Talk:Ustaše/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Citation needed

It would be good if someone cleaned up the page from all the {{fact}}, {{cn}}, {{citation needed}}, etc. tags and put up a general {{refimprove}} banner. The article is really hard to read and looks like a badge of shame. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of Serbs dead

The U.S. Holocaust Museum puts the number of murdered Serbs up to 340,000, in addition to 25,000 Croatian Jews. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005466 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.249.29 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Im sory but your sources are wrong... There where atleast 500.000 Serbs killed in concetration camps such as Jasenovac... My parents were killed in such camps and i find its my duty to know and spread the truth about what Ustaše did... And please dont think this is written because im a Nationalist, this is the truth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.232.226 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Political orientation of Ustasha

Ustashas are not nazis; organisation was created as response to Serbian nazism in first Yugoslavia; there are various reports of Ustasha being relatively mild in comparasion to Nazis - Jasenovac was not 'death camp', it was labor camp with 4 000 laborers maximum. Reports on number of victims are filled out with victims from other places, or partisan's victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picard345 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

their aims might not be of NAZI, but consider what they did, they are clearly NAZI or even worse the NAZI assistance during the WW2. There may be a lot serbian Nazi group, but non of them has caused so much civilian casualties! there is a clear line between what you wanted and what you did! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the Ustashi in some form stuill exist?in Croatia

Do elements of the Ustashi stikll exist in Croatia today? No mention in articleSWORDINHAND (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no more Ustashi in Croatia. Just some kids wearing Ustashi signs as fashion, but things like this are happening all around the world. About year and a half ago, a new law was passed and now it's absolutely forbidden to show/wear any nazi signs in public. There is an extreme right wing party HSP with laughable number of voters, but they are not Ustashi. Edit: I think I will delete the answer of some Serb claiming that all Croats are Nazis.

Yes Ustaše dont officialy exist anymore but there are always those ULTRA Nationalists(im sory if my spelling is wrong) that stand for everything that the Ustaše did and try to continue their work, it is the sam as it is the case in Serbia with Četniks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.232.226 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Veracity of the article

There are much problems in this article, one of this is the high number of "citation needed" wich is an indicator that much of the sentences in the article hasn't it's corresponding and necesary references. Personaly, I'm not agree with many things of the article. In a section is mentioned the alleged number of victims of the Jasenovac consentration camp, and this really a great lie! Even in the same page of the camp (Jasenovac.org) only is mentioned that the victims were around 50,000 and no more. It's incredible the number of lies, the constantly defamation and deformation of the history. I'm very indignant, because I know the truth (my grandfather was in the Ustase regime and I can assure that he was not an assasin or anything like that) but in all the places all the time the people repeat the same lies. Nobody mentioned the Bleiburg massacre, and nobody mentioned the situation of Croatia before the WWII. Well, I only want that at least here in wikipedia the articles helding the neutrality, and not that these will transformed in a personal oppinion of the editors. --190.172.228.161 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

REdirect

I redirected a new page, Crusaders (Ustasha), which had little content here as that seemed appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

However:

1. Merge target (Ustaše) is not really the same as Crusaders, although the latter may be associated with the former.
2. "Little content" is actually somewhere between stub and start class,[1] i.e. it's not that little.
3. Finally "little content" or not, it was not copied into the target article, it was lost in the merge.

This could be a little problematic. Comments? GregorB (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you think I got it wrong, you could revert the redirect or ask me to, which I will do. The content is retrievable via article history, it needs a comprehensive rewrite to make it encyclopaedic. Here it is: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no harm done, the content can still be fully retrieved from the history. I don't know much about the Crusaders, so I'm not sure whether it's best to merge or to keep separate. And the above is perhaps not a top-notch encyclopedic material, as you've noted. We might leave it at that, as far as I'm concerned; of course, other editors are free to intervene as they see fit. GregorB (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

KRUŠČICA!!

The link of Kruščica is wrong because it leads to another Kruščica which is in Serbia, but the list of Ustaša camps says that the mentioned Kruščica is in Central Bosnia! PLEASE CORRECT IT SOON!Cantabo07 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way: Shouldn't so called "established user" know and do it better!? Shouldn't you control every link!? Cantabo07 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideology

The content of the "Ustasha-Ideology" is not really appropriate. The Ustashas main target was to achieve the independency of the croatian nation (and the ideological foundation goes back to Ante Starcevic). The aim of an "ethnical pure Croatia" is therefore subordinate. I think, that needs to be specified in the article. Goran777 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Could an established user put in the book "The emerging strategic environment: challenges of the twenty-first century By Williamson Murray", it mentions facts, figures, quotes, modern usage of the term Ustashe by Bosniaks and so on. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If we can see more short and simple shown facts plz

If i can add something to this from my own personal experiance , as ppl here read and write lots of things here. My one grandfather was Ustasa , and other was a Partisan. They both lived to get old and died ten years ago. I new both of them and talked with them many times. From my experiance and talks with them, they both were simple men, carring for their families , and infact just common folk found in villages everywhere. Now what i want to add ,or clarify , or put as my opinion : Ustase , were a branch of army , not some political movement . Ustase is not equall to Nazi. Ustase is infact equal to SS troops of Germany. That is why there is not "today" Ustasa.

Now , what is needed to found is a war journals of Ustase units , and to check and see what is writen there. Also , i see there not one mention of any fights and battles ustase participated,except last battle in war. All what is always mentioned is War Crimes and Bleiburg. Ok , we all know about that , now plz put organisation structure of Ustase units , how many divisions or other type of units they had, how many men infact there was in ustasa , commanders , Stations , did they have armoured units , airplanes , naval vessels , what battles they particioated and where... Some raw , simple data , not just personal views. There is not one certain data in this article. Plz somebody start already put some facts.78.3.115.65 (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Soundwave

"Ustase is infact equal to SS troops of Germany?" And yet you say they were not a political movement? And they were not Nazis?? Come on... Anyway, we would need verifiable sources for that, and your recollection of your grandfathers' memories isn't really a verifiable source. BytEfLUSh (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

This article as evidence in a court

This article was admitted in evidence before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Gotovina trial. --Harac (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference of origin of name "pučki ustaša is wrong, Herzegovina Uprising, has nothing with term "pučki-ustaša" because origin of that name is after Kvaternik's Uprising (or Rakovica Uprising!) in year 1871. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.122.226 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ustashas were bad, but Chetniks were worse

What about Serbian Chetniks? General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate.Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Worse" sounds very POV-ish. I believe you made your suggestion in good faith, but I fail to see - how can we improve this article based on the sources you provided? BytEfLUSh | Talk! 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that both of them are bad peoples. but just because someone also conducted bad behavior do not grant you the right to do the same! this article is about Ustash, a group of ultra nationalist who have killed unbelievable amount of ordinary people during an evil war! Cetnik never had such opportunity to be compared with Ustash, they were defeated long before the war ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo

