Talk:Independent State of Croatia/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Translation of "poglavnik"

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Extradition, politics, and human rights (Christopher H. Pyle), The Impossible Country: A Journey Through the Last Days of Yugoslavia (), and Winning freedom (Rodoljub Cholakovic) translate "poglavnik" as "head" or "headman". The word, which the Ustaše themselves formed, is made out of the Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian word "glava" meaning "head", with Poglavnik meaning "Supreme Head" (according to A king dies in Marseilles: the crime and its background, Vladeta Milichevic). I suggest we use an encyclopedic translation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, better yet, lets explain the full meaning at first mention (with both literal and other translations) and then just use "poglavnik", as with "Führer". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR conveniently forgets that the title of Poglavnik was simmilar to those of Führer and Duce in some other languages.
The dubious way in which he quotes his sources as both using the translation Head and Headman is proposterous.
At anyone can find out that using the search phrase poglavnik head man gains 78 hits, poglavnik head 378 and poglavnik leader to 616.
The only other term that could be used is the generic 'Head of State.
Imbris (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LoL Imbris are you talking about my plots to the audience again? Hello! I'm right here :) Its rude to talk about someone in the third person, don't ya know...

"After the conquest of Yugoslavia by Axis forces in April 1941, Pavelić was installed as head (poglavnik) of the Independent State of Croatia, which included Bosnia and part of Dalmatia."
  • Pyle, Christopher H.; Extradition, politics, and human rights; Temple University Press, 2001 ISBN 1-56639-823-1; pp. 132. [1]
The author quotes one primary source (WP:PSTS), the head of the British military mission to the Partisans, and then translates "Poglavnik" for the benefit of the reader: "Some Ustaše collected the eyes of Serbs they had killed, sending them, when they had enough, to the Poglavnik ['head-man'] for his inspection or proudly displaying them and other human organs in the cafés of Zagreb." (This jolly little bit of info will be included in the article.)
  • Hall, Brian; The impossible country: a journey through the last days of Yugoslavia; Secker & Warbury, 1994 (University of Michigan) ISBN 0-43620-032-5; pp. 14 [2]
"During the war, Ante Pavelić, the Poglavnik — 'Head Man' — of the Independent State of Croatia..."
  • Čolaković, Rodoljub; Winning freedom; Lincolns-Prager, 1962 (University of Michigan), pp. 316 [3]
"...the so-called 'Independent State of Croatia' had been set up, headed by a poglavnik ('head-man' — an Ustashi coinage-word)."
  • Milićević, Vladeta; A king dies in Marseilles: the crime and its background; Hohwacht, 1959 (University of Michigan), pp. 73 [4]
"...Poglavnik - literally 'Supreme Head' - is the title which Pavelić later took up."

There's more, but my hand kind of aches... :P anywayz, the translation "Head-man" or simply "Head" is not somebody's invention, it is actually quite common and even used by Britannica. However, as I stated above Imbris, your angry retaliatory edits do actually make sense - "Leader" is used as well. We should just explain both translations in a note and simply use "Poglavnik" as is the case with Duce and Führer (which you so kindly pointed out :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The word, Leader is most commonly used, any now most common word is not valid, is that what you are saying. The translation Leader should be mentioned first, by all accounts, and the word Head second with remark that sometimes, in some cases the word Headman was also used, without the dash. -- Imbris (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was waiting for you to become the "Champion of the Most Common English Term" xD. Firstly, I don't see a Google test link, and anyway I cannot imagine how you can come-up with a conclusive Google test for this issue (unlike the Serbo-Croatian problem). The word "leader" is a common word, often used not as a translation of "poglavnik", while the word "Head-man" is exclusively used in this context. This makes it only natural that "leader poglavnik" would yield far more results than "head-man poglavnik" Secondly, this is not that simple. "Head-man" (or "Supreme HEAD", hehe :) is more of a literal translation, while "Leader" is a more liberal translation. This must be pointed out.

I don't see why you're insisting on "Headman" instead of "Head-man" since the sources clearly use the latter more often... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing cat and mouse games, I said it was on, which is far more reliable than your favourite cup of tea called simplifying plain google search. The word Leader (used 616 times) is most common, and you still demand that the word Head (used 378 times) must appear, and the word Headman (used 78 times, with and without the dash, with and without space character between). Stop your sarcasm and your witty smurk comments, we are not here for such types of behaviour. In that <ref></ref> styled note we can mention all three, but in the order of most used. In the same time you deny usage of Croato-Serbian language, while insisting that it should be placed first. In that particular case all are equall, there are no % preferences.
The sources do not use head-man more often than head man or headman. Where do you get your info.
Imbris (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to report me anytime if you feel I am being at all uncivil. :P Just please don't lecture me on Wiki behavior in such tones, some could interpret that as "uncivil" as well (even though I know in my heart you would never insult me ;). Back to the "cat and mouse games"...

