Talk:Ante Pavelić/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Accuracy over "feels right"

Yes, this man is the crowned king of all Croatian nationalist maniacs and the greatest anti-Yugoslav who ever lived. Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that he was a Yugoslav citizen, in fact a Yugoslav politician, and an actual member of the Yugoslav parliament. He was a Yugoslav citizen of Croatian ethnicity granted asylum by Italy and (later) Spain. These are facts, one hardly needs a source to confirm them, and all I am trying to do is present him in an accurate way with regard to his country in addition to his ethnicity. I do not think there's anything to debate here. The only reason not to mention this is that it "feels wrong" because he really really didn't like Yugoslavia.

The whole matter is comparable to Italian American or African American. Country and ethnicity. Ethnonym and demonym. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I know he was very anti-Yugoslav, but that wasn't a factor at all in my decision to remove it. Just as you wouldn't introduce someone as "British English" or "British Scottish", you wouldn't say "Yugoslav Croatian" or "Yugoslav Bosnian". It isn't valid to compare this to a term like Italian-American because unlike that term, Yugoslav Croatian seems extremely uncommon. I understand your rationale of him being a Yugoslav citizen and part its parliament etc., but Wikipedia is only meant to reflect the world of what reliable sources say. And since Pavelic is overwhelmingly referred to as just "Croatian" in publications and academic works, the article should too. If the omission of "Yugoslav" seems unfair, then that's just the way the academic zeitgeist is. It's not up to us to 'correct' it. The consensus of reliable sources overwhelmingly, if not all the time, refer to him this way, and we should therefore go with that. Spellcast (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually got dizzy when I read 'Bosnian Croat'.Mission accomplished DIREKTOR, Pavelic most certainly did a few turns in his grave.AP1929 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Spellcast. Spellcast, you're right, I guess I didn't keep that in mind. Though AP's macabre and gruesome idea of Pavelić spinning in his grave seems to have made all this worthwhile.

@User:AP1929. You turned in your grave, AP? :) I did not write "Bosnian Croat"... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "the Nazis, who preached no escape or mercy for the Jews of Germany and other Central European powers" is not correct. The German Nazi Party had no such policy.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Early Life

I have made minor touch-ups to the Early Life section of the article. The section stated that Pavelic's parents moved to Bosnia, when in fact they moved to Herzegovina - later the Bosnian town of Jajce. I had removed the extra tidbit of golden yugoslav propaganda which stated that Pavelic rarely attended parliamentary sessions (this is completely false) and am working on incorporating more information from the first film and most modern study of Pavelic in Jakov Sedlar's "Pavelic without a Mask" film. If someone could show me how to cite film on wiki it would be greatly appreciated. AP1929 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Do not alter sources from the US Army Counterintelligence Corps because you personally do not like them ("extremist"). 2) Do not remove sourced information ("rarely attended sessions and when he did he sulked in his seat and only occasionally indulged in a long harangue in protest against some measure which he did not approve"). That's all from me. I am also going to inform you that I will revert any attempt to restore edits that misrepresent sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the same US Army intelligence corps that sheltered Pavelic in an Anglo-British zone in Austria for two years after the war ? Extremist is misleading and does not belong on a neutral encyclopedic entry, it's purely someones opinion. Also, the "rarely attended" sessions is a complete lie and anyone can see that from the state newspapers that came out in the 20s.AP1929 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre details and out of the paragraph context and spirit

This sentence

He married Marija Lovrenčević – who through her mother's family was part Jewish – on August 12, 1922 in St. Mark's Church in Zagreb.

inserted in the Early life section is bizarre and completely out of context. The details like "part Jewish", the date and the place of marriage are of no informative values here. An encyclopedic biography must be void of irrelevant details put in the text just for the sake of some anonymous user.

--Remind me never (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Remind me never (aka MagnumCrimen, aka Velebit)

The info about him and his wife's family is very important.--Kennechten (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

Ante Pavelić never was a Prime Minister with that title. He held the title of Poglavnik, and poglavnik done duties of Prime Minister until 1943, when that title was for Head of State. You can see the proclamation of Kvaternik wher Pavelić is named as Poglavnik (...požrtvovnost našega Poglavnika Ante Pavelića...). The first Prime Minister was Nikola Mandić, when he was named as Head of Government by this title.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Respected user Direktor, your changes should be disscused here, so please, explain me this nonsense of mine, and I feal my duty is to add full citation of Kvaternik's declaration about independence of Croatia dated from April 10, 1941:

"Hrvatski narode! Božja providnost i volja našeg saveznika, te mukotrpna višestoljetna borba hrvatskog naroda i velika požrtvovnost našeg poglavnika dr. Ante Pavelića, te ustaškog pokreta u zemlji i inozemstvu, odredili su da danas pred dan uskrsnuća Božjeg sina uskrsne i naša Nezavisna Država Hrvatska.

Pozivam sve Hrvate, u kojem god mjestu oni bili, a naročito sve časnike, podčasnike i momčad cjelokupne oružane snage i javne sigurnosti, da drže najveći red i da svi smjesta prijave zapovjedništvu oružane snage u Zagrebu mjesto gdje se nalaze, te da cijela oružana snaga smjesta položi zakletvu vjernosti Nezavisnoj Državi Hrvatskoj i njenom poglavniku. Cjelokupnu vlast i zapovjedništvo cjelokupne oružane snage preuzeo sam danas kao opunomoćenik poglavnika."

Translated in english (only the sentence with word Poglavnik):

"Croatian folk! God's transparency and will of our ally and hard-laboring struggle for centuries of Croatian people and great sacrifice of our Poglavnik dr. Atne Pavelić, and Ustasha Movement in homeland and overseas, have decided that today, the day before Resurrection of Son of God may resurrecte and our Independent State of Croatia.--Wustefuchs (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though, this declaration is very well known, I'll add an English source for it: History of Yugoslavia, Vladimir Dedijer, p. 573

--Wustefuchs (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

War criminal

He was never convinced as war criminal, not even in communist Yugoslavia, and Encyclopaedia Britanica does not says he was a war criminal and Axis collaborator (as it was earlier in article), but says he was Croatian fascistl leader and revolutionist.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha lol, good one. Nice logic, it could also serve to acquit Adolf Hitler. xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In the article Adolf Hitler it is not writen a war criminal, becouse he never was convinced as one.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So... Adolf Hitler is not a war criminal? :)

"War crime - a crime (as genocide or maltreatment of prisoners) committed during or in connection with war" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary [1]) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

De iure - not.--Wustefuchs (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "de iure" yes, since he fits the legal description. According to your logic a person that killed his family and then himself in front of 4 billion witnesses cannot be described as a murderer on wiki.

And anyway, do we only write de iure information on Wiki? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the case of Harry S. Truman who authorized dropping the bomb on Hiroshima is any measure - the answer would be "Yes, we do." Also, the definition of war crimes we use today was made after World War II by the allies and was designed specifically to exclude whatever the allies were doing (for example because of the Bombing of Dresden, any large-scale bombings of civilian areas were not designated as "war crimes" at the Nuremberg Trials as it would mean that allied commanders would have to be put on trial). However, if somebody did it today it would automatically constitute a crime. This is a simple historical fact, and means that neither the German Nazis or Italian facists or Pavelić were actually committing something illegal (e.g. a "crime") when they were exterminating civilians during WWII, and as such only subsequent convictions could be the basis for calling someone a "war criminal". Also, "genocide" was not a legal category at all up until 1948 and the signing of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As for the "maltreatment of prisoners" part, the Third Geneva Convention signed in 1929 did prohibit it, but I have no idea whether Yugoslavia or Germany or NDH had signed it (and even if they did, dead prisoners of war account for only a small fraction of those killed because of Pavelić). So yeah, we could say that he was wanted for war crimes in the 1950s and that he was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and that he organized a genocide and that his government ran concentration camps - but we cannot call him a "war criminal" per se. It is simply not factually correct. For comparison, the entire and rather lengthy article on Adolf Hitler hasn't got a single instance of the phrases "war crime" or "war criminal". Using your logic, most people involved in the Crusades were "war criminals". We just can't use that label without substantiating it with an actual court sentence. Timbouctou 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Truman and the Hiroshima bomb are not any measure. :) Strategic bombing is not a war crime, trust me on that. With regard to WWII war criminals "nulla poena sine lege" does not apply and many were convicted for their horrendous deeds retroactively. Unless we are starting to dabble into such revisionism as denying the validity of the Nuremburg trials, which is not a conversation I shall enter into.

