Talk:Ustaše/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Orphaned references in Ustaše

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ustaše's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "yadvashem":

• From World War II persecution of Serbs: "Croatia" (PDF). Shoah Resource Center - Yad Vashem. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
• From Franjo Tuđman: "Jasenovac" (PDF). Yad Vashem. 2007. Retrieved 26 September 2007. that altogether, about 600,000 people were murdered at Jasenovac, including Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Croats who opposed the Ustaša government. Of that number, some 25,000 of the victims were Jews, most of whom had been brought to Jasenovac before August 1942 (at which point the Germans began deporting the Jews of Croatia to Auschwitz).
• From Pogrom: Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania (RICHR) submitted to President Ion Iliescu in Bucharest on 11 November 2004.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from von Horstenau

The Steinberg citation does not support the quotation, I have therefore removed it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Steinberg referenced the same document as Trifkovic does. Read first before removing content.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

I've removed copyvio tag from here for not having any proof of copyright violation. As it is required by the US Copytight (fair use), the copyright holder is given at the end of page: COPYRIGHT 2000 THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE - CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS --Juraj Budak (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very convenient that the website has added a copyright (fair use) line at the bottom of its page in the last few days. However, Trifkovic himself is a biased commentator and will need to be attributed inline. I will sort that out. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The suspected copyvio link was reported at WP:ELN and guidance was received that it was a copyvio link. The guidance was that the linked page does not meet the "fair use" criteria because it does not "comment" on the news article by Trifkovic, it merely reproduces it. I will now report the restoration of the link for admin attention, citing L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Einstein supported Croatian Ustashi??

In 1931, Albert Einstein and Heinrich Mann drew international attention to the murders of Radić and a Croatian college professor Milan Šufflay, in which they accused the King of complicity in a published protest.[46][47][48] The appeal was addressed to the Paris-based Ligue des droits de l'homme[49] (Human Rights League) and made the front page of the New York Times on 6 May 1931.[46][47][50]

So, remnants of the Croatian Ustashi spreading their propaganda on the Wikipedia? Einstein did not address the Ligue ever. He left some comment in the Berliner Tageblatt (02/26/1931) about this event. That comment looks like

"Es ist entsetzlich zu sehen, wie die unerfahrene Jugend fehlgeleitet wird", schrieb er an das Berliner Tageblatt. "Wenn dies so weitergeht, werden wir nach einer Tyrannei der Faschisten bei einer Herrschaft des Rotten Terrors ankommen." Er glaubte, dass eine solche Herrschaft bereits in Jugoslawien ausgeloest worden sei und kritisierte die Landesregierung fuer den Mord an dem kroatischen Fuehrer, Professor Milan Sufflay, der Geschichte an der Universitaet von Zagreb gelehrt hatte.

What Einstein missed is to address the right side: the Croatian Ustashi as a coming "einer Tyrannei der Faschisten".

I do not see this event interpreted this way in any serious source dealing with Nazism and Croatian Ustashi. Apparently Croatian Ustashi paid a hefty sum of money to the New York Times to have this Einstein's political blunder advertised.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Radić nor Šufflay were "Ustashi"... --Wüstenfuchs 13:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• So, the chief Croatian Ustashi ideologist wasn't an Ustashe? C'mon! Einstein wrote something like "kroatischen Fuehrer" about Sufflay. Good point! I bet Pavelic killed Sufflay, then advertised it as a Yugoslav government crime. An old pattern of trickery practiced among Fascists and Nazis: Franco killed Mola, Hitler killed Roehm, who were Franco's and Hitler's kriegskollegen.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we please keep this in English? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Einstein wrote something like "kroatischen Fuehrer" about Sufflay.

What somebody ommitts to realize is: German word Führer means leader, guide. in very broad sense. cultural/intelectual leader, political leader, turist guide etc. So, both Radić and Šufflay might be considered as "kroatischen Fuehrer"

• Fuehrer? Yes I do know the word meaning. Sufflay was a Fuehrer in the Nazi parlance, for being the Croatian Ustashi chief ideologist. This is my statement. That time Einstein was ignorant and naive. Then, how the Croatian Ustashi propaganda manipulated Einstein's ignorance and naivety? Just two good explanations:
  
  • Theosophical Quarterly Magazine, 1931 to 1932 by Helene Petrovna Blavatsky, Kessinger Publishing, Apr 1, 2003, p. 167-8

Einstein branched out with a widely published pronunciamento against the Jugoslav government, accusing it of the murder of Professor Milan Sufflay, a Croatian, -- without a shadow of proof. The mob, reading such stuff, of course, concludes that there must be something in it, because Einstein says so, - although, if you were to ask who 'Einstein' is, in addition to a much-advertised name, I suspect that most of them would guess all the way from 'A famous American who discovered the North Pole' to 'A French tennis player who nearly beat Tilden'.

• • Einstein: a life by Denis Brian; J. Wiley, Apr 20, 1996 page 220

He believed that such a reign ('Tyrannei der Faschisten' - my insertion in this quote) had already been unleashed in Yugoslavia and blamed that country's government for the murder of a Croatian leader, Professor Milan Sufflay, who had taught history at Zagreb University.

• • As per Berliner Tageblatt (02/26/1931) Einstein was 'informed' of the Šufflay murder by a Croatian journalist (turned to be an Ustashi propagandist), Slavko Cihlar.
  • What happened after? From "Blood And Homeland": Eugenics And Racial Nationalism in Central And Southeast Europe, 1900-1940 by Marius Turda, Central European University Press, 2007 p. 108

Shortly afterwards, students from the Croatian University Club Association produced an English-language pamphlet, ... In such a state, the "European culture" of Croatia and the Croatians was to be replaced by Serbian suzerainty, in which "orthodox, byzantine, oriental-asiatic and oldturc (sic) political and social traditions" had been subsumed into a system "not only contrary but also odious to European culture". The pamphlet explained that Sufflay ... an intellectual who had "understood better than anyone else the abyss which separates European culture from the Balkan Byzantine region".

--68.98.165.98 (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This part of that paragraph is WP:SYNTH here, I've reduced it to the one proper mention, and moved the rest to Milan Šufflay. The stuff about how the Ustaša supporters took advantage of the murder might not be improper synthesis, and it can be included here, assuming it is verifiable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• You are recycling 81 year old Croatian Ustashi propaganda. It is visible from that Berliner Tageblatt issue that Einstein did not address Yugoslav King, rather Yugoslav government. It's apparently a political blunder of the great scientist who blindly sidelined with Ustashi. Without knowing the killer, how we ever could know the killer's intentions and goals? Dennis Brian correctly explained Einstein's mistake. Croatian historian S. Goldstein wrote that Sufflay's killer was never found. That's the only fact that shall go into this article. Reading some works about non-existent letter 'signed' by Mann and Einstein I've learned that 'Mann' was Tomas Mann, then Heinrich Mann the writer (!), then that the 'letter' was sent to some German League etc. Einstein never communicate any other newspaper in 1931, except the Berliner Tageblatt. Entering a sensationalism and a propaganda here makes no sense.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I cannot work out what you are trying to say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