Now then, the Google test very often can't be conclusive. It cannot be conclusive with the word "leader" since there's no way of knowing whether the word is used as a translation for "Poglavnik" or not. Allow me to show you what I mean. Here's a link to the basic "Leader Poglavnik" search on Google Books. Among the real translations, you have sentences like:

  • "The Germans would have preferred Kvaternik to be leader of Croatia..."
  • "Their leader, Ante Pavelich, [i.e. leader of the Ustaše] lived abroad, mostly in Italy, where Mussolini..."
  • "The unfortunate Cetnik leader was now to be condemned on both sides"
  • "exiled separatist leader who had founded his terrorist organization known as the Ustase in 1929"
  • "...and in 1943 became leader of the Republican Fascist Militia."
  • "Jawaharlal Pandit, Indian nationalist leader; several times President of the..."

And so on. This is not the case with the word "Head-man" as it is absolutely never used in English except in this context.

But ok, I don't know why we're even arguing. Leader is probably used more often despite this (though at a very small margin of a few hundred hist at best). How about we use "Pogavnik" all the time except at first mention we have a note to the pronunciation and the two translations? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not a little girl that complains admins all the time, like someone I know :) And for the matter of fact when did I ever tell you are former UDBA member or a communist. Please do not make up fake stories. The search produced 616 hits on, and the Headman only 78 hits on that very same search engine. So please stop insisting on head-man because that appelation was apparently used from the side opposed to the Pavelich-led regime. You do not have real sources for that kind of defamation and your comments on jolly bits of information make me sick, not because I glorify anything, but because you seem happy about it. The info is a forgery. -- Imbris (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You're calling me a little girl? wow... I'm so emasculated. Anyway, you called my edits communist Yugoslav propaganda and such on Template:Infobox SFRY, and on other talkpages all the time. The "jolly bit of information" (I was sarcastic again, or did you think I really found it jolly?) sourced by the university publication will be included unless you can provide me a source stating otherwise (I could not care less if you think its its a "forgery" or not).
The Google test is NOT conclusive per the examples above, but I agree Leader is probably use slightly more (these are minor tiny differences, not like 3,300 vs 2,000,000 you ignored). We mention both translations: one is literal, the other is not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alexander, Anne. Nasser : Life & times, Haus Publishing, 2005, p 50, ISBN 1904341837 -- This source speaks of an Italian journalist that spread the story. Where is the alleged British orriginal?

  • Kaufman, Stuard J. Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war, Cornell University Press, 2001, p [173], ISBN 0801487366
    • The depraved brutality of Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic is illustrated by an oft-told story of dubious authenticity which has it that Pavelic kept on his desk a basket containing "a present from my loyal Ustashis. Forty pounds of human eyes."28 page [173]
  • McAdams, Michael C. Croatia: Myth and reality Croatian Information Service, Arcadia [CA], USA, 3rd ed., 1997, pp 13-16, ISBN 0-9633625-3-4 (2nd ed., 1994, ISBN 0963362526; 1st ed., 1992, ISBN 0963362518), also available at: the website of the author
    • The Italian writer of fiction was identified as Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi), and he was a member of the Italian Fascist who after being liberated by Allies from an Italian prison started writing fiction. The book the before mentioned Fascist wrote was titled Kaputt, and in every library that holds such works it is stored under fiction. Important note: The Croatian Information Service (CIS) is not affiliated with the government of the Republic of Croatia or any political party or organization in any country.
Imbris (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LoL, what's all this? Imbris, I don't have to present to you the actual paper the British liaison wrote, you can read his exact words right in the book. This is a university publication quoting a primary source, a British person who was actually in WWII Yugoslavia. Nice try with the useless links, though. This has nothing to do with any Italian journalist. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You should really stop with such provocations like commenting something with LoL. The information was first published in the book Kaputt, by Italian Fascist Party member Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi). The Nasser source speaks of the Italian journalist. The Modern hatreds source speaks of it as alleged, and by reading the entire page you would be able to read about this being a Serbian-myth. The McAdams source describes it in the broadest cappacity.
The book you quoted do not contain a primary source, if it did you would be able to list it. The book you quoted is in part dedicated to portray how Artukovic was illegitimately extradited from USA to former Socialist Yugoslavia. The book you quoted as a source doesn't list the name of the alleged British officer, nor the document number, number of the file, archival fund number, it doesn't list anything. As it can be easily proven that we for the time being have two sources that claim it was an Italian journalist and your source that claims it is was a British liason officer. Your info has been duly oposed with reliable sources and it cannot be published without more reliable sources.
Imbris (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here we go: "The book you quoted do not contain a primary source, if it did you would be able to list it." I wonder what excuse you'll cook-up next...