As for maltreatment of prisoners, Pavelić's forces brutally massacred thousands of Partisan wounded and treated them as rebels (I'll remind you that the Partisans were the legal recognized Allied military of Yugoslavia at the time, and were required to be treated as POWs). Hitler on the other hand, treated the Russian prisoners as cattle. The NDH forces were not recognized as separate combatants and were legally troops of Nazi Germany under Pavelić's command, which did sign the Geneva convention I assure you. (I also think that the NDH might've signed the Geneva convention in 1944 as well.)

So, not surprisingly, both are war criminals, on both counts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are telling me that "strategic bombing is not a crime", which is fine, but I already told you WHY it is not a crime. And then you add that "many WWII war criminals were retroactively convicted". Precisely - and because of the conviction we call them war criminals. Otherwise we would call them "fugitives", "dictators" or something such. Tell me, are there ANY people who are commonly referred to as "war criminals" who were NOT convicted? Is Slobodan Milošević actually described as a "war criminal" in unbiased sources? How about Radovan Karadžić? How come that Wikipedia articles about people such as Adolf Hitler, Albert Speer, Joseph Goebbels and Benito Mussolini haven't got a SINGLE mention of the term "war criminal", and how is is then that the likes of Ratko Mladić or Karadžić ae described as "fugitives accused of war crimes"? How come the very template at the bottom of Pavelić's article is titled "Post-war flight of Nazi fugitives" (as opposed to "post-war flight of Nazi war criminals")? You don't see and pattern here? I dare you to find a SINGLE instance of any person described as a "war criminal" on Wikipedia who has not been convicted for war crimes in a court of law. There's a million other ways to describe Pavelić and what he was responsible for during WWII and I just don't see the point of insisting on one of the few ways which are neither encyclopedic nor particularly relevant to the overall article (If a dedicated subsection describes concentration camps and war crimes, is it really necessary to insist on calling him a war criminal? Is it not rather self-evident?). Do you honestly think that the article about Hitler is somehow deficient because nobody remembered to tell the world that hey, on top of everything else, he was also a war criminal? Come on. And is it not indicative that the List of war criminals redirects to the List of convicted war criminals? Also, please stop pigeonholing me - the issue here is not about whether Ante was responsible for war crimes, it is about whether we can use the war criminal label to describe him as such. Timbouctou 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is just nonsense. We should go to Talk:Adolf Hitler and see whether people agree with you that he is not a war criminal. :)

Like I said, according to your logic a person that killed his family and then himself in front of 4 billion witnesses cannot be described as a murderer on wiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You still failed to provide any reasonable answer to my query, and you seem to have failed to read my last sentence in the previous post. And yeah, let's ask for some fresh eyes because clearly we are not going anywhere with this. Timbouctou 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, so it would be fine if we added "committed numerous war crimes"? That's no label, but a statement of fact we both agree on. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, I'm not sure about that phrasing. It certainly is better than "war criminal" but the word "committed" may appear unclear in its meaning as we can't be sure what he actually committed. We could use that only in quotation marks, citing somebody reliable who said so, which I assume you wouldn't be happy with as it would cement the idea that it's just some people's opinion. Besides, "war crimes" is not actually what he is known for - he was a guy who launched a genocide, which is IMO far worse and of wider scope than what one may assume when seeing the phrase "war crimes". Killing a prisoner of war is a war crime, and one which more or less everyone who ever waged war committed at some point. Interning thousands of civilians in camps and exterminating people en masse just because they were of different religion, ethnicity or held different beliefs is so much more than that, but that's just my interpretation of it. In any case, "Responsible for" would be much better wording than "committed" if we are to follow Wikipedia's policies because it were laws and policies introduced by him which led to wholesale massacres, but AFAIK he didn't perpetrate any himself (unless of course you have access to documents which prove his direct involvement in a war crime such as personally shooting a POW or something like that). Hitler is commonly described as a person who was "responsible for the Holocaust", but not as a person who "committed the Holocaust" as I don't think he ever actually shot anyone, and even if he did, it would mean that he "participated in the Holocaust" as shooting a single person or raising a single village does not constitute a genocide - but passing racial laws or ordering mass killings certainly does. It is very important for us to maintain an encyclopedic tone when talking about this, not only to avoid debates and edit warring down the line, but also to avoid relativization by people with extremist views (for comparison, the partisans and other allies certainly did commit some war crimes during and immediately after WWII, but they did not participate in a genocide, and saying that "Stalin commited war crimes" because of the well-documented fact that Red Army soldiers raped countless German women after the fall of Berlin would be an overstatement by most people's standards, even though it is true). So claiming that AP was a "war criminal" without any court conviction to support it is not only POV-ish but also downplays what he actually did and opens up a lot of room for just about any WWII leader to be labeled as such by anyone with a political agenda to do so. I hope you see my point.