During the 6 January Dictatorship, the King was the government, so that's moot. Šufflay was a prominent Party of Rights figure known to have been persecuted by KoSCS earlier, and whose murder was a notable event that which clearly helped radicalize the party, and those radicals in turn became the Ustashe. It's fair to mention it, it's not propaganda in and of itself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that you, Joy, know what are you talking about. There are three branches of the Government: judicial, legislative, and executive. Yugoslav King dissolved the Parliament and banned the political parties.So, he dissolved the legislative part of the Yugoslav government. That way he did not become the Government. Arbitrary interpretation of the Berliner Tageblatt Einsetein's article cannot be used as a reference here. What Einstein meant when he addressed the Yugoslav Government, is not up to you to elaborate. Moreover, the neutrality demanded by Wikipedia, requires mentioning that neither Yugoslav Government nor the King ever took the responsibility for this murder, nor the killer was ever identified. The solution here is: to completely remove the story about Sufflay's death or to provide complete insight into the death circumstances. You are stubbornly recycling Croatian Ustashi propaganda, contrary to the Wikipedia standards.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that Radic was murdered with the passive agreement of the King. It is, however, also possible that the Radicals planned it, or that the murderer really did work alone. In Croatia the "official line" (taught in schools) is that it was some sort of a pan-Serbian conspiracy. The fact is, however, that the Serbian Radicals and the royal faction were also often in bitter conflict. To put it in simple terms, the Radicals basically wanted to declare that Yugoslavs are really all Serbs, whereas the King advocated a more unitarianist, "Yugoslavist" policy.

Not to ramble.. it is indeed a breach of NPOV to in any way suggest that the King had something to do with the murder of Radic, that's Croatian nationalist nonsense (without a source explicitly saying so). That Einstein advocated the cause of the oppressed Croatian people is true, but that has very little or nothing to do with the Ustase. The connection is very tenuous and can be seen as misleading "see! Einstein too understood how evil the Serbs are and how they made this bunch of poor Croats go crazy.." -- Director (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The stuff about Einstein and Radić was already removed from the article, and you're both off base. But, to avoid any further allegations of impropriety, I've reduced the wording to the bare minimum. (Cue the complaints about the problem not being big enough to be called an "international affair" in 3, 2, 1, ...) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem's not big enough to be called an "international affair".. -- Director (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm*. How often did the New York Times relay criticism of a Nobel-winning scientist about the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1931? Heck, how often did they report about the country at all? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with the wording, I just couldn't resist... apologies. Reflex I guess. :) -- Director (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, my sarcasm detector was off. Next time, tag it SCNR. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• • No, Joy [shallot], you did not remove Einstein. You just masked the same. You wrote, Šufflay himself had been murdered in Yugoslavia in 1931, allegedly by proponents of the regime, causing an international affair.[27][28][29]. There was no an international affair at all; that's what Croatian Ustashi wanted. Your [27] reference says Einstein accuse Yugoslav rulers .... All what you removed is in Cohen's book recycled on pages 10-11 and you left Cohen referenced here ([29]). Therefore, you are still exploiting Einstein's political blunder. --68.98.165.98 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I just can't believe this. You yourself have quoted a series of references about how international the affair was, citing American and German sources. One of your quotes above literally says it was "a widely published pronunciamento". This topic is generally notable information, and Einstein's involvement clearly made it so - regardless of how you want to assess it - it doesn't make it go away. If you want to replace the existing references with better ones, please go ahead and make a request. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• • You are slipping into misinterpretations of the quotes: by no means "a widely published pronunciamento" can be interpreted as an "international affair". Not a single government in the world ever intervened on behalf of Croatian Ustashi that time. Moreover, later Kingdom of Yugoslavia took legal steps on the international scene to almost destroy Ustashi. Only Mussolini provided a limited support to them. At the same time, he put a number of Ustash in the Lipari concentration camp where many died. The problem is here, not notability, rather an incomplete and arbitrary interpretation of Einstein who thought that Yugoslav government practiced Faschism. It was quite opposite: Yugoslav government was fighting a Fascist-like movement which was a proven fact. So, you are breaking two Wikipedia rules: factual accuracy and NPOV.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "international" is an adjective that does not imply only formal relations between country governments. But hey, it's no problem to rephrase it even further... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your rephrase is yet another form of the same nonsense. The only proper solution is to remove Einstein out of propaganda or give the correct explanation of his political blunder. You have to remove complete sentence: "Šufflay himself had been murdered in Yugoslavia in 1931, allegedly by proponents of the regime, causing an internationally publicized affair". There was no affair, for that propaganda is not an affair, particularly not international.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already told you once, it doesn't hurt to repeat it once again: feel free to submit an edit request with better references. The mention of Šufflay's untimely demise is neither nonsense or propaganda in and of itself, the event provides proper context to the mention of him in relation to this organization of which he was not a member. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ustasamilitia.jpg

Please see commons:File talk:Ustasamilitia.jpg. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

National Liberation War collage

I'm looking for a decent photo of Ustaše troops for inclusion in the main infobox image of the Yugoslav Front. The image ought to have good licensing, and it ought to have been taken during wartime (1941-45). -- Director (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Source

Does anyone have any objections to me using Paul Mojzes (Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century) as a source in this article? 23 editor (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I would just suggest that you take into account that his academic specialisation is religious studies, not genocide per se. I wouldn't use him for material regarding the Ustase genocide of Serbs in preference to someone else with a more directly relevant academic specialisation, but I don't see a problem with having him in the mix. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. 23 editor (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Islam and Catholicism?

I'm a bit concerned with this edit. It removed the referenced claim that Ustasha persecuted and murdered non-Catholics and replaced it with the unreferenced claim that they "declared Catholic and Muslim faith as religions of Croatian people". The latter claim can still be found in the article today. Do we have a reference for it? AxelBoldt (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

not only is it now grammatically very clunky, but if the deleted bit was from the reference it is highly problematic that other words were substituted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Communist bias

The Ustaše were not a fascist and terrorist organization. They were a right wing nationalist organization with a military wing. Just as the Yugoslav Communist Party was a left wing organization with a military wing. Years of Communist propaganda are still influencing, and distorting, reporting of the Ustase.101.98.209.132 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources for that? If you want to be taken seriously, bring reliable sources and register an account. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Failure to mention Croatian Civilian deaths in NDH

"The number of Croats killed in the NDH is estimated to be approximately 200,000, either by the Croatian fascist regime, as members of the armed resistance, or as Axis collaborators"

- Bogoljub Kočović (2005). Sahrana jednog mita: žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji [Burial of a Myth: World War II Victims in Yugoslavia] (in Serbian). Otkrovenje. ISBN 978-86-83353-39-2. Retrieved 18 October 2011.

