Talk:Jastrebarsko children's camp

Active discussions
Jastrebarsko children's camp has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2016Good article nomineeListed
January 1, 2017WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 8, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

UntitledEdit

A short description of the concentration camp should probably be added to the article on Jastrebarsko. Joekrie (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will do this. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge in material from Labour camp Jastrebarsko?Edit

It appears that the article on Labour camp Jastrebarsko is covering the same topic as this article. This one appears to me to be further along, and to have a better formed title. I'd like to suggest that the other article be merged into this one. EastTN (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the merger. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparing and contrasting conflicting information etcEdit

Where a source differs from the information already in the article, the appropriate course of action is to compare and contrast the material, not override one source with another. Fumic clearly states that the head of the camp was Sister Pulherija, and makes no mention of Gaudencija. There are some other poor editing practices, such as combining refs to make it look like all the information in the paragraph comes from both sources, whereas some of it only comes from one. This makes it difficult to break up paras properly if more information is added. Also, you've split a para which was cited to Fumic, then almost unbelievably, stuck a cn tag on the first para which you created by splitting the existing para. Please learn to compare and contrast conflicting information, closely cite information you add, and follow basic wikiquette. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of Budak's sentence to articleEdit

It is not clear what makes Budak's conviction and sentence relevant to this article. Was he tried and sentenced for matters relating to this camp? If so, all that information (with appropriate sourcing) should be added to an Aftermath section. If not, it is really not relevant and shouldn't be included beyond the fact that his sister-in-law was the camp director. I've removed it for now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Quis separabit? 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction (a)Edit

@Peacemaker67: The following is, for lack of a better word, oxymoronic:

  • "Some of the nuns at the camp, however, did show love and attention to the children.[12]"
  • "Gojko Knežević, a camp survivor, recounted many years later that the nuns had the children re-baptised as Catholics. Any child would be beaten with birch branches dipped in salt water or vinegar for the slightest infraction. Many children were sent to work as slave labor in Germany or Croatia.[11]"
  • We should try to reword and fix it. Quis separabit? 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm working through the sources adding information as I go. The effect is that the prose will be a bit confusing in places until all the information from all sources has been added. But the information about some of the nuns being kind faithfully reflects the source. It may be that the weight of the sources (once they have all been added) means that this positive aspect isn't given as much weight in the completed version, but for now it needs to remain as it is because it is reliably sourced. I have to say that witness testimonies are pretty unreliable about certain aspects of the camps, such as the numbers of killed etc, but less so for other things. In some cases, relying on a witness statement of a child who was four or five at the time is ridiculous. It would never be accepted as fact in a court, so how could it be accepted in an encyclopaedic article? How would such a child in one part of the camp know how many children were killed in the whole camp, or how children in other parts of the camp were treated? The sub-camp was three kilometres away. Yet some survivors make such statements. There is some witness information that is useable, but I don't propose to reproduce everything said by every witness that was interviewed and whose testimony appears in a book, unless it is corroborated by another source. This applies to the below as well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction? (b)Edit

  • @Peacemaker67: "In response, the Red Cross ... began to collect and distribute food to the children."
    MY QUESTION IS:
    Is the reference immediately above to the International Red Cross or the Croatian Red Cross? I only ask because I am pretty sure you added it, and given the previous textual reference to the Croatian Red Cross is its setting up a children's concentration camp "in haste", I am wondering. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Camp JablanacEdit

was not in coastal village of Jablanac near town of Senj. It was hamlet of Jasenovac municipality of village Mlaka by name Jablanac Jasenovački, which was village for itself untill WW2, and in a war as serb village in Jasenovac contrentration camp area was totaly destroyed and not renovated after the war. Village of Jablanac was located southeast of Mlaka. http://hr.geoview.info/jablanac_jasenovacki,3199008 --Rethymno (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional sourceEdit

Hi, I did a little digging and was able to find an additional source:

Vulesica, Marija (2011). "Lager-Wachpersonal oder Pflegekräfte? Kinderheim oder Kinderlager? Ordensschwestern in Jastrebarsko in Kroatien 1942". In Benz, Angelika; Vulesica, Marija (eds.). Bewachung und Ausführung: Alltag der Täter in nationalsozialistischen Lagern. Berlin: Metropol Verlag. pp. 87–100.

This is a chapter in a book (the book is a result of an academic conference organized by the museum Topography of Terror) about Nazi concentration camps that also has several chapters about camps set up by German puppet states, including one on Jasenovac and this one. Vulesica is a German historian at TU Berlin with a focus on anti-Semitism and the Balkans. The chapter mostly corroborates information already in the article, but also has a slightly different take on a few things.

