Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp

Active discussions

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020Edit

Fix link to Ante Pavelić:

From: In 1936, in "The Croat Question", Ante Pavelić spouted anti-Serb and anti-Semitic hatred, calling Jews "the enemy of the Croat people".[1]

To: In 1936, in "The Croat Question", Ante Pavelić spouted anti-Serb and anti-Semitic hatred, calling Jews "the enemy of the Croat people".[2] (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

. Instead of fixing the link to Pavelic's page, I simply removed the link from that sentence and replaced it with bare text. This is because, to avoid overlinking, we generally don't link the same thing more than once per section. See the Manual of Style guidance on overlinking for more info. I also did some other minor copy editing of that paragraph. Let me know if you have any further questions. CJK09 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Map and nameEdit

Why is the map and name for Modern Day Croatia used at the top for the location of the cam and not Independent state of Croatia? Should be like Kruščica concentration camp . Some other camp pages have the same major error. OyMosby (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

replaced with NDH map. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent thanks! Was surprised it was this way for so long. How do you creat the new map and location marker? Is it a program? Just wanted to know for future reference as pages like Gospić concentration camp have the same issue. OyMosby (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Infobox concentration camp has a |location map= field, you just change the entry from Croatia to NDH. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Extermination camp"Edit

We need sources that call this an "extermination camp" or "death camp". Most sources do not. [1] buidhe 00:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there are numerous sources that call it an extermination camp, including Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century by Paul Mojzes, which cites the Hall of Silence in the USHMM for its inclusion as an extermination camp [2], When Sorry Isn't Enough: The Controversy Over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice by Roy L. Brooks [3], The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945 by Raphael Israeli [4]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Only the first two sources label it such. There's a distinction between extermination taking place and being an extermination camp, for example Mauthausen concentration camp is not described as an extermination camp, although majority of prisoners died there via extermination through labor. I personally am not convinced that there is due weight for how prominently this descriptor is applied in the article. buidhe 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, the USHMM specifically including it in the Hall of Silence (I assume he means Hall of Remembrance) alongside Auschwitz, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka as an extermination camp is more than enough to call it one on Wikipedia. The USHMM does not include Mauthausen on that list (assuming Mojzes' list is comprehensive). Yad Vashem also states it was an extermination camp see [5]. The extermination at Jasenovac was very different from the German-run extermination camps, in that it was less industrialised, but that doesn't make it less of an extermination camp, its primary purpose was to kill people. The article itself is pretty poor and unbalanced due to the constant POV-pushing, so I have no position on the weight issue at this stage, but with USHMM and Yad Vashem both saying it was an extermination camp, I really don't think you have a case here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020Edit

There were 700,000 people killed not 77,000. (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done. There are sources given that variously give figure in the range of 77k to 100k. Do you have a source for your claim? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This is POV nonsense. No modern reliable sources continue to claim this sort of figure, as is explained and reliably cited in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Jasenovac prisoners in the Sava riverEdit

Without intention to dicsuss this subject too much, I would just like to to warn authors, editors and readers on some inconsistencies in the article. In the article, photo "Bodies of Jasenovac prisoners in the Sava river" (,_Jasenovac_camp,_1945.jpg) shows woman's leg in high heels, which is hard to understand considering camp living conditions. According to article Photo forgeries of Jasenovac victims ( which handles this topic, these are victims of Partisans afterwar killings. Later this picture is used cropped, without woman's leg, but for the same purpose. So, please be aware that these events/facts are heavily manipulated with, and were practically forbidden to discuss for more than 30 years after their occurrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geranoll (talkcontribs) 11:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Victim numbers sectionEdit