Imbris, this is a university publication (the best kind of Wikipedia source), of course it contains a reference to a primary source. See the little "9" in the upper-right corner? :) The British officer is noone less than Brigadier Sir Fitzroy MacLean KT CBE, 1st Baronet of Dunconnel. The primary source is - Fitzroy Maclean, The Heretic; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957; pp. 124-25.
Two more things: your links are meaningless as they refer to a completely different matter - they are utterly unrelated to the topic of this conversation. You opinions on the veracity of published sources do not interest me in the least.

Imbris, I know you're not gonna agree no matter what I say so I honestly wonder what comes next: do you switch to another objection or do you simply "fade" away as on a few past occasions? Maybe you can think of another dispute? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


My answer to Mr. DIREKTOR

The source you claim is a primary source is nothing more than a book of Fitzroy Maclean published in 1957 in the United States of America. The full title of that book is The heretic: the life and times of Josip Broz-Tito, Harper, 1957. The chief of Britain's military mission to Tito's partisans wrote it on the basis of what he heard. His book is not a real diary but simillar to life writing, and in the form of post factum literary work. This cannot be counted as a primary source but as a misquoted text, that cannot be ever construed as a reliable source. If someone cite errorneously then that is not a reliable source. As the Head of British military mission he was mainly responsible in conveying arms to Tito's Army.

On p 125: Some Ustaše collected the eyes of the Serbs they had killed, sending them, when they had enough, to the Poglavnik for his inspection or proudly displaying them and other ...

Plus the fact that Fitzroy Maclean did not use the appelation head-man, what means that the secondary source Pyle made that little bit for himself.

Pyle never said that it was from an official primary document, but as you put it, he misquoted Fitzroy Maclean.

If you aim to represent yourself as objective, you should be less inclined toward expressing hatred towards anything.

Like you faded away in the first discussion about the Template on History of Croatia, or in the case of Hey, Slavs (the first time discussion started), or when you mislead the community that RfC for Hey, Slavs was ever started. Please stop making fun of everything and stop sarcastic remarks about someone leaving a discussion, the discussions with you are not possible, nor desirable by majority of users.

Books, quoting books, quoting books are not quoting primary sources.

Fitzroy Maclean commited "perjury" by dishonest quotations of Kaputt (a fictional story by a Italian Fascist Party member)

It was published in Great Britain under the title Disputed barricade: the life and times of Josip Broz-Tito, Marshal of Jugoslavia by J. Cape in London in 1957.

The orriginal was translated even in Yugoslavia as a novel (roman) see: Malaparte, Curzio. Kaputt : roman [translated: Jugana Stojanović], Subotica ; Beograd : Minerva, 1961, and in 1972 but that time without the subtitle roman.