- Philip J. Cohen; David Riesman (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 106–111. ISBN 978-0-89096-760-7. Retrieved 17 October 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Promoted genocide

This article is obviously written by a left wing opponent of the Ustase. Even allowing for that bias, isn't it going too far to say that it "promoted genocide against Serbs, Jews and Romani people". Not even the Nazi party had a policy of genocide.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone is "left-wing" compared to the Ustase, its hardly "bias" not to adopt their political point of view (we're talking Catholic-fundamentalist, ultraconservative fascists). But no single person wrote this article, or even the majority of it (myself least of all)... As regards your objection, I can only point out that "promoting" genocide does not mean they had an official public "policy" of genocide. But if anyone in occupied Europe did - they did: officials such as Mile Budak publicly proclaimed things like "we'll expel one-third, convert one-third, and kill one-third [of the Serbs]" [1]. However, quite apart from "promotion", they actually did do genocide.

And they were laughably incompetent as well... They're really, just.. just awful :). -- Director (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

On a sidenote - Budak's quote alone would bring down a hypothetical modern-day genocide case at the Hague, since the legal definition adopted by international law requires extermination to be the goal of large scale actions in order for them to be defined as genocide. And since Budak seemed to think a third could be assimilated and another third expelled, extermination was in his mind only a part of the solution. One third of the solution, to be exact. Unlike in Germany, for example, where nobody even thought about "assimilating" Jews and turning them into Germans, or even allowing them leave the country (at least not once the war and the concentration camp business were in full swing). This stems from the core idea of their respective nationalisms - while Germans considered Jews subhuman on a genetic level, Ustaše knew deep down that the only significant difference between Croats and Serbs was their religion. Unlike the Nazis, Ustaše's ideology did not bring science and genetics into the mix, so it was merely medieval thinking applied in the age of firearms. Or in other words, they used a backdrop of modernity to settle what they perceived as centuries old scores. Which is kind of interesting since it pays the way for paranoia in later decades (very much like the paranoia and obsession with loyalty that happened in Spain after their own 15th-century expulsions and forced conversions of Jews - which, again, by modern standards would not qualify as genocide). As for "promoting genocide" - sounds like an awkward phrasing. Either they committed genocide or they didn't. It's not like they ran advertising campaigns for it. Timbouctou (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, like in Germany, no one in NDH regime thought about "assimilating" Jews, or even allowing them leave the country. It is a false analogy.

We must also be aware that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted after the war. It defines what is genocide.

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
   (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

A definition can be and must be applied to acts and doings that happened even before the definition existed. And by reading the definition it is clear what genocide is. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Also, like in Germany, no one in NDH regime thought about "assimilating" Jews, or even allowing them leave the country." - Jews were pretty low on Ustaše's list of priorities, which I think is a well known fact. They couldn't give a toss about Jews, as they were too busy obsessing about Serbs. Regarding the useless wording of the convention - yes, it is phrased so that anyone can claim just about any act of violence to be a case of "genocide", but it is the courts which interpret actual cases, and they - as we have very recently found out in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case, are sticklers for definitions. Whatever happened in Vukovar in 1991 and in Krajina in 1995 was deemed not to be genocide, precisely because the element of extermination was lacking. Bottom line, it is a completely political issue, with legalese thrown in just to make schoolchildren believe they live in a fair world. Although, not so fair for Armenians in Turkey or native Americans or Muslims in India or Tibetans in China, or Roma pretty much anywhere, etc. Not to mention dropping nuclear bombs on densely populated cities in Japan or bombing the hell out of Dresden or Coventry. Timbouctou (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou, you can only be joking by saying that Budaks plan of killing a third, expel a third and convert a third is not genocidal plan. Maybe those Serbs should even thank him for sparing one third that ends up denied of their existence unless forcebly converted, and with the other 2/3 of their fellows disappeared :) Nice thoughts. FkpCascais (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And yes, "promoting genocide" is perfectly possible. Your theory how either you commit genocide, or don't, doesn't eliminate the possibility of planning and promoting a genocidal plan. FkpCascais (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Timouctou What is wrong with you? More than 20 000 Jews were killed or better say exterminated in the NDH. NDH had Anti-Semitic laws. What you said is horrible.

So we should go with your definition of genocide instead? And what, just ignore the definition that is written in the Convention that deals with genocide?

What happened in Vukovar or in Krajina can not be compared to the crimes committed by the Ustaše. I hope you realize that. Find and read a court decision that has convicted someone. The issue in the recent case with Croatia and Serbia is that it could not be proven that Serbia or Croatia committed genocide. The court decided that the country Serbia and the country Croatia were not responsible, better to say did not commit the crime of genocide. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@What have I said exactly? All I said was that Budak's statement - reiterated and quoted ad infinitum for the last 50 or so years - would probably be the main reason for dismissing a hypothetical genocide lawsuit before the only modern court that deals with genocides. It says nothing about the events that occurred but says a lot about the elusive nature of the term which not even scholars can agree on. "Genocide" is whatever anyone wants it to be. And so are "ethnic cleansing" and "pogrom" and "massacre" and "war rape". That's merely a fact of life. And spare me the righteous indignation, will you. As for "promoting genocide" - still pretty vague, isn't it. Did Nazis "promote genocide"? Did they have posters "promoting genocide"? Television ads? Radio shows? Because AFAIK they made a pretty big point in keeping the "final solution" secret from the public. I assume Ustaše behaved similarly, so this wording is pretty awkward and there are other more useful verbs to describe what they did. In fact amid all the killings and exterminations of the 20th century I can't think of a single case of "promoting genocide", save for maybe in Australia where the government once issued actual licenses for killing Aboriginal people as if they were game to be hunted in the wilderness. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You know nothing Timbouctou. You are wrong. The International Court of Justice is not the only court that "deals with genocides". Also international law does not work as Anglo-saxon law that is practiced in America and UK, it is different. Genocide is a strictly defined term and every lawyer in the world knows what genocide is. It is a shame that only lawyers know the definition of genocide. Your arguments sound like they are coming from Joe Sixpack. I have presented the definition of genocide that is universally accepted. Something that the international community has agreed upon and now you come here as a greater authority lecturing us what is genocide and what is not. Be honest and say that you are right-wing and that you are trying to defend or at least relativise the crimes that have been committed by the Ustaše. But you will never be honest, because deep in your hearth you know that Ustaše were wrong and evil. You are presenting yourself as a walking encyclopedia, you know everything about anything. That is funny. If you are trying to make a point present us with some evidence, ok? Your opinions are irrelevant. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is "universally accepted" and the only one lecturing here is you. Actually claiming otherwise is rather idiotic considering how every single day one can turn on TV and watch mass murders as they unfold live. Is bombing civilian targets a war crime? Depends. Is killing people with drones a crime? Depends. Is raping a woman a crime? Probably. Is raping 10,000 women a war crime? Nobody knows. I could go on. Also, I find it interesting how you are entirely unable participating in a discussion without trying to guess which political party and in which country I vote for. And spare me the idiocy of your righteous indignation and the fight against "relativisation". Only an imbecile might think that in the 21st century intentionally vague terms such as "genocide" are even remotely definable. We can't even define terms such as "torture", "enemy fighter", "war rape", "cultural genocide" (and all other newly coined "-cides" for that matter), etc. And the phrase "promoting genocide" is hardly meaningful still. But hey this started as merely a side note, remember? Timbouctou (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nazis did promote genocide, not as "genocide", but in other ways. Marking the houses and shops of Jews isn't promoting it? Their plan of eliminating Jews from Germany and other parts of Europe was secret? I do understand your theory of relativization, pretty much ends up the way that winners dictate history and have double standards for certain actions depending on who executed them, but I still have a feeling we are relativizing too much here. FkpCascais (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well AFAIK the "final solution" plan actually was a secret. It's not like they advertised their extermination camps to the general public, nor did Hitler win elections by promising mass extermination. What he promised were jobs. Nazis even went to some effort to burn camp records once they realised they were losing the war. I believe Ustaše did the same at Jasenovac, and so did the Bosnian Serbs after Srebrenica, digging up primary mass graves and redistributing remains to other smaller sites around the area because they knew the massacres might get them in trouble. As for the general antisemitism/nationalism/racism - sure, it was promoted alright in all these cases, but then the term to use is "promoting anti-semitism", not "promoting genocide". This is a slippery slope, just like the term "collaboration" after 1945 was used for pretty much whatever any prosecutor could think of. Btw in recent times in Croatia we replaced that term with "war profiteering" in relation to the 1991-95 war. And almost no-one was ever convicted for it, precisely because Balkan tribes are big on words they hardly understand. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Any content-specific changes being proposed here? -- Director (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the phrase "promoted genocide" in the lede, for which a reference is given (Tomasevich 2001, pp. 351–352.), is not mentioned in the reference and frankly, sounds stupid. On page 351 he talks about corruption of the Ustaše, and on 352 Tomasevich says "They inaugurated genocidal policies against the Serbian and Jewish populations." That makes sense. "Promoting genocide" does not. Genocide is not a product one can promote, and if one believes it is, then pretty much anything could be construed as promotion of something or the other. Also, if they "promoted genocide" then the implication is they were not involved in committing it per se. Which is also wrong. Timbouctou (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with "genocidal policies" instead of "promoting genocide". FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As someone who is good can promote gender equality, someone who is evil can promote genocide. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but "someone who is good" is not responsible for the overall state of gender equality, therefore all he/she can do is promote it. The Ustaše on the other hand were responsible for genocide (because it was solely their decision whether it would happen or not), so they did much more than just "promote" it. Murderers don't promote murders - they commit them. And beauty queens don't bring about world peace - they merely promote it. Timbouctou (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