I am worried that this section is taking up an undue amount of space in the article, and may grant undue weight to estimates that lie outside of current scholarly research. Perhaps it would be best to split off the bulk of this section to Number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp or similar. When dealing with non-accepted figures (WP:FRINGE), reliable secondary sources that discuss the controversies about the number of victims should be cited rather than primary sources.[1][2][3] (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure which sources you mean. Many of the cited sources - Jure Paresic, von Horstenau, Milko Riffer, etc. are in fact extensively cited by well-known scholars - Jozo Tomasevich, Ivo Goldstein, etc, although they do not always agree with their figures, but still cite even these. However most of the cited non-accepted, non-scholarly figures are mostly among the inflated estimates from former Yugoslavia, which are no longer accepted by the vast majority of scholars, particularly not after the detailed demographic studies of Zerjavic and others in the late 1980s. I think extensive reference to these no-longer-scholarly or authoritative numbers should be removed
Also as noted by many, there is today the opposite phenomenon of revisionists in Croatia minimizing, even entirely denying mass murder at Jasenovac. In this article a Zagreb University historian describes how this is done by selectively citing bits and pieces from these primary sources, often misrepresenting them, to claim that Jasenovac was merely a “work-camp”, where no mass murder of Jews, Serbs and Roma took place. Simultaneously these revisionists entirely ignore evidence in the very same primary sources, which contradicts their claims – e.g. eyewitness accounts of the killing of thousands in a single day, or the extermination of tens-of-thousands of Roma, etc. The revisionists also entirely ignore some primary sources, extensively cited by Croat and international historians, like German sources who all wrote of hundreds-of-thousands Serbs killed by the Ustase across the NDH, as well as of mass extermination at Jasenovac. But it is difficult, in typical revisionist fashion, to dismiss these Nazi sources as “Yugo-communist propaganda” or other similar claims, thus they ignore them. Therefore citing primary sources that reputable historians cite, is important to set the record straight Thhhommmasss (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with buidhe. The article should briefly summarise the past then explain the current scholarly consensus on victim numbers sources like buidhe has mentioned. Frankly, contemporary sources such as von Horstenau had no way of knowing how many were killed and conducted no scientific inquiries of their own, so their statements are of extremely limited encyclopaedic value, as are the boasts of the Ustase for that matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Odak, Stipe; Benčić, Andriana (2016). "Jasenovac—A Past That Does Not Pass: The Presence of Jasenovac in Croatian and Serbian Collective Memory of Conflict". East European Politics and Societies. 30 (4): 805–829. doi:10.1177/0888325416653657.
  2. ^ Kolstø, Pål (2011). "The Serbian-Croatian Controversy over Jasenovac". Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 225–246. ISBN 978-0-230-34781-6.
  3. ^ Radonic, Ljiljana (2014). "Slovak and Croatian invocation of Europe: the Museum of the Slovak National Uprising and the Jasenovac Memorial Museum". Nationalities Papers. 42 (3): 489–507. doi:10.1080/00905992.2013.867935.
Tomasevich explicitly lists German sources on Jasenovac numbers, mentions von Horstenau as being most reliable on NDH victim figures, Goldstein lists Croatian Catholic contemporary sources, all as part of their discussion of victim estimates. If we get rid of these then let's start by first getting rid of all postwar Yugoslav estimates, since unlike von Horstenau, neither Tomashevich, nor Goldstein, nor other authoritative sources deem them credible, and lets stick with only mentioning current consensus of around 100.000
Btw from Auschwitz WP article that specifically quotes Nazi estimates: "Rudolf Höss (camp comandant) told prosecutors at Nuremberg that at least 2,500,000 people had been gassed there, and that another 500,000 had died of starvation and disease.[230] He testified that the figure of over two million had come from Eichmann.[231]... In July 1942, according to Rudolf Höss's post-war memoir (published in communist Poland), Höss received an order from Heinrich Himmler, via Adolf Eichmann's office and SS commander Paul Blobel, that "[a]ll mass graves were to be opened and the corpses burned. In addition the ashes were to be disposed of in such a way that it would be impossible at some future time to calculate the number of corpses burned."[228]
So all exact same stuff as cited by Croatian and other historians regarding Jasenovac, yet we seem to be coming up with some type of special rules that apply only for this article, most likely because people don't like the facts presented Thhhommmasss (talk)