Imbris (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh lol. Tell you what: I'm going to include that, and then I'll just report you for vandalism when you remove it. Then you can explain all about how I can't use university publications to the good folks at WP:AIV. You can tell them how you just know Brigadier MacLean was wrong and you're right... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This shows the modus operandi by which you operate, it's pure POV-pushing, you cannot let go the immense hatred you have placed inside you. Temple University Press is a publishing house, I have never heard of Temple University and in good old UK it was published by a private publisher. The sources reference this oft-told story as not authenticate and made-up by an Italian journalist/writer. The fact that some uni-press published something doesn't not automatically claim it is manualia at an university. Maclean did not quote where he had obtained the information from, and we have two sources that both condemn the regime in ISC that at the same time correctly reference the info to the Italian journalist. -- Imbris (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me. Please? Its just silly now. I do not care what you have to say about my "modus operandi". You're the one making-up ridiculous excuses and fake disputes based on your opinion (in the face of sources). You can also stop talking about this journalist, because I'm getting tired of repeating how he has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
You've never heard of Temple University and Temple University Press? Your problem (you at least could've searched on Wikipedia...). This is an eyewitness account by MacLean. He wrote it in his book. That information was included in a university publication - that's good enough for Wikipedia. Red-up on what a university press is - "a university press is an academic, nonprofit publishing house that is typically affiliated with a large research university, and publishes work that has been reviewed by scholars in the field." Now please, just stop. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Pyle!? You have read it? He wrote his translation of the word poglavnik as head-man. That translation is not to be found in Maclean's work, so Pyle did not make a direct quote of Maclean.
So Pyle misquoted Maclean.
In the work of Maclean we cannot read what you wish us to read (better yet what you invented), Maclean doesn't mention that he eyewitnessed anything, Maclean also did not quote from where he heard or read the information.
In the biography of Nasser (writen by Alexander, Anne) Gamal Abdel Nasser recollects that he read/heard about the myth from the Italian journalist.
In the university publication by Kaufman, Stuard J. Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war, Cornell University Press, 2001, p [173], ISBN 0801487366, he wrote that it is a myth.
Myths, especially WWII ones, have no place on this or any respectable wikipedia.
Why on Earth would anyone wish such myths placed into this article? Other than to POV-push the only Truth TM supplied by Mr. DIREKTOR.
Imbris (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The author does not quote MacLean's translation, that's why he uses box brackets "[ ]". I told you so when I first quoted him. I thought I was clear enough: "The author quotes one primary source (WP:PSTS), the head of the British military mission to the Partisans, and then translates "Poglavnik" for the benefit of the reader." Which is to say, Prof. Christopher H. Pyle translated the word "Poglavnik", not MacLean (which is actually much better).

The rest of your stuff does not matter. The Italian journalist and his completely different "story" are irrelevant. The above link does not address MacLean's statement, but a completely different story. Your views on the credibility of Brigadier MacLean are irrelevant as well. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Italian journalist/writer is the main source of the information, his literary work (a novel) was published firstly in 1943 in Italian. First translation to English was in 1946. His book was published at least 10 times in the period before 1957 (and the work of Maclean. It is obvious from where the good old British inteligence officer (that glorified Tito, and wrote two of Tito's biographies) got his information.
Maclean is not the primary source, because he wrote a novel about Tito's Yugoslavia, and poor one as it would seem. Maclean is a secondary source too, he did not wrote from where he got the information, much less than what you want us to belive ("This is an eyewitness account by MacLean" by DIREKTOR).
Stop insisting on controversial and defamatory stories of dubious authenticity. Wikipedia is no place for such "material".
Imbris (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, the story about Serbian eyes in Pavelić's office is the Italian's nonsense, and its pretty far-fetched. Ustaše grunts sporting Serbian ears and such in public is a DIFFERENT MATTER (and quite probable). The Italian guy is NOT the (fabricated) source for MacLean's claim about Ustaše carrying Serbian ears and eyes, it is a source about a bowl of Serbian eyes in the office of that murderous peasant moron - the Supreme HEAD. It is a source about a DIFFERENT MATTER entirely. For those still in school: that's called a straw man argument. Nice try, now MOVE ON pls.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

From what Pyle wrote (partially quoting Maclean) is the same thing that has been fabricated by the Italian journalist named Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi). Pyle quoted Maclean: "Some Ustaše collected the eyes of Serbs they had killed, sending them, when they had enough, to the Poglavnik ['head-man'] for his inspection or proudly displaying them and other human organs in the cafés of Zagreb." and there is a clear mentioning of sending them (on a regular basis perhaps) to the Poglavnik (Maclean translated it as the Leader) for his (the Leader') inspection. Maclean was not in Zagreb, did not wrote that sentence first hand and did not ever wrote what you insist on, that "This is an eyewitness account by MacLean" (previous quotation thanks to: Mr. DIREKTOR). So stop pretending, and fabricating sources by contaminating them with your blatant POV.
There are dozen of misquotations circulating, in some cases they (fabricate) write forty pounds which is 18.2 kg, in other cases they (fabricate) write twenty kilograms. In some cases they write that it was the birthday present to the Leader, they would write anything, just like you would. They do not care about reliable sources, just like you do not care, they just want hatred and would explore any path to flame it.
You and your Tito glorificator Maclean have together a one source, one secondary source to be exact and continue to insisting on controversial and defamatory stories of dubious authenticity. Wikipedia is no place for such "material".
Imbris (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Same thing? Not from what I've seen of your source. Its obviously not the Italian's story, move on. Pyle can translate "Poglavnik" in whatever way he wants, and anyway that dos not matter.

