to present all the controversies - both controversy about the trial and controversy about proclaiming him blessed should be presented. At present version in the introduction it looks like the trial was aproved by most of people and only the beatification was controversial, which is clearly POV. I am also not sure about the facts. Was Stepinac convicted also for participation in forced conversions? I mean - was this charge actually brought against him? I am simply not sure about it. Jasra 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


The Serbian Orthodox Church openly collaborated with the Nazis, and many priests publicly defended the persecution of the Jews (e.g.Nikolai Velimirović). Cardinal Stepinac condemn ethnic genocide against persecuted minorities. Archbishop Stepinac said this on March 28, 1941 That is "The schism (Eastern Orthodoxy) is the greatest curse in Europe" It's obvious that this article contains Great-Serbian and Serbian Orthodox propaganda.

A gentle request

Would the undoubtably right-wing and extremely religious person (to avoid any insult) that keeps removing my edits please explain just how he became so convinced, FOR EXAMPLE (and there are many), that a PARTISAN "mob" attacked Stepinac at Zaprešić when THE WAR WAS OVER FOR SEVERAL YEARS (there were NO Partisans then and the term is now used as a derrogative by the radical nationalists). Such political labeleing says much, since it is common for the rural right-wing Croats to use namecalling in pursuing their POV. I will not let you alter the facts and present this very devious and cunning man as a victim of an "evil empire". He was not. Tito was in fact very careful not to harm him, he was not stupid:

1) He asked him to stop attacking the state and abusing his religious position to meddle in state affairs. Stepinac didn't like that so he wrote the big letter. 3) He pleaded the Vatican to remove the nationalist archbishop since there was no reasoning with him. 2) He put him on trial to stop his dangerous (look at the 1990's! ffs!) religious agitation 3) He drastically COMMUTED HIS SENTENCE. 4) He ALLOWED HIM TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY in order to be free from imprisonment. 5) He allowed him to be buried in the Zagreb cathedral against many demands to the contrary

Tito was raised in a catholic family, he had nothing against catholics, he was being careful of the security of the state (once again: look at the 1990's!). Yugoslavia was the most religiously liberal of all the eastern bloc countries ffs! No matter what clerics fabricate nowadays! BTW, I'm a Croat from Split and have studied WW2 extensively. No national motives lie behind this. DIREKTOR

I don't care who you are, or the person you have a problem with. But since you think Stepinac was a "very devious and cunning man", you can't edit the article in an unbiased way. That much is obvious. --Zmaj 17:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's preposterous! I also think Tito was a very devious and cunning man! There is nothing negative about this. You should take a very careful look at the meaning of "biase". I respect Stepinac as a true Croat and a man of adamant principle, but he was not an idiot, he had certain political goals that were extremely dangerous to the state. A state that tried it's best to stop him peacefully. Yugoslavia was not an anti-religious state, it simply (finally) seperated the Church from the state, a most commendable goal which was not to the archbishop's liking. He WAS cunning and had many a time carefully manipulated with the statistics: he stated the number of killed Catholic priests but failed to specify that they were not executed upon orders from the command, also, many of them were killed by isolated CHETNIK groups, and not by the partisans. He attempted to extort concessions from Yugoslavia, like the establishment of priest schools (something impossible in Yugoslavia of the 1940's). Also, IT IS NOT KNOWN WETHER HE WAS KILLED OR NOT (he might have been, but this is FAR from certain). I am simply trying to show the other sides' story in this, extremely one-sided, article.

This guy included political lableing ("partisan") of civilians after the war in the article. And you have the audacity to call me biased because I called someone cunning and devious, that's rich, Zmaj! P.S. BELIEVE me man, I don't care who you are! I just stated my nationality to avoid being judged on a national basis. Judging from the article this was not unprobable.

your request was not gentle. btw, in the external links there are a lot of links in which many of the sources are from. you are removing a lot of sourced info. i hope instead of removing the info, you can add something in which you think is good and not just your personal opnion and dislike. you insert your own opinion here alot and try to pass it off as croatia's opinion. Tito has little to do with this article, he shouldn't be a problem.

I did not remove any important referenced material. Name an example so we can see what POV you are trying to defend with that tired line. But in general, just because something is referenced dosen't mean it's correct and non-POV. Especially in some ideological cases like this one. Why don't we use Mein Kampf for a reference then, ffs? As for the oppinion part, I think it is you who are trying to use nuances in wording to defend your point of wiew, while I'm trying to represent an objective wiew of the government at the time based on the political situatuon. All you are trying to do is make this man into a Luke Skywalker defending the force against Darth Vader, if I may be so juvenile. I also did not voice my dislike against anyone. How could I, I don't dislike anyone in the article (except Pavelić, maybe). You (or who ever wrote that) are using political labeling to turn this article into a farce. Besides the Partisan thing, here's another case: Yugoslavia is an example in business schools all round the world of a textbook socialist state (as opposed to the communist eastern bloc), yet you insist on calling the government communist at every opportunity to support your point of view. Why do you do that if Tito has nothing to do with this article? Of course he does, it's childish to assume otherwise, he jailed the man, ffs! I, on the other hand, call the government of Yugoslavia what it is: the government of Yugoslavia (kindly notice the lack of derrogatives).

I stated my arguments, you have yet to repute one. (I was actually being sarcastic with the title. Sorry to have upset your with my Dalmatian ungentleness...)

I removed four or five sentences from the post-war period. I explained the reasons for the removals in the edit summaries. Generally speaking, those sentences were all conjectures or interpretations - stuff that has no place in an encyclopedic article. I haven't checked, but I think they are all your edits, DIREKTOR, since they are marked by the same style. I wouldn't dream of accusing you of writing lies; in fact, everything I removed could be the truth. But the removed claims are both controversial and unproven. They need to have sources, there is no way around that. --Zmaj 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully:

First Edit: Are you saying he did not meddle in state politics (this needs no ref, it's obvious). If you believe so, and I certainly hope not, you are very naive. "pointing out murders can be an attack against the very foundations of the state only if that state is founded on murder", perhaps you misunderstood. The new Yugoslavia was founded on the Partisan movement, an attack on the legitimacy of said movement (justified or not, I'm not getting into that) most certainly IS an attack on the foundation of the state. This is not biased, this is how it would have been perceived (at the time, and perhaps today as well) without doubt. It also needs no ref, it's obvious due to the simple, previously stated logic.

Second Edit: All right perhaps I just got angry and wrote that because of the "partisan" mob thing, but he was attacked by a crowd of civilians in Zaprešić. The infulence of the Yugoslav government (truthful AND deceptive) was huge at the time, and the people were undoubtably angered. Never mind, though, your edit's fine.

Third Edit: Very well, I will refrase that part, it does sound pretentious. But it MUST be pointed out that Stepinac was indicted only as a last resort. Not because the government was being nice or very mercifull, but simply because Tito knew that he would be adding fuel to the fire by arresting him. He DID try to avoid it with all means because he knew he would lose support from a part of the people (Stepinac also knew this and thought that because of this he was untouchable). You have to explain these "deeper" layers of the matter in the article. That is not pretentious, it just SOUNDS that way. Also I assure you this is at the heart of the matter. The Government's historically documented actions clearly show this, it needs no ref.

Fourth edit: This is not mine, I merely changed the emphasis somewhat. But, once again you misunderstood, this in NEGATIVE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, because it shows he was indicted not because of the crimes he was accused of but because of his letters in recent years. It doesn't get more true, but if you want to remove it, fine, I have no reference for this statement (since I'm not it's original author.)

Thank you for your detailed explanations. I think we're moving towards a consensus. Now let's see...
First edit: Did Stepinac attack the legitimacy of the partisan movement? It doesn't seem so. He complained about the murders and other injustices done against the church and its members. It's defense, not attack. It did stand out, though, in a time when nobody dared raise their voice. Maybe that's why it seems like an attack to you. Also, please don't rely on "logic"; in historical issues, "facts" are much more useful. What seems like logic is often only a vehicle for fictional narratives.
Second edit: Thank you for your understanding. Yes, the government did have a huge influence. If I find any references for public anger, I will most certainly include them.
Third edit: I understand what you mean. OK, let's leave the sentence. I'd just rephrase it a little bit: instead of all peaceful options, which seems exaggerated (who knows if they exhausted them all?), I'd put diplomatic options. Diplomacy is a nice word here, since the relations between church and state are similar to the relations between states.
Fourth edit: This is not about whether the sentence is negative for the government. I removed it because it is an unwarranted interpretation. You see, it is only supposing that the government was prepared to overlook his WWII conduct. But other suppositions could be made - for example, that the government was waiting for the right moment to strike. So, instead of making café-style hypotheses, I think it's best to remove such interpretations and stick to the facts. --Zmaj 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you're right, but so am I: he defened (his position) by attacking the partisan movement. (I don't think he wrote about NDH killigs of catholic priests...).

Secondly, although I am aware this will again sound pretentious, I must say that the government was certainly not waiting for the right time to strike. I am sure of this, because anything else would defy, not logic, if you like, but common sense. These are the reasons: First of all, Stepinac didn't really do anything that horrible during WW2, his sentence was only 16 years, so even the court had to agree to that (take into consideration that the penalty for treason was usually 60 to life). Second, the government obviously did not originally intend to "strike" at all, simply because it is not in their political interest to ruin their relations with the Vatican (and many other catholic states) AND lose part of their public support in Slovenia and Croatia just to convict a "minor offeder" in the huge WW2 Yugoslav mess. Thirdly, if anything this was the WORST time to endanger their relations with non-socialist states. This was the time of the famous resolution of the informbiro, I don't thik I need to say anything more. You have to look at the big picture: Tito had Stalin to worry about more than anything else.

PLEASE try to avoid POV

Recent edits have turned this article into a minefield in which I fear to tread. Terminology is appearing that is wholly inappropriate to an encyclopedia. For instance it is POV to say the Vatican's refusal to remove S~ after WW2 was "blatant" or to say the Vatican "naturally" condemned the trial. On the other hand it is equally POV to say S~ "clearly" suffered in prison - especially when we're talking about the kind of suffering usually associated with matyrdom. The guy was allowed two cells for himself and another as his personal chapel.

It is plain from their edits that Direktor is hostile to S~ and that Dalma84 has an opposite view. I hope my own views are not so obvious. For what it's worth I'm on Direktor's side - I have no time for S- and no time for the Vatican. But we should be concerned with facts, not opinions.