References to the State Commission (1946!) should be replaced with secondary sources. The same goes for Paris's book. There are many reliable sources out there. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Don’t know who quoted the 1946 commission. But as to Paris citation (which is actually a watered-down translation of original testimony in Croatian state archives), there are other secondary sources of same event in Goldstein’s Jasenovac book, as well as even more horrific citations from Goldstein on treatment of children in Jasenovac, plus additional secondary citations of von Horstenau, etc. I will add secondary citations to 2 or 3 places where there are now primary, as well as replace what is to me more authoritative Diana Budisavljevic primary source on children in Jasenovac, with other, more horrific citations of unknown inmates, since that is what reliable secondary sources cite. Elsewhere primary sources are already cited via secondary ones (e.g, Tomasevich citations of Nazi estimates of Jasenovac victims, Goldstein’s quotes of Jure Paresic, etc). I should note that the way history books are evolving, including Goldstein’s recent Jasenovac book, is toward extensive citations and testimony from primary sources he deems reliable, and names them as such – inmates, Ustashe, Catholic priests, German officers, etc. This is how history is increasingly presented, instead of only abstract numbers thrown together from a variety sources, with generalized descriptions, etc, as is now mostly the case with the article Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I completely disagree regarding extensive quotations from witnesses/victims, it is unencyclopaedic. What we need are summaries of what are in these testimonies by reliable secondary sources, not reams of primary source quotations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I’d beg to differ. The Auschwitz article has 5 paragraph-length quotes from primary sources, mainly inmates, as well as images of other primary sources like diaries, and a link to the entire pdf on Wikimedia Commons, of the Polish government report on Auschwitz from 1942. Also at one time there was a very specific style for textbooks, particularly history ones, as dry compendiums of facts and figures – names of rulers, dates of battles, etc. This was criticized as offering very little in terms of knowledge and understanding. My sense is that in order to address this, today’s history textbooks incorporate, among other things, much more extensive quotes from primary sources
In any case, this is a much broader discussion. One way to address this for now, would be to place some more extensive quotes in the footnotes. as I’ve also seen done in many cases on Wikipedia Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that is completely against MOS:QUOTATIONS, which says, inter alia, "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement." I will revert any increase in the number of quotes in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I haven't seen that rule before Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I’d say that line in the sand is already far passed. Over the past few months a huge amount of primary quotes have been added to this article as well as other Ustashe articles and should be looked into and possibly removed. They have begun to make up the bulwark of the articles. OyMosby (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Some years ago I went through and cleared out a lot of quotes from this article, and it looks like I may need to do so again. Ultimately though, it will take a rewrite and promotion to FA to stop the POV-pushing and unencyclopaedic inclusions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to unencyclopaedic inclusions consider removing Anzulovic and his revisionist book "Heavenly Serbia". Book written by non-historian, with clear agenda, with no other historic work. Book written by a man who contributed several articles to ustashe magazine Hrvatska revija in South America. (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
All the primary sources are quoted by historians, as reliable sources, specifically stating they are such, in fact Tomashevich for von Horstenau states he is among the most reliable sources, including specifically with respect to victim numbers, which Tomasevich cites. So I want to hear why WP editors, on their own POV-basis should be overriding Tomashevich's judgement regarding such sources. The Auschwitz article cites primary sources, inmate testimonials, Nazi commandants, etc. On the other hand people here seem to be making up their own rules. For example, Tomashevic quotes German sources for Jasenovac victim figures, Goldstein quotes German sources on total NDH victim numbers in his discussion on Jasenovac victim numbers, historian Mark Biondich specifically cites same inmates I cited in his discussion of Jasenovac Roma victim numbers. Yet people here seem to be inventing their own rules to override these historians, deleting or claiming specific facts historians cite, can't be cited in the article. Other rules that seem to be made up on-the-fly are claims that newspaper articles should not be quoted. Will you then argue for removal of newspaper citation template from wikipedia? Lots of books have been written with inflated Jasenovac figures, or with Jasenovac- and Holocaust-denial, so just because something is in a book, means absolutely nothing. On the other hand lots of newspaper articles are cited in many articles, including for example 6 just from Vecernji list in the Stepinac article, a totally uncritical and unreliable source on Stepinac, as compared to what many historians write. As I noted, in victims number section there is now even a citation from an opinion columnist in a newspaper, as opposed to the reputable historian with footnoted references to published sources that I cited, and people objected. So yes I see a lot of POV-pushing, people systematically targeting reliable sources for facts they obviously disagree with, inventing their own rules on-the-fly Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
== Testimony before a communist court or statements given to investigators ==

"Jasenovac camp commanders, Miroslav Filipović and Ljubo Miloš both testified that just before the end of the war the Ustaše gave the command to completely destroy all evidence of mass graves at Jasenovac, by forcing remaining inmates to dig up and burn the corpses." [6]