I dont see Ustaša on that photo that shows German officer with Chetnik. That man wears Domobran uniform. So,we have German soldier,Domobran and Chetnik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.137.236 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have seen of the chetnik's article that there's a notification saying "this is a controversial topic....". Here there's not any notification. Ok I'm completly disagree with great amount of things here. I wanna see this notification right now. I can see in those articles related to WWII that wikipedia acts like a dictatorship. Can everybody opine what oneself believe or the opinions are just allowed when are in concordance with the editor's pont of view?. Maybe you want all the people think the same, but I dont think the same and I think I gotta be listened, or am I wrong? I dont believe what you have wrote. For me ustase was not like you want that it looks. So the question is will you discriminate me beacuse I dont think the same? Again I'm disagre with this, I wanna see the controversial topic notification. --190.172.232.231 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Movement or a party

Any reference to the USTAŠA movement as a party is wrong, IMO. They were nothing more than a fascist aligned movement before 1941. When they came to power in 1941, they installed a law banning ALL political parties (including HSS, HSP (which was Pavelić's party), and others). Any other opinions? HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Informations shouldn't be erased

User:DIREKTOR, don't erase some basic informations, like part of Ustaše remained in Croatia after the war (around 2,000 man, not so small number...), rest emigrated to Argenitna, Spain etc, and established Ustaše organizations in exile, while majority of them, members of Crna legija and Ustaška vojnica, were slaughterd during so-called "Križni put"... this is not correct? You know it is, and stop to delete those informations. Wustenfuchs (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of SFR Yugoslavia in 1941 (???)

The editing of User:DIREKTOR and his reverting of my corrections, followed by a report I made on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:DIREKTOR that ended with me being advised to open a discussion somewhere where other editors could participate has made me open this section here. The point is that direktor massively and insistently (meaning, edit wars any attempt of correction) uses SFR Yugoslavia in all contexts where Kingdom of Yugoslavia should be. For instance, in the article Aloysius Stepinac direktor insisted in his words: "the Nazi puppet state established in occupied Yugoslavia" and he links Yugoslavia to SFRY that only become officially recognised 4 years latter. In this moment, while I´m writting this here, User:Kebeta has reverted a series of direktors edits and fixed that part as well, but knowing direktor, I doubt that it wan´t take long to him to revert it to his own favourite version. Here, in the article Ustaše, we also have in the lede sentence, 3th line, that the Ustaše were a "anti-Yugoslav separatist movement", where direktor obviously wrongly links Yugoslavia again with SFR Yugoslavia when in fact the movement was anti any Yugoslavia (when created, Ustaše were in fact anti-Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but anyway, linking simply Yugoslavia in this context would be much more precise.

Resumingly, we have a number of related articles where this user constantly wrongly links Yugoslavia to SFRY. The incapacity of that user to edit Kingdom of Yugoslavia in any non-negative context is shoking. I even proposed a diplomatic solution to use simply Yugoslavia in this contexts, but the user rejected it. So, I will like to ask other participants to express their view on this issue. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinions of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, it is a fact that in 1941 SFRY hadn't existed (they proclaimed independene on November 29, 1943 - two and a half years LATER than the ocupation happened) and that it should be written that "Ustaša movement established a government at the KINGDOM of Yugoslavia's territory with the help of German and Italian ocupators", not on the teritory of SFRY. They were also the separatist movement during the monarchy (1929-1941), not during the SFRY. All in all, I agree with you, FkpCascais. HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You are both right. I would like to point out the detailed, painstaiking explanations I posted on User:FkpCascais' talkpage. I quote (my words): "It is perfectly accurate to say 'occupied Democratic Federal Yugoslavia', since that was the last name of the Yugoslav state during WWII. It would be nonsense to say 'Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was occupied in 1941', but that is not what the text says, and nobody would never write such gibberish in the first place."

That's it from me, I will not waste my time writing up HUGE detailed posts if they are not read and/or if they cannot be understood. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody asked for "huge" posts from you, just for you to stop reverting the corrections. FkpCascais (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "correction". There is nothing to "correct". The links are perfectly accurate. Any such edits will be instantly reverted. I'll try again:

• "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was occupied" is wrong, but the text does not say that.
• "occupied Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" is accurate, since Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was occupied 1943-45. (and "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" was the last name of the Yugoslav state during WWII)

If you cannot understand the above, I am sorry. I tried. Just don't write misleading posts such as the above. The second Yugoslavia (whether you choose to call it "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" or "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia") was founded with international recognition in 1943, not 1945. And NOBODY is making the claim that it was the SFR Yugoslavia that was occupied in 1941. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop you arrogance. Here is something for you:
You say "nobody would never write such gibberish in the first place", nobody? So why did I had to correct this? Oh I see! So it was you direktor that wrote "In April 1941, they were appointed to rule a part of Axis-occupied Yugoslavia" (linking to SFR Yugoslavia!). How did you said earlier? "It would be "nonsence" and "nobody would never write such gibberish in the first place". See how can your rude vocabulary turn against you. I don´t even have to say anything. Please spare youself from such embarassment and start behaving like a wikipedian. FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to write this in Serbian? Croatian? Latin? What?? For the FIFTH TIME: it is perfectly accurate to write "occupied Democratic Federal Yugoslavia". Now I don't know if the English language is a problem, but "okupirana [adjective] Demokratska Federativna Jugoslavija" does NOT mean "Demokratska Federativna Jugoslavija je bila okupirana 1941 [verb]". One is a verb, the other is an adjective. Basic grammar. It simply means that we are using the last WWII name to refer to Yugoslavia in a WWII context. I wrote this six times already, your responses are those of a person who did not read the posts at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point DIREKTOR. I think I must be missing something. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was what the Nazi's invaded and occupied and then set up puppet states in. The SFRY didn't exist until 1943 and then only declared from London. I don't understand how the Ustase state can be described as being appointed to rule part of SFRY. If one was talking about the whole war period it could say the "K of Y (SFRY from 1943)". You don't appear to have consensus for these changes across multiple articles so let's see if something can be hammered out here.Fainites ^barleyscribs

You (direktor) are purpously confusing everything and talking to yourself. These are the edits in question:

• My edit [2] that you reverted just now [3].
• My edit [4], you reverted along with other users edits [5]
• I corrected again [6] with bad-faith reverting this time in a insulting manner [7].
• After this, in the same article another user corrected it [8], but that was not enogh for you and you reverted him as well [9], he corrected for second time [10], you reverted [11]. Note: by then you were fully aware that in your edit war with Kebeta you were reverting the Yugoslavia´s part as well, so no excuse.

