Misplaced Pages

• The publisher, American Institute for Balkan Affairs, was a Serbian nationalist printing house based in Cleveland. Other authors printed by this group within a year of Paris' work include Lazo M Kostić (member of the Commissary Government under the Nazis) and Sergije M. Živanović (Chetnik colonel).
• Edmond Paris was not a historian. Period. He was a "journalist" singularly known for his virulent anti-Catholic writing and his "history" of the NDH.
• The work contains no primary references.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that book (Genocide in Satellite Croatia) is a reliable source for being widely accepted by scholars as a reliable source. Just simple Google Book search gives a good insight about the book acceptance as a scholar source. This book has ample of primary resources: German and Yugoslav WWI archives documents, the war survivors' testimonies, H. Neubacher's Sonderauftrag Suedost 1940-1945, etc. The great German historian M. Broszat (Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat) quoted three times Paris. Make assessment of your statement as Peacemaker67 did.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Matkovic? Why is Matkovic weak? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Matkovic is a provincial scholar which started his academic career at the age of 50. His book about Independent State of Croatia (ISC) is almost unknown to international academia and scholars. He is referenced in the article 23 (!!) times compared to world-renown scholar Martin Broszat (referenced only once!) whose Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat is referenced in almost any serious work about the WWII and the Independent State of Croatia. Matkovic plays with "International recognition of the ISC" and "Establishment of the ISC borders". First of all, the ISC never had any sovereignity over the claimed territory for a) their bureaucracy never ever entered some of the claimed by ISC territories for being controlled by the Serbian Chetniks of Yugoslav Partisans b) being fully occupied by Germans and Italians who were above the ISC "laws" and c) the ISC was forced to fully pay the occupation cost to Italy and Germany. Broszat, as a serious scholar, did not pay any attention to the "sovereignity" of the ISC nor her "international recognitions". The maps of Balkans provided by this scholar show that the ISC was split 40%:60% between Italy and Germany. At the beginning of 1943 more than 40% of the ISC was firmly in the hands of the Yugoslav Partisans. All of this is not visible in that Matkovic's book.

My Croatia is dignity, honesty, justice, and pride, which is not Pavelic's ISC nor his HOP which gets 0.1% of the current Croatian population support. You cannot be neutral and honest, neutral and just. You can be only honest and just, then neutral within the limits of honesty and justice. This is an encyclopaedia (amateuristic and naive, but still encyclopaedia), not an Ustashe blog.--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Matkovic is one of the preeminent historians of 20th century Croatian history, and your criticisms of his work seem to speak to your own POV rather than the unreliability of him as a source.

-International recognition and establishment of the NDH borders: The NDH was internationally recognized by fellow Axis members, de facto recognized by several neutral states, and had low-level relations with others. The NDH had legal settled borders with all of its neighbours, recognized internationally by those states with which the NDH maintained recognition. How is writing about any of this POV? Matkovic and other contemporary historians have studied this because the Cold War/communist period historiography summarily ignored these topics. They are obviously important.

Polemics about some inconsequential political party have absolutely nothing to with this article and should be avoided in the future if you'd like to be taken seriously.--Thewanderer (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:Peacemaker67