• Regarding your suggestion to take this to Talk:Adolf Hitler, I've looked through that article's talk archives and found this 2006 discussion which resulted in the removal of Adolf's article from Category:Nazi war criminals and also this 2007 CfD discussion which resulted in the deletion of Category:War criminals for the same reasons. I've also consulted other editors who have absolutely no vested interest in this topic and was told that according to WP policy you could call him a "war criminal" only via quoting someone who explicitly said so in a "non-slandering" statement. Timbouctou 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing was just an example, it does not of course necessarily have to be that way. I would just like to see it made clear in the lead that he is responsible for massive WWII genocide in Yugoslavia. He is personally responsible for the deaths of at least several hundred thousand people. One of the largest mass-murderers in history, especially when taken relative to the population of the NDH. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an issue. There are copious amounts of documents and sources which can and will be cited to explain his pivotal role in one of the worst genocides of WWII. I was merely against insisting on that particular label and any POV-ish phrasing as these will probably end up being challenged and removed anyway. In the draft of the lead I suggested earlier I used the phrasing "he introduced racial policies which led to the systematic murder of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma, as well as Croat political opponents and anti-fascist resistance members, in concentration camps such as Jasenovac and Stara Gradiška". This does not have to be the exact phrasing used of course, but I think something along those lines would suffice as I wrote it to resemble the way Hitler is discussed in the lead of his biographical article. Timbouctou 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, I respect you and see you as extremly smart person (maybe I'm wrong maybe not), but still, ther is no source that Pavelić is a war criminal, neither he was sentenced as one. You, and everyone ealse knows that he influenced people to do crimes, but even his influence is questionable. In my personal life, and ealsewher I know people in war do their own, on decision of some SS captain end Ustaša lieutenant who thought it is better that way. Well, to short it, they burned down a village near my town and killed 125 people becouse they were hidding the parstians. As an result major told this to his authorities and lieutenant lost his position and SS captain was demoted becouse of "unhonrble acting" by Arhutr Phleps personaly. This is not the only crime what happen that way, but I'd say majority of them. In literature very small number has proofs that this was done by direct order of Pavelić, but majority of them says that some high ranking officers like Francetić, or Boban done it, and also, some books denie that. So Pavelić, how big criminal is he, we can't tell, becouse we don't know a damn thing, neither we can know becouse no trial is held and no proofs were stated.--Wustefuchs (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that anything you said is factually incorrect, but I can say that IMO this is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't really matter whether AP explicitly ordered any individual massacres, or if there are surviving documents which say so. The fact is that none of these would have ever happened had it not been for AP, his "revolutionary movement" and state laws and policies which were proscribed by him personally. You could replicate exactly the same arguments for Slobodan Milošević or Radovan Karadžić, but that doesn't mean that they had nothing to do with Srebrenica or the siege of Sarajevo or numerous other acts of violence against civilians in Bosnia. In addition, I find it hard to believe that concentration camps such as Jasenovac or Stara Gradiška could have been formed and kept running without AP's knowledge and/or explicit approval. This alone puts him on par with the likes of Hitler and that's exactly the way he should be described in our article. It really doesn't matter how he saw himself or his ideals and it doesn't really matter whether he ordered this or that particular incident to happen. It's a verified and easily referenced fact that he was responsible for creating a regime which systematically exterminated people for belonging to the "wrong" ethnic group on an almost daily basis and any article which does not explicitly say so will end up being thoroughly deficient. Timbouctou 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Many this wouldn't happend if ther was no certain people - like Bleiburg massacre if ther wasn't Tito (still it is not writen war criminal) and we know he commited crimes, Auschwitz wouldn't happend if ther wasnt Hitler (same thing as Tito) - non of them is prosecuted. But different thing is with Milošević. And about Pavelić's crimes you can see more by reading lower text, but in "definition" this "war criminal" is not very good to mention becouse it is subjective.--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing is that for Karadžić and Mladić IT IS NOT writen a "war criminal", becouse they still aren't - they are beeing prosecuted and no decision is made.--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Not a single one of them (Hitler, Karadžić, Tito, Pavelić, Stalin, etc) is ever referred to as "war criminal" in an academic source (like Wikipedia tries to be) simply because they were never convicted in a court of law. But that does not mean that they were all angels and the fact that somebody was not actually convicted does not mean we can't discuss documented crimes they were responsible for (all it means is that they were never brought to justice). In addition, Pavelić (just like Karadžić) was indicted for war crimes in a court of law and an international warrant for his arrest was issued, and that is a NPOV fact that we can and should mention. Timbouctou 07:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's all truth. And we agreed that we won't write at start of article he was a war criminal, but below maybe, even hardly, becouse ther's no proof Pavelić commited anything, and it is mentioned that Yugoslavia asked for extradition of Pavelić from Argentina. He would be probably shot becouse of high treason.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead changes

I think we've had just about enough of this.
Hello Wustefuchs, please discuss major lead changes. You may rest assured you will not remove information such as "war criminal" and "collaborator" from the lead. Neither will you describe this person as a "Croatian leader". Have you considered the possibility that your own perception of the weak incompetent puppet dictator directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the WWII holocaust and genocide in occupied Yugoslavia differs from that of other people? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Respected user Direktor, this is not my own oppinion, but statement of Encyclopaedia Britanica. And don't threate and belittle me. Another thing, dont write "we", write only "I", becouse Wikipedia is not about you. With respect, --Wustefuchs (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you are not being entirely honest there. Britannica does NOT call him a "Croatian leader", nor do the sources you listed - they are falsely quoted. The sources refer to his title as "Poglavnik" which they translate as "leader", obviously not a "leader" as such, and this is already covered in the lead. As for him being a "revolutionist", please note that you do require a secondary source to confirm that. The source you quoted is available online and does not even feature the word "revolutionist" [2] (hence, again, false quoting).
• Secondly, you are required to discuss new lead changes before they are introduced, and if you do introduce them, then in the case they are reverted it is strongly recommended you do not start a WP:EDIT WAR to push them into the article (WP:BRD). I am saying this because I will not hesitate to report your disruptive behavior (in general) should this edit war you started continue for a single additional episode. You must understand that the only way to introduce your changes is here, through the talkpage.
• Thirdly, you have removed long-standing, sourced information - on the basis that you did not like it, and have replaced it with falsely sourced nonsense, which frankly suspiciously looks like it may be nationalist hero-worship of one of history's most genocidal dictators. This person was a collaborator (he had Yugoslav citizenship), and was also a war criminal by the very definition of both of those terms.

(If at any time you feel offended, please be sure to report me. However please do not use such terms as rhetorical tools.)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must ask: is there any connection between you and User:Kennechten? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us see from Britannica:

“ Ante Pavelić, (b. July 14, 1889, Bradina, Bosnia—d. Dec. 28, 1959, Madrid), Croatian fascist leader and revolutionist who headed a Croatian state subservient to Germany and Italy during World War II. ”

it uses word "leader" but not the word "war criminal". So, DIREKTOR, your quote is wrong! and you will be reverted.--Kennechten (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC) and, DIREKTOR, yes, there is a certain connection between him and me. But ,not the one you wish to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennechten (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My quote is not "wrong". The Britannica source is not intended to source "war criminal", since that designation does not need any sources whatsoever. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Let me start by saying that according to WP:LEADCITE information in article leads require citations only for "material which is challenged or likely to be challenged and quotations". Although there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads, the lead is regarded as a summary of everything already included (and therefore already referenced) in other sections of the article. In other words, unless we're talking about something controversial or direct quotations, or if the person is living, anything that needs a reference would be better suited for inclusion somewhere in the article's body. In this particular case this means that editors should be wary of overloading the lead with a host of POV descriptions which are discussed and referenced further down anyway. I personally like Britannica's lead (there's no doubt that he acted as a leader of what was at the time known as Croatia, there's no doubt that he was a fascist and there's no doubt that the country he led was a puppet-state established by and subservient to Italy and Germany, e.g. foreign powers). "Politician" is alright although this is a subcategory of "leader" ("politician" is usually unnecessary when we talk about people who were heads of state of prime ministers, or in this case "leaders"). "War criminal" and "Axis collaborator" are also unnecessary IMO - we use "war criminals" for people who were actually tried and convicted for their deeds - Pavelić was not; and "axis collaborator" is pretty much already covered by the statement that he was a leader of a puppet-state (we call people "collaborators" for assisting invading powers in some way, and leading a puppet state subservient to those powers is pretty much the definition of the term). The lead goes on to say that "he ruled as a dictator", which sounds like there was no democratic decision-making process (which may be the case, I honestly don't know) but that sounds POV-ish as it can be used to claim that other Ustashe ministers had no say in NDH's genocidal policies, and may be factually inacurrate as well (again, I'm not very well informed about the NDH regime, but establishing the degree of somebody's authoritarian style of ruling is very relative and I rather wouldn't go there as even Pavelić must have had some advisers and close colleagues). Generally speaking, we should keep the opening paragraph of the lead as succinct as possible. Since the lead is used to establish context and summarize key points of the article, a short description of his rise to power should come next, followed by a short summary of his polices and regime, and with something about his post-WWII life in the end, including the assassination and requests for extradition (which then might mention that he was wanted for war crimes). For pointers what it should look like see leads in articles about Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini or Vidkun Quisling. I'm not saying that the lead has to be as long as in Hitler's article, but we should try to replicate an overall structure and style resembling it. This means that the reader should be presented with facts, and that it is always better to use a short description of key points of his dictatorial rule/genocidal policies rather than just presenting labels such as "dictator" or "war criminal" or "traitor" or "great guy". The context will always speak for itself if you provide it. Replacing it with labels, on the other hand, is condescending to the reader and is simply not encyclopedic. Timbouctou 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, it is clearly he was revolutionist, since he was leader of an revolutionar organization like Ustashe before the war, so source is very good. Second thing, you see Brtianica says Croatian fascist leader, so, wher is the problem, also, besides Brtianica, ther is another source wich conftimes that, and that is, I think enoguh (you must notice that war criminal has no source),

Pavelić also had Argentinian, Croatian, and Spanish citizenship, and your point is? (I bealive you don't think he was Spanish by nationality too?)