Part of the trouble with Stepinac is that much is still unknown. But as Zmaj said, we shouldn't fill in the gaps with our own conjecture. This article would be better without its colourful adjectives and adverbs. We should certainly not be adding to them.Kirker 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not hostile towards Stepinac, I just don't think he was a martyr, there's a difference. However, the article is already so POV that the concept of the middle ground between the views is altered. So an objective interpretation of events may seem POV in the context of the rest of the article.
Like you said, the man had: an extremely short sentence (which was then commuted), a relatively easy time in the "notorious" Lepoglava prison (the place is a normal jail) and was then released. There is absolutely NO evidence that he was murdered, he was a sick man, why the government would poison a dying cardinal is beyond me (but then I'm not the head of the UDBA...). The Vatican abruptly refused all diplomatic negotiations on the subject of REPLACEMENT (not removal or degradation) of their archbishop and then promoted him to cardinal. This objectively falls under the term "blatant". It is also natural that the Vatican condemned the trial: they were opposed to it even starting, do you suggest there was even the slightest chance for them to accept the results of the trial? There is nothing POV about these statements.
In the iterest of compromise, though, I will accept the removal of these adjectives if other ones, promoting an extremely black and white, naive view, are removed. This is international politics people!, things are never simple. Propaganda is simple, keep it out of encyclopedias.DIREKTOR

I have already removed some adjectives and proverbs. If they were not PoV, but they were saying nothing. When you, DIRECTOR, write The Vatican of course rejected and you argue that it was obvious that the Vatican would do so - then of course is not necessary. I have also removed the sentence: He did not call for the abolishment of any concentration camp. There could be different reasons he did not do so. Hypothetic reasons could be: he believed it was right to have concentration camps or he believed that such demand would be unrealistic and cause the rejection of other demands (he thought were realistic). Without giving real reasons this sentence says nothing, and the reasons are not known, so it is better to remove the whole sentence. In some cases public opinion was clearly divided and the evidence can be interpreted in either way. In such cases expressions like "in Croatia as well as in Serbia" are put when it is said about negative opinions on Stepinac and "by Croation nationalists" when it is said about positive attitude to Stepinac. I think it should be said "supporters of Yugoslavia" and "supporters of the independent Croatia". At least my observation is that those positively thinking of Stepinac also support Croatian independence and those who are critical of Stepinac supported united Yugoslavia and felt sorry that it fell apart. If I am wrong, I would like those thinking other way to stand up (the last was a joke). Jasra 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a minute! Are you saying he DID call for the abolishment of concentration camps? This is statement of FACT and must not be removed. It says much about Stepinac's political wiews and is used in the context with his admittance to the list of the righteous among the nations. It is important because it shows this man is no Schindler.
At least my observation is that those positively thinking of Stepinac also support Croatian independence and those who are critical of Stepinac supported united Yugoslavia and felt sorry that it fell apart." This is real nice, i's tantamount to saying people who support an independent Croatia are Ustaše. I for one am sorry that Juga fell apart, but am also aware that tere was no other way (with good old Slobo and all..) but to create an independent Croatia, so I support it as well. This is a VERY complicated matter you have begun talking about I suggest you be very careful with it.
Thereis nothing necessarily negative in the term "nationalist", it's not "national socialist"!
DIREKTOR, actually - if you draw comparison with Schindler - Schindler also did not advocate for the abolishment of concentration camps. Furthermore, he was a member of NSDAP. Just to mention if you want to be accurate. But in the newest version the passage about concentration camps looks OK.
Sorry, maybe I generalized too much, I rather thought about support for the independence of Croatia seen as the best option, regardless other circumstances. Of course, nowadays when the only alternative was nationalist-oriented "Serbian" Yugoslavia, many supporters of "old" Yugoslavia regarded the option of an independent states better. The problem with Stepinac was that he was really disloyal to Yugoslavia, because he supported the independence of Croatia. [Yes but at a time when it wasn't Milošević's "Serboslavia" DIREKTOR] Certainly NDH, with all its dependence on Nazi Germany was more independent than the Socialist Republic of Croatia, within Yugoslavia [this is disputable DIREKTOR]. There was no other power in those times to grant Croatia (somewhat) independence. But this can be a topic of further discussion, not directly related to the article.
OK. "Nationalists" is really not offensive in English, but it has negative conotations in other laguages. I left this word now, but I removed "radical", first of all, because it is not very precise, how radical? Secondly, the trial was questioned not only by radical nationalists.

Jasra 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All right I'll agree with that last bit, but please understand one thing: Croatia was never independent in the eyes of the world until the formation of the SR Croatia. Bear in mind that the NDH did not exist as far as 90% of the world was concerned. After the formation of the SR Croatia, it's people for the first time in modern history gained an internationally recogized sovereign state.

Ok, this is getting a little strange, had Schindler (I know he was in the NSDAP) publicly opposed the concentration camps he would have probably been thrown out of the party and would not have been able to save so many people, so you cannot draw such a comparison. He was so obviously aginst the camps privately it's almost painful. DIREKTOR

If you live in Croatia, you see busts [WHERE, ffs?] and references to stepinac everywhere. I'm sorry if it bothers you. but what bothers me is that you put it to yourself to defend yugoslavia and Tito's actions, but saying things as "obviously" and of course tito did this, the vatican did this for political reasons, etc. you already shown you dislike the catholic church and the independent croatia, and you are not objectively handling this. you sound over-excited too, over a little page. calm down please. i cannot believe the things i am getting from people over one article. why dont you add things to it without removing my labour? Dalma84 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dalma84, are you listening to yourself, you accuse me of being bisaed towards the Catholic Church, where did I show resentment of this organisation? I am an atheist, yes, but that merely allows me to look at facts objectively, if you think the Vatican does not have political wiews and goals than you are so biased by your catholicism it interferes with common sense. You just said everything yourself: I have brought it upon myself to defend Yugoslavia's point of view BECAUSE it needed defending from your baseless attack (accusations). Only that way could an unbiased wiew eventually emerge. Please realise that there are no good guys and bad guys in the world we live in. I respect your labor, But this is impossible because the article would then have conflicting sentences. I believe you are a devout catholic, I respect this deeply, but please attempt to comprehend that you may have been strongly biased by this fact. DIREKTOR Overexcited? I appear to be calmer than you Dalma84, just because I write a lot more does not mean I am so terribly excited about this "little" article. Perhaps you should just leave it be then? It would calm me down more than anything, you know...


Does anyone know who's this guy Dalma84, he seems to have quit. He's the one that originally butchered the article and I'd really like to give him a peace of my mind. I mean, the guy reads one godforsaken book and thinks it's the bible or something... I hope he won't bring down the wrath of the mighty "kazneni zakon RH" (see above) upon me, I'd lose my youth in court. ;) DIREKTOR

it's me, of course. nice to meet you, whoever you are. you didnt even sign your name. thanks for the personal attacks, i find them amusing from someone who hides behind the internet, and takes so much interest in a catholic martyr he obviously hates so much. Dalma84 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look man, first of all, this wasen't a personal attack (read up on that a little) I just said that in my oppinion you butchered the article. I didn't call you names. And I didn't hide behind the internet, it was an oversight. I take interest in the criminalisation of the Yugoslav government in general. How can you call someone a martyr when it is not proven he was murdered. The pope can say anything he wants, he still does not have any proof. I find your naivete hilarious. You obviously are extremely religious and cannot therefore be unbiased in this matter. DIREKTOR

You don't know me at all, I do not put personal information about myself online, and you do not understand even the simple aspects of beautification. You're attacks against me are mean and big, I understand that I got some things wrong, but I wouild have appreaciated cooperation instead of belittling my character and chopping up my edits. You were so mean as to say "the guy reads one godforsaken book and thinks it's the bible or something..." Nice language. And you make an entire section soley about me instead of messaging me personally. Dalma84 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Not)Overturning the Sentence

There is a phrase: --- On February 14, 1992, the Croatian Parliament condemned the 1946 court decision and the trial that led to it [...].However, the verdict has not been challenged nor overturned on the court (even between 1997 and 1999 when that was possible by Croatian laws). --- Can anyone explain why it did not happen? I can guess the following reasons, but these would be only speculations (I have just invented and I want to verify them):

  1. The Republic of Croatia could not overturned Yugoslav verdicts (even if it was formally possible, people thought it would be inappropriate, because it would show certain continuity they did not want)?
  2. The verdict was so well justified that it would be impossible to overturn it?
  3. The evidence for today was so scarce that it was impossible to overturn or support the verdict?
  4. Once it was condemned people thought the whole thing was over and no further action was necessary?

Without explaining the reason this phrase is not saying much. Regards, Jasra 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As a successor state of Yugoslavia, Croatia can overturn it's verdicts. Noone can relly say the reason ,though. You're right, this sentence dosn't really need to be in an encyclopedia article. It's obviously an expression of pointless frustration. DIREKTOR

Let's do this civilized-like

I hope you will take the time to list your grievances with the article organisedly, so we can resolve them one by one in a civilised way. If not, I assure you, you won't just be able to change what you like. DIREKTOR

Sorry - edit conflict

Unfortunately I kept getting interruptions and had the edit page open for a long time. Conseqently I was not aware of Dalma84's changes when I was doing mine.

However Dalma84's edits sometimes seem just as POV as the ones he/she complains about. For instance it is POV to say "clearly" this or "clearly" that.... Also Jasra edited to remove POV content but put in some POV content as well.

Maybe some of my words betray POV too, in which case I will not complain if someone corrects them. But I hope we can manage without stuff such as what "allegedly" went on between Tito and Stepinac. Unless we can cite notes from the meetings, or what one or both of them said about it, such material is gratuitous conjecture. Likewise assumptions about what the Yugoslav government might have been thinking at any stage. Where Djilas or someone can be quoted, let's do that, otherwise it should stay out. Regards Kirker 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Great rewrite!

Congradulations on an excellent rewrite, you really display a rare eloquence. You superbly shotrened and clarified the article. this is indeed a significant improvement. I would suggest to the undoubtably disgruntled Dalma84 that we both agree on this version and DO NOT TOUCH IT. It finally is NPOV.

The article looks much better now. I have just made some small changes. I removed the sentence in the introduction that the beatification divided public opinion, not because it is not true, but because when it is said about the sentence, which also divided public opinion - there is no information about it. NPoV demands mentioning about both controversies or none of them.

I have also doubt about the following phrase (I did not remove it):

But most of these executions had not been not ordered by the Yugoslav high command and were, for the most part, spontaneous retributions against pro-nazi clerics by the people and isolated partisan groups and, thus, had nothing to do with the Yugoslav government.

This is not related to Stepinac at all. He stated that these people were killed by the Partizans and you do not challenge the fact. It is however unfounded to state that these executions "had nothing to do with the Yugoslav government". The government did nothing or very little to prevent them, the perpetrators were either not punished or mildly punished. Just not to go into a large debate - the phrase should be either removed or it should be noted that it was the opinion of the Partizans' supporters.

Another question is the issue about releasing Stepinac from prison. He was not allowed to move from his town (house?), so it can be called home arrest. Why did you remove this remark, insisting on "released"?

Finally, general remark - if you do not agree, you can of course do revert, but PLEASE, DO NOT REVERT LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS, technical corrections, etc. For example in English you usually say trial, not process - and this correction was reverted on certain stage. Regards, Jasra 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, first of all: the public oppinion was devided, but I'll accept your argument.

Second, the sentence is correct, read it carefully, it states that civilians often committed the killings. As for those commited by the partisans, please take into consideration this was not the Wehrmacht, this was a partisan movement. Stepinac was aiming at the government. The archbishop's inention was to covertly (since openly doing so would be unimaginable at the time) accuse the government of organised mass killings (supposedly to gain leverage in his demand for more church involvement in education). This shows that his accusations were objectively propagandist and tended to mislead the laiman. The high command could not control every detachment to so small a detail as killing a single person in a particular village or town. I know this will sound biased, but the local clerics WERE often betraying people, who they considered to be helping the Partisans, to the NDH authorities. They wielded considerable power because of this. There was often much hatred towards the local clergy in those days. I alone can name several occassions where the priests were linched by a crowd of angry townsfolk. THis is an imprtant phrase since it reveals to some extent the depth of the political games played here by both sides.