• Opposed. The proposal to return to a version of this article from two years ago is not appropriate because the 2010 version is itself full of grammatical and factual errors, is inconsistent with multiple WP policies such as WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL and needs lot of work itself. For example, the 2010 version has citations from the 'pavelic papers' and a self-published web book, uses the discredited '750,000 killed at Jasenovac' figure, is all over the place chronology-wise, and is generally pretty bad. This appears to be an attempt to remove, in one fell swoop, all material that this editor considers is contrary to some personal sense of justice and honesty that they believe should be reflected in this article (see comment immediately above). This attitude is not appropriate for WP, which this editor states is 'amateuristic and naive'. I have commenced working to get this article up to WP standard, potentially to get it to FAC, and have already taken sources to WP:RSN, discussed usage of WP:LABELs with other editors and have made properly sourced edits. I welcome others who also wish improve the article, but this 'back to the future' approach to revising the article is a retrograde step in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a single problem related to the 2010 article version was ever addressed or discussed. One user started changing that version without justifying his/her changes. Pavelic Papers are not 'a self-published web book', rather a collection of the WWII time American Counterintelligence Corps reports about Pavelic which are accepted by scholars as valuable sources. ... uses the discredited '750,000 killed at Jasenovac, it's the Yugoslav government estimate referenced by many historians, among them by Martin Broszat. Other disqualifications are arbitrary for having all the 2010 version strictly covered by credible and scholarly accepted references. No one complained about the grammar or the factual accuracy.--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't on WP in 2010 or I would have been on here doing just that. I didn't say the 'pavelic papers' were a self-published web book, they are primary source material. The web book is separate. The 100,000 figure for Jasenovac is not definitive, but it is the best approximation based on current evidence. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The 750,000 figure relates to all casualties in Yugoslavia as a result of the Axis forces. The same list contains 59,188 people killed at Jasenovac. Of course Martin Broszat wouldn't know this, because he never even saw the list as it was only published in 1989. Any historians who are reporting this now must be pretty awful at their job, as this is common contemporary knowledge.--Thewanderer (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Go back to the 2010 version. Fix the broken links, improve grammar where necessary, remove the 'statesman' (statesman my foot!) from the info box. The Encyclopedia of the holocaust accepts 600,000 deaths in the Jasenovac konzlager. Croatian Ustashi did not left any bookkeeping of the Jasenovac inmates deaths. They destroyed any evidence they could destroy, for being vicious and true criminals. All we have are various estimates and all the estimates must be regarded equal and with respect. The victimized people there have the full right to estimate the number of those who died there.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Please. What POV rot. The 'statesman' reference was one of the first things I removed. The 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac isn't even in the mainstream scholarly historiography these days, give me a break. The academic consensus is around 300,000 Serbs in the whole NDH. This stuff is as bad as glorifying Pavelic. I've already started getting rid of unreliable sources and material and adding properly sourced material, this RfC is pointless and POV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Ramet said it best: "The figure of more than a million dead is already horrific. Subsequent claims that 700,000 Serbs died at Jasenovac alone make a mockery of the sufferings of all of Yugoslavia's peoples and reduce the tabulation of the dead to absurdity." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since this proposal was made, there have been over 150 edits of this article by 10 different users, almost all of which have made improvements. The article is already significantly improved from its state on 29 August. There is still much to do. As a result, I consider it would be an even bigger waste of time and resources to revert to a version from 2010. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Juraj, with your permission I would like to deal with your listed concerns on a line by line basis underneath each one to ensure each one is considered as we improve the article. Are you comfortable with me doing that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Due to lack of response, I have done just that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Description of Pavelic as a terrorist

Questionable sources

There are a number of sources that have been used for this article that need more details and a full explanation to ensure that they meet the requirements of WP:RS. Mostly these are non-English sources. In a subject area such as this, any sources written by former Ustase, associates, sympathisers/apologists, family members or other participants in the events of Pavelic's life are highly suspect, and the use of such sources is highly questionable. If we want this article to meet the stringent standards of FAC (I do), then this needs to be looked closely. A cursory look at the Bibliography indicates that some of them are suspect. I have created a subsection for each source that needs further explanation, with a brief explanation of why I have questions. I've started off the discussion with five that don't look right to me.

Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (2006). The Balkans: A Post-Communist History. The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

Burzanovic, Tihomir-Tiho (2003). Two Bullets for Pavelic

Desbons 1983

Tko je tko u NDH: Hrvatska 1941.-1945

Trifković, Srđa (1998). Ustaša: Croatian separatism and european politics 1929–1945. The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

re: all; good analysis. All should be seriously considered for removal. I did just remove Burzanovic, as it was not being referred to in the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sedlar, Jakov (2009) (in Croatian). Pavelić bez maske (Documentary)