I asked you politely to fix it, you even acknolledged it, but you just do what ever you want completely disrespecting all users on WP. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S: Apologies to Fainites, I had this already "composed" before your comment here. Here is all the evidence of diktators edits. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting this for the benefit of Fainites, since I enjoy the prospect of having my posts read for a change.

• In 1941 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis.
• In 1943 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was reorganized and renamed into the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, with the Partisans as its military force. It was not proclaimed from London but from Jajce, by the AVNOJ, with the Allies granting their support from Tehran. The monarchy was not abolished, but the state known as the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" was gone, "reorganized" or "abolished", whichever one prefer (it makes no difference).
• By mid-1944 the Partisans control most of Yugoslav territory (the Soviets are in Romania). The Yugoslav government-in-exile agreed (under British pressure) to support Tito and the AVNOJ declaration, fired the pro-Chetnik prime minister, and replaced him with the Croat Ivan Šubašić, who formally came to an agreement with Tito with - the Tito-Šubašić Agreement. By late 1944 the two governments merge into one under Tito.
• In 1945, after the War, the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was reorganized and renamed into the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. The monarchy was abolished.

Now, in the context of WWII, given the ungrateful choice between the "Kingdom" or "DF Yugoslavia", "DF Yugoslavia" is more accurate. Why? 1) Because DFY is the last (name of the) Yugoslav state (1943-1945) during WWII; 2) because "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" is a name that represents both the recognized wartime Yugoslav governments, 3) because the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia actually had de facto existed 1943-45 (with the civilian states, the "liberated territories"), as opposed to the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" which (during its WWII period, 1941-43) only existed on paper (de jure) in the form of the government-in-exile. After mid-1944 the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was even based back in Belgrade (liberated October 1944).

The second point I will make here is that FkpCascais is the one posting the new, opposed edit - not I. Again, I am merely restoring the long-standing version against an (as yet) no-consensus edit. But since he may feel happy for himself and, perhaps, even go away for a while, I won't allow myself be provoked into another edit-war of his.

The third fact I shall point out is that the text in question does NOT state that the SFR Yugoslavia existed in 1941. Similarly, it does NOT state that SFR Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis, which is the (and you can quote me on this) nonsense title of this talk section. Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (quite accurately) redirects to SFR Yugoslavia, which may be the reason why the redirect is avoided by simply using "[[SFR Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]]" (I did write much of this article, but I don't remember). All the text says is that a state was established in "occupied Yugoslavia" and links "Yugoslavia" to the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. As I explained earlier, when referring to Yugoslavia in a World War II context, it is for numerous reasons of both political correctness, state succession, and de facto presence on the ground more accurate to link to the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia.
Of course, in a sentence directly discussing 1941, it is more appropriate to link to the Kingdom. The sentence "they were appointed to rule a part of Axis-occupied Yugoslavia as the Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state of Nazi Germany", however, does not specifically discuss 1941, but makes a general description of the situation of the Ustaše throughout World War II (I should know, I wrote this stuff).

Its complicated, but petty nitpicking such as this often is. Note that I have already explained ALL of this to Fkp [12] several times, but his posts, far from retorts, are those of a man who never read the explanations at all. Which leaves me with the unpleasant possibilities of him either ignoring me, not being able to understand me, or deliberately writing-up this section in this way (+misleading title) to throw-off other people. If the latter is the case, it seems to be working. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, I'm sorry I have to say that but this edit is nonsensical, plain and simple. The left side is simply more correct: they were an anti-Yugoslav movement, not specifically an anti-SFRY movement, and the country that was occupied in 1941 was Kingdom of Yugoslavia, certainly not SFR Yugoslavia. I'm not interested in long-winded discussions about whether 2+2 equals 4 or 5, so I'm suggesting as a non-involved editor that you simply drop this. Bye. GregorB (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It says "they were appointed". They were appointed in 1941. That makes it Kingdom of I think. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is only painfull that two so simple edits (actually, 1 edit in 2 articles) required 2 days, 1 report and houndreds of sentenses of discussion when they are clear disruption of one editor that is perfectly aware of it. I´m sorry to say it Fainites, but your still "I think" makes me think that as an admin involved in this, you are being too nice and soft towards that editor, and you should have been much more effective in deciding something as simple as this because this way, a disruptive editor that constantly edit-wars made fun of all of us for 2 days and made a number of dedicated editors loose many time completely unnecessarily. FkpCascais (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the edit war has stopped and SFR isn't there. But for what it's worth it was a damn silly argument which could have been resolved a lot more quickly if everybody wasn't so damn bad-tempered all the time. A lot of these issues run like this but very little constructive editing is done. The argument moves from one Yugoslav page to another and even if, with some difficulty, a compromise is reached it rarely results in any serious work on any of the other articles. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Militant or Revolutionary Organization, not political party

Ustaše weren't political party but a revolutionary organization. UHRO (shorten from Ustaše - Hrvatski revolucionarni pokret) were created as an revolutionist military with establishment of independent Croata as their main goal. In statute, Pavelić said, I can't qoute correctly, that they (Ustaše) will to establish Croatian state by all means, this includes revolution... Political party is a political organization wich attempts to influence government policy, and ofcourse, it needs to be registered as a political party of some state. That's second problem, who's "political party" were Ustaše? Italian? No; Yugoslav? No. They never were political party of Italy because Italy had one-party system, as Yugoslavia... so that means they were militant or revolutionary organization, not a political party. That's reason why I changed infobox.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point there. However the word you're looking for is "terrorist" organization (easily referenced [13]). And the infobox you're looking for is Template:Infobox militant organization. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Goald of ustaše

According to Pavelić's Ustaše Statute, main goal was (under section 1): Ustaša - hrvatski oslobodilački pokret, ima zadaću, da svim sredstvima, pa i oružanim ustankom, oslobodi ispod tuđinskog jarma Hrvatsku, da ona postane potpuno samostalna država na cijelom svom narodnom i povijesnom području.

(English: Ustaša - Croatian liberation movement, has a mission to liberate Croatia from alien bondage by any means, even by armed uprising, to make it (Croatia) completely independent state on it's whole people's and historical terittory.)

Now, they didn't mention separation from Yugoslavia, but to make independent Croatia in any mean, in destruction of Yugoslavia, or separation, or liberation from any state, not just Yugoslaiva... I hope you get me... Yugoslav name was not mention once in Ustaše Statute from 1929. That's very, very important fact.

