Talk:Independent State of Croatia

An event in this article is a April 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

A few very basic things

Those who want to glorify Pavelic and his Independent State of Croatia shall go somewhere else to do that.

About Pavelic's titles:

He was poglavnik for his Ustashi - for all others - just brigand, Nazi collaborator, nobody.

His "Dr." is a honoric title "dr iuris" that has nothing to do with the academic "PhD" today. So, in order to avoid any confusion and achieve a necessary level of accuracy - I removed from this article the words "Poglavnik" and "Dr".

Also, stories about Tito's partisans and Chetniks are not here to explain anything - rather a text that draws attention from the very nature of this puppet Nazi state.

I included this article sa a part of WIkiProject Fascism due to the fact that this puppet state was established and run by Nazis and fascists and lasted only during their reign in this geographical region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purger (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I only wanted to change your "terrorists and saboteurs" back to "extremists", but ended up picking up the other title stuff as well when I used the earlier version of the article.--AHrvojic 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though I'm a few years late responding to this "intellectual" - DR. Ante Pavelic attained his doctorate in Law at the University of Zagreb. I have a photograph of it - it's written in fine latin. AP1929 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Someone requested a cleanup of this article. I fixed a few grammatical errors, but the section "Tomislav II?" needs major work, not just of the grammar but the references too, so I'll leave a rewrite to someone familiar with the topic. I've removed the general cleanup tag for the article and put one on this section to make it clearer for future editors which text needs work. --83.67.23.108 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please write what is problem with this section or better to say which statements are problem so that I can help you here ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would appear that you are not a native English speaker. Much of what you have written is grammatically incorrect, and much of it doesn't make sense. AniMate 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I know for my grammaticall problems but other stuff ?? Let discuss statements on talk page.

Because of Alexander I of Yugoslavia assasination reputation of Pavelić has been king killer. About this there has been agreement between Allies and Axis so Radio London has been speaking about that and Adolf Hitler has been speaking similar stuff on meeting in Bulgaria.

He has not entered Croatia but after becoming king he has proclaimed Raffaelle Guariglia his consultant for Croatian affairs.

Now is possible to understand this part of section ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This why balkan internet historian stick should to paper article in own language. AP1929 (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting Slovakia?

quote: "Adolf Hitler was initially uneasy with Mussolini's agenda of creating a puppet Croatian state, and preferred that areas outside of Italian territorial aims become part of Hungary as an autonomous territory. This would appease Germany's ally Hungary and its nationalist territorial claims and would also avoid the creation of a Slavic puppet state, as Hitler viewed all Slavs as racially degenerate."

This appears to be speculation, as Hitler previously created a Slavic puppet state on his own, and did not let Hungary annex it. I am talking about Slovakia. I move to reword this small section. We are also forgetting that Himmler and the SS maintained that the Croats are not Slavs, but were slavified Goths (however ridiculous that idea may be). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Military

Reverted this section as the previous "reorganized redundent sections" edit had changed the context and scope of the referenced material.

The 5th paragraph actually serves to expand upon the 2nd paragraph in the “Military” section. More referenced material will be added to this section and the associated article Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia in the near future.Oz Cro (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Map

I have replaced the previous map showing the Zupe with one I produced myself. The main source for this is a UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) map dated 1944. The map is fairly schematic so I have also used maps of the state of Croatia-Slavonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to try and establish the accurate borders of the Zupe. The map adds the Zupe missing from the previous map and also shows Podgorje as Vinodol-Podgorje (which agrees with the Zupe names on the Districts of the Independent State of Croatia page).

XrysD (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of Ustaša idealogy by Nevenko Bartulin

http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20070911.113128/public/02whole.pdf 121.127.200.205 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of this section had a hysterical tone which I found extremely irritating. I hope that whoever wrote it won't mind that I have made it less frantic and, as it happens, more accurate. The work cited is only a university thesis by a graduate student, but although I say "only," it is an impressive piece of work. For anyone interested in the subject, it is certainly worth reading. I think I detect a hint of bias from the author but, even if I am right, this is a far more even-handed approach than is usual in studies of the NDH.