About my connection with User:Kennechten, ther could be connection we are both Croats, nothing ealse.

Respectivly, --Wustefuchs (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My personall message for Direktor is don't act like dictator on Wikipedia, you don't make rules, neither everything you think is truth. This is not at all insulting message, but a suggestion. I understand your ego is very high, but, neither is God always right. And, besides this, I think three users agree that we remove your "war criminal" version of article, since ther is no source for that. --Wustefuchs (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me just add that I don't agree with Britannica's description of him as a "revolutionist". Which revolution did he participate in? Timbouctou 23:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is actually an insulting suggestion.

The NDH is not considered to have legally existed, per the Hague Conventions on wartime states, as a consequence the Allies of course did not recognize any NDH citizenship. Pavelić was a Yugoslav citizen throughout (indeed, a former member of parliament in the Skupština). He was in hiding in Argentina, under a false name. Spain granted him asylum, but not royal citizenship.

What we have are a couple of users that agree that this person is the very definition of collaborator and war criminal. Something must be done about the falsely quoted "decoration sources" from the lead. The first sentence is copy-pasted from Britannica alone, while the other sources are there apparently for aesthetic effect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This love-fest surrounding the fascist dictator is really starting to get out of hand. The infobox was thoroughly butchered. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried to compile key points of his biography and turn it into a draft for a lead we might use, viewable here. I think it looks alright, e.g. says everything the lead should say and does not need (much) referencing. I think it may be a bit too long (the lead probably shouldn't be longer than any individual subsection), but maybe it would be better to start with this and then try to expand individual subsections of the article with more details.
• Btw, my question about him being a "revolutionist" was purely a rhetorical one. I believe Britannica labeled him as a revolutionist in the political sense ("a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change as opposed to "reformist") and not a "revolutionary" in the popular sense (people who lead or participate in popular revolts/revolutions). The former meaning is probably true as he did advocate a quick solution to what he saw as Croatia's problems - but the latter (which is the one most laypeople will interpret the word as) is a bit offending and extremely POV-ish as the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/revolutionary in this sense is one's point of view (have you noticed how there is not a single terrorist organisation officially calling itself "terrorist" while there are many who call themselves "revolutionary"?). For this reason I'm opposed to calling Ante a "revolutionist" even though it may be technically true as it is likely to be misleading to laypeople reading the article (Hitler and Mussolini also fit the "revolutionist" description in the political sense but they are almost NEVER described as such in any type of source precisely because of this).
• As for NDH's political status, I have to say I fail to see the relevance - NDH was a political entity which operated concentration camps, had a head of state and some sort of a parliament, its own administrative subdivisons, police, post office, currency, etc. Whether it was recognized by other countries is irrelevant for Ante's biography. Its existence is a fact, it was what people referred to as "Croatia" between 1941 and 1945 and it did have a leader, just like Germany and Italy had theirs. I see no reason to disprove this. I assume the phrase "Croatian leader" bothers you as he was evidently not a leader of all Croats, as we all know WWII was something of a civil war in Croatia - but still, he held the title of a head of a semi-recognized state with "Croatia" in its name and there's no reason to omit that fact in his biography.
• It seems we have editors with opposing views here, which in itself is not bad as it can be eventually resolved one way or another, but what worries me is that DIREKTOR and Wustefuchs are too much bent on opposing each other when it comes to particular wording rather than improving the article and adding meaningful content to it. @DIREKTOR - if you want to get rid of the "love-fest" then the best thing to do would be to write the article up to a GA or FA standard which would basically set it in stone. Putting together a substantial amount of referenced text is a much better tool to fight for what you think is appropriate content as opposed to debating a single word and/or reverting its removal. @Wustefuchs - I don't think we have much in common politics-wise but putting that aside, you should be smart enough to realize that simply replacing or removing a word in the lead will do absolutely nothing to the article's credibility or quality - it will only lead to more edit-warring until one of you gets blocked. And whoever "wins" in the end, the article will still be a breeding ground for edit wars and countless reverts by other editors down the line as it will still be a far cry from at least GA standard. Although I'm not a huge fan of this topic, I'm willing to help to improve the article as I believe that the more controversial the topic, the better article it should have. But don't expect me to take sides and engage in pointless bickering. Regards. Timbouctou 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I tell you what I think. The best would be to write A. P., Croatian fascist politician, leader of the Ustaše and Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia.

But, we can disscus that later. I have some info about his life in Argentina and his escape story, but I'm to tired now, so I do that tommorow...

And I don't really think that my personal political wievs are importaint, you can call me what ever you whant, a communist, nazi, fascist, democrat or idiot, I don't care about name calling--Wustefuchs (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call you anything and I do not really care about your personal views. I'm just telling you you would be better off if you channeled your energy into doing something constructive for the project, which entails seeking consensus for edits which are likely to appear controversial. Timbouctou 03:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Amione Duke of Aosta

He ruled as Tomislav II, and in literature it is more often used then Amione Duke of Aosta.--Wustefuchs (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which literature are you referring to? Be more precise. Timbouctou 02:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, all books I read. Don't remember that some author refered him as Amione Duke of Aosta (they have, but just to tell about his past, that is before he becomed a king.)

• Odlikovanja Nezavisne Države Hrvatske - Boris Prister (Even the book is about decorations the king is refered as Tomislav II)
• Designirani hrvatski kralj Tomislav II: vojvoda od Spoleta - Hrvoje Matković
• Tito, Mihailović, and the allies - Walter R. Roberts--Wustefuchs (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but these are all Croatian sources, so one would expect them to use his Croatian name. On the other hand, this is the English Wikipedia and we are required to go with what he is most commonly referred as in English-language sources. That's why Alexander I of Yugoslavia is not "Aleksandar". Since the most common name in English is already required for article titles, as a general rule of thumb we should use whatever is currently used for the specific monarch's article, or in this case Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta or Prince Aimone or something similar. Timbouctou 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You could notice that third book is in english. Also all books refer him as King of Croatia (becouse that was his highest title) and with name Tomislav II. Here are those books:

• A history of the gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia by David M. Crowe
• Austria-Hungary & the successor states by Eric Roman
• A short history of the Yugoslav peoples by Frederick Bernard Singleton--Wustefuchs (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at incredible, unbelievable length. The most common name in published works is Aimone, not "Tomislav II", no question at all (surveys went through all available publications on the internet). All those publications you googled also use "Aimone", but just happen to mention the name he was supposed to be crowned in.

The latter is in fact a name he never used at all, 1) having actually sworn "never to go to Croatia", 2) having never changed his name during a coronation (which he refused to go through with), 3) never having formally become a king of Croatia, but remaining King-designate (he refused the throne), and that for only 2 years. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is so as you say, then removal of monarch would be good?--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Impero italiano

A good suggestion. But perhaps rather a note in the infobox pointing out that he was "king-designate"?