We'll see soon is ther any more inaccuracy to change...--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo problem

File:Meeting between German, Chetniks and Ustaša commander.jpg

Image is showing Domobran officer, not Ustaše officer. This uniform is tipical Croatin Home Guard, it seams even "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" (if they uploaded image) can be wrong.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ustaše officers had red insignia on their sleeve. Officers had insignia at the bottom of the sleeve, while NCOs and soldiers had insignia on top of the sleev. The cap of this officer is wearing isn't ustaše officer's cap, but domobran officer's cap. Ustaše officer cap was like this, or sometimes they had Peaked cap with ustaše insignia. Ustaše officer's cap was made under influence of Italian officer's cap. This means - it was domobran officer after all.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is coat - if Ustaša ever wear a coat it was leather coat, this is typical Domobran coat, like showed here, with a cap an all.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR, find out who he is so we can see whether or not he's an ustaša or not. Even if you prove this, however, the image is still worthy of inclusion: the domobrani and the Ustaše were not two seperate military factions. The Domobrani were the drafted regular troops - controlled by the Ustaše in Zagreb (this alone warrants inclusion with a modified caption). Also their officers were often Ustaše members themselves. Granted they were not the actual party military wing - but so what? Differentiate between the Ustaše and the Ustaše Militia. Additionally (as if all this was not enough) later on in the war both the Ustaše Vojnica and the Domobrani were merged into the HOS.

One more thing: the Ustaše training image is unsourced and the only reason its not deleted from Commons is that nobody noticed it yet. I'll take it out. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And Ustaše training has something with this? Those aren't Ustaše? :) However, image is badly sourced... I'm sure it was not uploaded by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is stated that image was took in 1942... and HOS was founded at the end of warm, right? :D and even so, they didn't change uniforms, Ustaše still wore theirs, Domobans theirs. Domobarn units never were under command of Ustaše officer, but Domobran officers... who told you diferently?--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Again: it does not matter whether he was a member of the Ustaše Militia or really a Domobran officer. The Ustaše controlled the Domobrans (naturally..) so the image is worthy of inclusion. Can you show who this person was so we can get to the bottom of this? We both know numerous Domobran officers were Ustaše members.

The Ustaše image is related of course - have a look and see that I fixed it up - but I noticed back then that the image is unsourced, so I did not include it here. We need to get rid of it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Chap looks like Ivan Markulj (Markulj), but I don't want to claim anything, not sure... Ofc some domobrans were ustaše, only in high command (and again, only a few), like Slavko Kvaternik, while majors, captains and low-ranking officers weren't for sure. Second thing, cooporation between Domobrans and Chetniks was idea of Siegfried Kasche, nothing to do with Ustaše, but cooporation failed. Some historians and photo experts consider photos like ustaša drinking with chetniks a forge, thos images are disputed, and shouldn't be in any encyclopedia. But, to be back on the subject, article is about Ustaše, so any information outside of that makes article bad, not good. Look for example articles SS or Waffen SS, not one image showing what Wehrmacht officers done under SS influence, and you know they did many things, were also under Waffen SS officer commands... don't need to talk about it. This leads us to conclusion that we don't need unnecessary photos in the article.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, if this officer is Markulj - he wasn't Ustaše member, he commanded famous Teufels Division...

"Division"? How romantic :). You must mean mean the 369th infantry regiment, of the 100th Jäger Division? It along with the 373rd (Tiger), and 392nd (Blue) infantry regiments were Wehrmacht formations, that were not under NDH control (even though the Ustaše liked to, again rather romantically, refer to them as "their divisions" :). The point I'm making is that you just firmly claimed that the soldier wore a Domobran uniform. The three regiments in question wore Wehrmacht uniforms. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the collaboration between NDH authorities and the Chetniks in Bosnia. I do not need you to explain it to me in any way. I've read about Chetnik collaboration with the NDH in great detail. It is described in numerous books, and there is a whole section on it in Tomasevich's The Chetniks. I suggest you go there for the actual scientific facts on the matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Teufels Division is regiment's nickname lol... I know what sor of formation they were. I explained you something about their cooporation? It was not my intention. If you have a need to reply me, say something constructive.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The point was that you previously said the soldier's uniform was domobran, but now its supposed to be Wehrmacht. As far as I know, that uniform is indeed Wehrmacht. The soldier is wearing the Austrian cap. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no... you should look face... But it's Markulj in Domobran uniform anyways... You know how German uniform looked like? This cap wasn't worn by Werhmacht officers, but peaked cap. This form of cap was worn only by mountain troops, and it had Leontopodium alpinum. It's a domobran uniform. Domobran uniforms were made under influence of Austrian-Hungarian uniforms, system of ranks, even decorations etc... this is diferent story now.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how can you be sure it's Wehrmacht uniform with so clear Croatian Domobran insginia at the top of the cap? :) Look here, it's Markulj in Domobran uniform, while here he commands Teufels Division in German uniform... see diferency? You probably thought about German M43 caps here...

Look at axishistory.com here, look cap insgnias... German Wehrmacht insgnia is different, in circle... and so on... but we shouldn't talk about uniforms. The point was - we don't need such image here - no use.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And hell... we aren't even sure is this Markulj on image, we only know he is Domobran...--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. We will not remove the picture of NDH troops with Chetniks. It is definitely related to the scope of this article, the Ustaše movement controlled the Domobran. You just find it offensive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Like Nazis controled Wehrmacht, this is just beginning of discussion. No, I don't find it offensive, but stupid.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make the beginner's mistake of even comparing the Wehrmacht with the pathetic NDH. The German army was a conservative political force of its own. The Domobrani were a starving horde of poor, ill-equipped peasants, commanded by 70-year-old colonels from WWI (who mostly sucked as officers when they were young too). The difference here is that the Wehrmacht was there a long time before the Nazis, while the Ustaše created the Domobrani and fully controlled them just like every other aspect of the state.

There is no possible justification for removing a picture of NDH soldiers from the Ustaše article. This is not the beginning of the discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ignore your feelings about some subjects. I removed image because it was erased at commons.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And it seams I was wrong, and you were right, it's not beginning of discussion, it's end of discussion.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The source explicity states the person in the photo is an "Ustaše officer". Your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH into World War II uniforms is completely irrelevant. I will no longer respond to posts in relation to it.

I've removed an unsourced image with no rationale. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From a talk page I can see another person saw that problem... I mean, I'm not really moved by this image, but the problem is, any person who understands such things will get impression that wikipedia is full of inaccurate thing... Starting with this image. Problems on Wikipedia are subjective people. Look this section "Ustaše militia", if someone would look at that section he could get impression that Ustaše only held bing with Chetniks... You mutilated this section with your "colaborationist" images... But, I can write a bible about this, but still you won't understand.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I really have a need to tell you, every article I start to expand, like Ante Pavelić and this one now, you are slowing down the progress with this your political propaganda images, subjective adjectives etc. I'm confused... is that what you do on wiki, defending the revolution? This is not the 8th offensive, you know.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the image is sure to bring down Wikipedia... :P

But you're right, the problem with Wikipedia are subjective people who go by their own biased, unprofessional "conclusions" instead of strictly following the sources. For example, see these edits [14][15]. This User:Wustenfuchs, a Rommel fan who probably does not realize von Manstein was a faar more superior commander ;), twice removed a source image because his own silly nonsense "research" (WP:OR) concludes that the source is "wrong". Even though I politely pointed out just above on the talkpage that the source states "Ustaše officer" [16]. I advise him to replace the source with "<ref>User:Wustenfuchs's opinion</ref>".