How about this one? His works on IMDb don't include this documentary. Who are the publishers? Help appreciated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's reliable source I think... the text was writen by Mario Jareb, Croatian historian. --Wüstenfuchs 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article mentions participation of Caroline Glick, Jonah Goldberg and Steven Emerson. --Wüstenfuchs 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 error on that link. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Check the end of this video (Producers are Ron Arnon, Sedlar and Executive producer is Jason Mancuso and the company is FILMIND (2009). Try the link above here . --Wüstenfuchs 14:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The company is Israeli Filmind () though... --Wüstenfuchs 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. There are a lot of citations to this doco in this, and some of the footage came from Pavelic's daughter. Some of the facts attributed to it don't match other WP:RS, so it's still a bit dicey as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to go through all the citations and check the material against confirmed WP:RS and see what happens. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I know we're far from FA class, but still, 20 references to a probably long documentary video without a single exact timestamp or other meta data -- e.g. a transcript of who says it or just a note whether it is the narrator or some specific person who says something -- is quite a bit of a WP:V problem. --Joy (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who added this source and few months ago I tried to replace it with sources from books, and I significantly reduced the number of Sedlar's citations, I left those that I was unable to replace... I wish you luck there though. --Wüstenfuchs 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't keep some, but you should tag them better. For example, watch the documentary again and record the minute when someone says something in the specific reference, and record the person who says it. --Joy (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, Wustenfuchs. I agree with Joy on this from a WP:V perspective, we are relying on this documentary for an awful lot of material and it will get questioned at the first review this article gets to. Do you think you can do what is suggested? Otherwise I think we should rethink using it at all. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a thread has been opened on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of this source. See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Other potential sources

There are some biographical publications on Pavelic.

• Ante Pavelić by Aleksandar Vojinović published in 1988 (Serbo-Croatian)
• Ante Pavelić: il duce croato by Massimiliano Ferrara published in 2008 (Italian)
• Ante Pavelić: 1889-1959 by Christophe Dolbeau published in 1989 (French) --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Vojinović is not neutral, considering the publication year and the fact that it was published in former Yugoslavia. The other two could be used if anyone has access to those books... --Wüstenfuchs 20:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Rotschild, Sugar, Nevada newspaper, and Kisić. They were only used once and for information backed by more reliable sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also rm Vinko Nikolic. He served as an adjutant at Supreme Ustasa HQ during the war, and as an Ustasa cannot possibly be reliable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Images

G'day all,

There are several concerns I have with images used in this article. They will need to be pretty bulletproof when it gets nominated up the chain, so we might as well have a look now.

File:Poglavnik Ante Pavelić.JPG

File:Pavelić's Doctoral Charter.jpg

File:Prisega vlade NDH (1).jpg

File:Mussolini and Pavelic 1941.jpg

This one is a complete dog's breakfast. there is conflicting licensing information (non-free, etc etc. It appears it comes from an Italian Archives and has a known author. No idea what to make of it.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pavelić u Saboru 1942.ogg

A youtube vid, supposedly from TV Croatia, but the permission doesn't make any sense.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion from Commons. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Standard of the Poglavnik of NDH.svg

File:Svečano otvaranje džamije 18.8.1944.jpg

The licensing doesn't look right here. If someone took this photo in 1944 and was 30 and lived to be 70, then the copyright term wouldn't expire until 2054.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pablo Aranjos.jpg

Same as the one immediately above.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ante Pavelić in hospital.jpg

Looks fine.

I'm not much chop at photograph licensing yet, IP stuff just makes me crazy, so some advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. I've returned the picture of him and Hitler shaking hands as that is public domain. There's one with Ribbentrop that's also PD and another PD image of the "Official Proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia" that I've just uploaded.--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Other photographs