Its relevance to this article is in its argument that Ustaša ideology was driven much more by racism than historians have previously acknowledged. According to Bartulin the movement had no interest in Catholic dogma and was concerned to keep the Catholic Church out of state affairs. In support of his argument he points to Ustaša readiness to welcome Muslims as brothers within NDH; the fact many Catholics were among the thousands murdered in the Ustaša's genocide of its Roma minority, etc. But even if Bartulin is right, it doesn't alter the fact that many Catholics, including priests and Franciscans, participated in the genocidal persecution of the NDH's Serbs. And arguments about the role of the Vatican and the Croatian hierarchy are still valid. Kirker (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Economy of the NDH

I have added a referenced section on the economy of the NDH to complement the existing text. Oz Cro (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not even a mention of Mussolini accepting Pavelic in exile in Rome, and allowing him to create the Ustase regime in the first place

This article is very biased in claiming that the Independent State of Croatia was almost exclusively a puppet state of Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Fascist regime in Italy was the one that accepted Pavelic into exile in Rome and allowed Ustase training camps to be built in Italy. Mussolini signed an agreement with Pavelic which ensured that Pavelic would allow Dalmatia to become Italian territory. Mussolini released Ustase forces from Italy which took part in the invasion of Yugoslavia and allowed Pavelic to accede to power. The Independent State of Croatia had a figurehead Italian monarch running it, plus complete Italian military control over the country's coastline and Italy forbid the NDH to build a navy outside of patrol boats. Certainly Germany exercised the most influence over most of the NDH, including Zagreb, but the NDH was not an exclusive German puppet state until 1943 when Mussolini's Fascist regime was ousted by Italy's King. Information on "Italian influence" in the NDH and its creation was previously provided and referenced, but someone decided to remove this information and replace it with a statement declaring the insignificance of Italy's involvement and completely removed acknowledged facts of Mussolini harbouring Pavelic and the Ustase movement in Italy. I will try to find this information in the edit list prior to the information being deleted. If others can bring back this material or add more on Italian influence in the creation of the NDH, that would be greatly appreciated.--R-41 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The NDH was a puppet because:

1. Croatians never elected Ante Pavelic as national leader — he got into power in 1941 due to the German invasion and his former Nazi-Fascist European movement links, in the same way that happened with Romania’s Iron Guard;

2. The Independent State of Croatia lacked true political autonomy, since its borders, mainly the Adriatic ones, were designed by Italy, who took most of Dalmattian litoral with large Serbo-Croatian-speaking populations that have never been part of Italy before;

3. The Independent State of Croatia lacked true military autonomy, since the bulk of the armed forces were comprised of German troops who occupied the eastern and Italians who occupied the western part of the NDH, which had some police, some collaborationist troop divisions but nothing of great size, since most of the former Yugoslav Royal Army had defected to form two rival guerillas — the Monarchist, Orthodox Chetniks and Communist, Pan-Slavic Partisans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.97.117 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

R-41 you can write section prelude (or something similar) ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pavelic never made deals with any legitimate Italian authority in regards to borders prior to the creation of NDH. Such implications came into effect after the NDH by various conspirators to make him look like a traitor as opposed to a victim of chance which he really was. Croatians never elected Dr. Pavelic but they surely by plebiscite welcomed his state which was declared on his behalf - and these words were spoken to a communist rigged trial by Archbishop Kardinal Alojzije Stepinac. Dr. Pavelic could not be elected as any form of leader because the yugoslav government banned all national parties which is outlined in the sesto januarska diktatura - 6th of january dictaorship. Dr. Pavelic did however welcome back all previously elected, living officials to the reopening of the Croatian Parliament, Hrvatski Sabor, in 1942. You are forgetting to mention the events from April 5th to April 10th where thousands of Croatians in the Royal yugoslav army defected and turned tables on the Serbian soldiers which was a huge part in establishing civil rule within Croatia.

Serbo-Croatian is not a language for starters, and those borders pretty much established long before NDH in the treaty of Rappallo between the Kingdom of yugoslavia and Italy: see post 1919, prior 1941 map of region. To say that these regions were never part of Italy is simply ridiculous and revisionism, clearly you are unfamiliar with Italian Nationalism/Imperialism and or Italian History. Italians consider themselves to be the predecessors of the Roman and Venetian Empires. See map of both.

The Independent State of Croatia's Croatian Armed Forces or HOS, Hrvatske Oruzane Snage, numbered well over 200 thousand even in 1945 when "so many" people had already "switched to the winning side" (implicitly). One of the largest fronts, Zvonimirova Linija was completely Croatian. The occupational zones were divided, and only implicit foreign rule was in Italian Zone One - these zones however did not last from 1941 all the way from 1945 nor did the German's really partake in civil rule wheras the Italians did in their annexed territory and some parts of zone one. AP1929 (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Over neutrality of this article