Can you read German, Peacemaker? If so, I can scan the chapter and send it to you. If not, I'll go through it and look at what might be added to the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting find. My German is pretty basic, but I'd be interested in going through it. I'd also appreciate the addition of anything you can glean from it yourself if you are fluent, as I don't always translate things perfectly into English. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do both, but it'll likely take me a few days.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to writing up what I see as the major points of disagreement between Vulesica and our article.

The biggest disagreement is that she doesn't consider Jastrebarsko a concentration camp. She discusses the question at length and according to her neither of the terms "children's home" or "children's camp" are entirely appropriate, but the former is slightly more fitting. I don't think she's trying to deny or downplay the Ustase's crimes. She does consider Jasenovac and Sisak concentration camps. She also says that at least 500 children died and that "the hygiene and food [in Jastrebarsko] were only marginally better than in the concentration camps and children's camps". So, I'd be reluctant to dismiss this as being politically motivated. Her case for not calling Jastrebarsko a camp, let alone a concentration camp, (she actually takes a swipe at German Wikipedia, because their article like ours calls Jastrebarsko a concentration camp) is that Budisavljevic and Brössler's intention when they brought the children to Jastrebarsko was to get them out of the concentration camps and protect them. According to her, the Ustase put up a considerable resistance against this and Brössler had fight to get their approval. She mentions that Brössler testified that he only used the Catholic Church in order to protect the children, because the Ustase trusted the Church.

There are a few more minor differences, some of which are related:

  • She gives Brössler's name as Kamilo Bresler (as do our articles on Diana Budisavljevic and Jasenovac concentration camp).
  • According to Vulesica, the partisans that liberated some of the children likely knew that they were there for their own protection (because they would have received information from Brössler/Bresler and a doctor called Branko Davila) and that's why they returned around 400 children after just two days. She says that the assault on Jastrebarsko was motivated by wanting to get new recruits and finding their own relatives. This is mentioned in the article, but not given the same weight.
  • Vuselica does not mention any Ustase guards. According to her, a high-ranking Ustase official was the director of the camp, at least for a while, but that he left or stopped coming at some point. It seems that if she were convinced that there were Ustase guards, she would have mentioned it.
  • Concerning the role of the nuns that ran the camp: She does mention that the nuns most likely beat the children, tried to force them to convert to Catholicism. She mentions the testimony of a certain Dr. Dragisic. According to him, the nuns initially tried to the children clothes when they arrived. But he also said that the nuns were on occasion compassionate. Vulesica says that the children's accounts are inaccurate, because they were traumatized and since they may have conflated their treatment in Jastrebarsko with the treatment they received in the camps they were in before being taken there. For example, apparently several of them reported seeing the nuns killing other children, which almost certainly didn't happen. According to her, Yugoslavian historiography after 1945 deliberately exaggerated the nuns' crimes in order to discredit the Catholic Church.

I'm not exactly sure what to do with this and I'd be interested in hearing your reactions.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I've just been stumbling my way through Vulesica with my terrible German, and have largely come to the same conclusions. I've asked for the FAC nomination to be withdrawn, as I think it needs to be moved, probably to Jastrebarsko children's camp, and needs a much better exploration of the differing views and ideological currents in the sources currently used in the article. I'll take a break and get back into it soon (reading German makes my brain hurt), using Vulesica to contrast with the communist version of events. Thanks for finding Vulesica and raising this. It would be terrible to have a FA which didn't include important academic views on the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do hit me up if I can help with anything or when you renominate the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Will do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

FumićEdit

"The historian Ivan Fumić concludes that"... Strictly speaking, Fumić is not a (professional) historian. By occupation, he is a military judge.[1] To the general public, he is best known as a president of the Croatia's Association of Anti-Fascist Fighters and Anti-Fascists, which is also the publisher of his books. I'm not disputing his use as a source here, only the wording. GregorB (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he needs to be a professional historian to be called a historian if he writes historical books. Author? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a slippery slope. A propos some recent FAC comments, including yours,[2][3] Croatian Wikipedia is actually an excellent example: the main vehicle for WWII revisionism are books by self-proclaimed "researchers" (i.e. random people with no academic background or recognition), usually characterized by flat-out denialism (i.e. all pieces of evidence to the contrary are "Communist-era forgeries"). That's why overselling Fumić runs the risk of implicitly legitimizing all sorts of shady revisionist stuff. Fumić may legitimately be questioned as a source (even if that would make little difference), and he is much easier to defend as an "author". GregorB (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a stretch, comparing him with those others, but I'm happy to change to author. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just playing devil's advocate a bit. :-) Also: when you hear Tomasevich being called an "amateur historian", you know everything is possible... GregorB (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
True. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Jastrebarsko children's camp" page.