I did say "eyewitness account" did I? My mistake, I apologize, I don't know if it was an eyewitness account or not (and neither do you). That doesn't really matter, though. All that you need to know is: 1) MacLean said it, 2) a university published it (i.e. it was "reviewed by scholars in the field"). That's good enough for Wikipedia. If he lied, well, he got away with it. Though it seems 100% plausible that the Ustaše collected exes and ears - we know they've done far worse things. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why am I discussing this with you? Beause it makes an excellent example of a typical "Imbris discourse". Heh, I've got a university publication stating a fact with a contemporary primary source listed - and I'm unable to include it in the article LoLz... Only with Imbris. :) If I brought you a dead Serbian zomby with no ears saying "the Ustaše cut-off my ears", you'd say he's lying and that I can't include it in the article. (Gruesome, no? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) Did you see the paragraph in Maclean (which contain the sentence in question)? That paragraph, of some four or five lines contains listing several topics which Maclean heard or read. Maclean did not say he is an eyewitness of those events. Maclean wrote his book in 1957, on the basis of his memory, notes, he did not say, he most certainly did not say that he was in Zagreb or Dubrovnik (in a diff version of the myth).
(2) The Italian journalist wrote his novel in 1943, after the capitulation of Italy, his novel received gruesome criticism in USA, but it was sold fairly quick because it lived ten issues before 1962.
(3) Maclean obviously used what Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi) as material in his novel.
(4) Maclean is oposed by others who see this issue as a myth, you cannot honestly believe that any source which is oposed by reliable sources will live to see its imprint on this or any wikipedia.
(5) Stop making gruesome comments, I should report you for a personal attack for your last sentence in which you describe what I would say when meeting with a zomby.
Imbris (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, do you know what peer-review literature is? That's literature that's been reviewed by experts in the field. Temple University experts judged this information to be accurate. Wikipedia accepts peer-review literature as best sources available beacuse of this. You are some guy who keeps raising the bar on evidence (you keep demanding more "proof", when it is provided, you demand even more to infinity).

Threfore, when I include this information into the article, rest assured that it is fully and completely sourced in accordance with Wikipedia policy (WP:V). You can accept this, or you can embarrass yourself further with these ridiculous desperate-sounding displays. You can also be sure I will report you the instant you rever me - I'd be a moron not to. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't present information portrayed as controversial. There is Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and we have counter-sources that rebute your secondary source. Pyle is quoting from a Maclean 1957 book, the war ended in 1945 and Maclean wrote his novel on the basis of his post factum memory. Maclean did not quote anything of a sort which would look alike a primary source.
The sources that counter and oppose Maclean's version speak of such myths as defamatory stories of dubious authenticity. Wikipedia is no place for such "material".
You need to have WP:REDFLAG read. The exaggerated rhetoric of the Maclean report aroused the suspicions of his superiors. The fact that Pyle quoted him is not sufficient to place his accounts on wiki.
Imbris (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem: you DO NOT have any counter-sources whatsoever. NONE. Let me repeat this again: your source about the Italian journalist is unrelated, I repeat: unrelated, to this issue.

  • The Italian journalist talks about an alleged "bowl of Serbian eyes" in the office of Ante Pavelić. That sounds inplausible.
  • MacLean states that Ustaše cut off the eyes and ears of their Serbian victims and displayed them. That sounds like something you'd expect from the Ustaše (given their other exploits).

You can understand what I am saying here, right? I mean I repeated this like FIVE times already. Let me say it again: "one bowl of eyes" ≠ "Ustaše general habbit of cutting off ears". I can say this five more times in ten different ways if you like. The fact remians: that is NOT a counter source to this particular statement. Kindly stop mentioning it completely. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could live a day in titoist mythology. AP1929 (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Genocide and illegality

I've heard this state being described as one of the most murderous states in history relative to its population (after Pol Pot's regime), yet this article barely deals with this. The general information is all very lovely, but I can't escape the feeling that the massive genocide committed by this state is being pushed to the sidelines with info that's little better than irrelevant trivia - all for the apprent purpose of depicting this state in a better light. It may not be the intended purpose, but that's the impression one may easily get given the reputation of the NDH. A reader is more likely to come 'round this article to learn about what the NDH was most famous for - literally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of its citizens.