Aimone was very likely to ascend the Italian throne at some point (his son Prince Amedeo is the current head of the Italian royal family). Pavelić accepted him as "king", and agreed to the scheme of his long-time Italian financial and political backers. The idea was to annex the NDH into the Italian colonial empire as another protectorate by means of a personal union (along the lines of Ethiopia's and Albania's personal unions/annexations).

The Partisans knew this and made his assassination their priority, but were foiled by Italian intelligence which learned of the plots and counseled the Italian King not to force Aimone to go to occupied Yugoslavia. He on his part had already sworn never to go, stating he knew he (and Italians in general) would be hated after Pavelić signed-over Dalmatia to Italy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we treat Aimone as head of state in the 1941-43 period in the infobox, with a note linking to a section in the article exlpaining this in detail. The infobox is already rather long and it seems it might grow even longer. Timbouctou 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and btw, Pavelić himself referred to Amione in his 21 May 1941 speech as "Vojvoda Savojski". I guess that means that either he or his audience didn't get the "let's-call-him-Tomislav-II" memo. Timbouctou 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't change his name formally during a coronation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't questionable how big influenc of this king was, it was low, better say he didn't have influece in NDH, and as he never accepted his new title, then he acctualy never was a monarch, so it is better that he goes out from infobox.--Wustefuchs (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be a factual inaccuracy. You are proposing we drop a piece of relevant information just because we can't handle it (and yes, I think it's relevant as the fact that NDH was sponsored by Italy and was initially created as such to prepare it for inclusion into Italian Empire is pretty relevant). How big of an influence the king actually had is not important for the infobox and can be discussed in detail in the article, but the fact that AP himself felt the need to mention him in his May 1941 speech is proof alone that he belongs there (specifically, Ante babbles something about "restoring the crown of Zvonimir" and "giving it to the Duke of Savoy" because "he saw him fit [to wear it]". Timbouctou 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Assassination

A number of people have claimed they are responsible for the attack. In the end it remains unknown who did the deed, though people generally consider the Department of State Security (UDBA) was behind it. None of them have any evidence.
I know this because the discussion was on previously when Serbian users attempted to enter the claim that he was killed by some former chetnik guy. In Wikipedia terms, the secondary sources are not scholarly and are unverifiable in that they are not supported by primary sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If would be nice if we could list all the people who claimed responsibility for the assassination. IMO if there are sources quoting well-informed people (such as high-ranked politicians, ministers, heads of UDBA or investigators) saying that UDBA was behind it, it should be included in the article. Timbouctou 14:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I only found Jovovoić, a former Montenegrin chetnik... I know from Marković's book that many people claimd this "achievment", but only Jovović is named.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We can introduce that info, but we must make it clear its an unconfirmed claim. Was he a State Security agent? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This chap was in Yugoslav Royal Army, and decorated from the same. After the colapse of Yugoslavia he joined partisans, obviously thinking that they will support greatserbian ideas. When he saw he was wrong he joined chetniks. And after chetniks were destroyd at Lijevča Field by Domobarns he left to Argentina becouse he knew that new communist government won't tolerate him. And etc, so we come to story when he MAYBE killes Pavelić, but by later reading I found that is his own statement. And answer to you, he never was UDB agent.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

MP

Shouldn't the infobox entry state "Member of Yugoslav Parliament", as just about any reader will assume that the "parliament" refers to the assembly of the same country he was "Poglavnik" of, as stated just above the entry? Not many people were MPs in one country's national assembly only to become heads of state of another political entity. Also, the caption below the Poglavnik's personal standard says that he was actually NDH Prime Minister 1941-1943 (during the nominal reign of Aimone) and NDH Head of State 1943-1945 (during which Nikola Mandić was PM). If that is true he should have separate entries in the infobox for his PM and Head of State office terms, as the current layout is misleading. Timbouctou 14:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not hard to do that, just add Yugoslav...--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Poglavnik done duties of what we call Prime Minister, and since king wasn't acctualy a king, de facto Poglavnik was also a Head of State since April '41 until May '45.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Nikola Mandić then, whose article clearly states he was NDH Prime Minister from 2 September 1943 to 8 May 1945? Also, we cannot cherry pick and decide on a case-by-case basis when to recognize the king and when to ignore him. Timbouctou 15:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest we drop the "Poglavnik" designation altogether from the infobox - since the NDH clearly had a separation between head of state and prime minister roles, using the native title has no purpose for the infobox (he was not at the same time the president and prime minister as Fuhrer was in Germany) so using "Poglavnik" is equivalent to using "Predsjednik" for Ivo Josipović or Franjo Tuđman, e.g. it will only confuse readers. The infobox should thus have both a "Leader/Head of the Independent State of Croatia" entry (1943-1945, preceded by Aimone, succeeded by noone), and a "Prime Minister of the Independent State of Croatia" entry (1941-1943, preceded by noone, succeeded by Nikola Mandić, monarch Aimone). A separate section in the article could be dedicated to explain both the term "Poglavnik" and Amione's status in more detail. Timbouctou 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1941-43 he was formally the "president of the government" (prime minister). The position of "head of state" was not formally filled during that period because of the agreement with Mussolini (awaiting the "king-designate" Aimone). After Italy's capitulation Aimone renounced all claims to the throne, and, more importantly, Italy defected to the Allies. At that point Nikola Mandić was appointed "president of the government", while Pavelić's position became unclear. I assume that he now took-up the position of "head of state".

The confusing part of all this is that "Poglavnik" was the title of the head of the Ustaše movement, both before and during WWII. When he was allowed to take control of the NDH in 1941, no matter what position he occupied, Pavelić was continuously known by that "title", and he was fully in charge of the NDH (by the grace of the Germans) or at least those parts that were not under Partisan control (by '44 this was some 80% of the territory of the NDH). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that's no problem then. Poglavnik is then merely the title of the Ustaše movement chairman. That means that it too might deserve a separate entry in the infobox - although considering that he was the only person ever holding it and that the infobox will be big enough already, I suppose "Poglavnik" should be included in a political party succession box at the bottom of the article. Timbouctou 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No it is a problem, since we're not sure whether it was also used as the title for the head-of-state ("Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia") after the Italian capitulation, or as the title for the head-of-government when Pavelić held that position (after Mandić became prime minister he used the title "prime minister"). We are not sure whether "Poglavnik" was used officially as a title in the NDH itself (rather than only in the Ustaše movement). And even if we were sure that was not the case, what then was the title of the head-of-state after 1943?

The NDH was quite the disorganized mess, actually. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't see a problem with it. NDH obviously had people holding the post of prime minister throughout its existence, as well as head of state (although the 1943-45 period is unclear about that, we can safely assume that Ante was de facto the same thing what would nowadays be called the country's president, e.g. head of state.) It doesn't really matter which local titles were used for these offices, it's the office holder's administrative role that counts. As for "Poglavnik" title, Ante was the only person ever to be referred to as such, and he styled himself that way at least 10 years before NDH was established as well as throughout the state's existence, regardless of his office. Therefore we can assume it was primarily connected to his role as leader of his organisation (which btw, I'm inclined to think, was not even a party in the modern sense (as it never stood in any elections) nor a "movement" (in the sense that it was never a popular movement in Croatia in the same sense the partisan guerrillas were initially)), just like Ante never led any kind of popular revolution - regardless of the fact that Ustaše described themselves as a "revolutionary movement". So anyway, until we can obtain a copy of NDH's constitution (which probably exists somewhere) to double check the names and titles of state offices, we have to go with what we know so far - and what we know is that Poglavnik always meant "Pavelić" between 1929 and 1945, so it was not really connected to government offices. Timbouctou 13:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To make it clear to you all. Duties of Poglavnik from 41 - 43 were duties of Prime Minister (and also head of state becouse king was nothing) after 43 Mandić was name as President Minister and not Prime Minister, but de facto he was Pavelić's puppet. After May 45 when Pavelić left the country, Mandić was named de iure Head of State but not with title Poglavnik.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And it is clear that he had title of Poglanvnik from 41 to 43 and in 45. Becouse in holding a speech in parlamient in 42 he is refered as Poglavnik.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Still no academic gain