I'm not all that excited about several of the USHMM pics because they are from the Pavelic Papers via the Jasenovac Museum... like this one The original source is pretty difficult to determine given it's the Pavelic Papers and the website is non-operational. I've checked the US Archives, British National Archives and Bundesarchiv and the only pic I reckon is 100% ok is the one with Ribbentrop (which is from the Bundesarchiv) =1]. I think we could argue non-free use for the scanned one from the book for the infobox, but the rest are pretty suspect in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The source for the two images (Hitler and the Proclamation) is the Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije and it explicitly says its released in the public domain on the USHMM site. They are both museums and formed agreement between each other hence the numerous non-Pavelic images that are also credited to Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije and in the public domain. Pavelic Papers is being cited for the little biography paragraph on Ante Pavelic. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the case then any of those PD pics credited to Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije that are on USHMM we can use? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of images provided by Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije. I have yet to come across one that isn't in the public domain. If you look at the agreement with Memorijalni muzej Jasenovac, however, it's an agency agreement (basically giving just USHMM permission to use it) and not released in the public domain. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pavelic's doctorate

Pavelic's doctorate is sourced from Fischer here . No source has been produced to challenge the statement in Fischer. There are some questions about the source of the doctoral charter image used in the article (which is under discussion above), but the assertion that Pavelic received a doctorate in 1915 appears to be uncontroversial. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, you have to learn more before claiming something like above. The 'Doctorate' --- He got dr iuris title which was granted to many Pure Party of Rights members who graduated the law; behind this honoric title there was no ever justification for what it was given; needles to say that behind a true doctorate must be a PhD thesis and an advisory. More information at: Ladislaus Hory und Martin Broszat: Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat 1941-1945, s. 16.--Juraj Budak (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is in German. Provide a translation here and we can discuss how it should be worded in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am a personal translator of no one. The burden of proof is on you: provide full information about his 'doctorate' (what is the PhD thesis title and who was the advisory). The photocopy of the 'charter' does not have the necessary information. Is it yet another forgery?--Juraj Budak (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to put something in the article regarding your claim that the doctorate was an "honorary" one, you will need to provide a translation. Any attempt to place such an unsourced claim in the article without a translation will be reverted. There is no burden of proof on me, Fischer says he received his doctorate in 1915, that is sufficient for it to be mentioned in the article. It is you that are making an unsourced claim, not I. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • • Every Ustashe blog claims the same: Dr Pavelic. Fisher is not better than any Ustashe blogger. Once more: provide the PhD thesis title and the advisory name(s)! The University of Zagreb Law School should have it in their files if it were a real PhD.--Juraj Budak (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I might help. I have the quote from Broszat's book: ... in ihr war der 1915 zum Dr. jur. promovierte Ante Pavelic .... So, Broszat says 'promovierte' which can only be understood as 'promoted'. The 'Dr. jur.' is no more than MD given to a physician, therefore, it is not a PhD. In the U.S., here is a simple explanation coming from Mr. Eli Rosenbaum, a U.S. Justice Department man, I also want to thank you for the academic advancement. I guess, in Europe, I would be a doctor, since I have Juris Doctorate, but here, in the States, I am just plain old Mister. For the Croatian Ustashi, this Dr. Pavelic is much needed and used phrase of their propaganda.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can't make it any clearer than this. You say his doctorate was honorary, it is up to you to provide a source for that. I personally don't care whether he had a doctorate or not. What I object to is your strange conviction that you are right without any source to back it up, and that you expect others to swallow this tripe. Your abuse of Fischer as being equivalent to an Ustase blog is unwarranted, you have provided only your opinion, which with respect, is completely unreliable as a source challenging his reliability. The translation of Broszat provided above does not say it was an honorary degree, and it is WP:SYNTH to suggest it does. Find a source that says it was honorary or drop the WP:STICK. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I already answered your question on behalf of Juraj. The 'Dr. jur.' is not the PhD and your Pavelic is not a doctor; you might ask Zagreb University for explanation of the differences between these two notions. To paraphrase Mr. Rosenbaum, Pavelic is just plain old Monster: (Guy Walters: Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Quest to Bring Them to Justice, Publisher: Random House Digital, Inc., May 4, 2010 , page 113)