  • I wonder if such statements given to investigators are quality informations for Wikipedia articles. I do not know whether statements in communist investigations are used as information's in all articles dealing with this topics? Mikola22 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Like most things in these articles, it is far better if they are sourced to secondary sources rather than primary sources like trial testimony or evidence that may well have been given under duress. Such sources should be avoided. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This informations: ("This is similar to what the Nazis did, including at Sajmište concentration camp, on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia. The mass burning of corpses at Jasenovac was separately confirmed by at least 4 surviving Jasenovac inmates,.[134] as well as postwar excavations which in many places found only ashes and burnt remains of bones.[144][145]" are from same source and one newspaper source. These sources are too weak. Mikola22 (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
All these items are cited by a secondary source, i.e. a Zagreb University historian, who wrote the cited newspaper article, so they are all sourced to a secondary source, a historian whose specialty is what he is writing about in the article. Is there some rule that recognized historians can't be cited? Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Surely we can do better than a newspaper article for this information. Can we just raise the standard of the sourcing on an article of this importance and controversy? Has they published this information in a journal article or a book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is written by a Zagreb University history professor, a significantly more authoritative source than many of the secondary sources cited in the Jasenovac article (e.g. the article cited from the newspaper, also in reference to victim numbers, written by an opinion writer). The article I cited is also footnoted, and specifically for the testimony of multiple, separate inmate eyewitness accounts regarding the digging out and mass burning of corpses just before the end of the war, he cites a 2015 book published by the Jasenovac Memorial Area, the leading Croatian state research institution for Jasenovac, which includes detailed inmate descriptions of how this was done. Plus for additional postwar discoveries of evidence of burning of corpses at Jasenovac, he cites yet another 2016 book by the same institution. Evidence of mass burning, collected by postwar commissions, is cited even by historians like Stipe Pilic and Blanka Matkovic, likewise cited in the article, who are associated with Jasenovac revisionists Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you are getting my point. The overall sourcing of this article is complete rubbish, and its quality is very poor as well. We need to raise the standard across the board. I mean, Milan Bulajić is still there, along with Edmond Paris, the State Commission, Paul L. Williams, Barry Lituchy, compilations of primary survivor testimony, Rivelli, a YouTube video about the Srbosjek, and far too many news articles from the yellow press. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you get my point. I never cited Milan Bulajic, nor Paul L. Williams, nor Barry Lituchy, nor the Srbosjek, nor would I ever. I did cite Paris since that was the only available source for that citation, although I went to the Croatian State Archives to get the original Giordana Friedlander citation, and found out that the Paris citation is a 3-times translated, greatly watered-down version of the original. I believe in the original since it is clear that Giordana was greatly distressed and apologizing for participating in the crime, the fact that multiple other independent witnesses cited same, and the fact that this was never publicized in communist Yugoslavia, as were not many of the other details written in inmate and other testimonials. Be that as it may, I will replace that with a watered-down citation of same from Goldstein 06:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Peacemaker67, this is a serious article and information in it should not be from some newspaper interview or the "yellow press". Mikola22 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The "yellow press" you are citing is a footnoted and sourced article by a Zagreb University historian, as opposed to yellow press citations from opinion columns in this article, plus other yellow press citations in numerous other articles, like the Stepinac article 06:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that particular article was yellow press. I meant it in general about the citations in this article, it is a mess. If this scholar wrote a newspaper article about this issue, surely they published their views in an academic journal as well? If so, we should use that, as it is likely to be peer-reviewed, unlike a newspaper article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
OK let's take out absolutely everything not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and you can eliminate 90-100% of the victim numbers section, as well as 90-100% of the entire article, since much of this was published in books and other sources. I do not see how, for example, a reputable historian, like Tomashevic, responding to some false information in a newspaper article, would be any less reliable than in a book. In any case the reputable historian in an article is much more reliable than pure "yellow press" cited here and elsewhere, which all needs to be completely deleted first, and after that we can talk about why people in their personal opinions think reputable historians should be deleted. Btw regarding citing the State Commission and other similar "communist sources", Tomasevich extensively cites the Draza Mihailovic trial and other "communist sources". Delete these, and you delete half of Tomashevich's Chetnik book, and Draza Mihailovic is then indeed a "Serb patriot" and "anti-fascist fighter" as his supporters claim 07:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