I would love to see DIREKTOR 'fight' against someone wishing to add "war criminal" to the biography of his ever beloved communist totalitarian dictator locksmith tito. The mere idea that "Yugoslav" is listed as Dr. Pavelic's nationality is a laughing matter considering that Dr. Pavelic was one of the most notable anti-yugoslavs that ever lived. Of course, there is no space for logic on wikipedia, just hundereds of age-old sources that have proved wrong time in and again but continually used by DIREKTOR to push his political agenda on wikipedia - and he is paid to do so. AP1929 (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources which are not "age-old"? Timbouctou 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources I've added here are "old". In fact I don't remember adding very many sources here at all. And even if I had, we are of course required to show the statements in doubt are debunked in "modern" sources.

This is not an actual content comment, its a personal attack on me and has been reported as such. The user, who actually derives his username from the founding year of the Croatian Nazi Ustaše movement ("1929") and their leader's initials ("AP"), has been reported. He has already been warned against such comments and blocked for 1 week. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. Seems another warning/block would be in order. Timbouctou 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AP1929, we are still disscusing about his nationality, just it is too much edits if I would every moment after Direktor puts "Yugoslav" erase that. So we disscus all that here in talk page. Direktor has his point and his thinkig and his sources, I have mine Timbocu his etc. If you would like to add something constructive, please do. We respect everybodies oppinion, and your activity here would be very nice.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue is everything and I'm glad that in so much we agree, Wustefuchs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which are not age old and I have provided them before considering I used to take part in actual discussion on discussion pages until DIREKTOR would then find a way to limit that discussion in that the discussion page is 'not a forum'. He is against any academic progress and democracy in general. Stating such is; of course, an attack on his character even though he openly worships communist totalitarian regimes here on wikipedia and communist totalitarian dictatorships and dictators. Even when there is vast consensus against him, since he is paid to be here, he knows every possible way to limit such exposure and simply logs complaints against the opposition until they are completely outlawed and banned. Typically this type of behavior is traditional in communist totalitarian dictatorships. My comment was of course a legitimate content comment as all content is monitored and approved by DIREKTOR and his lobby group here on wikipedia. Unless you have something negative to add - don't add it at all because he will have it removed. This is because this topic in itself is still political in modern day Croatia where any type of objective historical discussion is branded as historical revisionism as outlined by one Dr. Ante Birin at the Croatian Historic Institute who recently held a great discussion on the matter. I would like to point out that the user DIREKTOR has directly linked me to 'nazism' - even though anyone with half a brain knows that German National Socialism is not the same as Croatian Ustasism - but of course, that is not an attack on my personal character. I have not been blocked for any relevant reason other than the fact that I oppose DIREKTORs nonacademic claim to all WW2 Croatia-related articles. Some of my statements were in hope that someone would notice his bias which is the biggest elephant I have ever seen standing in a room ever. Regarding Dr. Pavelic's nationality - Pavelic did not believe in Yugoslavism, he was a self-declared anti-yugoslav and on many occasions publicly -and in written form - argued the idiotic basis of such a movement. But of course it only makes sense to have Pavelic be a Yugoslav so that tito can be considered a Croat in DIREKTORs logical political platform here on wikipedia. Thank you. AP1929 (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you were blocked for two weeks after posting this reply. I don't usually reply to blocked users as I feel it is like kicking someone already on the ground, but one thing should be made clear here - you were not blocked because of your beliefs or because of some sort of conspiracy against you. You ended up getting blocked merely for your inability to be polite to fellow editors. As for your contribution to the article surely you must realize that somebody with a username such as yours does not exactly radiate a veneer of objectivity as far as this topic is concerned. Nevertheless, if you feel you can contribute to the article by providing credible material, you are still welcome to do so after your block expires, provided that you refrain from abusing comments about other editors as this sort of thing will not be tolerated - not now, not ever. Cheers. Timbouctou 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Class

Wher to report to promote this article after we finish disscusion and editing? I expanded his Early life and a bit of Post-war life, and still have a work to do, but anyways I think this article should be promoted as Good article after we finish discussion...--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The article still has miles to go to even be considered for GA. What we've got is poorly referenced, and almost none of the references used don't deal with AP directly, but only mention him when discussing other issues such as Jasenovac and the relationship between the Catholic church and fascism. There is a handful of books which deal with him directly which could be used to extract references for hard facts, and a short list of these can be found in the Croatian Wikipedia version of the article. There's also a 2009 biographical film directed by Jakov Sedlar which could be used for that purpose. I'm aware that these may not be the best quality sources as they are not totally bias-free, but still, they are generally accurate when it comes to specific dates, events, etc. Timbouctou 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Using the movie right now, and since I'm sick it is great for this article - no better job to do for me.--Wustefuchs (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now, is it good how I expanded the article?--Wustefuchs (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Although you have added a lot of content, you have also removed the entire section about atrocities committed by Pavelić's regime in this edit, which you even marked as "minor" (which it clearly isn't). This was a move which is as controversial as can get and a gross violation of the consensus-building process. I will revert that edit immediately and I'd advise you to cease making such edits without discussing them first in the article's talk page. I should add that I'm not getting a good faith vibe here.
• Also, I explicitly asked you to add only hard facts mentioned in the movie. Speculating about his motives and reasonings behind his decisions should be avoided for a number of reasons, most important of which is that AFAIK established historians did not make their opinion known of the interpretations used in the film - it is basically all the view of one historian (Mario Jareb), and we have no way of knowing how reliable his historical interpretations are. I'm aware that he seems to be a professional scholar employed at the Croatian Institute for History although he claims to be an expert on Pavelić and the Ustaše movement in the period from their foundation in 1929 until 1941. The problem with this is that he deals very little with the most important part of Pavelić's biography (his role in the WWII genocide while his regime was in power). And that's all the more reason why that part of the article shouldn't be touched under no circumstances without thoroughly discussing it here first. In any case, any single source should be used sparingly and in conjuction with other reliable sources. You should also keep in mind that if this article is ever to satisfy any of the Good Article criteria it must be stable (e.g. free from edit-warring). And you are not making it stable by removing huge chunks out of it at your whim, are you? Timbouctou 05:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please understand me. I saw section World War II, and that seamd unlogical to me, becouse his WW2 history was alredy under section Ustaša regime. I didn't saw the content of section, so I erased it, but now is back under name Crimes. You agree, I think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wustefuchs (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people have no shame

after just a short read of this article i find myself almost physically sick at the amount of garbage that someone trying to do some honest research on this monster would have to read through. i'd recommend an entire re-write but for the time being please re-write "ustasha regime" because i didn't know wether to laugh or cry while reading it. please please please wikipedia can you only allow seasoned article writers create pages such as these —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.89.7 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wher is the problem? You have "Crimes" section also, you should read it. Pavelić also done other things, besides killing people.--Wustefuchs (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Full of opinion, poor grammar and unsourced information

Cases in point:

"In 1941, having been installed by the Axis occupation as leader of a Croat puppet state, he instituted a racial policy that led to genocide over hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma in the NDH concentration camps, along with Croat" - NO SOURCE.