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am quite problematic aren't I? I think you'll find many who agree with you, particularly with the Chetnik and Ustaše fan clubs, not to mention the irredentist Italian nationalist delinquents who are still trying to rename Croatian people and cities into Italian/Venetian (this is the only one I could not save, there were dozens of them). So I'll say to you what I say to all my critics:.. SOURCES. Gimme SOURCES. Source it and you're fine. No OR, no opinions, no crappy biased references. No straw men, no red herrings, no arguments from ignorance --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"This User:Wustenfuchs, a Rommel fan who probably does not realize von Manstein was a faar more superior commander" lol :D

You forgot that name change request was done on that image because of this Domobran-Ustaša problem, while nobody changed discrption... He is domobran, it is clearly, not my own research. I'm not the first who "complained" on this one.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well he certainly is. An unrivalled military genius, very likely the best commander of WWII. Who do you think thought up Fall Gelb?

Here is the source. Its the USHMM. The link was not broken when I followed it. And the source clearly states "Photograph #46717". People are not here to serve you links on silver platters.

Now then, you've violated 3RR in removing a sourced statement. Please revert back to the sourced version. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that name change request was done in order to fix a mistake made in description. Request was accepted.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What are we talking about here, Fox? You've seen the source, that was obviously a mistake. Restoring sourced caption and repairing link. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the source all right, but I refuse to write inaccuracies at Wikipedia, if you would be kind - change it your self. I give up on this one.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is your opinion that the caption is inaccurate. The source says otherwise. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

roman catholic fundamentalism... ?!?!!

We can't talk about Roman Catholic fundamentalism - 30% of Ustaše were Muslim... To say they were Roman Catholic fundamentalist is very, very subjective. Ustaše disliked Catholic Church, even though some priests liked Ustaše, no doubt about it, but same thing was in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy - we can't talk about Roman Catholic Fundamentalism. Ustaše were truely tolerant about religion, we can say that.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

<ref name= "Lonely Cold War">Peter C. Kent, ''The lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII: the Roman Catholic Church and the division of Europe, 1943-1950'', McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 2002 p.46 ISBN 077352326X<br />"''Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic. In the Yugoslav political context, they identified Catholicism with Croatian nationalism and, once established in power, set about persecuting and murdering non-Catholics.''"</ref>

This is just an example. Have you read the listed sources? You and I both know I can probably display some 50 sources or so describing the Ustaše as a (fanatically) Catholic movement. Furthermore, please provide an iron-clad source for the idea that "30% of the Ustaše were Muslim". If I'm not seriously mistaken, that's just old Ustaše propaganda. And this is not the first time we're hearing the sort from you Wustenfuchs (just making an observation).

Just a note: please don't start explaining now how the NDH were tolerant of Muslims and Islam, etc. etc. I know this very well - but that is not what this discussion is about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember I told about this earlier, but I'm glad you'r remembering my words. Sources soon... all in it's time. I can't work like a horse. But so various muslims in high positions, starting with Kulenović brothers... etc... this info will soon be erased.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You did not say this earlier, I'm just making a point that I'm familiar with this War, and do not need such basic info explained to me. I've previously had that information revealed to me as if it were some sort of "magic revelation", when it is a basic fact I've known for years. I felt such a moment was fast approaching here as well. :)

Noone's pressuring you. One thing though: it does not matter even if you sou8rce the 30% claim. That would then be an interesting and noteworthy fact, but it is a separate issue from the ideology of the movement, for which, again, I can display a metric TON of sources describing the Ustaše as fanatically Catholic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You can ofcourse show me your "TON" of sources, however, my sources arent so unimportant - we have something like your word against mine that is author's word against some other athor. You can say that some individuals were fanatical Catholics, and I agree completely, some were also fanatical Muslims, some Nazis were fanatical Catholics, but still, that doesn't make them Catholic Fundamentalist or what ever. Now, ideology of Ustaše organization it self is not Catholic Fundamentalist, but Croatian nationalist. Ideology was based on Croatian Bosnia and Muslim Croats also, and we can't call that Roman Catholic Fundamentalist. This sources can't be just ignored:

• Tomasevich, Jozo. War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration (p. 353)
• Dulić, Tomislav. Utopias of nation: local mass killing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1941-42 (p. 231; 336)
• Pavlowitch, Stevan K. Hitler's new disorder: the Second World War in Yugoslavia (p. 47)
• Morse, Chuck. The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini (p. 77)

And so on... I didn't added ISBN, because I think you are familiar with books and authors.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Even after the war, various Muslims supported Ustaše emigration, so even then, we can't call them Roman Catholic Fundamentalist, even though, they had their "Crusaders", who's commander in Sarajevo region was, once again, a Muslim, fanatical or not, I can't tell.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomy: they can be tolerant of Muslims, they can include Muslims in their ranks - but that does not mean they are not Roman Catholic fundamentalists. Please stop with this nonsense. They were (quote) Catholic fanatics who tolerated Muslims, but did not include Islam in their ideology. Their ideology is Roman Catholic. They are a Catholic movement.

On a side note: they tolerated Muslims because 1) Croats alone were just too few to populate the bloated NDH, so they declared Bosniaks "Muslim Croats". 2) They were grovelling snivelling servile puppets, and their master Germany wanted Turkey and Iraq in the War - so touching Muslims anywhere was out of the question.