In this article the editors repeat constantly the German influence, the Italian influence over the Croatian State... speaking all the time of the Independent State of Croatia as a "puppet and criminal state", by the Ustaše crimes (allegedly 700.000 serbs) and other issues, but, who said that? the serbs obviously, we know that the winner states put the figures as they should; really, there is any forceful evidence for justify that? Nobody speaking of the Serbs massacres, in the WWII and in the recently yugoslav wars. With respect at the puppet states, as said before, why isn't called the actual Iraqui state as US puppet state? or Australia, Canada and others as British puppet states? For a simple reason, the winners in the wars reserve the right of call the enemies as "criminals and killers" or "puppet states". --190.172.229.209 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's all your opinion, and I'm afraid you'll find many other opinions here disagreeing with you. Unless you're suggesting your opinion is more valuable than that of others I suggest you present sources (or stop using this page as a forum for idle debate). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:190.172.229.209, ˝puppet state˝ expression should be left out of this article. Surely World War II Croatia was much more than a puppet state, and let the readers themselves decide how independent od dependant was it.-- Lisicazg (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

They were in fact, much less than a puppet state. That half-formed unstable creation riddled with revolts may easily be reduced only to the Ustaše movement itself, and the territory that movement was able to control due to the immediate presence of occupation troops. Remember that until the fascists view becomes standard, we are all forced to consider wartime creations as legally non-existent: the NDH was Hitler's occupational tool, created mainly for the facilitation of the occupation of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

---

But as far as we know from reliable Western sources, the Independent State of Croatia was formed by a relatively non-popular, marginal far-right force (the Ustase) that just secured the power trough the occupation of the I.S. of Croatia territory by German and Italian troops. And former Yugoslav Kingdom Croatian elected members of the Yugoslav parliament did not participate in the fascist Croatian government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanWalker (talk • contribs) 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If some party didnt win majority in a set up elections that doesnt mean they are unpopular. And they cetainly werent marginal. Party of rights was one of the strongest and most influental parties in croatian history, especially pre WW2. And allied sources arent really reliable, especially post war ones about exAxis states, and thats kind of logical when you come to think about it. Lisicazg (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense, the Ustaše were feared and hated beyond comparison in Croatian history. Especially after the pogroms and the signing-over of Dalmatia, not to mention the taxation imposed by German demands for resources from all its satellites. The mass rebellion throughout the territory of the NDH, one of the largest and earliest in all of occupied Europe(!), makes it a candidate for the "Most Unpopular and Unstable Regime of the Century Award". They easily killed far more people than any regime ever to take power in Croatia, and established the most oppressive reign of terror this area has ever seen. Both Yugoslavias at their worst (King Alexander's reign, Stalinist period in the SFRY 1945-1947) don't come even close. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And this is exactly why more Croatians were in the Croatian Armed Forces then in the partisan guerilla movement. For the record, tito's regime slaughtered more people then ever before in that regions history. To say that they don't come close - well how about them mines which are being 'exhumed' this very day in Slovenia and in Croatia? Last time I checked, chetnik turned partisan Simo Dubajic has admitted to the commanding of a systematic slaughter of over 13 thousand people himself with tito knowing of such. Interesting, makes you wonder how many more mass graves there are and how many "Simo's" (born-again Christians turning from their communist past looking for forgivness) there are or could have been.AP1929 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neighbours of Independent State of Croatia

The problem is some Slovene keeps editing text and deleting Third Reich as a border country (notice the word country, that is a key word) to Province of ljubljana. I know some of you are a bit frustrated for being just a province in other country, but the fact is Independent State bordered Third Reich on its NW border, period.

And denying that is like saying Mexico borders Texas not USA. Province of Ljubljana is as its name says just a province, part of the Third Reich - not a country on its own. So to conclude Croatia bordered Third Reich, Kingdom of Hungary, German Protectorate of Serbia and Italian protectorate of Montenegro Lisicazg (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong and it is possible that you are right :)

Province of ljubljana was under occupation, and not annexed. Because of that you are wrong.

Maribor region is annexed by 3rd Reich and because of this you are maybe right. I do not know where has been south border of this annexed region.--Rjecina (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear. As Davide Rodogno points out in 'Fascism's European Empire', "When the Nazis drew the Reich's southern frontier (which became the northern frontier of the Province of Ljubljana)..." It's here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The German Reich ("Third Reich" is just a nick :) did have a border with the NDH. Of course, these are all wartime borders etc, but since we're talking about occupation borders its certainly correct to say so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After invasion of Yugoslavia, Slovenia was divided and annexed between Italy and Germany. Check out this map [1] Lisicazg (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why puppet state?