While one most certainly can "promote" genocide ('promotion': the act of furthering the growth or development of something), and the Ustase certainly did do so [2], I agree the formulation is weird. I'm fine with replacing "promoted genocide" with "inaugurated genocidal policies", per the source. -- Director (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"implemented genocidal policies"? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording. Timbouctou (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is ok with that. But now a question is implying itself: Why were you against "promoting genocide", in the first place? --Tuvixer (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A) It's not used by any of the references given, and B) it sounds idiotic. Timbouctou (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong description for picture

The book "Genocide in Satellite Croatia" by Edmond Paris indicates that the picture with the caption: "Serb civilians forced to convert to Catholicism by the Ustaša in Glina." , was actually a massacre. The description in Edmond's book is "Famous massacre of the Serbs, by the Ustashi, in the Serbian Orthodox Church in Glina on August 21, 1941. Only one survived - Ljubo Jadnak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes Maestro Williams (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No edit warring

There is no edit war and neither of us violated 3RR as far as I can tell.I drop my objection to User:23 editor's edits. Thanks to all for your proactive involvement. Quis separabit? 19:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thought so, thanks for your cooperation. 23 editor (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What? Are you sane? What a drama queen :/ I was just trying to help. Sorry. :/ --Tuvixer (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I really appreciate your help, @Tuvixer. You may have stopped one of us from inadvertently violating 3RR. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I thought we were on the same page. What's the problem? 23 editor (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing as far as I know. Are you referring to 7 June message (above) to @Tuvixer? I was just trying to be polite and defuse an uncomfortable situation. Quis separabit? 17:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert me when you clearly stated above that we are in agreement? 23 editor (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I indicated in my talk page comment above to @Tuvixer that "I drop my objection to User:23 editor's edits." I screwed up. I may have been thinking of something else. I did/do oppose the particular text in question as "irrelevant hagiography" in re this article. It is definitely suited to articles related to the Partisans, of course. I apologize for misleading you. I get why you're angry; I would be as well. It must have seemed like a backstabbing. That was not my intent. Just a screw-up, due to losing my bearings amidst all the reverting and re-reverting. Apologies, again. Quis separabit? 01:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tranlsation Error

On the side, the article translates the phrase "Za poglavnika i dom spremni" which means "ready for the founder and fatherland". The article is protected so I cannot edit it by myself. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.15.74 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Ustaša" as derogatory term

"After World War II, the Ustaša movement was split into several organizations and there is presently no political or paramilitary movement that claims its legacy as their "successor". The term "ustaše" is today used as (derogatory) term for Croatian ultranationalism."

The term "ustaša" is not derogatory among Croats and many ultranationalist like to call themselves that. There is no dispute about this. It is a derogatory term for Croats in neighboring Serbia and parts of Bosnia.

Please fix this. 77.46.236.191 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is rife with use (and I would go so far as to say abuse) of punctuation and vague terms to imply a clear anti-Ustash bias. While I don't expect anyone to condone or support Ustash and other ultra-nationalist movements and groups, I do expect them to respect the neutrality of Wikipedia when discussing any topic (even topics one might find personally offensive or disagree with ideologically). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.162.0 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand your view. Myself I'm wondering about the naming of the article. The article name is now about the members of a movement. In every other instance I've come across it would be more natural to start with an article about the movement itself. It would seem more natural to start with an article about marxism (or buddhism), instead of marxists (or buddhists)… If you see the point.--Paracel63 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

These articles are quite difficult to keep NPOV, especially when there are a range of strong views. Many editors aren't willing to deal with the conflict that goes along with editing these types of articles. Paracel63, are you suggesting the article should be at "Ustaše organisation" or something similar? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the follow-up. No, I think the article should be at Ustaša – Croatian Revolutionary Movement or simply Ustaša, which would be more in line with the infobox. This would also better classify the article as being about a movement and not about its supporters. At least I think we can define the movement as being called Ustaša. From the iw-links I see a lot of articles named in tone with the enwp article, but I think maybe some of them are "copycats". The naming "Ustaša" would also be in line with some other encyclopedias, like ne.se, britannica.com, snl.no and denstoredanske.dk. larousse.fr goes with the "followers" naming, though (I'm still not convinced their solution is the right one). Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Joy and I have discussed this briefly in the past. In terms of what the common name of the "organisation" is (as distinct from the members of that "organisation"). I believe this article should be about the organisation, so we just need to determine what the common name of the organisation is in reliable sources. A quick check of Tomasevich indicates he used "Ustasha movement", which, I take it, is the Anglicised version of "Ustaša movement". I think for clarity reasons around Croatian grammar, we should put "movement" after "Ustaša" to ensure editors and readers alike understand this is not about the members, but about the movement itself. I don't think the formal title is needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In English, the distinction between the Croatian plural and singular is way too obscure to matter to most readers. The use of the small anglicization "sh" instead of "š" could make sense, but I don't think anyone's done a proper analysis of secondary sources to figure out if it's common enough. Either way, it doesn't help the pronunciation much because it's still not "you-stash..." but "ooh-stash...".