How about the article is based as much as possible on reliably published academic books and peer-reviewed scholarly articles, of which there are plenty on this subject? That is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. Can I assume from the above that you think the article sourcing is fine, and there is nothing wrong with using people like Lituchy and the others I mentioned? Your comment about Tomasevich is completely deluded, and fails to acknowledge that Tomasevich was a highly respected historian published by an American university press and his books have been widely praised over many years, with his work on the Chetniks still holding up and being cited by respected academics 45 years after it was published. Criticisms of him are very few and far between, and almost always from people who WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT because of their POV. Scholars examine the primary sources and analyse them, then draw conclusions which they write up, and are then subjected to peer-review in academic journals or editorial board oversight if published as a book. We don't examine primary sources here or even dig into the primary sources the academics have used. This is fundamental to WP, and if you don't understand it, I don't know what you are doing here. I have no objection to using the newspaper article in question, I just think if the information also appears in a peer-reviewed journal, it would be of higher value. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss, when Peacemaker67 says that article or some parts are in "mess", then it should tell you something. Quotes from the article ie informations which I stated above are in the range of some historical facts. This historical facts must be confirmed with stronger RS and not with newspaper article. You had to conclude that as a conscientious editor yourself. I do not follow this article in detail, but I noticed it immediately when I flipped through it a bit. Mikola22 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker - I agree. so first start by deleting here and in all other articles quotes from, Vecernji list and similar sources that do not cite a single authoritative source. After that you can make your point why, per your personal opinion, citations of Zagreb University history professors should be excluded Thhhommmasss (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop being obtuse, and just follow WP policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
So what exactly is the WP policy that does not allow citing university history professors, and permits citing newspaper opinion columnists? `Thhhommmasss (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Everything is clearly told to you. Use quality RS not newspaper as source information. The same is written somewhere in quality RS. Find that RS and use information from it. If for this informations which are in the range of top historical facts we have to use some newspaper articles then this informations may not have confirmations in other sources(which would not be good). Big facts require big (quality) RS. If you are dealing with this issue and you know a lot of data I think finding a quality source should not be a problem. Mikola22 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The cited article cites 2 books published by the Jasenovac Memorial Area, the leading Croatian research institution on the subject, which talk of the burning of corpses. And that is what good historians do - they seek to find multiple sources to confirm what they are saying. So this is supported by multiple scholars and published books. It is much more solidly and scholarly sourced than many other items in article, like newspaper articles citing opinion columnists. Where are the WP rules that say WP editors can substitute their judgement and challenge authoritative, published historians (and I am not talking about quacks like Lituchy)? We have people challenging sources Tomashevic thinks are the most reliable, saying sources other reliable historians specifically cite can't be cited in the article, etc. Thhhommmasss (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned, every primary source is extensively quoted by historians in secondary sources. Here is an entire chapter reprinted from Goldstein's Jasenovac book, that cites the same events of children in Jasenovac-Stara Gradiska, that I cited via Diana Budisavljevic and Giordana Friedlander (also cited in Paris book, but cited in Goldstein by two other inmates). I will replace current Paris and Budisavljevic citations with citations from here
Specifically I will cite this from Goldstein, for which he cites multiple sources: Kada sam ušla u sobu s kojom sam zadužena imala sam što da vidim. Jedno dijete ležalo je s glavom u izmetu, druga djeca u mokrini ležala su jedno preko drugoga. Prišla sam jednoj djevojčici s namjerom da je podignem iz lokve prljavštine, a ona me gledala kao da se smiješi. Već je bila mrtva. Jedan 10-godišnji dječak, sasvim gol stajao je pored zida jer nije mogao sjesti. Iz njega je visilo crijevo prekriveno muhama.
The gassing of the children he cites, I will paraphrase. Any issues with these? The only other primary sources is von Horstenau and I will replace this with secondary source for one quote, paraphrase or delete second quote Thhhommmasss (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Velika Kustarica vs. LimaniEdit

The Velika Kustarica (misspelled) site mentioned in article is very likely one and same as gravesite called Limani, which I added from Jasenovac Memorial. State Commission talks of Velika Košutarica as main killing ground in Winter of 41-42, but makes no mention of Limani. Jasenovac Memorial talks of Limani as main killing-ground in Winter of 41-42, but makes no mention of Košutarica. Goldstein also talks of mass graves at Limani meadow, but states that Limani lies toward Košutarica, with Košutarica being near east end of Camp III. So sounds like they give different names to same location.

In any case, regardless of what I think, its probably better to reference Jasenovac Memorial on gravesitesThhhommmasss (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandrapa story sourcesEdit

Per historian Ivo Goldstein’s 2018 Jasenovac book, the main players in the Brzica-Mandrapa stories – i.e. the Ustaše Ante Friganović, Petar Brzica, Ante Zrinušić and Mirko Jukić–Šipka – were identified by multiple inmates as being among the main Jasenovac killers. Goldstein also notes that the Sarajevo neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Nedo Zec, worked as a prisoner in the Jasenovac hospital, and that Dr. Zec testified in 1945 that a drunken Ante Friganovic came to him seeking morphine. This is when Zec said Friganovic told him of the Brzica slaughter-bet. Goldstein notes that Dr. Zec made no mention of Mandrapa in 1945. Instead he first wrote of Mandrapa around 1970, attributing the story again to Friganović

Thus Goldstein writes, “Dr. Zec is the only witness in the unconfirmed story of Vukašin Mandrapa”, further noting the paucity and inconsistent information on Mandrapa. Unlike the article, Goldstein does not state that Dr. Nikola Nikolic witnessed Mandrapa’s killing, even though he extensively cites Nikolic’s memoir. Unless additional, reliable confirmation is found, the article should say the Mandrapa story comes from a single witness, Dr. Zec Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Jasenovac concentration camp" page.