I saw the discussion about "puppet state" between AP1929 and DIREKTOR and I must say that user AP1929 has better arguments to remove the part "puppet state" from this article. At the end they started to be sarcastic since AP1929 knows much more than they do. DIREKTOR and some other i..... use britannica and the encyclopedia of holocaust as they are a reliable source, but how can they be since the don't specifically deal with NDH. I looked at britannica online and they mention only once that NDH was a puppet state. The term "puppet state" should be removed with the term "minor axix nation" since that is a neutral term. Crabath (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is encyclopedia and if scholar sources are saying that NDH is puppet state then NDH is puppet state ! Because of that statement that NDH is not puppet state is Fringe theory--Rjecina (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So your statement is "britannica cannot be wrong"? Why don't you find a source that particularly deals with NDH which states that NDH was a puppet state, let's say some book? I looked at britannica and it doesn't mention slovak republic being a puppet state? Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabath (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are speaking only of Britannica then OK, but we are speaking of Britannica, USHMM, Encarta and many other sources--Rjecina (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes nice sources... do you know what is common to all three of your sources? They all mention that NDH is a puppet state but no such thing on Slovak republic article, why is that? NDH was certainly a less puppet state than Slovakia. In the article about Slovakia they only mention that it was heavily influenced by Germany, no "puppet state" part, these three articles look so similar that one could think it was written by the same person, or taken from the same source. Again I say that you should find a proper source (book) that deals solely with NDH to keep the "puppet state" sentence. Crabath (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think puppet state statement should be removed regardless of what is said or not in some book. It is hard to define puppet state, I think NDH has some elements of the puppet state, but that is not enough to proclaim it a puppet state. All information should be listed objectively in the article, so that everyone on his own can judge how much of a puppet state some state really was/is. That should be more like a conclussion, that is what encyclopedia is all about. List facts, and let the readers conclude. Lisicazg (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but with which term can we replace the term "puppet state"? I was thinking about "Minor Axis nation", what do you think? Crabath (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know, we can just use a more neutral term such as ˝state established with the help of Axis˝, or something like that. Or if we have to classify it, we can use term client state, since Slovakia is classified as client state, and NDH probably wasnt any less independat from influence of Major Axis powers than ww2 Slovakia. Lisicazg (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Puppet state is fine as a term. While it may not meet your personal POV, it is the term used in the literature, for obvious reasons. Therefore, it stays. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you reread what i said? I am for using neutral terms, and you talk about POV. Buy glasses. Puppet state is a fine term from your slovenian POV, yes. But I suggested something else and gave arguments, you didnt. Therefore, it might be changed. Lisicazg (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read what you wrote, and you display a lack of knowledge in the terminology. Please note the significant differences between Tiso's Slovakia and the NDH: First and foremost, Slovakia was established prior to WW2, and was not a wartime occupation tool. Slovakia was established by the Slovakian declaration of independence with German backing, not by German occupation troops. Any comparison between the two is ridiculous, as WW2 Slovakia has incomparably more legitimacy and standing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but either you're an idiot or you didn't read the talk above. I suggest you read it before you reply. Find a source that deals solely with Independent state of Croatia that claims that NDH was a puppet state and it can stay, or it will be replaced with a different term.Crabath (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll let that ridiculous insult slide even though it should be reported. Further, removing text which is clearly supported by sources is called "vandalism" around here. I assure you, your confidence is unfounded. I can only suppose that the reason is your lack of experience on how things work around here. Essentially, you don't have any sources, and your opinion(s) are irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My suspicion, dear Crabath, based on reading your remarks here, is that your wiki career will be short and turbulent. I will be watching with the greatest interest. Before you get thrown out for your obnoxious manner with other editors, you may wish to have a look at this [2]. Case closed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Janez, you are speaking like you are some sort of ultimate authority here(case closed, it stays, etc). Calm down cause its not like someone will come and beg for your permission to change something. You can give your opinion (like up there, but I dont see any arguments, just personal attacks on other user). Maybe you will end up with ˝short sleeves˝ like when you objected on changing border countries. Lisicazg (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as an "authority" on Wiki, its Users who've, through their long work here, established a reputation for their neutrality and commitment to this encyclopedia. User:AlasdairGreen27 certainly qualifies. As for the repeat of this tedious debate, I can only say that around here sources are refuted with sources. The NDH is mostly described as a "puppet state", if you think another wording is supported by most authors feel free to bring their work(s) into the discussion, if not, well...