"He finished his seventh class in Senj and finnaly, he graduated in Zagreb 1910. In 1910 he entered Law Faculty at University of Fraz Joseph I. In his student days, in time of World War I, he oftenly helps on diferent levels, especcialy in Istria and in Dalmatia" - WHAT DOES THAT LAST SENTENCE EVEN MEAN?

Pavelić reported him self to American intelligence. The most interesting fact is that British and American intelligence were aware about Pavelić's location, but they done nothing to arrest him. Pavelić moved to Rome, where he was hidden by members of the Roman Catholic Church (according to de-classified US Intelligence documents.), but Americans refused to arrest him.[22] Tito and his communist government accused Catholic Church for hiding Pavelić and reader of papers in that time could get impression that only job of pope was hiding Ustaša's Poglavnik. The second defendants were Anglo-American "imperialists" who wanted to "revive Nazism" and take communist Eastern Europe.[6] But communists weren't completely wrong, because Anglo-American Intelligence did use former fascists and nazis as agents against communist state including Pavelić.

I have read a lot of crap on Wikipedia, but that paragraph is up there near the top. 216.221.88.241 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is undergoing major restructuring these days and what you see today is far from its final version. I admit that some sections need to be spellchecked and edited for grammar and coherence, but I think that generally speaking we are going in a positive direction. From what I can tell the majority of information that has been added recently comes from the 2009 documentary film by Jakov Sedlar and - although the text narrated by voice actors in the film was written by a qualified historian - I agree that speculative and unsourced statements (such as individual historians' interpretations concerning why he did or didn't do something) should be removed until confirmed by other reliable sources (such as some of the books published on the subject, probably available at any public library in Zagreb). In general, the article could benefit from more reliable sources (the more the merrier), and both new ones and old ones should be checked to ensure that they are properly cited (listing titles, authors, pages, etc. for books and specific quotations and timestamps for video material). I will get around to listing and resolving these issues myself in a few days, but everybody's help (including yours) is welcome, provided that they provide references for anything they would like to add or change in the article. Also, discussing potentially controversial changes here before introducing them would be appreciated, as long as you can do so politely. There's no need for disparaging remarks. Timbouctou 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, still much to do. But I don't agree that Pavelić murdered 700 000 people, or responsible for death of them. Becouse total casulties on area of Yugoslavia after 1945 were 1,021,000 people. Now, that inclodes Serbia (detah of Jews, anti-partisan fights etc.), Croatia (Chetnik massacres, battles, anti-partisan fights), Macedonia (anti-blugarian guerilla), Slovenia (anti-german guerilla). Now, how is Pavelić responsible for death of 700,000 people, when demohraphicly that is not posssible. In 1941 ther is estimated that in Croatia had about 7.8 milion citizens, and in 1977 it is estemated that Bosnia and Herzegovina (4.3 milion) and Croatia (4.4 milion) have togehter about 8.7 milion of people. How is this, matematicly, possible?

And, not to mention, it is not sourced information.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to debate the accuracy of facts published by reliable sources. Having said that, yes, this piece of information was not supported by any reference so it could be removed. Timbouctou 03:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And another thing. It is stated that official policy to Serbs was their convert to Catholicism, but we all know that Pavelić found Croatian Orthodox Church, and that is not official policy, neither is that writen anywhere. So, why to lie? This is writen to much subjective.

I have no idea what the official policy was, but in your edit you removed the whole sentence which read "Official policy against the Serbs was extermination, expulsion, and conversion to Roman Catholicism.". If there's reason to suspect that forced conversions do not belong here, than only the conversion part (in bold) should be omitted. Timbouctou 03:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To show that his 2009 biographical movie is objectiv I'll say that Israelis produced the movie, more correctly FILMIND, and that move was made on suggestion of Israeli intelectuals like journalist of "Jerusalem Post" Caroline Glick and author of book "Liberal Fascism", an American Jew - Johan Goldberg and Jewish journalist and activist in US - Steve Emerson.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who suggested that the film should be made and its country of production mean very little for establishing how reliable source it is. Per WP:UNDUE we should establish if what was said in the film represents the overall historians' consensus. If the film contains claims which other experts disagree with, then it's a minority view, which should be reflected in our article. If an Israeli company produced a film in which a qualified historian claimed that Pavelić was in fact an alien from Jupiter, would we include it in the article?. Probably not because it would represent the view of a very small minority. Our job here is to take as many sources as possible and present the overall consensus. I'm not saying that the film is wrong about anything, but the fact is that it was never shown in Croatia and I haven't found a single film review in which other historians would voice their opinions whether the film is accurate in its interpretations. That's the reason why I said that or the time being we should be careful and only use it to reference facts (dates, events, etc.) rather than interpretations (like Jareb's views as to why Pavelić did this or that, what Pavelić's thoughts were etc.). The former can be easily checked and corroborated, while the latter depends on which historian you choose to talk to. This article is supposed to present the reader with what the overall historian community thinks of Pavelić, and for the time being we have no idea if Jareb's text represents that. Timbouctou 03:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The contenct of movie can be easly compared with literature and all what was stated in movie didn't found a conflict with other historians. Becouse everything about his connection with Italians, Serbs, Jews etc was mention in the movie and no subjective speech was made.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is the first sentence in the "Crimes" section:

"As the leader of the State, he directly ordered, organized and conducted a campaign of terror against Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and anti-fascist Croats."

This is not sourced, neither is known that he made direct orders. It is unknown wich crimes he ordered or did he order any crimes. Moreover, the so called Divlje Ustaše were accused from Pavelić for doing on their own and punished.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the phrasing into "responsible for", which he clearly was. Timbouctou 12:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

Wouldn't be nice to have more images in other sections of the article? The thing is, ther is not enoguh images of Ante Pavelić at Commons, so I'd like to ask you we search for them and ask for right of use. Since I'm not able to do that (ban), you could...?--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationality is not same as citizenship, and citizenship is determinated by jur soli [right by wich nationality or citizenship CAN BE (it doesn't must) given to an individual by birth in some state]. Also citizenship can be determinated by another rule called Jus sanguinis in wich citizenship is given to an individual by homeland of parents. And third rule of giving a citizenship is naturalization and that is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born. More oftenly nationality is determinated by the ethnicity.

My point is that in case of Ante Pavelić it is writen that by nationality he is Yugoslav, and we all know (if we would add nationalities that way) Pavelić is also Austrian-Hungarian (that is wiew of user Direktor). By the first rule, Jur soli, Ante Pavelić is Austrian-Hungarian becouse citizenship is given by birth. By the second rule, Jus sanguinis, Ante Pavelić is again Austrian-Hungarian (Parents from Lika), or Croatian (wich is no doubt). By the rule of naturalization, Pavelić was born before creation of Yugoslavia and he took citizenship later (in 1918).

So we can write he was Austrian-Hungarian, Yugoslav or Croat (UN couldn't recognize Independent State of Croatia since the state is older then UN, but it was recognized by, then, influential states like Italy, Germany and Japan.)