Please cut it out with this nonsense thread. They are the very prototype of a Catholic movement. Nothing to discuss here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In ideology of Ustaše organization you can't find anything Catholic Fundamentalist, some individuals were Catholics, no doubt about it. So, you can't call it Catholic Fundamentalist... you think you can call them so because some members killed in name of religion or something? Do you know what Catholic Fundamentalism is? And I don't think they had so fanatical support of Catholic Church, it is dissputed very much. I'd say they disliked a Catholic Church a bit because of Stepinac's talking. We can't call the movement Catholic Fundamentalist, neither anything ealse what has connection with religion - they werent a religion movement, but political. And, it seams, it is very important to mention this article is about Ustaše organization, not about some individuals. Another important thing, even attitudes of some individuals are dissputed... we can't say are they Catholic Fundamentalist, we don't have base to claim such things. Mehmed Alajbegović was a great Muslim, traditional Muslim... can we call him that? He teach Sheria law also, but we can't call him anything. We don't have a base to call Ustaše movement a Catholic Fundamentalist movement.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss here. There are sources which explicitly state they were a Catholic movement. That means you are expected to bring-up sources that state they were not a Catholic movement. I could not care less about the religious composition of their membership. Your claim that because their members included Muslims - they were somehow "not a Catholic movement" is textbook WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You are the one drawing that conclusion. (Edit-warring to remove sourced material will be reported.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research lol..., it is something cleary visible.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "lol", it is. You, Wikipedia User:Wustenfuchs, have decided that if the Ustaše had Muslim members, that means they were not a Catholic movement. Textbook OR. And as if that alone was not enough, we also have sources that explicitly say they were a Catholic movement. Not much to talk about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And we still have sources who don't write about that, because we also have smart authors who aren't so subjective. Individuals will not decide are Ustaše a religious movement. It is visible from their statute they aren't. Anyone can write anything about anything. We also have sources who are firm in that Hitler was obssessed by some devine force, hell, we even have vitnesses, so should we write that in article about Hitler... "Hitler was obssessed by a devil." I don't think so.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a contradicting source? Well by all means, present it. But please, none of your own research. Bring up sources that describe the ideology of the movement this time? (I could not care less about the existence of the few Muslims in there or whatever conclusions your original research brings out from that.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How can you talk about Original research? Tell me this, forget about that source for now wher is stated they were religious movement and started a Crusader campaign in NDH, according to what Ustaše are religious movement? This source of yours is not so reliable.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a contradicting source then? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, we have sources who claim Hitler was obsessed by some force, while other books don't mention that because rationale people know that is not worth to mention. Samte hing with this religious movement. You don't need a book for that, look at their statute. And while we can say they were firm catholics, they were atheist what ever, we can't say the whole movement was a religious movement. It was not. I have source - their statute.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, Fox, did you just say the whole Wikipedia system of "sources" does not work then? What do you propose to go on then? Woman's intuition xP?

Ok let me explain: when a source says something, and you disagree, there are three ways to disprove it:

• See if the source is scholarly. If its not, then byby.
• See if there are contradicting sources. If there are, then a discussion can open.
• See if the source has negative peer reviews. See if its discredited by someone somewhere, anywhere.

Now, the "Hitler is a Jedi" books you mention do not even satisfy the first requirement - they are not scholarly. And even if they were scholarly, then they are almost certainly discredited and/or laughed at by some (peer) reviewer. So you see, the system works. Since the source I posted is indeed scholarly, I'll be waiting for you to provide a contradicting source or a negative peer review. If not, sorry, but I'm afraid your opinion/OR does nto count for much.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, right, but however, this part of book you mentioned: "Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic. In the Yugoslav political context, they identified Catholicism with Croatian nationalism and, once established in power, set about persecuting and murdering non-Catholics" doesn't say they were Fundamentalist movement, but they were fanaticly Catholic (wich again isn't very correct), and another thing "murderning non-Catholics", I completely disagree, and I think you would too. And this leads us to this, source doesn't mention Fundamentalism and I did removed this, and in article it is stated they were fanaticly Catholic, so wher is the problem? I just removed "information" wher it was stated they were Fundamentalist, that's it.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So, this last, "murrdering of non-Catholics", I won't even try to mention Bosnian Muslims or Prots... And as I stated, this source is not so reliable. Like adding a source "Earth is flat", when everyone knows it's not.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramet says that "for the Ustase, religion and nationality were closely linked; Catholicism and Islam were declared to be the national religions of the Croatian people....". Orthodoxy was incompatible and Serbs were pressured to convert and, thereby "into accepting Croatian nationality".. The way she describes it the emphasis is on being Croation, (Catholic), rather than Serbian (Orthodox), as opposed to Catholic fanaticism. Protestants were guaranteed full equality. Muslims got to build new mosques. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well of course. Ramet does not conflict with the current source. Catholicism and Islam were indeed "declared to be the national religions of the Croatian people". And the emphasis is indeed on Croatian nationalism. None of that however, does not mean that it is false to describe the Ustaše as Catholic fanatics. They were, out of necessity, a Croatian nationalist, "fanatically catholic" movement that incorporated Bosniaks (or "Muslims" as tehy were then known) in their ranks as "Croats of Islamic faith" (a claim quite offensive to the vast majority of modern-day Bosniaks).

I'll just go into this whole mess a bit deeper, if I may. As I said above. Croats alone just barely constituted a majority in the over-large NDH, which incorporated huge swathes of non-Croat-populated territory, while ceding to Italy numerous lands that actually were (and are) populated by Croats (such as Istria, or Croatia's second city - Split). Mostly out of this necessity the Ustaše claimed that all Bosniaks were in fact "Croats of Islamic faith". Bosnia's addition created this problem. Bosnia, as you may or may not know, was during WWII populated by 45% Serbs (about 1,100,000), some 30% Bosniaks (790,000) and some 25% Croats (610,000). Only by adding the Bosniaks as "Croats" could the Ustaše even make claim that Croats form a majority.

Of course, Serbian nationalists also claim that Bosniaks are "Serbs of Muslim faith".. :) they differ only in that they also consider Croats to be Serbs of "Catholic faith", while any good Croat ultranationalist would sooner die than accept the idea that "Serbs are actually Croats" xP. This distinction is, of course, caused by the fact that there are twice as many Serbs as Croats. (The actual fact of course is that the three of us, plus Montenegrins, are probably one nation, of three religions, that just does not have a name. The problem is that there are almost twice as many Serbs than there are Croats and Bosniaks put together, and they would invariably dominate any union.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that Ramet is perhaps a better source than one which describes them as fanatically catholic. It would appear that catholicism may have been a way of servicing fanatical nationalism. When they came into conflict with parts of the catholic church - nationalism prevailed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII: the Roman Catholic Church and the division of Europe, 1943-1950? The book actually specializes in the Catholic Church of the period. As I said, its not a matter of "which source is better", the two do not contradict each other (though I do agree that hypothetically Ramet is probably more reliable). Lets introduce both statements?

P.S. Sorry if I went a bit off-topic above :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG DIREKTOR, wher did you find your numbers about NDH demographics :D In some partisan bunker?