(User:AP1929 is a right-wing extremist and an Ustaše supporter. Not only that, but he is almost fully incapable of meaningful debate due to his thorough indoctrination, and his lack of understanding of basic terms such as "fascism", "imperialism", etc... His contributions carry no weight, and his arguments are virtually non-existent. This is plain for all to see.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Lisica, I suggest you curb the anti-Slovenian nationalism in your tone. Any slip-ups in the "nationalist hatred department" will be noted I assure you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all I would like to reply to AlasdairGreen27s books.google link which is completely stupid. On books.google you can find anything, I'll give you an example... When you try to look lets say someones nationality you can find 50 sources that claim that he/she is a Kurd and you can also find 50 sources that claim that he/she is Armenian. So on my opinion that link cannot be used as a source.

Now lets get to DIREKTOR. He claims that AP1929 is an Ustaša (croatian nationalist) but I checked the text and I didn't see any comment from AP1929 that he's an Ustaša, I only found a comment in which DIREKTOR asks AP1929 if he is an Ustaša... no reply on that from AP1929. So DIREKTOR surely thinks that silence means yes which is incorrect. So please don't do that again. I can only say that in your discussion with AP1929 he gave better facts. And please look at the talk about the sources and make sane reply about the sources.Crabath (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, that of published scientists is relevant. This is directly from Wikipedia policy. If published expert statements contradict (which, as you say, they often do), then the one most quoted is the one to be taken into account in the text. May I suggest that you stop giving your opinions on sources and creating some kind of ridiculous "criteria" of your own as to which sources are ok and which are not. Instead, try to realize that such things are defined by Wikipedia, and that you should read these definitions before embarrassing yourself with naive proclamations and bold statements (not to mention insults you easily get blocked for).

"AP1929" means "Ante Pavelić 1929", where the number "1929" refers to the year of the establishment of the Ustaše movement. The man is, of course, not an "Ustaša" since the Ustaše movement ceased to exist decades ago, and all their former members are dead or dying. He is undoubtedly, however, an Ustaše sympathizer that does not even try to hide it (since he is actually proud of the fact). Does the user name prove it to you or should I waste my time further posting the numerous instances where he describes Ante Pavelić (often called the "Balkans Hitler") in various ways as his "role model" of sorts?

As for my discussion with him, it was not really a serious affair. He knows half the admins would love to ban fascists, so he carries on extremely carefully, and noone takes him seriously. He did not present any sources, and his opinions are, you guessed it, irrelevant. He is capable of endless discussion over stupid obvious points even when plainly contradicted by everyone. For example, he actually tried to prove the Ustaše were not fascists, which is simply an unalterable and indisputable fact. Oh, and I don't care about who you think won the "debate", present your sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AP1929 has certainly been willing to proclaim his admiration for the Ustaša elsewhere on Wikipedia if not in this discussion.

But getting back to the subject, it is going too far to say, as AlasdairGreen27 does, that "puppet state" is "the term used in the literature." Rather it is a term that has been used in the literature, along with others. I have argued at length somewhere above that "puppet state," which DIREKTOR in particular has fought hard to keep in, would provoke needless argument. In my view NDH was unquestionably a puppet state, but the term has a strongly pejorative flavour almost calculated to provoke those who hold views different from mine. So I will suggest one more time that for the sake of consensus the term "satellite state" could be used instead. Its precise meaning is close to that of "puppet state" but without such a provocative tone. And like "puppet state" it has been much used in the literature - for instance in the title of the Edmond Paris book.Kirker (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the term "puppet state" can be described as "strongly pejorative" is a highly disputable and subjective point. I for one, disagree. In my view it is simply the strongest of the labels used for such states, carrying negative connotations (dependency) perhaps more strongly than others. This is probably why some may perceive it as 'pejorative'. Also, believing that changing the label to "satellite" would end the endless complaints and bursts of outrage from the more "NDH-oriented Croats", is highly optimistic. The Independent State of Croatia is idealized by many in Croatia (and elsewhere, Canada, Australia), and the idea these guys are fighting for is to present it in a way as to show its "Independence" ("Nezavisnost"), in my experience, it would be no (or little) less disagreeable for them to call it a 'satellite'.

The NDH was among the most 'dependent' and unstable creations in history, it likely would not exist for more than a month without extraordinarily large and direct military support from its founders (hundreds of thousands of Axis troops). To avoid using the term "puppet" to depict its state would be sacrificing encyclopedic accuracy for the sake of appeasing a group of people who would likely find any similar label (nearly) equally unacceptable.