Third, are you saying he wasn't released from prison? The sentence was commuted by allowing him to be released from the Lepoglava prison. The sentence is true. DIREKTOR

Thanks for the comments Jasra, and again apologies to Dalma84 for unintentionally sweeping aside his/her work. If it was me that tampered with technical corrections, sorry - it wasn't intentional.
I agree with the point about court and process and would use the latter only where intending to embrace matters not strictly confined to the trial. On the question of house arrest, I think the term is either too strong or needs explaining. (But I don't know what term the government itself used.) According to the priest who was Stepinac's closest companion in his last years, the archbishop was free to move around the local community. This is not house arrest as normally understood by the term. However I am relying on my own notes for this and will recheck when I can.
On the point about the deaths of Catholic priests (it isn't clear to me who raised it), I think Jasra is saying that it happened on Tito's watch and that those priests should have been protected by the rule of law. If so I agree. I know myself that many Catholic priests had good reason to fear retribution but that does not justify lynch mobs or any government that tolerates them. Stepinac may indeed have had in mind issues like greater church involvment in education but still his complaint about those deaths was legitimate. Regards Kirker 23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Noone is justifying lynching, Kirker, all I'm saying, in simple terms, is that Stepinac did not specify the lack of Tito's direct culpability in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the people. In his letter (read it it's not that long) he implied Tito (Yugoslavia) was directly responsible for these killings, it was not, it was war, people. DIREKTOR

Yes, I need to read the letter again. My recollection of it is that Stepinac was talking about murders committed after the Ustaša had been defeated. If that is so, then he would have been fair in assigning some degree of culpability to the partisans, and war doesn't come into it. But I might have got this wrong, and I must accept that you (Direktor?) know more about it than me. Regards Kirker 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(Yeah, it's me) He wasn't stating just the numbers that died after the Ustaše were defeated, the number included all the Catholic priests that were murdered during the entire war, the funny thing is, it wasn't just the civilians and Partisans that killed them, but you have to remember that Chetniks killed Catholics (Croats) en masse, so the numbers he presented are not only not linked to high command, but many most likely didn't have anything to do with the Partisans in general. This is why it was manipulation of public oppinion. DIREKTOR

The number might be to high in terms of the priests killed by the Partizans, but it does not change the fact that there WERE cases of priests killed by Partizans (you mention "isolated groups"). When someone in a party at war commits attrocities - usually the leaders are accused. It is very hard for leaders to convince the public that they are innocent. They are usually said to be at least morally responsible. I can't see the reason why in this case it should be different. So, I think - in the discussed phrase - instead of "But" it is better to put "It is argued that...". "But" sounded as justification. It is argued idicate that the sentence is true, but does not imply that the government was completely innocent. Regards, Jasra 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is so in 90% of wars and conflicts. But let me tell you why it should be different in this case. This was the Partisan movement, one of the most unique organisations in history. This is how it functioned: it was divided into odredi (detachments) which were grouped in "proletarian brigades". At the end of the war most brigades were under direct controll of Tito. but several were given autonomus command, in order to facilitate their guerrilla activities. this was a very effective organisation since you cannot keep strict control over partisans, the Chetniks did that, they didn't go far (they, however, had very bad discipline and several genocidal commanders so they murdered much more than the partisans, this is fact). Tito had no way to controll the detailed activities of these autonomous detachments. and when the war was ending (remember that this was still rare) they entered several towns and villages and celebrated with the locals (it is also fact they were much beloved). At that point these automous detachments, often at the instigation of the local populace, engaged in retribution against colaborators, once again, most weren't killed but were arrested and later interned for 60 years in prisons such as the Goli Otok. I will accept your edit though, since this is very hard to explain.

Still POV?

Direktor and Jasra have been generous and constructive in a search for consensus and I'm wondering if the POV template could now be removed, or at least moved to a specific section or sections? This would not mean it's perfect, and of course we can go on editing it. We would simply be saying it is no longer slanted to one perspective or another.Kirker 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one can't see anything POV in it anymore... DIREKTOR


You have my apologies Dalma84, my formation of an oppinion concerning your character and personality was greatly mislead by the article, I meant no offence. Be more careful in posting info and I shall be more careful in forming oppinions about people I do not truly know. You are wrong though, I do know a lot about beatification (is that what you meant?), I was a devout Catholic for much of my youth, I even read the entire bible ;), can you believe that? The article is (supposedly?) NPOV now and there is really no more reason for further conflict. DIREKTOR

Quotes section needs references

I deleted the quotes en masse, but only to draw attention to the issue. Here is the section, in case it otherwise becomes lost from the system:

  • "I know what my duty is. With the grace of God, I will carry it out to the end without hatred towards anyone, and without fear from anyone."
  • "I love my Croatian people and for their benefit I am ready to give everything, as well as I am ready to give everything for the Catholic Church."
  • ". . .every nation has the right to independence, then why should it be denied to the Croatians?"— at his trial in 1946.
  • "God, who directs the destiny of nations and controls the hearts of Kings, has given us Ante Pavelic and moved the leader of a friendly and allied people, Adolf Hitler, to use his victorious troops to disperse our oppressors... Glory be to God, our gratitude to Adolf Hitler and loyalty to our Poglavnik [fuhrer], Ante Pavelic."

It was the addition by User that drew my attention to the issue. For me it is a most welcome addition - a needed antidote to some of the stuff pumped out about Stepinac. (For instance that book by Šimun Sito Čorić listed under External Links, which frankly I find nauseating.) But without a direct citation it is a hostage to fortune. Where the subject of an article is as controversial as in this case, it is not enough to provide a list of referenced works and leave readers to discover which elements of the article are sourced from where.

I am familiar with some of the quotes, including the new addition, and should be able to track them down in Stella Alexander's book or Herbert Butler's essays if someone else doesn't come up with the answers before me. Incidentally Butler did extremely useful work looking up and translating all the pro-Ustaše sentiments churned out by the Catholic press in Zagreb on Stepinac's watch. I will incorporate some of it when I have a chance. Regards Kirker 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dutch wiki article about Stepinac

n the Dutch wiki page about Stepinac it says that Stepinac held a mass for Pavelic and Pavelic had a bowl of serbian eyes on his desk all the time. Jesus Christ.wikipedia is a WHITE-WASH of serb propaganda. The Dutch article plain says that he was a nazi and an Ustasa sympathizer.The acuse him of supporting Ustase after the war.Dutch Mo-fo's.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting! But then the Ustaše have been known to do such things, although I do NOT think Stepinac would take part in anything of the sort. The real problem Tito had with Stepinac was that the man would not stop agitating against the government, in the hope of increasing the Church's influence on state affairs (church educational facilities, and religious education in all schools). Tito met with him to try and get him to stop, he refused, and had to be discredited. It's a sad business, but I dare say the two of them had little choice. He was pardoned later, though, and received preferential treatment in jail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tito had a problem with him because he was against communism and Tito's Yugoslavia.Stepinac wanted for Croatian people to have their own state and that was a big No-No for Tito.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch article also says that Pavelic escaped with the money he got from the Serb golden teeth pulled in Jasenovac?!?!?My God.Wiki allows all kinds of propagandic bullshit.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of View

I dispute the neutrality of this article and added some changes:

1. In introduction must be stated that trial against Stepinac was show trial, according to all non-communist historians. I did it.

2. It is not true that beatification polarised public opinion, so I deleted it. If there was polarization, after the beatification it was less.

3. I also want an evidence that Pope declared him a martyr.

4. IMO it is relevant that "political reasons" for appointing Stepinac as coadjutor of the See of Zagreb was the pressure of king Alexandar. I added it.

5. Hole section "World War II" is more about Ustaša regime and it's crimes than Stepinac, and it is obviously communist propaganda. It needs rewriting. I did only some changes as follows.

6. I deleted: "As is documented in Robert D. Kaplan’s “Balkan Ghosts”, Croatian Catholic priests were also known to go along on raids to Serbian villages in order to baptize the victims prior to them being butchered just so they could go to heaven as members of the “true faith”." No comment is needed.

7. I deleted: "In fact there is no record of Stepinac protesting against Ustaša methods before May 1942..." because it is not true. I wrote about some Stepinac protesting in May 14th 1941 (ISC was formed in April 10th 1941) and some other, what must be written if the article wants to be neutral. I cant find documentation in english, but in croatian it is: Krišto, Jure: Katolička crkva i Nezavisna Država Hrvatska. Dokumenti, Knjiga druga, Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest – Dom i svijet, 1998., which means Krišto, Jure: Catholic Church and Indepandent State of Croatia. Documents, Second book, Zagreb: Croatian institute for History – Home and World, 1998., Jure Krišto is Croatian historian. To put this croatian documentation in an article or not? See croatian wikipedia.

8. Some more additions. Zivac (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To the user DIREKTOR who undid my editing:

I was not writing anti communism, and I do not want to do it because this article is about Stepinac, not about communism. Also, this article should not be about Ustaše and ISC as it looks like now.

I wrote only proved facts and deleted false quotations. As you are from Croatia you can read second book of Jure Krišto, it is all documented there. Discussion is an excellent idea. I added some changes, documented it here and I argue they are true. If you think there are not, write it here and write some evidence for your statements. Don't undo documented changes simply calling them "anticommunist" without even writing any argument here.

According to this, I put the changes again.Zivac (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is indeed related to Yugoslavia, the NDH, fascism, and communism. Had Aloysius Stepinac stayed out of politics, it may not have been thus. However, as the clergy have always been over-involved in Croatian politics, a rather medieval trend, Stepinac's adherance to that "tradition" involves him with all that I have listed above. Also, your views are not NPOV and are clearly anti-communist. What I proposed was that we discuss edits before including them, since now, after your reversion of my edit, we may easily begin edit-warring.
However, since I am rather busy at the moment, I am going to keep away from all this and return when I have the time. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Church often wants a good relationship with a state because it thinks that this way it can more easily do good for the people. So Stepinac welcomed new ISC (NDH) just like cardinal Kuharić welcomed new Republic of Croatia in 1990. It doesn't mean that they agree with a state in all things. In the case of poppet ISC I agree that it was indeed Stepinac's mistake, but it is not a crime.

But this all is our opinions. IMO, in the article should be written facts, ant let everybody make their own conclusion. It is shortly:

- Stepinac welcomed new ISC, a poppet state of axis powers.

- ISC had a racistic laws, tried to convert Serbs to Catholic faith and killed many Serbs and Jews.

- Contrary to the statement which was written before in the article, Stepinac very soon wrote against Ustaše crimes, and did it many times.

- Stepinac's and Vatican's official standpoint about faith conversions was that it is under Church authority, not State, and were against conversions without clear procedure. But maybe Stepinac secretly allowed such conversions to save lives.

- There were obviously some priest involving in Ustaše crimes. Stepinac said about them not to send to Serbs priest who will "easier carry a revolver than a crucifix in their hands".

- According to jewish evidences, Stepinac saved many Jews.

- Stepinac was also arguing against communist crimes, when communist came to Zagreb.

- Stepinac was sentenced for 16 years in prison from communist court in Yugoslavia for collaborating with Ustaše.