Number of Serbs is 1,848,000, while number of Croats was 4,817,000... hahahahah lol (790,000 Bosniaks + 610,000 Croats doesn't give that number), or you just aren't good with mathematics... How can you also say Ustaše ceded Istria to Italians, Istria was never part of Croatia in whole Croatian history, so how can they ceded something they don't have, while the same terittory they ceded was in Italian hands... how, in Partisan logical oppinion?--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse, some informations about connection of Ustaše and Islam needs to be added since big number o Muslims was in Ustaše organization. And Bosniaks aren't very insluted if you call them Muslim Croats, it seams you rearlly visited Bihać. :)--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New images

I made this section just to tell you, if you have a need to tag those images, please do, they will be erased if they need to be erased, and while they aren't they serve to the quality of this article. It is kind of your duty to report them if you think they violate copy right.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great name I added for this section because we also need new image for the infobox. Official sign of Ustaše was letter "U" with a bomb inside and flame. This also should be changed, once someone makes a sign...--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of King Alexander

Under the "notable attacks" section in the infobox it states that the assassination of King Alexander I of Yugoslavia was an Ustase attack. However the shooter was a Bulgarian member of IMRO, a Macedonian right-wing organization that had ties with the Ustase. Considering this I believe that it should be edited to reflect that, however I think removing the section all together would be the better option. It does seem rather POV to have a section dedicated to "notable attacks" for a terrorist and political organization. I am in no way supporting the crimes that the Ustase commited however the article for the Nazi Party does not list "Night of the Long Knives" in a section called "notable attacks" in the opening infobox nor do the articles for any other equally heinous terrorist or political organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.179.89 (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a photo at beggining of article

I would ask someone to add this photo which represents Ustašas butchering of Serbs and their common behaviour:

File:Ustaše sawing off the head of a Serb civilian.jpg

Ustašas saw off a head of Serbian Branko Jungić, village Grabovac, near Bosanska Gradiška.

[[File:Ustasa-saw.jpg|thumb|220px|Ustašas saw off a head of Serbian Branko Jungić, village Grabovac, near Bosanska Gradiška.]]

--94.140.88.117 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Please correct the spelling and grammar of the 'name etimology' (sic) section! It's embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.103 (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"U" symbol

Here is an image depicting the Ustase "U" symbol with the flaming bomb and the Croatian coat of arms state property of the Independent State of Croatia: [17].--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is WP:OR and a gigantic leap of faith to assume that the variant depicted in the photo was the "main", or official, or even the most common symbol used by the Ustase. Of course, noone is disputing that the variant with the flaming bomb was used at times, and the gallery below reflects that. At issue, however, is the most common, or the "official", U symbol variant, and since no sources are present to that effect, the "U" is the only symbol we are certain was used universally and was present in all variants.

Secondly, the image is black-and-white, ergo the blue colour of the symbol (which was also introduced into the infobox) is still unsourced.

Thirdly, it seems very likely that the asymmetric "U" in the photograph (which is reflected in the file) was simply the result of shoddy painting, rather than an intentional feature of the symbol.

P.s. I wish someone would source the NDH flag as the flag of the Ustase movement.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

actually, I've seen many photographs of Ustashas with capbadges showing the chequerboard and bomb symbol inside the U, and the U's on the capbadges were asymmetric. I have never seen a Ustasha capbadge with just the U, which may indicate that the more complex badge was in very common use. I believe I have a 'uniforms of fascist collaborators' type book somewhere which has a good photograph. I will hunt it up. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

just for starters, here is the rest of the photo of the Jasenovac gate. http://www.jusp-jasenovac.hr/Default.aspx?sid=7255, which shows the same asymmetical U and the sign below it, and clearly also shows the chequerboard starting with the white square in the top LH corner (as distinct from the current Croatian version starting with the red square), Also this picture of Babic with the asymmetric capbadge clearly shown http://www.jusp-jasenovac.hr/Default.aspx?sid=7247, and there are several of Pavelic wearing caps including the U and chequerboard at this link http://www.google.com.au/search?q=picture+of+ante+pavelic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There were essentially several variants, all in use at one time and place or another. One element is a Croatian chequy coat of arms inside the "U", another is a flaming bomb (with or without the chequy), and another element is a cross in the center and to the above (the first two elements can individually be combined with the third). The point is that only the "U" is a universally used element, and that without a source we shouldn't really just do some WP:OR and assume this or that more complex version is superior to another. E.g. it looks to me that Pavelic and the person on the photo are actually using the chequy version sans the flaming bomb, and the latter so far only appears in one photo. While I grant the "U" might really have been asymmetrical, I am not able to be entirely convinced based on one photo and another very blurry one; Pavelic, for example, does not seem to be wearing an asymmetrical "U".

In addition, I would like some evidence that the "U" was in fact blue, before we use a blue one. I myself have never seen a blue Ustase "U". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting one, isn't it? As far as the flags are concerned, what about these two? http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/u-symbols.jpg which is a lift from Narodne Novine, and http://zeljko-heimer-fame.from.hr/hrvat/hr-ndh.html, which appears to refer to this edition of NN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a clip from Sedlar's film which shows first issue of the magazine titled "Ustaša" which Pavelić began publishing in the spring of 1930 (skip to 3:13). Although stylized, the header clearly shows an asymmetrical "U" with a bomb in it (symbolizing revolutionary struggle).
• At 3:37 in the same clip a magazine cut out showing the UHRO organization logo is shown as printed by them - an asymmetrical "U", a flaming bomb inside it and a chequoy on the bomb. It looks just like the one Nanin7 had made and DIREKTOR removed (bar the dark-blue color which Nanin7 used to fill in the letter U). The original is black-and-white but the letter itself clearly wasn't meant to be black.
• At 5:03 in the same clip the front page of the organization's statute is shown, again, with the same logo as described above, dated 1932.
• At 5:22 the narrator talks about the organization logo directly and says that "The "Ustaša" was defined as a revolutionary fighter, also indicated by their logo, which first appeared in the masthead of the magazine "Ustaša" in 1930. Inside a blue letter "U" a silver hand grenade is depicted, with red flames coming out of it. In the centre of the bomb a small Croatian coat of arms is shown, with the top left field in silver." As he is saying that yet another picture of the logo is being shown (this one seems to be an enamel badge). The text btw which the narrator is reading was written by one Mario Jareb, a historian who wrote several books on the history of the Ustaše as well as one on the history of Croatian national symbols.
• At 5:55 in the same clip front page of yet another party newspaper titled "Nezavisna država Hrvatska" (published in New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh and San Francisco), with the same logo shown, this time in the form of an initial in the main headline, dated 1 May 1934.
• So I don't know how much more official can it get. As for the "several variant" thing - I can only assume they dropped the bomb once NDH was established (since per their logic, the revolutionary struggle had achieved its goal) and replaced it with just a chequoy inside the U, which was then used as a semi-official state symbol later on (although that's also debatable, I haven't seen that version in contemporary pictures but I may be wrong). I've also never seen a cross in combination with U in contemporary use, only in modern far-right graffiti, but I may be wrong. Either way, this article is about the Ustaše party/movement and this version is the closest we will ever come to what was their official symbol. Only the shade of the color blue can be considered debatable (I tend to think it was probably lighter blue than what Nanin7 used).
• The flags mentioned by Peacemaker above were state symbols of NDH (the first screenshot linked points to the official NDH gazette from 30 April 1941, proscribing symbols of the newly proclaimed state) - not symbols of the Ustaše movement which was founded and existed 11 years prior to that. One should differentiate between the two. Timbouctou (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is what "Littlejohn, David (1994). Foreign Legions of the Third Reich. Vol. 3. R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 0912138297." has to say on the matter: [18] [19]. Both the infobox and the symbols section need to be reworked to reflect what sources say. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Producer, your source describes this exact asymmetrical exploding bomb version as the emblem of the Ustase, so unless we get a contradicting source that pretty much closes the issue. Timbouctou's documentary also states that the U was blue, and upon closer inspection it is indeed blue on the NDH flag as well so that's closed too imo. Do we agree that evidence is still missing to the effect that the NDH flag was the Ustase flag as well? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. that documentary is btw just about the most biased disgusting piece of propaganda I ever saw. To "romanticize" a Pol Pot-comparable mass murderer like Ante Pavelic... simply appalling stuff. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be removing the checkered U and the one with the cross from the symbols section as they are not mentioned. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