As for sources, arguably the best source for encyclopedic and accurate wording would be Britannica. I can not imagine any singular source that would prove the matter more conclusively, nor can I imagine Britannica using "strongly pejorative" terms to describe countries. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You yourself admit the non neutrality of the term "puppet state" - I don't see the point of discussion. It should be removed. Secondly I admire my mention here, and I love the fact that some readers have taken my educated input under the light. This obviously frustrates users such as DIREKTOR who is clearly pushing much more of an agenda then I am. If I am so 'Ustasa' oriented and bias, shouldn't he be too? He onely supports yugoslavism and communism - last time I checked, that is the other side in question. One day he'll maybe acquire the level of education I have, until then his nonchalant 'brush off' of my dispute puts a grin on my face - we all know what it truly indicates, at least us who see right through the 'cleverness' of that hole known as the "balkan". AP1929 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... no I do not admit the non neutrality of the term "puppet state". ust because something carries negative connotations does not mean that is unjustified and biased. In fact, if you took the time to read my statement you would notice the part where I list the proof of the terms neutrality in its use by professional encyclopedists who's job it is to remain perfectly neutral.

Secondly, I'd appreciate if you didn't presume upon what my beliefs may be. I support the hypothetial inclusion of Croatia within a western-style capitalist Yugoslavia. I do not support the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. You support the Independent State of Croatia, which the vast majority of historians consider a fascist state.

I certainly approve of your amusmement by my input, as I was feeling guilty about having all the fun around here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You clearly admitted the non neutrality of the term, and those negative connotations sway the item at hand in favor of one particular side - which makes it obviously non neutral. There will never, ever, ever - ever be another Yugoslavia. The vast majority of historians' perceptions are not and will not be forever - the vast majority of historians used to have different views on the USSR and we all know where that went. I don't need your approval, you are a balkan peasant in my eyes, and always will be.AP1929 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

sigh* Again, then: Here's an example. The term "serial killer" carries extreme negative connotations, but using it to describe Carol M. Bundy would not be "non neutral". A term is not automatically "non neutral" if it happens to carry negative connotations to a degree. The term "satellite state" also carries negative connotations. I can't believe I'm spelling this out for a guy with so many professional degrees, someone so obviously superior to myself, from outside the Balkans no less... (save your rants on Yugoslavia for someone who gives a damn about your opinion) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AP129 Additions to Talk

I would like to redirect people's attention to answers I have just posted in regards to questions asked prior to my short absence. I have contributed to the "Racial Legislation" part of this talk section by providing specific DNA analysis of Croats. Under the title "Ustase Movement", I have answered the questions posed by another user of the board. I made slight commentary to "Article Cleanup". I have also put input under the section, "Not even a mention of Mussolini accepting Pavelic in exile in Rome, and allowing him to create the Ustase regime in the first place". Also in "Over Neutrality of this article". And ofvcourse the above "Why Puppet State?". Enjoy. AP1929 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to add, though users such as DIREKTOR seem to think that no one takes me seriously, and that I am "fascist" (the fact that he think he knows what fascism is makes me laugh - take a look at any "balkan" article on the same and then look at the english one) I am just trying to add to discussion and a neutral article. I am glad to see non Croats take part and research what I write here myself - I have done my research - and PLENTY of it, if you want me to start using sources and participating completely atleast give me someone with some substance to share dialogue with - because I have them. I did not pull these things out of thin air, documentations and references exist - however they must be cited properly and I'm too lazy to do it so that users such as DIREKTOR can brush them off, call them bias or simply remove them from this talk section.AP1929 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In spite of my better judgement, I'll respond to your post. Ante, Wikipedia bases its wiritng primarily on mainstream history. Your ideas are 1) completely radical and nationalist (if supposedly "not fascist"), 2) completely unsupported by respectable sources. As I have told you on numerous occasions: you can write an entire book here on this talkpage (which is your apparent goal) but likely won't change a single syllable in the article. Why? Because no non-indoctrinated objective person with a degree will support this kind of right-wing ultra-nationalist and, most importantly, revisionist/revanchist bull.