I'm not particularly swayed by the argument that any of this somehow treats the 'supporters' unfairly. It was not an externally-imposed moniker, they called themselves like that, and the reliable sources call them like that. Not unlike the Cossacks or the Chetniks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Gypsies"

The second sentence of the first paragraph says that they killed a lot of "Roma (Gypsies)". There is no need for that "(Gypsies)" and I would like to see it gone, but the article is protected. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:4B40:A54:0:0:0:4 (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

IPA for what?

The article starts with "(pronounced [ûstaʃe])", but if you click the link, the û character doesn't even appear in IPA for Serbo Croation. It's also not part of IPA for English. I don't know what to replace it with. Shouldn't the `pron` macro validate the characters during a save?

But, it does appear at Help:IPA/Serbo-Croatian. Tone signs are added to vowels. The Help:IPA/Serbo-Croatian page gives examples for vowel "e", but those can be also added to "u". Vanjagenije (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of pejorative term Gypsy used for Roma

Undid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ustaše&type=revision&diff=810104517&oldid=806479229] that undid my removal of the pejorative term Gypsy for Roma. Pl do not undo without discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ustaše treatment of converted Jews and Orthodox Serbs

The following statement in the article is incorrect, to say the least: "The Ustaše persecuted Jews who practiced Judaism but authorized Jewish converts to Catholicism to be recognized as Croatian citizens and be given honorary Aryan citizenship that allowed them to be reinstated at the jobs from which they had previously been separated.[36]"

As Ivo Goldstein demonstrates in "The Holocaust in Croatia", many converted Jews were sent to Ustaše and other concentration camps and exterminated, thus conversion did not give them "honorary Aryan citizenship", and certainly did not protect them. This needs to be corrected.

Additionally, as Goldstein points out, while after they stripped them of their citizenship and all other rights, the Ustashe allowed some Jews to apply for Aryan rights, this required bribes, or connections to prominent Ustashe, the whole process was purposefully highly arbitrary, only 2% of Zagreb Jews were granted Aryan rights, and even those with Aryan rights were sent to concentration camps, and under the Ustashe 75-80% of Jews were exterminated.

Also I have not seen any evidence of this claim: "The Ustaše altered their stance towards the Orthodox faith in August 1941 when the NDH allowed those Orthodox Serbs who held no political association with Serbia to be permitted to attain Croatian citizenship and be declared Aryans"

On the contrary, as Tomasevich documents, the Ustaše practiced forced conversion of Orthodox Serbs, but even conversion to Catholicism did not protect them, since many converted Serbs were also sent to concentration camps and otherwise killed. Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ustaše. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5kwrEj3LA?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577939_7/Croatia.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577939_7/Croatia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031151251/http://guskova.ru/misc/balcan/2004-04-22e to http://guskova.ru/misc/balcan/2004-04-22e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Point of view

This article is atrocious Serbian propagandha. Ustashe weren`t clerical fascist. Many muslims were Ustashe. Also orthodox Christians west of the Drina river who emigrated to USA, expressed Croatian indentity on Ellis island until 1918 when they were forcefully ordered to express Serbian indentity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.233.127 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2017

The article already mentions Muslims, and I don't see how USA immigration has anything to do with this article. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). BytEfLUSh | Talk! 23:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

He is right, the article is atrociously riddled with propaganda and rather dubious assertions. But keep it that way, at the present stage that's better than making it appear neutral. --105.3.170.116 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@188.252.233.127's comments are illiterate, unsourced rhetoric (for lack of a better word). @105.3.170.116's comment is nothing but an empty soundbite; IP cannot explain how this closely-monitored (by natives of many nations, including Croatia) is "atrociously riddled with propaganda and rather dubious assertions", and the nonsense from both IPs is best ignored, howevermuch their illiterate scrawls demean this encyclopaedia. @BytEfLUSh got it right. Quis separabit? 20:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Name

Maybe a move to Ustashe or Ustasha is warranted judging by English-language usage and the article name of the fellow Chetniks? To clarify, in Serbo-Croatian Ustaša is in singular and Ustaše in plural; the former in English usage is often used specifically for the organization, government, policies, and so forth.

Here are some sources, monographs on the Ustaša or World War II in Yugoslavia or the Holocaust, which use "Ustashe":

• David E. Oprava (1997). The Causes and Consequences of Ustashe Fascism: Genocide in Yugoslavia 1941-1945 and 1991-1995. Southern Connecticut State University.
• Bosko S. Vukcevich (1990). Diverse forces in Yugoslavia: 1941-1945. Authors Unlimited. ISBN 978-1-55666-053-5.
• Barry M. Lituchy (6 July 2006). Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: analyses and survivor testimonies. Jasenovac Research Institute. ISBN 978-0-9753432-0-3.
• D. Stone (22 February 2013). The Holocaust, Fascism and Memory: Essays in the History of Ideas. Springer. pp. 196–. ISBN 978-1-137-02953-9.
• Paul R. Bartrop; Michael Dickerman (15 September 2017). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 666–. ISBN 978-1-4408-4084-5.
• Tomasevich, Jozo (1978). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: The Ustashe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Other works that use "Ustasha" and "Ustashas":

• Jozo Tomasevich (1969). Yugoslavia During the Second World War. University of California Press.
• Jozo Tomasevich (October 2002). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7924-1.
• Rory Yeomans (2015). The Utopia of Terror: Life and Death in Wartime Croatia. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-58046-545-8.
• Rory Yeomans (April 2013). Visions of Annihilation: The Ustasha Regime and the Cultural Politics of Fascism, 1941-1945. University of Pittsburgh Pre. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-0-8229-7793-3.
• Raphael Israeli (12 July 2017). The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945. Taylor & Francis. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-1-351-48403-9.
• Aleksa Djilas (1991). The Contested Country: Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution, 1919-1953. Harvard University Press. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-674-16698-1.
• Gordana Uzelac (1 January 2006). The Development of the Croatian Nation: An Historical and Sociological Analysis. Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 978-0-7734-5791-1.
• Nevenko Bartulin (12 November 2013). The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia: Origins and Theory. BRILL. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-90-04-26282-9.

