Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:21, 6 September 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Independent State of Croatia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Independent State of Croatia at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia High‑importance Independent State of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 10, 2004 and April 10, 2005.

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

Archives

Archive 1 Dec 2003 - Dec 2006 Archive 2 Jan 2007 - Mar 2008 Archive 3 March - April 2008

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 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 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 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 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 16:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After invasion of Yugoslavia, Slovenia was divided and annexed between Italy and Germany. Check out this map 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 . 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AP1929 has certainly been willing to proclaim his admiration for the Ustaša elsewhere on Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages donors with advice to withdraw their support until the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages does not plan to "filter out ignorance" ever. Please stop edit-warring and vandalizing the article - or trust me - you will get blocked by Misplaced Pages (even if you're not a sock of User:Historičar ;). Regards, --DIREKTOR 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 - Misplaced Pages is just what they need. But this Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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

"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

"...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

"...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 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 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, 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 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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Yugoslavia articles
• High-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• B-Class Croatia articles
• High-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)