Furthermore, no mention is made of this state's illegal status as a country created during wartime by a belligerent power on occupied territory. A state created within an occupation achieved with no declaration of war (Hague conventions). No mention is made of how little control it actually executed over its proclaimed territory. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi --DIREKTOR (TALK), thanks for sharing your POV.Oz Cro (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup... looks like I'm anti-NDH. You got me. While we're "sharing", the borderline-hostile response above hints at your POV. I'm starting a discussion on the legitimate shortcomings of this article. Rest assured I do not engage in idle chat - I intend to expand this article with a "Genocide" section, and I intend to source it. However, I don't presume to introduce such edits without previous discussion, hence the post. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Mate. Have a whinge! play the ball not the man. "Border-line hostile" is a bit rich!.
Take the time to read the article. There is a place in it for all of the different aspects that made up the NDH between 1941 and 1945. I have no argument with you adding a sourced "Genocide" section. The threads of genocide in the NDH are scattered throughout the article. Other articles exist in Wiki on the Ustasha and Jasenovac that are linked to this article. Its real and its a fact that it took place in the NDH.
I don't think of you as anti-NDH. In fact I greatly respect your editorial efforts in the Balkan/WW II area of Wiki. What I object to is your denigrating the efforts of the many contributors to the article. The "irrelevant trivia" is no less real and no less important. The NDH did exist (however tenuously), had a real economy, real armed forces, real demographics, real racial legislation, real cultural institutions and real sport, real stamps, currency, railways. We think that some people may be interested to know something about them. I would expect that each contributing editor to this article (myself and youself included) has only tried to add to the limited base of knowledge that exists on the subject of the NDH. Some have alot to give, some not as much. Some have access to a wide spectrum of information and references, some can only contribute to a narrow area, but make a contribution nonetheless. This is not "all for the apparent purpose of depicting this state in a better light", but to bring the little-known aspects of the NDH 'into the light', to invite scrutiny and discussion, as well as the sharing of knowledge.
So please go ahead like the rest of us and continue in your efforts to improve this and the other articles in Wiki. But please also pay us the consideration and respect that is afforded by us to you.Oz Cro (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If one is to know anything about genocide and populations, one must understand demographics. According to Kingdom of Yugoslav demographics in comparison to post ww2 yugoslav demographics, there is no evidence of genocide amongst "targeted" populations within NDH. There was however a DEMOcide orchestrated against Croatians by tito and his partizans post May of 1945. As for the legality of NDH - there was a deceleration of war see: Travanjska Revolucija (something peasants in present day Croatia know nothing of) and the Croatian population by plebiscite vouched for Independence - and this is very visible through hundreds of documents and actual film footage, writings etc. If you want to talk illegal you should talk about the illegal paramilitaries (cetniks and partizans) operating on the territory of NDH. If you want to talk illegal you should talk about tito's integration of Croatia after WW2 into yugoslavia. Yours truly, AP1929 (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's just play with wiki sources and numbers shall we?

History of Bosnia and Herzegovina the last pre-war census, in 1931, recorded 1,028,139 adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The first post-war census, in 1948, recorded 1,136,116 Serbian Orthodox in Bosnia-Herzegvina = increase of almost 100,000.

According to that article, in 1931 there were 633,000 ethnic Serbs in Croatia. The 1948 census recorded 543,795 =loss of about 90,000. Between 1971 - 1981 there was about the same decrease of Serbs in Croatia - was tito committing genocide on Serbs in Croatia too ? These figures clearly point to a direction, and it is most certainly not the one of DIREKTOR. AP1929 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that it is more accurate to say that Croatia has suffered from a vry bad press. The section on "Partisans and the Yugoslav front" is particularly biased and not at all POV. No doubt the Ustase were very brutal, but so were the partisans. Of course history is written by the victors, but Wikipedia should try to avoid that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Can someone please say what is the basis for the (poorly written) statement "demands for German and Italian military departures were obviously impossible to be met by the Italian and German governments". That bears no resemblance to the three conditions listed. (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a puppet state from 1943-1945, it is just anti-facist propaganda. Before it was some kind of puppet monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Protectorate" and map

  • Protectorate
    • Among the Axis powers, its creators, the NDH and its ruling Ustaše had one major adversary - fascist Italy. I should like to see some serious sources listed here that support this claim. In the end, even if true, too much emphasis is placed on it as this (alleged) legal formality was completely without effect on NDH politics and its history.
    • Then there's the 1943 Italian capitulation and surrender. Former country infoboxes describe the last state of the country they cover. For the last 1 year and 249 days (41% of its total existence) the state had nothing to do with Italy at all. This brings me to my second point,
  • Map
    • Why does the infobox include an emphasized map of Italy in 1943? The map is not of 1945 Axis Europe, but from 1943. It also falsely emphasizes Italy without any backing since the Kingdom had renounced any claims on the NDH in 1943. We need a proper map of the NDH in 1945/44.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NDH in modern politics

What is objectionable to having a section dealing with such? Lt.Specht (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Omg :)

Listing Croatian ex-president Stjepan Mesić as a politician supportive of the NDH is one of the most incredible statements I've ever heard. Fortified in its incredibility by the arrogance with which it is defended. Mesić is liberal left-wing and a "Yugonostalgic".