Any thoughts? Feel free to add more sources.--Zoupan 10:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm convinced. I'll move the article to "Ustashe". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Because I didn't find an RM discussion in the archives, I went ahead and made the move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I support this move. There is no need to have an article using title with foreign-language diacritics when there is a widely used English-language version of the name. Well spotted Zoupan. FkpCascais (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I think this was a bit quick (suggested and decided on in less than a day) and one-sided. There are plenty of high-quality sources that use Ustase with or without the diacritic. Ramet (numerous pubs), Bernd Jürgen Fischer and Lemkin are examples of that, along with several dictionaries of modern history and the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The title should be put to a vote, not altered unilaterally. 23 editor (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, nothing done is undoable. Start an RM if you think it's warranted. Right now, consensus is 3-to-2 in favor of the move, but that certainly doesn't mean that the result of an RM ould be the same. However, all should bear in mind that if there's an accepted English name for an article subject, EnglishWikipedia is biased in favor of it. Non-English names are generally accepted only when there is no accepted English-language name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ustasha - Ustaša / Ustashe - Ustaše

Before you name the article "Ustashe" you should know that the official name of the political party UHRO was "Ustasha – Croatian Revolutionary Movement". Ustaša "Ustasha" is singular, Ustaše "Ustashe" is just the plural of Ustaša. --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I know that this was discussed recently, but I have even heard people using "Ustashi" in the English language. --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the group calls itself; the article should be named after the most common name in use in English. Other names may be mentioned in the article itself as aliases/other names. byteflush _Talk 20:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Was the Ustashe "racist"?

An editor is removing "racist" from the description in the lede, claiming that the source cited -- the Britannica entry -- does not support it. In fact, Britannica says:

To make their state more purely Croatian, the ustaše set about exterminating its Serb, Jewish, and Gypsy inhabitants with a brutality that shocked even the Germans and occasionally obliged the Italians to intervene. [3]

An organization which is dedicated to ethnic cleansing by killing Serbs, Jews and Roma is a racist organization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Books results for "Ustashe racist" and "Ustashe racism" indicate that the Ustashe's description as racist is correct. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

While they were clearly racist and xenophobic, I see little value in describing them as such in an encyclopedia, given that racism is a prejudice and not an ideology. Who were they racist towards? Jews? Yes, but that is self-evident given that they took part in their extermination. Serbs? No, Croats and Serbs are both European/Caucasian/white, and in any event, Serbs aren't a race. Thus, I don't see any point in describing them as racist. 23 editor (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of it would not be a bad idea. Remove it if you think it would give a better outlook to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Use by Serbian nationalists" section

The "Use by Serbian nationalists" section seems extremely sloppy and biased as it stands. It seems a blanket attempt to whitewash Croatian fascist warcrimes. Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat agree - it should be trimmed down and probably added to the (currently empty) Legacy section. In the current form it may look like white-washing, but it should be mentioned since the modern use of "Ustaše" by nationalists is notable. byteflush _Talk 04:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Ustashe never received massive support

Regarding that, the citation is Philip J. Cohen, a Serbophobe who wrote his book for propaganda reasons. He provides very bad research and very bad sources, and I believe he only wrote that book to justify anti-Serbian sentiment in the Clinton administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomislav2 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

Some of the things on this thread have no citations. I'd like to add a citation needed to some things here. Tomislav2 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Shouldn't this article be put under the category of stereotypes, since Croats are often stereotyped as Ustashe? How about adding the Chetniks article to the category of stereotypes? 24.239.62.235 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Massive support

The article mentions two times the same sentence: "However, the Ustaše never received massive support." (the first time without the comma). Someone already asked for clarification of this statement and I would suggest its complete removal. Support by whom? What are the proportions of the wanted massive support? Who counted the number of supporters? They were in the power and in the first years the opposition principally consisted of those that were doomed to be lower races. Its a bit like saying that the Nazi movement did not have massive support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.27.158 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020

Category:Fascist organizations should be changed to Category:Fascist parties, it is more appropriate and it is also the original category. -- 177.207.53.191 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Interstellarity (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

Category:Fascist organizations should be changed to Category:Fascist parties, because apart from the fact that it was the original category, the Ustase was a political party, as such it is more appropriate to place it on a category specifically for political parties. -- 177.206.210.85 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ustase were both a fascist terrorist organisation and a political party. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Technically every political party is an organization as well, but since the Ustase was also a political party, it is thus more appropriate to place it the Fascist parties category, which is specifically for political parties. -- 177.206.210.85 (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Fascist organizations should be changed to Category:Fascist parties, first because it is more appropriate, as it is a category created specifically for political parties, which the Ustase was one, and second, it is the original category, a user decided to create another category and started to add articles to it including this one, eventually it was decided to diffuse the category, some articles returned to Category:Fascist parties, while others didn't, given the context, I think it is appropriate to change it. -- 179.181.201.230 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this narrower categorisation. The Ustashas were an emigre movement, terrorist organisation and later a political party. It is better to use the wider Fascist organisations category as it covers all their activities. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Spelling, sh versus š, Ustashe versus Ustaše

What is the rationale for intermittently using either "Ustashe" or "Ustaše"?

Unless a better idea appears, I propose always using the natively-correct spelling "Ustaše", with the common phonetic approximation "Ustashe" being mentioned once, in the lead. Notrium (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The move was premature and done without much consultation. 23 editor (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I also use Ustaše, although I note quite a few of the reliable sources use the anglicised version. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

Category:Fascist parties should be added, as the Ustase was a Fascist party it belongs on the category. -- 186.213.11.102 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Legacy - In post-independence Croatia

@Peacemaker - I cited multiple articles by the official Croatian news agency (HINA), mainstream Croatian media, the UK Guardian, Israeli media, etc. I will check if I missed any and re-post Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have restored some of your material. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Some seem fine, others I’m not sure are RS. Balkan Insight is a good source for modern events. Some of the Croatian news sites seem like tabloids that can be over sensational and bend info and worded more to catch attention than take a neutral stance. OyMosby (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