foundation of Ustase

I have provided a ref for the foundation of the Ustase in 1930. I have noticed that he infobox says 1929, and the date has recently been changed. What is the reference for this earlier date? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Jareb they were formed in the spring of 1930 and they adopted their statute (the one with the blue U and bomb logo on the cover) some time in mid-1932. It is pretty unlikely that they were formed on 7 January 1929 - that is the date when Pavelić had apparently left the country, the day after the 6 January Dictatorship was proclaimed. It was probably copied from the hr.wiki article, which used this article in the "Croatian Family Lexicon" as reference. In any case, it is a tertiary source which means secondary ones like Tomasevich take precedence. Timbouctou (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Pavelić know the best - 7 January 1929. In one letter (it can be found in Marković's book) he stated that this 7 January is anniversary day of Ustaše... if needed I can quote him. It's generaly accepted that UHRO was founded on 7 January, you can see that in many books, like Meirer's Yugoslavia and it's demise (p. 130) --Wustenfuchs 17:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The most comprehensive book published on the topic, Mario Jareb's Ustaško-domobranski pokret (2006, Školska knjiga) says explicitly that it is only possible to talk about the Ustaše movement from mid-1930 at the earliest. The word "Ustaša" was first used as the title of a newsletter published by Pavelić in April-May 1930. Pavelić could have later said whatever he wanted. Timbouctou (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ustaše Constitution was made in Zagreb on 7 January 1929.

"Ovaj ustaški Ustav sačiniše i vlastoručno potpisaše ustaše utemelitelji u Zagrebu dne. 7. siječnja 1929."

So, formaly, Ustaše were founded in 1929.

--Wustenfuchs 10:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)--Wustenfuchs 10:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR. I think that's probably just their propaganda, Wustenfuchs. -- Director (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit Wustenfuchs, on the basis that you have removed reliably sourced information and not provided either an alternative source or reflected disagreement between sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it seams the Ustav Ustaše was published in 1932... I wasn't aware of the fact. --Wustenfuchs 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the foundation should correspond to April 20, 1929. On this date, Pavelic's group and the Macedonian nationalists signed and publicized a declaration (the Sofia Declaration, based on where the meeting occured) against the monarchy and calling for a new organization of the state (I don't currently have the text, but I've seen it before). The declaration got a huge response and made headlines in all the Yugoslavian papers. Pavelic and Gustav Percec were subsequently tried in absentia for treason and sentenced to death. Their transition to fugitives/revolutionaries is really the start of the Ustasha movement (UHRO), as the older Hrvatski domobran organization grew into the UHRO over the next couple years.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

With due respect to your recollection, without an inline source that contradicts Tomasevich, I consider 1930 should stand. Tomasevich says that Pavelic was sentenced to death in absentia in July 1929, and "About a year later (the date is uncertain) Pavelic established the Ustasha movement..." pp.31-32 of Tomasevich 2001. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The citation for anti-Serbian stragegy is incorrect -- the cited reference refers only to Artukovic's document against Jews

The article contains the f0llowing quote:

"They also publicly announced the strategy to achieve their goal:[53]

   One third of the Serbs were to be killed.
   One third of the Serbs were to be expelled (ethnically cleansed).
   One third of the Serbs were to be forcibly converted to Catholicism."

However, the citation in [53] makes no reference to any such program (but rather refers to anti-Semitic and anti-Roma statutes). This is obvious to anyone who can read Croatian or Serbian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.32.253 (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Wustenfuchs 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Zoupan (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Ustase and the Adriatic

Quoting Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 0804736154.

The meeting between Pavelic and the representative of the Italian ministry took place in Rome in mid-July 1927. Pavelic submitted a copy of the memorandum that Frank [Josip Frank, leader of the Frankovci] had just delivered to the Italian envoy in Budapest, which in several ways presaged developments in 1941. (...) the terms formulated by the Croats [meaning the Ustase] made Croatia little more than an Italian protectorate. They [the Ustase emigres] recognized Italy's dominance in the Adriatic and Italy's right to exercise its cultural influence and use the rich natural resources of the Balkans. Finally, "the Croats were ready to adjust themselves to the Italian sphere of influence both politically and economically, as well as from the military point of view." They recognized all provisions of the treaties existing at that time between Italy and Yugoslavia, thus abandoning all claim to Istra, Rijeka, Zadar, and the Adriatic islands that Italy had annexed after the First World War, containing between 300,000 and 400,000 Croats. They also promised that, contingent on their assuming power, Croatia would cede to Italy the Bay of Kotor and any Dalmatian headlands of strategic importance, as well as bases on the Dalmatian islands and the mainland, to guarantee Italy effective protection and military control of the Adriatic. Croatia would also renounce having its own navy, as long as Italy would protect the Italian coast. It would grant Italy all the concessions necessary for utilizing economic resources in Croatia as well as across the Balkans, and it would not build another seaport for a specified time not to impede the development of [the Italian port of] Rijeka (Fiume).

All these promises were highly treasonable, to Yugoslavia and even more to Croatia. For centuries, a basic component of Croatian national policy had been to maintain a grip on teh eastern shores of the Adriatic - Istra, the Croatian Littoral, and Dalmatia - to prevent the Italians from controlling the sea. Not only did the emigres promise to abandon claims to undeniably Croatian territory already in Italian hands, but they were also prepared to cede additional Croatian territory and most of Croatia's sovereign rights to their powerful western neighbor.

I've copied down this excerpt to present the basis of a couple edits I wish to enter on the Ustase agreements with Fascist Italy. In particular I will be adding a sentence or two on these agreements being "highly treasonable, to Yugoslavia and even more to Croatia", and their fundamental incompatibility with Croatian national policy. -- Director (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)