- As there are not at all evidences for Stepinac's crimes, if a welcoming a poppet state is not considered as a crime, it is commonly accepted that a trial against Stepinac was a show trial.

- First democratic Croatian Parliament declared it.

- Pope John Paul II beatified Stepinac in 1998.

What is anticommunist here? Zivac (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes "the Church just wants to do good", if you don't mind me saying so, that's an extremely naive point of view (POV). It is also highly pro-clergy. The Church has its own interests just like any other organization. These are usually the accumulation of money and influence so as to ease the spread of its own conservative, or sometimes ultra-conservative, ideology.
It is possible that Stepinac was deeply involved with the Ustaše. Then again, it may not be so. The simple fact remains that he did not attempt to stop or publicly protest against the wide-spread "forced conversions" (in fact: massacres) that his chaplains became involved with. A trial was held by the authorities. If you want to write these kind of things about his trial, you will need many real scholarly sources that support those claims. You can not simply walce in and spread your "evil communists" POV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Zivac, the history of the Catholic church is rich with instances in which it put its own interests ahead of any concern for the common good. In recent times there was the connivance of the Vatican in helping Nazi and Ustaša war criminals flee to South America. Or John Paul II's determination to shelter Archbishop Marcinkus from justice. Or the lies by people at every level in the hierarchy and the Holy See that covered up systematic child abuse. In mediaeval times of course, the "unbroken" link back to St Peter passed through certain popes who were at best obscene racketeers. It is for such reasons that people outside that church are sometimes reluctant to take its good faith for granted.
Stepinac reported to the Vatican the achievement of 250,000 orthodox conversions to Catholicism within the NDH. No-one in his right mind could have assumed this was because they all suddenly "saw the light" and Cardinal Tisserant, for one, was certainly not fooled. We can all read the nauseatingly sycophantic adulation of Pavelić & Co that appeared in publications under Stepinac's control even when the regime's atrocities were widely known. Stepinac apologists may argue that those publications were produced under censorship, but that still leaves the problem that some priests were sent to appalling fates at Jasenovac rather than dance to the Ustaša's tune. Why was Stepinac not among them if he was as courageously indifferent about his personal wellbeing as he professed at his trial?
I would be interested to see any evidence of interventions by Stepinac before May 1942, specifically on behalf of the Serb minority, or any condemnation of the regime's peresecution of that minority. Kirker (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The POV tag was put on this article many weeks ago by Zivac, whose other edits around that time rightly did not withstand the test of time. Since then Thewanderer has nibbled away dozens of times, perhaps scores, and the net effect has been to shift the overall balance in Stepinac's direction. (I'm not objecting.) I do aim to throw in a few more facts on the negative side of the balance sheet, but still I think this article is a fair stab at a difficult subject and does not deserve the POV tag. Kirker (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking the nil response to mean no-one objects, so I've removed the POV template.Kirker (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

About recent changes

I want to comment some recent changes and reverts:

- a Belgrade communist court found him guilty - it is not essencial to put this word, everyone knows it was communist and later on it becomes obvious.

- Today most historians agree it was communist show trial, what declared first democratic Croatian Parliament as official standpoint in 1992. - it is important information, but it would be good to put some reference. I do not have sources on hand, but I hope Zivac would find some. I think the reference to the parliamentary resolution (maybe available in the Internet) could be found.

- which again polarised public opinion. - removed. The word "again" can be removed. If the edit war is going on - maybe it is true that it polarized public opinion. So, although, as a Catholic, I do not think there was anything controversial in beatification - I know that there were different opinions. It is mentioned in the text below, but there is nothing wrong in putting it in the introduction.

- because king Alexander I of Yugoslavia needed to agree with the appontment is much better than previous for political reasons, because it provides concrete information - some reference would be desirable, but for the time being it should stay.

- Bold parts removed A movement of extremist Croatian nationalists, the Ustaša governed the new puppet state under German protection - I support the removal, this is not the article on NDH.

Ok, I will continue, now I have to stop. Jasra (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all remarks, these are exactly the reasons why I stated Zivac may have an anti-Yugoslav or anti-communist (i.e. right-wing) POV. However, the removal of the characterization "puppet state" is also POV motivated and should be reverted (there are many very reliable sources listed in the Independent State of Croatia article confirming the use of the term "puppet state"). Stepinac was not some innocent poor guy picked on by the "eevil" communists, he was neck-deep in Croatian and Yugoslav politics and had been for years. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you have reverted obvious corrections such as repeating "as" in the text. You have also removed some valid information (such as the one about the letter to Pavelić). It is irrelevant that Zivac might be anti-Yugoslav and or/anti-communist. In the same way one can remove you information, because you are pro-Yugoslav and strong atheist. On the other hand it is unlikely that any person completely neutral to the issue would edit this article, because such a person would probably be uninterested.

Going further with changes: But already on May 14, 1941 Stepinac, in a letter to Ante Pavelić, condemned a killing of 260 Serbs in Glina. - this is a fact, the only thing recommended is citation, but the information must not be removed.

During this period Stepinac raised no objections to the genocidal activities of the Ustashe that aimed to exterminate Jews, Serbs, and Roma. As is documented in Robert D. Kaplan’s “Balkan Ghosts”, Croatian Catholic priests were also known to go along on raids to Serbian villages in order to baptize the victims prior to them being butchered just so they could go to heaven as members of the “true faith”. - the letter shows that there was objection - the only that can be written is that some argue that this objection was insufficient. It is problematic if it should be written about the activities of other priests, there is the whole article about Involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime, so maybe this information should be moved there.

On May 22 1941 Stepinac argued against obligation that all Jews have to wear jewish sign. To comply to a government he suggested that Jews need to buy it, to refund costs of producing, but not to wear it. He succeeded. - again - it is information and must not be reverted, just reference should be given.

Franciscan Aleksa Benigar also said that Stepinac already in 1941 wrote a secret letter to priests not to make problems to those Orthodox and Jews who want to convert to Catholic faith to save their life. "When this time of madness and savagery passes, those who converted out of their beliefs will remain in our Church, and the rest will, when the danger is gone, return to their own." Benigar doesn't support this statement with documentation. -again facts.

ISC vs NDH - English vs Croatian abreviation - no political problem, but we should be consistent.

On the other hand many non-Catholics, especially Serbs and communists, have remained unconvinced - it is nothing wrong to mention this, because it is hard to believe that let say some people from remote countries were interested in the issue at all, but it can be removed for the sake of compromise.

It says that true reason of Stepinac inprisonment was his pointing out many communist crimes and especially refusing to form Croatian Catholic Church making a schism with Pope. If it says in the statement it should be mentioned. You might not agree with the opinion of the Croatian Parliament, but if they stated so one can mention that. Jasra (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I go along with most of this, Jasra. Just a couple of caveats. First, the status of the NDH does need to be mentioned, as does the behaviour of other priests. They are relevant matters because of the relationships Stepinac chose to form with what even the Vatican treated as an illegal state; and which he maintained with his prieste (both pro- or anti-ustaša). Second, I would be cautious about including contentious facts without citation. If you are fairly sure about some matter though, I think it's reasonable to put it in (suitably tagged) in the hope that someone will find a reference. Kirker (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

- It is wellknown that Alojzije Stepinac has contributed to killing of Serbian and Jewish people in Croatia. It is a big shame for this world that he is pronounced a saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Lol... Serb nationalist on LSD again? --(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, certainly amusing GriffinSB. But perhaps we should settle for "Serbs" rather than "Serbs and Jews." (It is possible to "contribute" by doing nothing of course.) Incidentally I was in the little Stepinac museum beside Zagreb cathedral the other day. They have some lovely photos, but the nuns couldn't find me any photo that showed the great man alongside Nazis or Ustaše. In fact the nuns were rather unhelpful on that score. Kirker (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Howcome he contributed to the violence,when he spoke against it publicly??? You Serbs have an amazing way of putting things together with asupmtions and a strange view on reality.The fact that the serbian lobby(which was strong in the Yugoslavia era) tried to smear Stepinac's name doesn't give you guys the right to continue to do so. So howcome jewish people are supportive of Stepinac?Because the Jewish people are not brainwashed by years of propaganda.Just look at the Serbian youth of today...totally disorientated with no knowledge about the last war.But you Serb nationalists are just sticking to one rule invented by Goebells.repeat something 100 times and it will become the truth.Serbs are just playing the sypmathy card to whitewash their atrocities in the 90's.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GriffinSB, you are obviously reponding to me, so what's with the references to "you Serbs" and "you Serb nationalists"? Is it that anyone who rejects your prejudice is, by definition, a Serb?
If you have evidence that Stepinac spoke out publicly before May 1942 against the persecution of Serbs, please put it in the article. Thewander has just made (yet another) useful contribution, correcting an erroneous statement (mine I think) that Stepinac did not protest at all, but a letter to Pavelić does not count as speaking out publicly. As for his standing among Jews, it is interesting that bids by individual Jews to have him admitted to the "righteous among the nations" have twice been rejected.
I will have to get back to this article. I've just noticed that claim by Stepinac at his trial that he never acted against the state. Yet when he welcomed and recognised the Ustaša regime he was in breach of his oath to serve the king. I don't suppose Tito was too concerned about that little detail, but it was plainly treason. Kirker (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Stepinac didn't welcome the Ustasa regime litteraly,he welcomed the Croatian state.As people of Croatia have longed for free and independent Croatia for almost 900 years. He probably didn't know what the Ustasa regime will bring in the future.The fact that he didn't get a place among the rightous among the nations has to do with the Serbian lobby there.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GriffinSB, you are pissing in the wind. Stepinac and his bishops DID welcome the Ustaša regime specifically, as his own Katolički List reported at the time. To suggest he didn't know what naughty boys the Ustaše were is laughable. The guy had been coadjutor in Zagreb as far back as 1934, the year Alexander was murdered. Are you saying Stepinac (who attended the funeral) didn't know Pavelić had been sentenced to death for his role in the assassination? And please explain that pathetic phrase: "...has to do with the Serbian lobby..." What does that mean exactly? I am still waiting for you to tell me why you address me as a Serb nationalist, or even as a Serb of any sort. Kirker (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

I've added 'See also' in order to link this Ustashe state dignitary to the others. Saw it removed twice without any rational explanation.

However, got this message on my talk page

Don't be stupid, it's obvious that you're intent on maximally demonising everyone in any way connected to NDH. Stepinac has nothing to do with srbosjek or Maks Luburić.

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Aloysius Stepinac. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Ivan, don't be stupid. Its obvious you're a serbochetnik-yugocommunist fanatic trying to demonize Croats... :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, most of what you added in that ==See also== has nothing to do with the article itself. Stepinac's involvement with the fascist regime is already abundantly discussed in the article, and there's no point in additional linking to articles such as for the imaginary srbosjek which have absolutely nothing to do with Stepinac. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Imaginary - my foot. So, in "Nedjelja", Zagreb, October 19, 1942 (referenced in Sângeroasa destrămare: Iugoslavia by C. I. Christian, published by Editura Sylvi, 1994 ISBN 9739175015, 9789739175012 (page 170)) 'the great achievement' (=11000 Jasenovac inmates slaughtered just for being of wrong faith) of good Catholic - friar Petar Brzica was published. Who was the spiritual leader of this Brzica, may I ask you Ivan? Nothing to do with Stepinac??? Who was the ... Catholic Terror Today by Avro Manhattan, published by Paravision Publications, 1969 (page 61). Stepinac was not only the highest ecclestial authority in the land: he had been created Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army at the beginning of 1942???