G'day Thhhommmasss. You posted a number of uncited sentences along with the cited material. PLease don't post uncited material on a page as controversial as this one. We have enough trouble with dubious sources here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 in your revert you had mentioned Thhhommmasss used unreliable sources. However some of them like Balkan Insight seem fine and RS. However some of the other ones I’m not sure are RS and good of conteoversial subject like this page. OyMosby (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually my edit summary said "can you only post the material that is cited to reliable sources please". I was referring to the uncited material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, I thought you were implying that all of their included sources were not RS. OyMosby (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the quality of the sourcing in this article needs serious work, but my main issue with that inclusion was the uncited material. There should be no uncited material in an article like this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To everyone in this thread, the picture of teenagers wearing Ustashe symbols, is there a source for this and it being taken at a Thompson concert? Would it not be more fitting to have a picture of Thompson himself instead of this picture? OyMosby (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: - the Croatian Church asked the Austrian Church for permission for the Croatian Church to conduct a Mass at Bleiburg, same as they've done in the past. The Austrian Church never conducted masses, nor is their any indication that the Croatian Church asked it do do so. Here is an article from Vecernji list, which makes it further clear that the Austrian Church forbade the Croat Church to conduct a Mass: https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/koruska-crkva-zabranila-misu-u-bleiburgu-hbk-ogorcen-1305582 Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. The original Total Croatia News article did not specify the Croatian Church, however, although my Serb-Croatian is very basic, the Vecernji article seems to back your edit. I wish that there were more English articles so readers can delve into them. OyMosby (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed in your edits, whenever the phrase “Za Dom Spreni” is mentioned, it is prefixed with “the Ustahse salute” though it seems repetitive in an Ustashe article. It should be mentioned if the subject actually calls for its use. For example the bishop who asked for the salute to be used by the Croatian army, did he refer to it as an Ustashe salute. Because there are different implications when including Ustashe or not in the sentence. The difference of wether the soccer player or bishop was actively supportive of Ustashe ideology or claiming the salute to be something else to them. For example the article states the Bishop asking for the salute but didn’t mention Ustashe or that the Bishop supported Ustashe. (Even if he secretly does, the article doesn’t phrase ir this way from what I can interpret) We should make sure we are clear. I’m not that educated on the background of those players so that’s why I ask you. OyMosby (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That is like someone in Germany saying that "Sieg Heil" (the equivalent of "Za dom sprmeni") means something different to them, therefore they can use it and advocate its usage. In fact, unlike "Za dom spremni" which appeared with the Ustashe, there are references to "Sieg Heil" use going back to the 19th century. Not to mention that the Swastika is an old Celtic symbol, and the Nazi salute goes back to the Romans. I propose that those Croat nationalists who were arrested at Bleiburg with fascist symbols and for making the Nazi salute, do that again, but next time claim that these mean something different to them, and certainly the Austrian courts will not again sentence them to months in jail Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your alluding to. I am not justifying their actions nor care what their justification is for the solute. So your example for being arrested has not much to do with what I asked. But if they were, as per your example, it should be mentioned in the article. I am not debating whether it is an Ustashe salute or not, it without argument is an Ustashe salute, but why it is repeated as an Ustashe salute multiple times in the same section (you haven’t answered this). Also wether the cited sources have the subject calling for it to be used by the army, labeling it themselves as an Ustashe salute (you have not answered this either). The article says they (the bishop) asked for the salute but they did not say “Ustashe salute”. So are we essentially rewording what the Bishop said instead of what they actually said? Again it is obvious to you and me but better if the source says it too. This was what I was asking. OyMosby (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If a German bishop today proposed reintroducing Sieg Heil as a salute in the German army, how many reasonable interpretations of this could there be, even if he specifically stated that he is only asking for the return of the Sieg Heil of German nationalist athletic associations from the 19th century. For ZDS, their is even less doubt, there is NO Za dom spremni before the ustashe, who made it their official salute and hung it even at the entrance to their Jasenovac extermination camp. So everything about some possible other meanings of ZDS is dissembling, especially from a church whose lead newspaper promotes denial of Ustashe genocides, while also helping promote books celebrating Ustashe mass murderers Thhhommmasss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

My point is the way we see it is one thing, but for Wikipedia, sources are what matter most of all, even if we deeply know what is to be truth or obvious. Also the redundancy of prefacing the salute multiple times as Ustashe that seems over the topic in one section. Not sure if I am being more clear now. Some skinheads claimed that “Za Dom Spreni” that they used, comes from a 19th century opera. But I think it is safe to say they don’t attend operas and are looking for excuses for their agenda. OyMosby (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Practically everyone knows that Sieg Heil is the Nazi salute, despite any previous uses or attempts at dissembling, but only a very small percentage of the world's population knows that ZDS was the Ustashe salute, and even most people reading the article, read it in bits and pieces, so very likely also don't know. Thus there is a need to describe it as the Ustashe saluted, otherwise it's just nonsense words on a page (although I guess in a few cases we could instead link to the WP page on Za dom spremni) Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about general knowledge and people reading or skimming in parts. However these are sentences apart in one section. Linking to the salute’s wiki page in some cases instead of the repetition makes more sense and gives more spaced out useage. I think we are in agreement. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this. Being a controversial and sensitive subject it’s good that we can. OyMosby (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Also nowhere in the source you provided did it say that Thompson was making a Nazi or Ustashe reference in his song mentioning Herzeg-Bosnia “Beautiful you are”. If he sung about Republika Srpska, would it be a “Chetnik” song? Of course not. Is it a nationalist song? Of course. While the Ustase engaged in irredentism by re-occupying Bosnia and parts of Vojvodina as used to be part of the Kingdom of Croatia or other historical times, it doesn’t mean it is automatically an Ustashe ideology. Nationalist ideology yes. This isn’t the first time I see original views and opinion or statements not matching the associated cited sources. We must be carefully that a sentence added actually reflects the sourced information. And not draw our own conclusions or wishful thinking. OyMosby (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

As is noted in the ideology section of the article, under both "Ideological roots" and "Other measures", the Ustashe supported an economy built on fascist corporatism. It should be included in the infobox. Docktuh (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What is cited is that it was based on corporatism. There are various forms of corporatism. I have added Corporatism to the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It specifically says "The Ustaše, like fascists, promoted a corporatist economy." What other kind of corporatism could they be referring to? Docktuh (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say they were fascist corporatists, it says they were "corporatists, like fascists". You are combining terms to come up with something the source doesn't say. That is called OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved; consensus is that the form with diacritics is the more common spelling. It should be pointed out that diacritics are neither encouraged nor discouraged, and arguments that "it's hard to type on an English keyboard" should keep that, and the general idea that redirects are cheap, in mind. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Ustashe → Ustaše – This article was renamed Ustashe several years ago without any discussion or consensus. The user who made the move presented no evidence that Ustashe is the more common spelling. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Zoupan and Beyond My Ken: fyi buidhe 08:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoupan is a blocked sock. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Ustaše is widely used and per the native language name. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any name which is impossible to type using a standard English-language keyboard. We are, after all, English Wikipedia, and articles should use English WP:COMMONNAMEs if one is available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'll repeat the evidence presented previously:

Here are some sources, monographs on the Ustaša or World War II in Yugoslavia or the Holocaust, which use "Ustashe":

• David E. Oprava (1997). The Causes and Consequences of Ustashe Fascism: Genocide in Yugoslavia 1941-1945 and 1991-1995. Southern Connecticut State University.
• Bosko S. Vukcevich (1990). Diverse forces in Yugoslavia: 1941-1945. Authors Unlimited. ISBN 978-1-55666-053-5.
• Barry M. Lituchy (6 July 2006). Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: analyses and survivor testimonies. Jasenovac Research Institute. ISBN 978-0-9753432-0-3.
• D. Stone (22 February 2013). The Holocaust, Fascism and Memory: Essays in the History of Ideas. Springer. pp. 196–. ISBN 978-1-137-02953-9.
• Paul R. Bartrop; Michael Dickerman (15 September 2017). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 666–. ISBN 978-1-4408-4084-5.
• Tomasevich, Jozo (1978). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: The Ustashe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Other works that use "Ustasha" and "Ustashas":