What you do not know here, User:Lt.Specht, is that Stjepan "Stipe" Mesić is likely the most anti-NDH high ranking Croatian politician. The quote you have there was stated in the early 1990s (during wartime!) and was used by his political opponents during his presidency (which ended this year with the election of the socialist candidate endorsed by Mesić). In the ensuing affair, the whole statement was recanted several times by Mesić himself. [5] Your "section" here amounts either to uninformed nonsense or deliberate political slander, your pick. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be wise of you to note that NDH insignia are illegal in Croatia, and open expressions of support toward the monstrous genocidal Nazi regime are highly taboo and socially unacceptable. For any modern-day politician to do so would be unimaginable. Such an act would mean instant political dismemberment. Something like an Iranian presidential candidate declaring he's gay. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize as I was unaware of Mesić's retractions. However, if in the future a more detailed section regarding the NDH in modern politics is added, there's no reason why this controversy regarding him can't be added. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Its not that you were unaware of Mesić's retractions, its that you were wholly unaware of Mesić's entire political platform and attempted to write about it in an encyclopedia. He was only president of the country since 2000... :P My general point here is: please stop going around writing all sorts of things about subjects you know practically nothing about (and would require months of study to become knowledgeable in).
A section on the "NDH in modern politics". Is Nazi Germany somehow a part of modern German politics? Or haven't people still gotten over the whole "genocide" thing? In modern Croatian politics, the only ones crazy enough to openyl support teh NDH are the extreme, extreme right-wing. A force so negligible that in a small country like Croatia they are below notability and amount to a few raving wackos (certainly no parliamentary parties). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Puppet state

This is a direct attack on the neutrality. The country was in a hard position, with Italian soldiers in Dalmatia, so they couldn't do anything versus them, and Hitler refused to help the NDH government. Even if it could be stated "puppet government" for the period until the capitulation of Italy, after the capitulation, Croatian army entered Dalmatia and liberated it from the fascist and restored full independence. In other word, NDH was as independent in 1943-5 period as Croatia is independent today, no more, no less. So, my suggested government types would be: 1941-3: Military dictatorship, Constitutional monarchy, (possibly puppet state, if you want to add) 1943-5: Military dictatorship, No-party state, Presidential state (it was neither republic nor monarchy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Don`t joke with me, it`s a puppet state created by Italy and Germany, so it can`t liberate itself from its creators. Interesting, sport and culture in puppet state? Some people adore neonazism too nmuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Puppet state vs Satellite state

Some countries are refered to as satellite states, like this one: , and some are refered to as a puppet states. Are there any differences between Tuvan Republic and NDH? If you ask me, satellite state seems more neutral. However, I would like more opinions. HeadlessMaster (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And this one is referred to as a puppet state. This was discussed previously at enormous length. The current term is in accordance with sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor changes

I changed "Croatian-populated Yugoslav region" to "Croatian region" and I deleted a note for Poglavnik because we have article about that title.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And , I forgot to explain this my first change... It is not wrong to write Croatian region because it was Croatian region, Croats lived in it, and you had Banovina Hrvatska, and today it is Croatian, so to make it simple - Croatian region.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Regarding this edit - it seems that the NDH's own statistical office put the population in 1941 at 6,966,729 while the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs calculated "during the creation of the state" that the population was approximately 6,285,000, which is a difference of about 700,000. In other words, if both numbers are properly sourced than the German version is 10 percent less than what was reported in the Croatian census. So unless there is reason to assume that the Croatian figure was somehow doctored or compromised I see no reason not to include both. Timbouctou (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The figure of 6,966,729 is given no reference nor is the latter figure of 6,474,331. However, if a reliable source is found mentioning those figures (I couldn't) then they should be inserted. It should also be noted that, as Cohen has, the possible exaggeration of Croat population. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

External links

Perhaps it would be good to add this article to the external links?