Of course, there likely exists a number of highly biased and invariably Croatian historians who might just risk their "reputation" by supporting certain aspects of your ideas. Unfortunately, they'd be outnumbered 50:1 by those who'd explicitly contradict them, i.e. by the mainsteream view on the matter. Your personal belief that mainsteam historiographic science is somehow a part of a Serbian/Yugoslav conspiracy is just that: your own personal belief (and a laughable one at that). (The best example would be your affirmation that the Independent State of Croatia was "not a fascist state".) This is why I stand by my statement that no established editor would take you seriously. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, my name is not Ante - even though I like that name. You do not need to tell me what wikipedia bases it's writing on - I had the internet and script and editing softwares before you had television. I will change this article, with the help of others over time - to make it neutral. Not to glorify the Independent State of Croatia, but to present facts and let people decide themselves on whether or not it was XY or Z. I am a objective person - with a few degrees (probably a few more than you and even then your sociocommunist Croatian degree isn't worth the paper it's written on in the rest of the world fyi) and I support what I write as will others in soon time. Historiographic is not a word in English and to think that a communist regime did not revise Croatian history between 1945-1995 is hilarious. AP1929 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Look Ante, I do not care how many "degrees" you supposedly have (a doubtful claim, that). I do not care about your views on all the degrees people received in Croatia for the past 70 years. All anybody cares about is whether or not your radical views have some kind of backing among the scientific community. However, since your views quite plainly constitiute WW2-era historical revisionism, it is unlikely there will ever be sufficent backing for your kind of controversial edits to meet Wikipedia's standards.

This is something you appear unable to grasp. There is no way someone is about to remove the epithet "fascist" from the NDH without a ton of unchallengable sources. You keep rambling on about "the facts", and "the Truth", but you don't seem to be able to understand how this place works.

User:AP1929 is using this page as a general forum on the NDH. His million-word posts do not effect the article itself in any way and quite clearly consitiute a breach of WP:NOTFORUM. The massive posts should be removed to clear the page of clutter. I'd do it myself but it'd probably lead to an edit-war, so I'd like to hear other users' opionions on this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You can doubt it all you want, bring me one non-balkan civilized person here and we will see. I have clearly stated my views, and they are anything but radical. I don't see what the scientific community - whatever that is, has to do with this (I can't stop laughing). I, once again, as stated - know exactly how this place works. I have only begun - now I am going to be providing a ton of sources and translating them my self from my personal archive which has accumulated material every day for the passed 8 years, then we will let other people decide. You have to understand, that your communist version of history is as good as Cuban and former-USSR history in the civilized world. Anything published prior to 1990 using yugoslav secondary sources outside of yugoslavia or so-called primary sources from the inside is under question. Hopefully within a month I will get some of my faculty on here to see what I mean when I say balkan peasant revisionists who wish to cement the false legacy of tito and the partisan movement. AP1929 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I bow before Your superiority. I must take my place as the Untermensch that I am. I bid You toodeloo... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

--R-41 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)== Third opinion ==

fr33kman (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (AP1929)

-The NDH was not a puppet state and the term itself is not neutral and most certainly not acceptable in an encyclopedic entry. -The NDH is not technically anything, the Crown was given to the Italian Duke as a form of friendly diplomacy, it was illegitimate, the king never stepped foot in Croatia and Fascist Italy fell in 1943 whereas the NDH fell in 1945. -The NDH was not a fascist state, english wiki's article on fascism can be used to see that such terminology is used by pro-yugoslav users such as direktor purposely blackening the image of the Independent State of Croatia and the Croatian nation as a whole - making the term bias and far from neutral. It should be up to the reader to decide if the NDH was or was not a fascist state according to various criteria - such a term is so vague and loosely used that it often projects it's most basic explanation. The NDH's government was certainly a Right-wing nationalist government, but did not meet the criteria or label it self as fascist. -The NDH's Ustasa Movement was not a fascist movement. -Dr. Ante Pavelic should be titled as leader and not headman. If leaders such as Franco and tito can be referred to as such so can he to provide a neutral article. -These are simply basics leading to a neutral article, when these things are fixed I will contribute fully to actual relevant information about the NDH and we can progress this entry. DIREKTOR's view is pretty much the exact opposite as mine; however, he is a member of wiki yugoslavia, is a fan of josip broz tito (communist dictator and one of the most notorious mega killers of modern history) and is a supporter of yugoslavia. AP1929 (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (R-41)

....

-The NDH was a client state. Unlike a puppet state, it did have some independence, but it was financially and militarily supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The Ustase were actively supported by Italy's Fascist regime since the early 1930s, Pavelic was allowed exile in Rome and was provided training grounds by Italy's Fascist regime. The Ustase were involved in a 1932 plan by Italy to invade Yugoslavia and establish a Croatian state. The NDH cooperated with the Nazis in perpetrating the Holocaust. The NDH cooperated with Axis forces in the invasion of the Soviet Union. On this whole argumentbelieve that both DIREKTOR and AP1929 are behaving unacceptably. AP1929 appears to be using this discussion board as a soapbox to preach pro-Ustase rhetoric and engages in personal attacks against users who disagree with him. If DIREKTOR has a problem with AP1929's attitudes and personal attacks, he should report them to a Wikipedia administrator. Discussion boards are not the place for people having vicious fights - if that's what two users want to do like DIREKTOR and AP1929, they should both be banned from Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion by fr33kman

....