"The lid was raised and the basket seemed to be filled with mussels or shelled oysters," wrote Malaparte. "Ante Pavelic removed the lid from the basket and revealed the mussels, that slimy and jelly-like mass, and he said smiling, with that tired good-natured smile of his, 'It is a present from my loyal ustashis. Forty pounds of human eyes'"

--68.98.165.98 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't answer the question. You need a PhD in the US, I don't know what you needed in Austro-Hungary in 1915, but we have a source that says he was awarded a doctorate (whatever that means). Despite the fact that he clearly was one, we clearly aren't going to call him a monster in the article, because it would be contrary to WP policy and unencyclopedic. However, if the basket full of eyeballs thing is true, it should be in the article. Are their any other corroborating WP:RS on that? I'm not familar with Walters. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would appear that this story is untrue. , and in Cohen p. 206 he states that footage of the relevant meeting exists which has been made into a documentary and there is no basket of eyes on the desk. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• His 'doctorate' is yet another piece of Croatian Ustashi propagada: to portrait their psychopath leader as a man of the highest education. Passing to the reader unsubstantiated 'doctorate' is not a serious business. As to the old plain Monster, which he was, it is accepted as a matter of fact and any word by no means is prohibited by any encyclopaedia. Poor Cohen is unable to prove that the book was written by him. I counted at least twenty books not questioning Malaparte's testimony about this horrific 'achievement' of his loyal Ustashi. --68.98.165.98 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Tomasevich also refers to "Dr. Pavelic" in Contemporary Yugoslavia, so you will need a pretty good WP:RS to challenge him. "Monster" is patently unencyclopedic per WP:LABEL. Please read it. Cohen's authorship is backed up by a Cambridge history don who helped him with the manuscript. If there are twenty WP:RS that say Malaparte's story about the eyes is true, feel free to bring them here for discussion so we can formulate a paragraph that captures the story and the sources that support it (insert your WP:RS here) and those that don't (Kaufman and Cohen). That is how we handle contentious issues where the WP:RS are divided. See the second paragraph of this section for an example of how we could approach such a paragraph. However, I would point out that Walters, the author you have cited for the story by Malaparte, actually states in the footnote to the story (which is from Kaputt, Malaparte's book) here on page 606, that "the story is quite likely to be fantasy". You might want to quote your WP:RS a little more carefully in future. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• So, Croat Tomasevich calls his Croatian fella Dr. Pavelic? How touchy! Casertano, Raffaele Italian Amgassador in Croatia (1897-1979) lived long enough to confirm or deny the basket. Did he deny it?--68.98.165.98 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So far we have three WP:RS that say the story is false, dubious or quite likely to be a fantasy. The onus is on you to produce WP:RS that say the story is true if you think it should be included in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha, I caught you lying: Walters' book I quoted does not have p. 606 nor any footnote! Good bye! You are not worth of any attention! --68.98.165.98 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Not funny. I linked the page with the quote. Withdraw the unfounded personal attack or I will ask an admin to block you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67, I'd like to remind you that you did not link the page you quoted. Double check what you did before claiming what you claimed. In addition, "the story is quite likely to be fantasy" is just a personal attitude and disbelief of one person and, by no means, a proof that Malaparte made the story up. Collecting disbelieves and rejections of Malaparte's testimony won't help you in rejecting Malaparte or in persuading others to reject him.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your "reminder" is not warranted. When I click on the link I provided above, it takes me to a search results page for the word "Malaparte" in that text. The third hit is page 606. If your browser doesn't do that, I suggest you search for "Malaparte" in that book, and it will bring up the hit I mentioned. I have asked for WP:RS that state the story is true. None have been provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This fact about Pavelic should be added properly to this (considerably revised) article:

Debórah Dwork, Robert Jan Pelt, Robert Jan Van Pelt: From Holocaust: A history; Publisher W. W. Norton & Company, Sep 1, 2003 page 183

What Pavelic meant by "independence" he explained to German foreign minister Ribentrop's trusted troubleshooter for the southeast Europe, Anton Veesenmeyer. Pavelic had only two wishes, Veesenmayer reported to Berlin: first to obtain German recognition of Croatia; and second, an opportunity to thank Hitler in person and promise him "to live and die for the Fuehrer".