Vinchyt (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox map

What's the deal with the edit war and what's the reasoning for replacing Pannonian's map with Direktor's? What's the purpose of having the area outside the formerly invaded Yugoslavia blanked? Timbouctou (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What "edit war"? The only coloured countries are Yugoslav puppet states, to me it seemed more consistent with the big maps, plus it emphasizes the NDH. What do you say Tim? Foreign countries: coloured or uncoloured (and labelled)? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is about NDH so the map should depict the short-lived state and its surrounding territories as they were (giving it a political context if you will) so I see no point in blanking everything outside the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. If you insist you could outline pre-war Yugoslavia's border using a thin dotted line. Pannonian's colours are a better choice because yours are too dark in combination with a black font. Labels on map (I assume you refer to country names) are fine but I have no idea why Pannonian decided to use italic text (and he has an error in "occupational"). Legends below the map are cumbersome if used in infoboxes. And borders are painted a bit too thick. When you click on a larger version it looks like somebody drew them with a fat marker. And while you're at it you might consider getting a better font. I recommend looking for something resembling NGS or UN maps. Two cents dropped. Timbouctou (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the images in question, File:Independent State of Croatia 1941-43.png and File:Ndh 1941.png, are both of the same format and cover the same topic, this back-and-forth needs to be done under the same file name, rather than as numerous edits in numerous articles. Pick one name and merge the two. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently analogous contentious image replacements have happened in other articles, too, so this discussion is likely to be moved elsewhere, PANONIAN asked me and I suggested the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
@Joy. I share your sentiments, Joy, but PANONIAN made it clear several times he does not wish to merge our image versions. That's his decision, and right now I have no intention of pushing the man on the issue anymore. As for the dispute resolution noticeboard.. I had a chat with PANONIAN and I don't see how it could help. I don't hold it against him, but he flatly refuses to compromise on his work, and wants our two versions to remain separate no matter what. We've agreed that we won't contest the usage of each-other's files on certain articles. Imo its a good temporary solution and a bad long-term one, I really would like to go ahead with "merger negotiations", but I really tried my best. As for the images, it is my own personal impression that my minor modifications are objectively beneficial: the legend seems redundant with the detailed and numerous labels, a border in the file itself seems unnecessary as it doubles with the border in teh articles, and the labels use CS5 anti-aliasing.
@Tim. I shall get to work then, shan't I? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
By Wikimedia Commons polices I am not obligated to "merge" my work with work of other user. According to these policies, content disputes are solved in the way that each of the parties in the dispute can upload its own version of file and then editors of each Wikipedia can choose which file they will use in related articles. Therefore, if my file is not good for this article, there is DIREKTOR's version or any other user can create his own version. I do not want to change my file because of simple fact that amount of changes that would satisfy DIREKTOR would not be acceptable for me. As for claim that term "occupational" is an error, google search says that term "occupational zone" is used in English: [6]. As for other things like color, font, image border, etc, these are standards that I using in all my maps and whether somebody like that or not is only a question of subjective judgment. PANONIAN 11:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As you wish. FYI most of the hits for "occupational zone" yielded by Google a) do not come from proof-read sources, b) were written by people whose first language was not English, and c) refer to entirely different meanings of "occupation" like here or here (both taken from the first page of results). And even with all of these, there is a total of 4,260 hits for "occupational zone" vs. 274,000 for "occupation zone" (ratio 1:64). When one searches through Google Books the figures are 968 vs. 27,100 (1:28). If one tries to add a string "+ NDH" the result is 30 vs. 1 in favor of "occupation". Timbouctou (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I changed description in my map to "occupation zone". By the way, I see that newest version of map uploaded by DIREKTOR is almost identical to mine. Anyway, as I said, I am not insisting that my original map is used here - it is used elsewhere and this is just one article. PANONIAN 12:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes PANONIAN, our maps are almost identical - so lets merge them! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL. And what you mean by "merge"? Perhaps that I should propose my own map for deletion? You will not see that movie. You are free to draw your own maps but please refrain yourself from destroying work of other people. PANONIAN 22:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
NO. I thought I already told you we would 1) compromise, 2) agree, and then merge. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I simply do not like your choice of colors and, as I see, colors are the only substantial difference between two maps. Since this question is of purely subjective nature, you can keep your map version here, my version will be user somewhere else and, as far as I am concerned, we have nothing else to discuss about this - your map version is used in this article, but please do not try to delete mine from Wikimedia Commons. PANONIAN 18:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)