Very bad article

There is a constant urge to describe this monstrous puppet state as a regular state. The 'state' was lawless, without any sovereignty over the claimed territory, whose only 'cultural' goal was to exterminate Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies. Established by Nazi-like criminals whose committed bestialties even horrified the German Nazis.

Shame on Wikipedia for having this article written this way!--Historian35 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes we're all in disgrace... :P Propose actual changes in the article, what are you referring to? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please, start with reading a very good book: Hory, Ladislaus and Broszat, Martin: Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945, Stuttgart, 1964. The book is in the article references - but definitely not used while writing the article i.e. this great work of this German historian (Broszat) is not reflected in any part of this article. Also, the second half of the Magnum Crimen book (by a Croatian author Viktor Novak) gives an excellent insight into the true nature of this 'state' and her 'statesmen', 'army', 'police', 'educational system', 'government', and definitely 'culture' (of murder, robbery, banditism). Both of these books are the reference books of the world-renown academic institutions - cited and referenced endless number of times in the works related to the Independent State of Croatia. Remove completely stories about irrelevant things like: territory (whose territory?), money, economy, 'relations' with Germans, Italians, de-facto or de iure monarchy, etc.

A good outline for writing this article I see in the Broszat's book

Ante Pavelic und die Ustascha-Bewegung

Die Gruendung des "Unhabhaengingen Staates Kroatien"

Der neue Staat und Achsenmaechte

Die Ustascha and der Macht

Serbenverfolgung und Serbische Widerstand

Neue Politisch-Militaerische Frontbildungen

Prestige - und Machtverlust des NDH bis zur Italienischen Kapitulation (1942/43)

De muetigung und Ende des Pavelic-Regimes

--Historian35 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: propose actual changes in the article. I'm not here to do your work for you. Propose changes here and we will see about their implementation. You can include them in the article, but do not edit-war to keep them in if you're reverted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I've proposed the article outline. My outline means total removal of the existing text. I'm a historian with no wish to argue with people like you. You have to learn to ultimately respect seniority of knowledge and expertize. I do not want to waste my time on a job that can be destroyed by aggressive ignorants any time. Such 'expertises' like the one you've demonstrated here will be presented to the main Wikipedia donors with advice to withdraw their support until the Wikipedia owners succeed in finding ways of filtering out ignorance and primitive political propaganda.--Historian35 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Prepare an actual text and introduce this text in the article. Use good sources, and use completely neutral wording. If you use good sources, I assure you that the facts supported by the sources will not be removed. This is how this place works, and I'm afraid Wikipedia does not plan to "filter out ignorance" ever. Please stop edit-warring and vandalizing the article - or trust me - you will get blocked by Wikipedia (even if you're not a sock of User:Historičar ;). Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• What I am going to do - is out of scope of your power i.e it is un-blocable. I'm not going to waste my time here. What shall Wikipedia to do - will be visible soon.--Historian35 (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is laughable, indeed. Just follow the *rules* given above by someone who calls himself Director: you have to use good sources - apparently Broszat and Novak cannot be counted as the good ones, neutral wording is mandatory (Holocaust no way, bestilities, butchery - no way, rather: culture, relations, influence, monarchy, etc, etc) and at end - you are most probably someone's puppet. No need to fight it - rather leave it alone. The Wikipedia owners are interested only in how many people read this garbage. Due to the fact that most of the Earth population is ignorant and illiterate - Wikipedia is just what they need. But this Wikipedia is just a cheap entertainment - like the Deja newsgroups were once. The same way it will disappear as the newsgrops disappeared. Whoever is a serious person and wants to learn about Independent State of Croatia - will not read this article, for sure.

I've not expressed my opinion on any of the sources you mentioned (Broszat, Novak). Published books, preferably university publications, are high-quality sources and can't be challenged easily. The NDH was a nazi puppet state established on the territory of occupied Yugoslavia responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people. One of the most terrible hell-holes imaginable. I am not "pro-NDH" as you seem to suggest, I am just trying to help you out and tell you how this place works. The *rules* are not my *rules*, they are Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV) and if your edits don't follow them, you will probably be reverted - what's the use of editing then? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point: what is "laughable" about the article specifically? What do you consider to be inappropriate? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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 books.google.com 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...

• Enyclopaedia Britannica Ante Pavelić article

"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. [3]

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 [4]

"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 [5]

"...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 [6]

"...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 books.google.com, 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 books.google.com, 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)

(outdent)

• 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)

(outdent)

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)