-- (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the "spiritual leader" connection is not strong enough. Stepinac's involvement is heavily discussed and linking to articles of srbosjek, Luburić, Brzica et al. adds no additional value to the reader. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Political pamphlet - not a valid encyclopaedic article

Is this a Roman Catholic Encyclopedia or Croatian Encyclopedia? English speaking world is not Roman Catholic nor Croatian. Writing such a pamphlet about a man who was a war criminal is really shameful. Here are the facts I found and verified

Last Friday, the Wiesenthal Center’s Paris-based European office said the beatification of Stepinac could be perceived by some as a “provocation” or even an attempt at “historical revision.” In “There is no doubt that too many Catholic clergy, including Archbishop Saric of Sarajevo, had shown far too much sympathy with the Ustashe regime during the war and had condoned or turned a blind eye to their atrocities,”

(A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, David M. Crowe, St. Martin's Griffin, New York, USA, 1994). Stepinac blesses the puppet Nazi regime in Croatia

When the Nazi's installed the puppet Ustashi regime in May 1941, Stepinac immediately offered his congratulations to Pavelic, and held a banquet to celebrate the founding of the new nation. After the opening of the Ustasha Parliament, Pavelic attended Zagreb cathedral, where Stepinac offered special prayers for Pavelic and ordered a solemn "Te Deum" to be sung in thanks to God for the establishment of the new regime. In May 1941, Stepinac also arranged to have Pavelic received personally by Pope Pius XII in Rome in the Vatican, where on the same occasion, he signed a treaty with Mussolini. Once Pavelic was in power, Stepinac issued a Pastoral Letter ordering the Croatian clergy to support the new Ustasha State. Stepinac alter recorded in his diary on 3rd August 1941 that "the Holy See (the Vatican) recognized de facto the independent State of Croatia". In the same year, Stepinac himself declared:

"God, who directs the destiny of nations and controls the hearts of Kings, has given us Ante Pavelic and moved the leader of a friendly and allied people, Adolf Hitler, to use his victorious troops to disperse our oppressors... Glory be to God, our gratitude to Adolf Hitler and loyalty to our Poglavnik, Ante Pavelic."

Shelah's conclusions are: 1) the Vatican knew by no later that the middle of 1942 that the Jews were being systematically exterminated; 2) the Vatican was driven by its fear of communism to maintain a moderate attitude towards Nazi Germany and its satellite governments; 3) the Church did not want to destabilize the Ustasa regime in Croatia, and combined with traditional Christian antisemitism, this caused it to look the other way when murderous actions took place; 4) priests involved in murdering Jews were never expelled or admonished; bishops who incited to murder were never reprimanded; and after the war the Croatian church hid war criminals and smuggled them out of Yugoslavia; 5) "Nevertheless one has to say that the Church of Croatia and the Vatican were opposed to the murder of Jews" (p. 337). Despite advising clergy to steer clear of politics, on April 12, 1941 paid a visit of his own accord to Slavko Kvaternik, and on April 16 to poglavnik Ante Pavelic to give NDH and Ustase regime his personal endorsement. Also broadcast his support for the NDH in a radio address to the Croatian people, all of which occured before the Royal Yugoslav Army capitulated. Informed by letter by Bishop Alojzije Misic of Mostar of the ghastly massacres undertaken by the Ustase against local Serbs and Jews, but merely passed on the letter to Pavelic. Vigorously defended the Ustase to Pope Pius XII and the Vatican secretary of state during visits in 1942 and 1943. Catholic newspapers during the war kept to official guidelines and published appalling attacks on Jews and Serbs and effluviant praise of the poglavnik and the Ustase. As head of the roatian Catholic Church was in charge of the mass conversion of Serbs to Catholicism and the adoption of Serb children orphaned by the Ustase massacres by Croatian, Catholic families, and certainly equated Orthodoxy with heresy.

Together with ten other clerics, Stepinac was a permanent member of the Ustasha parliament. He served as military vicar (and was awarded the highest military decoration) of the Ustasha army, which massacred hundreds of thousands of humans who happened to be not catholic. It was Pavelic's declared programme to wipe out Serbian population, expelling one third and converting one third forcefully to Catholicism. In May 1943, Stepinac reported in the memorandum to the Pope that already 240,000 "conversions" had taken place. He could report back to the Ustasha that "the Pope was following with the greatest love and sympathy the developments in Croatia and sent his cordial blessings."

Many of the massacres were organized and conducted by Croatian Roman Catholic priests. The largest concentration camp in the Balkans, Jasenovac, was commanded by a defrocked Roman Catholic priest, Miroslav Filipovic. How could a Roman Catholic priest engage in the torture and mass murder of Christians? How could a former Roman Catholic priest run a concentration camp where Orthodox Serbs, Jews, and Roma were murdered? This is what is so troubling about the Roman Catholic Ustasha movement and the genocide it committed during the Holocaust. It is so troubling that Pope John Paul II censored and covered-up this genocide. He never even acknowledged or admitted it to himself. The Ustasha genocide was suppressed from his memory. Why this denial and self-repression? It is difficult to uphold Roman Catholicism after seeing what the Roman Catholic Ustasha did during World War II? This is why it is one of the best kept secrets of World War II and of the twentieth century. One cannot look at Roman Catholicism in the same way after knowing what the Ustasha did in the name of the Roman Catholic Church.

Books to read:

Cromwell - Hitler's pope Novak - Magnum Crimen -- (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

While many of the refs quoted can not be considered valid sources, you've certainly presented information worth including into the article. The fact is that this man, a cold calculating political figure formed by an equally harsh time, is being glorified beyond all sense in Croatia. His trial may not have been perfectly according to modern democratic standards, but it certainly presented valid witnesses and evidence (one may say that Croatian courts have still not evolved much from those times). It may not be conclusive, but there is cause for suspicion as to the conduct of the head of a church in whose (church's) name literally tens of thousands were massacred. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Banned users should probably be ignored.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Brunodam!!? LoL... He must've been surprised to see me agreeing with him, he still thinks I'm some kind of nationalist fanatic. :P Anyway, he did point out a few interesting bits of info, for example, it should be mentioned that he was a permanent member of the Ustaše "Sabor" (I didn't notice anything like that in the article). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To anon - did you mean Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell, published by Penguin, 2000 ISBN 0140296271, 9780140296273? Here is what I found
  • There were frequent BBC broadcast on the situation in Croatia, of which this on February 16, 1942, was typical: "The worst atrocities are being committed in the environs of the archbishop of Zagreb [Stepinac]. The blood of brothers is flowing in streams. The Orthodox are being forcibly converted to Catholicism and we do not hear the archbishop's voice preaching revolt. Instead it is reported that he is taking part in Nazi and Fascist parades" (page 256)
  • In 1940 Archbishop Stepinac had told the Regent Prince Paul of Yugoslavia:"The most ideal thing would be for the Serbs to return to the faith of their fathers, that is, to bow the head before Christ's representative, the Holy Father. Then we could at last breathe in this part of Europe, for Byzantinism had played frightful role in the history of this part of the world" (page 265)
  • I'm afraid that extremist anti-Catholic sources are not reliable references. Stepinac being a member of the Croatian State Parliament is totally untrue. The law on the parliament and who qualified for it was widely published and is still available in many published sources (...the legitimate ones ;D, not ones about secret histories, the Vatican's personal Holocaust, bloodthirsty friars, etc.). Along with the mufti of Zagreb and the evangelical bishop of Croatia, Stepinac attended representing the archdiocese of Zagreb, not as a participating member of the body. Also, referring to it as the Ustasha Parliament certainly does nothing to hide your POV. The body was shut down precisely because the many HSS members and others who qualified made it difficult for the Ustashe to carry out their legislation (the parliament demanded to know the state of Vladko Macek, causing a great embarrassment to the regime and contributing to the parliament not being reconvened).--Thewanderer (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • (All mentioned documents are available in Vladmir Dedijer, "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican", Prometheus Books,USA)
      • -Ursula Charlotte Dunckern (Ms Dunckern is a Director of the International Alliance Against Fundamentalism) -- (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm even bothering to explain this to you (since you won't care, no matter what I prove...). But, according to the Legal Decree on the Croatian State Parliament issued on January 24, 1942 participants in the parliament were:
  • living Croatian representatives from the Croatian Parliament of 1918
  • living Croatian representatives elected in the 1938 Yugoslavian elections
  • founders and lifetime members of the Croatian Peasant Party
  • members of council of the Croatian Party of Rights prior to 1919
  • certain officials of the Supreme Ustaše Headquarters
  • two members of the German national assembly
There are lists available of all those members who qualified and those who chose to attend (the quickest to mind is Ivo Peric's excellent Hrvatski državni sabor). Stepinac was obviously not on such a list. If you choose to keep believing some marginal figures from shady organizations who have no education in Croatian history, you are obviously here in bad faith.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an outside and uninvolved editor, I would like to remind everyone in this debate that as per Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, as long as information is properly sourced and cited to reliable, third-party, published sources, there should be no problems including the BBC quote in the article. Regardless of our personal opinions of the book Hitler's Pope or of its author John Cornwell, it does appear to meet Wikipedia's official Verifiability policy: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To Thewanderer The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan - online version on - on page 94
Further to that, Archbishop Stepinac was invested with civil power,which he could have used, being a fully fledged Member of Parliament. Such power he shared with other prelates, among them: Mgr. Aksamovic, Bishop of Djakovo; Father Irgolitch, of Farkasic; Father Ante Lonacir, of Senj;Father Stjepan Pavunitch, of Koprivnica; Father Juraj Mikan, of Ogulin; Father Matija Politch, of Bakar; Father Toma Severovitch, of Krizevci; Brother Boniface Sipitch, of Tucepa; Franjo Skrinjar, of Djelekovac; Stipe Vucetitch, of Ledenice.
From To the very last days of World War II he publicly exhorted his clergy as well as the Croatian masses to support and defend the Ustasa state. He himself accepted the post of Supreme Apostolic VicarGeneral of the Croatian army and became a member of the ruling Council of State. -- (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Avro Manhattan is no expert on the Croatian Parliament (his staunch anti-Catholic sentiments aside). The fact is, the many books widely available about the parliament do not include Stepinac among its members, because it is not true. There are pictures of him in the parliament chambers (as I have already mentioned his attendance), but he was obviously not a member.
As for the last point, it is true that Stepinac was named military vicar without title by the Vatican. --Thewanderer (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No need for Manhattan to be an expert of that kind. Dedijer confirmed the same in his Jasenovac book. Novak in Magnum Crimen, too. Moreover in this book: U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis by Richard Breitman, published by Cambridge University Press, 2005 ISBN 0521852684, 9780521852685
  • (Page 208) Stepinac, to be sure, remained on very safe religious and political ground in his sermons - he spoke of Ustasa crimes only in the vaguest sense and he conveyed his disagreements publicly within the context of Holy Scripture. ... Political violence was another bete noire for Stepinac. In a hitherto unpublished statement, he publicly ridiculed the Minister of State Education Mile Budak by name on June 21, 1942 after Budak's publication of the short story "Revolutionary Blood". He did not as a rule take issue with government ministers in public, ...
  • (Page 210) Historians will surely continue to debate Stepinac's part in the Croatian genocide of World War II. But the new material from OSS records demonstrates once again the difficulty of placing Roman Catholicism's senior clerics together into easy moral categories.
  • (Page 211) Draganović became the Vice Chief of the Ustaša's Bureau of Colonization, which was responsible primarily for the redistribution of property taken from dead or deported Serbs. He also participated in forced conversions and served as Army chaplain at the Jasenovac concentration camp. Draganović carried out his state functions in the uniform of an Ustaša lieteunant colonel. In mid-193, Archbishop Stepinac sent Draganović to Rome in a move which US Army analysts would later cal a model example of "kicking a man upstairs".-- (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that I have formed an extremely unfavourable view of Stepinac, and cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could have considered such a guy worthy of beatification, I think Thewanderer is likely to be nearer the truth than in the present argument. When I have tried to follow up material in books by Novak, Dedijer and especially Manhatten, I have several times found them to be exaggerated at best. I wouldn't say this was necessarily done to deceive. In the case of Dedijer I think he generally wrote in good faith but sometimes relied on information that had not been properly verified and was too readily accepting of what he wanted to be true. I do slightly take issue with Thewanderer re his casual dismissing of sources just because they mention "bloodthirsty friars" etc. Having done much research on the ground in villages around Banja Luka (Drakulić etc) and having recently spent time in Prebilovci/Međugorje I am in no doubt that such people existed. It is not surprising if some (ie Serbs) who survived their atrocities occasionally see bloodthirsty friars where they didn't exist. For me, DIREKTOR's comment on 14 Feb has the balance exactly right. (I would be very interested to know for my own researches what sources Thewanderer has for his info about the NDH parliament, more so if any are English-language, though that is probably expecting too much.) Kirker (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with any expansive English language work on the Croatian parliament's history in general, so there is certainly no great English language work on the very specific period of its existence in the NDH. Ivo Perić's Hrvatski državni sabor 1848.-2000 and Vladko Macek: Politicki portret contain a great deal of useful information. There are several general histories of the NDH which contain info about the parliament as well. Heck, I'm sure even Mladenko Colić's Takozvana NDH (published in Belgrade just after the Croatian Spring) does not claim something as ridiculous as Stepinac being a member of the parliament.
To our IP-friend: Talking about Draganovic as somehow implicating Stepinac in some crimes is ridiculous. Draganovic returned to communist Yugoslavia a free man, despite the numerous legends about his history (heck, in a lower court somewhere some poor souls are still claiming Draganovic stole millions).--Thewanderer (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thewanderer's second "heck" above is presumably to imply that the court action currently underway in California (circuit 11?) against the Vatican somehow suggests Draganović was as pure as the driven snow. Thewanderer will be aware that Tito's insistence on brotherhood and unity meant many WW2 crimes being swept under the carpet. He probably knows too that the extent of Draganović's malfeasance was revealed only many years after Tito's death, and then only because the class action about which Thewanderer is so dismissive forced the disclosure of relevant CIA documents from the period. Kirker (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To Kirker: Well, the first thing is the reality check. Tell us the title of the V.Novak's Magnum Crimen 12th chapter. Also, in the Dedijers Jasenovac ... tell us where (the page) Dedijer mentioned Stepinac as a permanent member of the Croatian Parliament.