no problem here, you go right ahead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Pavelic's speech when he signed decree creating the government (Matkovic quote)

Could we get a better translation of the quote from Pavelic? I've tagged it as needing verification, but it needs a more grammatically correct translation. Happy for it to stay, just needs to be better Ingrish... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Which way his speech has any importance here? Is this article a Croatian Ustashi blogger article or encyclopaedic article?--68.98.165.98 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • why wouldn't the speech made by Pavelic at the inauguration of the first government appointed by Pavelic not be relevant to an article about Pavelic? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbeliveable and Laughable

In the current version of this article

In 1932 he started a newspaper named the "Ustaša – –Herald of Croatian Revolutionaries" (Ustaša – vijesnik hrvatskih revolucionaraca). From its very first publication, Pavelić announced that the Ustaša would use violence as a means of achieving their goals:

"The dagger, revolver, machine gun and bomb, those are the bells that will ring the dawn and the RESURRECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF CROATIA."’

There were no instances of antisemitism in the newspaper.’

But in the reference

In the text signed by ‘Poglavnik’ , the name used later for Pavelić, which appeared in the first issue of the Ustaša, he stated: ‘The dagger, revolver, machine gun and bomb, those are the bells that will ring the dawn and the RESURRECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF CROATIA.’ There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša –apparently for three reasons. First, the Ustashas had to confront a great enemy, the Belgrade regime, and they could and would not engage in other things. Secondly, at the beginning the Ustasha movement did not have the intellectual level to produce a wellrounded and consistent ideology: they knew only the basic tenets of Nazism and fascism. Nazi antisemitic argumentation demands a certain intellectual level that most of the Ustashas did not possess. Thirdly, one of the leading organisers of Ustasha cells was a Jew, named Vladimir Singer (his fellows, however, imprisoned him in 1941 and killed him). There were other Jews, too, who helped the Ustasha movement. However, in the following years Ustasha ideology grew more exclusive and the Jews came to be seen as second-rate citizens who should be killed en masse.

Yes... Goldstein is know to be subjective about the issue. His not a first class historian (one of the reasons he was disapproved to enter the Croatian Academy of Scinences and Arts) so his works can be used, though carefully. --Wüstenfuchs 19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps his work should be attributed in-text as a minimum? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Wüstenfuchs 22:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have attributed his work in the article. I believe we should attempt to locate alternative sources for this information given Goldstein's perceived bias, and use them instead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the point being made here is that the lack of anti-Semitism in the newspaper was either not notable in and of itself, or that its mention without context is a misrepresentation of the reference. Dissing Goldstein certainly doesn't seem to be the point. Furthermore, bringing up his failed HAZU confirmation is also way beside the point, particularly because IIRC he was opposed at HAZU primarily by a right-wing non-historian; and because HAZU isn't really the end-all grouping of Croatian historians. Wustenfuchs, you're letting those right-wing talking points get the best of you again... --Joy (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. How do you suggest we proceed then? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there other reliable sources discussion the notion of anti-Semitism in the early Ustaša movement? If so, then they should be consulted to see if the citation is appropriate or not. --Joy (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Joy, I would call HAZU a right-wing institution (as you claim majority of members are right wing). I'm not sure are you suggesting that right-wing people in Croatia are supportes of Ustaše and antisemitism... but anyway. I agree some other author should be consulted if possible. --Wüstenfuchs 12:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the much lauded Broszat? Anyone read German? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually say that, I'd say they're just a bunch of conservative old people. Their Department of Social Sciences actually nominated Goldstein, but Josip Pečarić initiated a right-wing disqualification at the hearing. Which was hardly unexpected given that Pečarić has a well known public feud with Goldstein, who was the topic of one of the former's books (!). So all I'm saying is that it's not right to say "Goldstein sucks because HAZU didn't want him", because that actually doesn't convey the whole story even as far as HAZU is concerned. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone check my edit to see if I have placed this into proper context. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)