• Jozo Tomasevich (1969). Yugoslavia During the Second World War. University of California Press.
• Jozo Tomasevich (October 2002). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7924-1.
• Rory Yeomans (2015). The Utopia of Terror: Life and Death in Wartime Croatia. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-58046-545-8.
• Rory Yeomans (April 2013). Visions of Annihilation: The Ustasha Regime and the Cultural Politics of Fascism, 1941-1945. University of Pittsburgh Pre. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-0-8229-7793-3.
• Raphael Israeli (12 July 2017). The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945. Taylor & Francis. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-1-351-48403-9.
• Aleksa Djilas (1991). The Contested Country: Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution, 1919-1953. Harvard University Press. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-674-16698-1.
• Gordana Uzelac (1 January 2006). The Development of the Croatian Nation: An Historical and Sociological Analysis. Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 978-0-7734-5791-1.
• Nevenko Bartulin (12 November 2013). The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia: Origins and Theory. BRILL. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-90-04-26282-9.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer shows that both terms are used with about the same frequency on Google Books. [4] [5] As for searches, Google Trends is clear that Ustaše is far more commonly searched than Ustashe. [6] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In English? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, NGRAMS uses an English corpus and there is no option to search Serbo-Croatian books. Google Trends is for all searches worldwide and the top results are in the Balkans. However, even if you look at English speaking countries (Ireland, UK, US, Australia, and Canada, "Ustaše" is far more common. The effect is too large to be explained by Serbo Croatian speakers living in those countries. buidhe 03:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: You are comparing a topic with a search term. I do not know how Google decides to name a topic, but it is unrelated to the search terms actually used by people to find about the topic. Srnec (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Ustaše per my Google Trends analysis of English-speaking countries above. buidhe 03:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support based on Buidhe's analysis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is a much more common spelling. -- 187.58.84.238 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Evidence, please, that "Ustaše" is a "much more common spelliing" in English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we have an analysis of Ustashe (and possibly other non-diacritical forms) vs Ustaše looking just at the English-language sources used in the article itself? GregorB (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Clear common name in English-language sources. We don't refuse to use foreign names just because we don't think they're English enough or we're too lazy to find the appropriate symbols on our keyboards. We only use "Anglicised" versions if they genuinely are commoner in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not believe that the proposed title is the common name in English based on Google ngrams.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a contradiction between Google search term analysis and English-language sources. Search term analysis suggests Ustascha for UK and for USA, but Ustasha (not Ustashe or Ustaše!) for sources. --Cyfal (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This name is more accessible to a wider audience. An uninformed person will have an easier time finding this article in the English version. Educating people should be the primary goal. SerVasi (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That is in no way a naming criterion. Redirects do that job perfectly well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Category:Fascist organizations should be changed to Category:Fascist parties, it is more appropriate, and also it was the original category. -- 177.19.103.67 (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, it was a terrorist organisation before it became a political party. Category:Fascist organizations is the most appropriate category. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It was always a political party, just because it engaged in terrorist actions doesn't mean it wasn't one, several political parties both in the past and today engaged and do engage in terrorist actions, but they are still called parties, which is what they are, Category:Fascist parties is the most appropriate -- 177.19.103.67 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

As you've been told several times now, gain a consensus for this change BEFORE making an edit request. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This was already the status quo, a user decided to create a category of his own for some reason, then it was deleted, and it was changed to this one, if there is a consensus needed, it would be a consensus to add Category:Fascist organizations, not the other way around. -- 179.179.166.195 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael Phayer

The two sources cited by author Michael Phayer is pure cheap propaganda. There is nothing to support his absurd and propaganda claimsJeirjk (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NONAZIS. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Home Guard

@OyMosby: in your edit, you removed sourced content I added about the Croatian Home Guard's formation. You also reinstated a lot of redundant information. All this information about the Croatian Home Guard is dubious to begin with for this article as they weren't the Ustashe themselves but armed forces of the NDH, but what is definitely not necessary is essay-like paragraphs about their weakness and "morale deficiencies" taken nearly word for word from Tomasevich's book. Articles sections should be written with summary style. --Griboski (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Griboski, you removed large swaths of text stating it was unsourced. It is not “essay style”, and is relevant to the inefficiency of the Domobrani which is what the section is about. So absolutely related. I don’t understand the need to write the large “essay style” content of it bejng the most capable fighting force yet not so capable (note, I am not saying you put it there, it was there before and I thought it to be odd then as well. But if it is sourced then it’s fine). It’s misleading as they were not a capable a army as Tomasevich clarifies despite them having the German given resources. German bayonets had to protect Pavelic’s seat in power due to poor support. Part and parcel of forcing an installed puppet state. Especially an ultraviolent one. Tends to turn people away for some reason. Seems undue and defeats the purpose of not having “essay style” writing. It is not “word for word” either. So it it strange to me to specifically remove the parts about the reluctance of the population to join the Domibrani. The threat to kill 80% is a strongly relevant example at how even the Ustashe were angry with the weakness of the army. We could see if others want to have input on this here before instating the proposed changes. But I don’t see removal being supported. As again the content removed was sourced. I restored the long standing content. I did not remove it. My diff literally stated that. I don’t understand why this section keeps getting revisited. Surely there are other parts of Wikipedia not about WWII or 90s Balkans we can focus our energy on.... OyMosby (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This section, which you added, has not been "revisited" much at all. Adding information about an army's composition is standard stuff; it does not make it look like it was one of the strongest forces. The section is still mostly about how weak and ineffective it was. Although having the section as "Croatian Home Guard Military and Morale Deficiencies" just makes it read like a content fork.

"Disgust towards the barbaric acts of the Ustaše regime towards Serbs and other deemed enemies of the state would only further dissuade Croats from joining." That sentence wasn't cited and I could not find it in Tomasevich. Ideally each sentence should be cited, if it's not and it can't be found in the source, it's fair to assume it's unsourced. But maybe it is there, I just couldn't find it.

Tomasevich cites the 1943 draft report of Jakob Elicker (p.425) and says that he wrote about how Croats up to age 35 were evading and joining the Partisans. Tomasevich's conclusion is that draft evasion clearly signified the public's lack of confidence in and opposition to the Ustaše regime. As the war grew, dissatisfaction with the regime intensified and so did defections to the Partisans, who became a more attractive proposition. This is the main takeaway from Tomasevich. Anything else I removed was redundant or excessive minute details. In fact all the main reasons Tomasevich lists for the CHG's failures are still there, lack of allegiance to the regime; widespread draft evasion; mistrust of the CHG and preference for the militia; and lack of competent officers. It is better to take away the essential points of a source than to write at length about things of questionable importance (again I'm not sure that even a section on the CHG for this particular article is that pertinent to begin with). --Griboski (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t deny I added the section. The Domobrani like the Ustahe militia and gans were all part of the Ustase command so I added. The more I read about them in Tomasevich the more I was amazed (and pleasently surpised, some faith in humanity restored) about the wide spread reluctance to fight for a genocidal state run by an effectively Catholic ISIS that isn’t rwall indeoend and large chunks guven to Italy where the put Slovens, Croats and I think Serbs as well. I could have sworn I read "Disgust towards the barbaric acts of the Ustaše regime towards Serbs and other deemed enemies of the state would only further dissuade Croats from joining." , hence why I added it. I’ll look into the book as I have the physical copy. @Griboski: I highly recommend Tomasevich’s two books on War and Revolution in Yugoslavia and The Chetniks. The books are not to costly on Amazon. Not sure if it is the same if you live in Serbia. Will get back to you when I have a chance to look i to the quote and if it is in the source. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)