To Thewanderer: If someone did not mention a fact - that does not disqualify others who mentioned it. As to Draganovic - I did not imply anything. American OSS had a first-hand information about this man. That he escaped trial - he can thank for it to the Roman Pope and to Josip Broz. -- (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)-

Meh. In terms of Stepinac's 'membership' of the so-called 'parliament', which in itself was a complete joke, we need to understand that there were official (not elected, but nominated) members, and what we should call 'honorary' or 'ancilliary' members of this august body. Now, I have no doubt that Stepinac was not on the list of nominated members. But there were various hangers-on, both Croatian and other Axis, who were there rather a lot. In terms of the article, it's impossible to say what his status was, as there is, as far as I know, no published definition of who the members of this body were. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for these hangers-on or ancilliary members? If my memory serves me correctly (I don't have Ivo Perić's works with me at the moment), the parliament met a total of 14 times. Therefore, it's rather difficult to associate someone as having been there a lot when the parliament was shut down soon after its opening sessions. The representatives of the Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim communities had frequent attendance in the Croatian Parliament in the early 90's for the historic events of that time. But we wouldn't make up some imagined positions for them in the parliament. So why would we do it for Stepinac?
To understand the "joke" that the parliament was, one needs to understand the historical context of its creation. The parliament had historically never been democratically elected, as we understand democracy today. At its height in 1913, there were 210,000 eligible electors in a population of 2.6 million (and only about 53% of them chose to exercise that right). Also, as far as I know, there were very few elections anywhere in mainland Europe during WWII. The minor success of the parliament is found in the fact that it was harmful enough to the regime to merit itself to be closed down.--Thewanderer (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • All above Thewanderer's story does not absolve Stepinac. That he was a member of Ustashe parliament - there are at least three sources. General Apostolic Vicar of Ustashe army - even more! This article shall be re-written by eliminating Stepinac's defense - which overshadows and misinterprets the facts. The facts are merciless: - see [1]

State Attorney Bar-Or: When the Jews of Bosnia and Slovenia were concentrated in Zagreb, as you described, did you hear of protest actions from any source? Did you learn about objections to the transports from any quarter?

Witness Arnon: Unfortunately there were no protests. Croatia was definitely a Catholic state. Not even the Catholic Church in Zagreb said one word against the deportations and sufferings of the Jews. -- (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard [2]. Perhaps you should come to Zagrebdox and meet some of those brave people you either 1) deliberately ignore trying to portray all Croats as fascists 2) indeed have never heard of ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Brave my foot. 'Bravery' of those who invented stories about themselves! Is that kind bravery flourish in Zagreb today?-- (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Those people risk/lost their lives to help save thousands that were scheduled to Jasenovac. All is documented first-hand, and corroborated by historical evidence. That old man on the image above is describing how he was throwing a hand-granade from arboretum on the group of ustaša recruits that were lined-up across the street. I can assume that this doesn't particularly fit your anti-Croat schemes, but that's your miserable Nazi perspective no one cares about. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We see already what kind of 'evidence' was offered. Germans, the victimized people (Serbs, Jews, Roma) never saw any evidence of such kind. My miserable Nazi perspective? Not being able to prove what you wanted to - you switched to offensive talk and infantile accusations!-- (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove conviction from the lead

I urge you to remove the lengthy mention of conviction from the lead. It does not explain that the said Communist trial is considered by many today to be a staged one, and for this reason the lead sounds very bias. There is at least one Jew still alive that I have heard of, who is still willing to testify about Stepinac's deeds, and in his favor. If I remember correctly, those deeds do not only pertain to Jews but to Serbs as well. So it's apparent it's not only majority of Croatians, and Vatican's investigators of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints who hold this position. In my own opinion, this is also evident from his quotes. The lead (as well as some suspiciously isolated and strategically placed quotes) make him look like a criminal, rather then what he was - just the opposite. He has rightfully earned his title and no amount of hatred will change that. If you have any decency or feel obligated towards the truth and the history, you will consider changing the lead. --Paxcoder (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Separating religion and state

Hello DIREKTOR! Unfortunately, I have not died or retired. So, it looks like we'll have to work together. I object to the statement:

On January 31, 1952 the Yugoslav authorities abolished religious education in state-run public schools, as part of the programme of separating church and state in Yugoslavia.

"Programme of separating church and state", without any further qualification, suggests a process of seculatization. Miroslav Akmadža's work does not argue that Yugoslav authorities maintained a policy of mere secularization, but of religious persecution. Therefore, I could just as easily write (more faithfully to our only source on this issue):

On January 31, 1952 the Yugoslav authorities abolished religious education in state-run public schools, as part of a programme of religious persecution in Yugoslavia.

But I have not done so, because I am attempting to edit in good faith. So, rather than let this article become a debate on every single policy and action of the Yugoslav government, I think it's best to leave the action of abolishment on its own, rather than to justify it either positively (like you will) or negatively (as I will). If you insist on justification of the regime's actions in every situation, we can argue this issue in-depth.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wanderer, long time no see... In fact so long that I have forgotten about your interest in this matter. Alas, for now you have thwarted my sinister scheme once more. :) The implication I get from the above is that you are being generous by removing a factual statement? What I don't understand is:
  • Why do you apparently believe that abolishing religious education in a state school system is "religious persecution". Citizens of the United States! Rise against your religious oppressors and fight the abolishment of "religion ed" in your schools! :)
  • Why you believe that abolishing religious education in a state school system is not secularization (as can be construed from your above demand)?
  • Why you believe "religious persecution" and secularization are mutually exclusive? Both obviously can (and do) take place at the same time in many cases, though not here obviously. Still, I'm interested as to why you're thinking along these lines?
I believe these are legitimate questions, and that answering them would really help me get a grasp of your logic here... The point of the matter is: removing religious education from schools is textbook secularization and I honestly don't understand why you're opposed to it being called that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's absurd to speak of "religious persecution" when we all know very well know that religious practice was silently approved by communities authorities. Thewanderer is exaggerating and being extremely PoV, and his intent to support the claim of the alleged persecution is primarily driven by the desire to promote this Nazi collaborationist as some kind of a poor martyr fitting within such scheme.
I mean, people, for Christ name, take a look at this official promotional video of SFRJ made for the needs of presentation of state to the hundreds of millions (!) of TV viewers of Eurosong 1990, namely the scenes 3:25 - 4:10. Were "evil communists" here also "persecuting" by internationally promoting a picture of multiethnic, mutli-religious Yugoslavia? ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe our Canadian friend knows full well that pushing the label of "religious persecution" would not be as easy as he suggests. I also believe that he's aware of Yugoslavia's relatively liberal stance towards religion(s). Let's remember he's not actually suggesting that we accuse Yugoslavia of having a "programme of religious persecution in 1952", but merely that the abolishment of religious education in schools does not constitute secularization. I admit that doesn't make sense, hopefully he'll elaborate... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
One at a time! We're not here to debate the evilness or goodness or the communists. If we were, essentially every Croatian article could have such an argument. But let's entertain the idea for a second anyways :). Ivan Štambuk, you're bringing up a promotional video from 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Revolutions of 1989 and that is supposed to have some bearing on the Yugoslav government's actions in 1952? The state itself didn't even produce the video! JRT, or perhaps even RTZ would have produced it. And while JRT may have produced whatever pleasant video for Eurovision, it was simultaneously becoming a mouthpiece for Greater Serbianism. But this is neither here, nor there. 1990 has no impact on 1952. Do we have videos of 1952? Certainly not, because it is an era when the Yugoslav government did as it pleased, and the world's civilized, liberal countries were busy with more important matters.
Why do you apparently believe that abolishing religious education in a state school system is "religious persecution". Citizens of the United States! Rise against your religious oppressors and fight the abolishment of "religion ed" in your schools! :)
Perhaps persecution is a strong word. But the Yugoslav state did follow an anti-religious course. In the United States there is freedom of religion. If religious education was taken away from some schools which already had it, it would have little to no impact on the country's religious freedoms. In 1952, the Yugoslav state had imprisonned a significant percentage of its clergy. The "Faith Commission" shut down every nunnery in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and several in other parts of the country. This land was nationalized, as was much of the land owned by all religious communities in Yugoslavia. About half the dioceses were without bishops, as the Yugoslav state did not allow the naming of new ones. Those bishops still enthroned were subject to frequent questioning. And by year's end, the state had severed relations with the Vatican.
Why you believe that abolishing religious education in a state school system is not secularization (as can be construed from your above demand)?
As I stated above, it requires qualification and contextualization. During this period, the state was not simply separating religion from state, but was interfering in the actions of religious communities and regulating them strictly through the national and republican "Faith Commissions".
Why you believe "religious persecution" and secularization are mutually exclusive? Both obviously can (and do) take place at the same time in many cases, though not here obviously. Still, I'm interested as to why you're thinking along these lines?
As I stated originally, the state's actions went past secularization. They are not mutually exclusive. However, the source we have (...and I am still waiting for someone else to add more any to this article) deals with the communist state's actions in intimidating, marginalizing, and interfering in the Church's actions. Secularization did take place within that framework of intimidation, marginalization, and interference. But either both deserve mention (fairly, giving representative weight to both views), or neither.
It's absurd to speak of "religious persecution" when we all know very well know that religious practice was silently approved by communities authorities.
Call me stupid if you'd like, but I don't know that. It certainly may be true of the Yugoslavia of later decades, when the state was forced to open up to the West. But I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a reference to back this up, if it's so widely known.
Dear sirs. I have added many references to this article and have tried to be fair. No one else has added any in quite a long time. But sourced material has been changed to represent the opposite of what the reference says, which is unacceptable. I can provide many works which state religious freedoms prior to the 1960s were very poor, and I can provide many individual cases of the state's actions as such. If you have sources stating that religious freedoms were good, and the Church was free to its own devices (so long as it was separate from the state), I am genuinely looking to seeing them.
Finally, I will not be intimidated by being called (by insinuation) a Nazi, or some Canadian skinhead. We can admit to our differences, but try to keep your prejudices to yourselves. I have known more Jews, Africans, Europeans, Asians, Indians, etc (all delightful people) than you could ever hope to meet in your part of the world. Whatever fairy-tale picture you have of me dressed head-to-toe in black is nothing but a farce.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

120px|thumb|right|Levels... Nazi? Canadian skinhead? LoL... not exactly HSS-affiliated political views :)

"...the state's actions went past secularization."

Ah here we go... there are no imaginary "levels" where secularization would the first "stage", and "religious persecution" something next, to follow when the matter "advances further" ("goes past secularization"). Even the worst communist religious persecutions of revolutionary Russia remained "secularization" nonetheless. In other words, in Russia we had secularization and religious persecution (in Russia!). The two are not exclusive terms. Even if (debateably!) "religious persecution" took place in 1952 (well after the Tito-Stalin split, mind you), that still does not mean that removing religious educations from state schools is somehow "not secularization", but "religious persecution".

"During this period, the state was not simply separating religion from state, but was interfering in the actions of religious communities and regulating them strictly through the national and republican Faith Commissions."

This is all true, but is it "religious persecution"? Regulating religious activities can hardly be called "purging the faithful". Either way, the fundamental problem with the above statement is that the state both pursued secularization of state institutions and was "interfering in the actions of religious communities and regulating them strictly through the national and republican Faith Commissions." I don't understand how can you use that as an argument against there having been a process of secularization in Yugoslavia? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know about 1950s, but in the 70s and 80s everyone was silently free to practice whatever religion they believed in. Of course, you couldn't simultaneously both be ardent Christian and and a member of KPJ, but that doesn't mean you didn't have a choice to follow either religious beliefs, or opportunistic career-building. There was not state-organized witchhunting against the clergy and the believers, forceful closing of churches and show trials. When you say "religious persecution", it means "persecution", but for the most part in SFRJ you simply had a suppression by isolation/ignoring. Today state-blessed churches try to portray that era as some kind of "dark period", primarily because they didn't receive any funding from the state budget (where e.g. today in Croatia religious parasites suck up some 400 million kunas of taxpayer's money each year). And as we all know, the only god they all believe in is $$$. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I digged some quotes :D From the awesome book called Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav states, written by Vjekoslav Perica. The first excerpt pertains also to Stepinac, the second to religious freedoms in Yugoslavia, p. 26

From the p. 35, subchapter titled Church-State Relations in the Sixties:

The now goes on listing some statistics on the research of national consciousness in Yugoslavs. Apparently 63% of all people were atheists :D And some more astonishing facts:
So you see Thewandarer, contrary to what they brainwashed you, the international postcard of 1990 Yugoslavia celebrating its mutliethnic, multi-religious character was not a result of "Berlin wall fall" and "1989 revolution" (what, they suddenly switched from "persecution mode" to "tolerance mode" in 1 year ? :D) - it was a result of decades of meticulously planned strategy of the Communists to promote tolerance and ethno-religious diversity, as long as it didn't include fascistoid state-subversive overtones. They've supported religious institutions financially, helped renovate monuments and churches/mosques destroyed in the wars, even founded institutions that regulated the peaceful cooperation between the regime and the religious representatives. Officially it was, of course, Marxist-Leninist ideological substrate that the state proclaimed and taught in schools, but in practice, as numbers doubtless corroborate, it was religion-wise a very tolerant society. As Perica notes, the "Stepinac trial" can in no way be put in the context of some alleged state-organized "religious persecution" - it was simply a trial of Ustaša conspirators that Stepinac was one of. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
And I suppose you think nationalization of Church property (perhaps the only thing outwardly visible today), as well as discriminating against openly Catholic people is just a lie that is taught to children by their fascist parents. It was actually the case that Communism, as it is known, is supportive of different opinions and the best friend of the Church. --Paxcoder (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, officially state-wide there was Marxist-Leninist atheist doctrine (more-or-less), but in practice, as the abovequoted abundantly-cited mountain of text proves, everyone was free to profess whatever religion they wanted, and the regime tried very hard to promote "good religion". So if you're intent on making the "persecution" point on fallacious reasoning such as "communism is bad for religion, and there was communism in SFRJ, hence there was persecution" - please don't even bother. Why on earth should we care for what happened in North Korea or China? Hello??
As for the nationalization of "Church property" - they were just getting back what Church has been illegally stealing from the people for centuries, lyingly appropriating their goods at death-bed for the promise of "eternity in heaven", selling indulgence or taxing by "Lord's law" (tithe - crkvena desetina). IMHO, of course :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have written a paragraph in response, but I decided not to publish it. There are more qualified people than me to talk on this subject. I'd just like to remind you that laws *are* theory and conducting them is practice. And you're calling people who felt the practice liars. I guess you are entitled to your opinion. Below I answered your criticism of the Church. --Paxcoder (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
And humble it is rightfully because it's obviously bias, and It seems to me like you are a sympathizer of such Communist ideas that make you able to justify stealing property by opinions formed from an ideology. But these are false. The indulgences were not used the way you claim above. There were perhaps abuses, but this was never supported by the Church, and you'll see why this is true shortly. The other part of that claim is also wrong, as indulgences are defined as remissions of temporal punishment(v. purgatory) for sins already forgiven. This, in turn, means the sins cannot be forgiven with the indulgence, let alone because of a donation. To make you informed: abuses of indulgences were only possible, unfortunately, since events where people willfully donated money to some charitable cause were often an occasion to grant them. I don't know as much about medieval tithe laws unfortunately, but as for us Catholics, we are subscribing to the opinion and laws of the Church. If some thing is made mandatory by the Church, a Catholic obeys. We believe it is rightfully so (for reasons of religous conviction which I will not go into now). For us, it was so then and it stayed so today. --Paxcoder (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, do as you wish. But if you ask me, Perica has a pretty strong case :D I can send you the book in PDF if you want to read it, but I warn you - it contains some pretty disturbing material, such as the Church-sponsored Ustaši diaspora terrorist activities against the SFRJ :D
As for the "laws are theory and conducting them is practice" - I'm sorry, are you perhaps living in the same state as I do? Governed the by the corrupted crimogenic mafia that stole billions of dollars of people's money, with the ex-prime-minister now cruising the Adriatic in 18-meter yacht giving instructions to the puppet-government over a video link? So you see, in practice there is a really big gap between the theory and practice, namely the laws on paper and them applied. I am aware that there were persecutions by the regime against individuals, but there was no such large-scale state-organized activity, and these were in most cases incidents that involved extreme nationalists and subversive individuals. Everyone could be baptised, confirmed and married in church - heck, most of the communist officials were (officially they were "atheists" though ^_^). I am not calling anyone "liar" (where exactly do you see that?), but anyone who claims that there was no religious freedoms in SFRJ is simply plainly lying. Read the abovequoted text once more, please. It's simply propaganda by Catholic Church nowadays that wants to self-victimize itself, because during the SFRJ 63% (in 1970 survey) of people were atheists (statistically the it was the the second country in the world by number of atheists), which showed that essentially people are not "inherently religious", and the majority really thinks that the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales and barbaric history, and when there is no such thing as state-sponsored religion (like you have in Croatia today, I was forced to attend vjeronauk for 12 years, Jesus!), most people just follow the current and in the end that opium drains itself, which has a practical consequence of significantly reducing the Church's income :D So you bet your ass that e.g. Stepinac was so ardent "anti-Communist", but had no problems affiliating with the Nazis and Pavelić.
No, I'm not the "supporter of Communist ideas" (well, of some of them, but not the majority - we need modern type of 21st century awareness-arising socialism to fight USA/EU/NATO imperialism and NWO terrorists, it's not the "class struggle" today anymore, it's the struggle against human stupidity, huge quantities of). And I'm not even against the religion itself, being religious in my own way (but pure atheist nevertheless!) - but not that it matters: You cannot deny the fact that for a large period of its history the Church abused it influence over uneducated people to gain enormous amount of wealth (FYI, Croatian kmet was subject to crkvena desetina until - 1848!), was directly responsible for the deaths of millions drawing entire nations into mindless wars against the "infidels", and indirectly for billions who died of trivial diseases by halting back the technological revolution with its brain-damaged interpretation of the Nature through the literal interpretation of the Bible. We could've had industrial revolution occurring 1000 yeas earlier! I assume that you were taught philosophy in the high school like I did, you know how the scholastics "reasoned" on the universe, their silly "proofs of the existence of God", persecution of Bible-opposers etc. Their greatest sin, however, was to subjugate people's minds, making them more susceptible to various ideologies supportive of imperialism, supremacy and various kinds of cultural fascism, making them able to hurt their neighbor just because he is of "another religion".
I'm really stunned that you're a devout Catholic tho, most of the pingvini I've met were very affirmative of communism, GNU project itself being a kind of "digital communism" (not to mention the parasitic GPL license! And there is some physical resemblance between RMS and Karl Marx :D). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationalization of church property? Nearly all private property was nationalized, ffs - how is that "religious persecution"? Then we also had "industrialist persecution", "small business persecution", etc. The process was not somehow "centered on the church" as your post seems to suggest. Which reminds me... have you heard of the Bishop's Palace in Split? That building used to house the Split City Library, along with university facilities. After the war - the clergy kicked the City Library and the goddamn University out on the street, literally, without even allowing for a period for the "communists" to make preparations. This wasn't some party building or company property - it was the damn city library, a facility greatly beneficial for the entire community (in the very center of town). What's there now? Well, now the clergy have a huge palace to throw parties and do god's work - all day long :P... Only very recently (this year, I think) did the city library finally get its own proper facilities, but they're still very far from the city center.
They've also managed to utterly ruin a beautiful city park by putting-up an enormous wall through the middle of it - around their property (all it was missing was a sign saying "Mine!"). Now the "park" on their side of the childish wall is a complete jungle and a breeding place of mosquitos, while the other side is so small that it doesn't warrant upkeep. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a recurring historical pattern - Church intentionally stupidifying common people at the expense of its greedy $$$-driven needs. Whenever they promoted knowledge it was always through the prism of the fairy tales from the Bible. Not so long ago they had a complete monopoly on the acedemia (and I don't mean the Middle Ages: take a look at the biographies of the first rectors of the University of Zagreb - every other one was a priest!), but today hopefully no one takes them seriously. They cannot censor Internet and collaborative efforts such as Wikipedia, which makes editing here perversely enjoying experience. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they actually plan to make people stupid, they just do... I mean, to throw literary works of art out on the street along with the students so that the bishop can have wider office space - that just speaks so clearly about their actual concern for the wellbeing of the community. But it makes sense though, they're mostly hics anyway (geta offa my properteh!!! :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The lack of civility in this debate is quite appalling. I'm not interested (as I've already stated) in a debate of right vs. left in Croatia. This has devolved into such a disaster. Apparently, insulting the entire Catholic Church and treating any who oppose you like doddering, fascist idiots is proper wikietiquette to some people. Attempting to make one sentence more NPOV should not be so difficult. (How does the discussion veer off to church indulgences?? And university rectors??) I am talking about 1952, and you're telling me about 1965! The only sentence related to the issue as I have brought it up is: From 1945 to 1953, church-state relations were tense. Everything else either vastly predates it, or reflects later conditions. Conditions improved after the death of Stepinac, and the reinstatement of relations between the Holy See and Yugoslavia. The first major religious publications began coming out in the early 60s. But there were less than a handful of small religious publications allowed from '45 to '60. Does that seem free? The nationalization and redistribution of Church or non-Church property is not just. The fact that you declare that it's fair because of some alleged historic theft by the Church or the Church's actions after the land was returned does not prove any point, but it does show your anti-Catholic bias in all this.
I am sorry communism ended and religious freedoms were introduced which put the Church in a position to "control the stupid religious masses" (or whatever what you two would like to put it). I am sorry Croatia has joined NATO. I am sorry that you think that something that occurred in the 19th century has some impact on a state's actions in the mid-20th century. I am sorry I have apparently been brainwashed (more wonderful wikietiquette!) by academic works available at my Canadian university. I am hella sorry about your library. But what does any of this have to do with the issue of religious freedoms in the '50s? Why is this discussion turning into "what don't DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk like about the Catholic Church"?
I'm going to reiterate the points I have made (slightly expanded), which you have not addressed:
  • Bishops could not be named to vacant dioceses. Dioceses had to be left with caretakers, or were simply left without any bishop at all.
  • The Faith Commissions did not simply regulate religious activities. The shutting-down of monastaries and nunneries goes beyond regulation.
  • The Ministry of Internal Affairs had to approve of any clergy being sent to a parish.
  • Property was nationalized and redistributed. The Church lost 70% of its agricultural land. The burden of funding the Church was then passed from these ventures, to the faithful. Hospitals, printing presses, etc were taken away.
  • Priests were brought into unions, separate from the church hierarchy/
  • After 1945, the number of Catholic publications in Yugoslavia decreased from one hundred to three.
  • From 1945, the state confiscated large amounts of church documents.
  • In 1946, Caritas was banned in Yugoslavia.
  • In 1950, due to large crowds at the piligrimage to Marija Bistrica, pilgrims to the shrine had to be registered by name. In the subsequent years this resulted in historically low crowds, with the number again rising in the 60s.
  • Religious education removed from schools in 1952. Faculty of Theology removed from University of Zagreb.
  • Attack on the archbishop of Ljubljana in January of 1952.
  • Relations severed between Yugoslavia and the Holy See.
  • The 1953 census, 88.6% of people declared themselves as religious. I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue either, but apparently Ivan Štambuk thinks it's important :).--Thewanderer (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you read what i excerpted? Perica also deals with Stepinac whose trial he explicitly puts into the context of Ustaši conspirators issue and not the "religious persecution", claiming that his image of a "martyr" was later fabricated by the Vatican.
In any case, though several religious leaders were jailed at the time in Eastern European countries after Stalinist show trials, there was no such a thing as “the Stepinac Trial” in Yugoslavia; there was a trial of a group of Ustaša conspirators, and Stepinac was deftly included among them by the prosecutor. However, Stepinac took the opportunity to protest at the trial against the regime’s execution of more than two hundred Catholic priests (some of whom were innocent people killed by a mob and the communist police but most of whom were active Ustaša) as well as against the closing of religious schools and nationalization of Church property. In this way the myth of Stepinac’s martyrdom was created in the West during the anticommunist momentum of the 1950s. Pope Pius XII contributed to this myth by making Stepinac a cardinal in 1953, after which Belgrade broke off diplomatic ties with the Vatican. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
These are claims, not facts. Perica is acting as a commentator rather than presenting a historical narrative in this instance. Even in a free and open society with an independent judiciary, just because someone is tried along with other people who are guilty does not make that person guilty by "association" in the trial. Anyways, you are changing the subject and are not providing any answers to the issues I have addressed above.
I've been digging up a few sources on the religious education issue (but I've mostly just been too busy to respond more promptly). Religious education was replaced with socialist and "morality" classes. Again, this doesn't seem like any regular separation of church and state. Do the points I have indicated above suggest a normal church-state relationship? The answer is no.--Thewanderer (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We are not supposed to conclude anything on "facts", but only cite other people's opinions. You cannot claim that there was a religion persecution context in case of Stepinac when there is at least one reliable source claiming otherwise. Per NPOV, we must mention them all in neutral wording. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, this whole argument is about one sentence, and not a rewriting of the entire article. I am simply showing that the Yugoslav regime's relations with the Catholic Church at the time when religious education was banned was dysfunctional and certainly discriminatory. Religious education was not removed as a part of a "programme of separation of church and state", but as part of a campaign of the Yugoslav government against the Catholic Church.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It was arguably a "campaign of the Yugoslav government against the Catholic Church" which included separating the Catholic Church and state. How can you still not understand that the two do not exclude each-other? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Then why emphasize one and not the other?--Thewanderer (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously because removing religious education from schools is not religious persecution. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Although, it is often perceived as such in somewhat pathetic attempts of self-victimization by the Church. These days the Croatian president Stipe Mesić is advocating the removal of Christian iconography (mainly crosses) from state institutions, per the state constitution which advocates secular society, and the Church officials have been continuously attacking him as if he is some evil "communist ghost" intent to suppress the Church (where he is actually promoting religious freedom). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Secularism is NOT a bad thing, even Catholics should objectively accept this (but then they should also "objectively" accept that there is no more evidence that God exists than there is for Jupiter, or Set, or this Amazing Invisible Pink Elephant standing right behind me :). Tito could've massacred every single christian in Yugoslavia, removing religious education from state-run schools would still be a good thing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I will disregard the last two comments, as they have nothing to do with the discussion and are fairly offensive. Your attempt to politicize the discussion falls flat. I am talking about 1952, and you are talking about the current president of Croatia and needlessly insulting my faith itself. So, I'll stick with: Obviously because removing religious education from schools is not religious persecution. It is when those classes are replaced with lessons in socialism and "morality". It is when the Church lacked any cohesive administrative structure with which to function due to the state blocking the appointment of new bishops. It is when it occurs at a time when the state banned church-run charities, publications, the ability to simply own printing materials, confiscated church land and documents, forced clergy into socialist unions, required approval for appointing any clergy to parishes, etc. This is not about what anyone thinks is good or bad. It's simply clear that the Yugoslav state's relationship with the Catholic Church was not functional, and that the state interfered and disrupted Catholic activity, and regulated the church with little consultation with church officials (c. 1952).--Thewanderer (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose we are drifting off-subject, but only a paranoid person would call that "politiscising the discussion". First of all, the discussion itself is highly political from the start, second of all, nobody is accusing you of anything or trying to label you politically.
No, removing religious education from schools is simply not religious persecution. Teaching socialism or ethics (your "morality" subject is called "Ethics", its still taught in schools) is not religious persecution (in fact it has nothing to do with religion). The rest of the stuff you listed is completely off-subject. Are you "politiscising the discussion"? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Yugoslav government's treatment of the Catholic Church at the time that religious education was removed is significant. How can it be off subject? You are claiming that the Yugoslav government was solely interested in separating Church and state. However, simultaneously socialist bodies were regulating the Church's activities, forcing clergy into socialist unions, blocking the appointment of Church officials, confiscating Church property and documents, etc. That hardly seems like a separation of church and state.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what more to say... NO, I am not claiming "that the Yugoslav government was solely interested in separating Church and state", I am claiming that removing religious education from the state-run school system is not religious persecution, but the separation of chruch and state... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I am also "claiming" that each of the measures the Yugoslav state undertook to curb Croatian clericalism is a seperate issue in itself. Some of those measures are obviously positive and even in-line with western values, some are arguably "negative", etc. Only a biased person would take the non-objective and simplistic view of "everything the evil communists did was bad because they did some other bad stuff". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed these from the WWII section. The first three are general descriptions of this time period, with no direct bearing on Stepinac personally. The article will only become more unmanageable if it attempts to summarize an entire period of history rather than a biography. The last is too dubious to remain without a source. Savidan 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On taking power in the puppet state, which included Bosnia and Hercegovina, the Ustaša launched a genocidal onslaught on its ethnic minorities: Jews, Roma and most especially Serbs of the Orthodox Christian church. (Cornwell, pp 254–256). According to the historian Misha Glenny (The Balkans 1804-1999, Granta Books, London 1999) "the Ustaša turned their territory into one great slaughterhouse." But

Robert D. Kaplan’s “Balkan Ghosts” presents documents according to which Croatian Catholic priests were also known to go along on raids to Serbian villages in order to baptize the victims prior to them being butchered just so they could go to heaven as members of the “true faith”.[citation needed]

Throughout the early years of the Ustaša terror, which dismayed even high-ranking Nazi officials in Zagreb and Belgrade,[1]

Some historians also argue that Ustaše prepared an assassination of Stepinac.[citation needed]

  1. ^ The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005 by Sabrina Petra Ramet Indiana University Press 2006 page 128 "But the Germans were dismayed by the 'problematic' relationship between the Ustasa Militia and the army, while General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau (1882-1946), an ex-imperial Austrian general staff officer appointed as general-plentipontiary representing the Wermacht in the NDH, was appalled by the savagery of the Ustase, and protested both publicly and privately".