So, the best option is to remove his nationality and leave only ethnicity.--Wustefuchs (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing wich I forgot to mention is that citizenship and nationality are different meaning words. Nationality means membership of an nation, and nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language. Croats share same culture, ethnicity and language, but that they don't share with Macedonians, Serbs, Bosniaks or Slovenes. So it is clearly Pavelić is by nationality a Croat, by citizenship Austro-Hungarian and by ethnicity again Croat.--Wustefuchs (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, since Austria-Hungary dissolved in 1918, and Austro-Hungarian citizenship in Croatia-Slavonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was legally transferred into the State of SHS, then into the Kingdom of SHS - we cannot really use Austria-Hungary without running the serious risk of looking utterly ridiculous.
• The NDH did not exist legally according to the Hague Conventions on states created during wartime (not the UN of course). Neither the NDH nor any of its laws and proclamations are considered to have legally existed. They have the same legal status as those of the General Government in Poland, Mengkukuo, the Italian Social Republic, etc. - non-existent.
• He was not "naturalized" into Yugoslavia. His Austro-Hungarian citizenship was renamed into his Yugoslav citizenship. He did not emigrate to Yugoslavia. Croats and Serbs in Austria-Hungary were not "naturalized"- (I personally cannot believe I have to write this.)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Without g going into the philosophical/metaphysical/sociological ramifications of this, the "Nationality" entry is used to show citizenship in infoboxes (hence a person can be Italian, move to America, become an American citizen and his nationality is listed as "American", not "Italian"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is hugely relevant to the article, it is a piece of information which can only be based on guesswork in Pavelić's specific case and the article would lose nothing if we simply ignored the field (I bet even Ante himself would be perplexed as to what to put in that field as his whole life seemed to revolve around the idea that identity is primarily an ethnic category). Timbouctou 15:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not guesswork. Its actually quite simple. The man was a Yugoslav citizen, even a member of parliament, that went out into exile under the asylum of Italy and Spain for most of his life, returning for 4 years to head a government in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia. He was wanted for all that time by the Yugoslav authorities as a Yugoslav citizen, first under the charge of conspiring with foreign powers, and then after 1943 also for his hand in the massive WWII genocide. It was precisely because he was a Yugoslav citizen that he was to be extradited to the jurisdiction of a Croatian court in 1957 by Argentina (which never granted him asylum). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it makes sense. Argentina couldn't have agreed to his extradition if he hadn't been a Yugoslav citizen which means he was one his entire life. I thought we should leave it blank to avoid edit-warring over that down the line but it seems the reasoning is solid so I'm fine with leaving it as it is. Timbouctou 18:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pavelić had argentinian passport, and passport is, how it says in it "a proof of citizenship". And he didn't have a false name. http://www.jutarnji.hr/nikad-videni-predmeti-ante-pavelica/199026/ --Wustefuchs (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, he found Croatian Liberation Movement so he was a public person. Everybody were aware of his existance in Argentina, even communist regime, so they whanted him extridated, so it seams logical to you that commies were asking a extradation of guy with his false name like we whant Pablo Juan in Yugoslavia... who is Pablo Juan, why is he gulity to you? It is normaly they asked for Pavelić, and Peron denied that becouse Pavelić served to his regime as an advisor. Also he had Argentinain passport wich I mentioned above.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Another note of mine, his "Yugoslav" nationality is too much disputed and unsupported with literature, so it is the best way to remove his nationality, you all agree?--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If it stays, it has to say "Yugoslav" as there's no doubt that he was Yugoslav from at least the early 1920s up until his death and that at least three countries had considered him a Yugoslav national after WWII, otherwise Yugoslavia wouldn't have had jurisdiction to request his extradition, Argentina wouldn't have agreed to the request and Spain wouldn't have granted him asylum. On the other hand, I'm still not convinced that this particular bit of information has to stay in the infobox. The country AP was born in changed forms and names several times, he held several other passports and spent a large part of his life fighting against the very idea of pan-slavism. This all can be mentioned in the article one way or another and I don't think there's need to insist on keeping it in the infobox. Many other people who lived around the same time from these parts have that field blanked out. So basically it's up to DIREKTOR and Wustefuchs to come to some sort of an agreement on this. Timbouctou 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Yugoslav nationality is disputed. --Wustefuchs (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to dispute. It is a well referenced fact that he was a Yugoslav Member of Parliament and (as if that alone isn't overkill) that Argentina agreed to extradite him to Yugoslavia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Also, please note WP:BRD. You posted your edit (removed a long-standing infobox entry), it was reverted and opposed on the talkpage, now please refrain from trying to push it with edit-warring and discuss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Awfull spelling

The article is completely horrible to read with this kind of spelling. Why does anyone write anything on english wikipedia if they can´t write proper ENGLISH?! Reading this is like listening to a Russian cab driver.

I agree. Also, "awful" is spelled with one 'l' in it. Timbouctou 08:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions / Concerns

Intro paragraph: "Ante Pavelić (14 July 1889 – 28 December 1959) was Croatian fascist leader,[1] revolutionist[2] and politician.[3] He ruled as Poglavnik[note 1] of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a World War II puppet state of Nazi Germany in Axis-occupied Yugoslavia.[4] In the 1930s, he was a founding member and leader of the Croatian fascist[5] ultra-nationalist separatist movement, the Ustaše. In 1941, having been installed by the Axis occupation as leader of a Croat puppet state, he instituted a racial policy that led to genocide over hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma in the NDH concentration camps, along with Croat political opponents and resistance members. At the end of the war, Pavelić escaped abroad. He died from wounds caused by an assassination attempt in Madrid on 28 December 1959."

Incorporating the term fascist is POV. Ante Pavelic was not the leader of Croatia's Fascist Party (one has never existed). The term puppet state is also POV, out of all the countries mentioned in the Eichmann trial, Croatia was the only one that a notable Nazi considered to be a sovereign republic. If we can not change the "puppet state" tag, such information should be included because it would support the neutrality of this article. Axis-occupied Yugoslavia is also an irrelevant term as Yugoslavia did not defacto exist then (the one that was formed after the war was not the same as the one prior to, neither of them had defacto or dejure control) and today these regions have different names. If anything I would suggest that it be noted within Axis-Occupied Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina if anything. Saying that the Ustasa movement was installed is also POV. Hitler first wished to keep together Yugoslavia and tried to install Vladko Macek, which didn't happen. Slavko Kvatrenik declared Croatian independence prior to German's entering Zagreb and they simply accepted it. If the Ustasa movement was installed it couldn't have been by several parties at once, and if so, those parties would have recoginzed Croatia's independence that very day. Italy actually recognized Croatia a week or two before Germany did. The latter part about a racial party is nonsense. The Ustasa leadership instituted a Racial Policy towards only Jews. It should be noted that this Racial Policy was the only European anti-semitic policy that has unique notions granting special aryan status to Jews who supported the Croatian statehood cause prior to April of 1941. To say that Pavelic escaped is also misleading because ally special service agencies knew where he was the whole time. AP1929 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are copious amounts of sources which support everything you are refuting here, and even if you could quote a reliable source for your suggestions you would need to prove that these do not represent only a minority view (see WP:UNDUE). Whether Pavelić's party was called "fascist" is completely beside the point as historians are compelled to judge political ideas based on their concepts and not on their self-appointed labels. Using you analogy, Kim Il-sung was a democrat because he led the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

• Britannica.com says the following:

• On Pavelić - A "Croatian fascist leader and revolutionist who headed a Croatian state subservient to Germany and Italy during World War II."
• On Ustaša - "Croatian fascist movement that nominally ruled the Independent State of Croatia during World War II."
• On fascism - "The word fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini in Italy to describe the form of government he brought to that nation in the 1920s. The same type of government also appeared in Germany, Japan, South Africa, Argentina, and a number of other countries later, although it was not always called fascism. In its most notorious version, which developed in Germany under Adolf Hitler, it was called National Socialism."
• Axis-occupied Yugoslavia IS a relevant term as the country was still recognized as a sovereign state abroad and was represented by the Yugoslav government in exile throughout the war (e.g. it did have de jure control over it). The dismemberment of Yugoslavia was never officially recognized internationally by any country other than those which participated in the occupation. Using your logic, Croatia did not de facto exist until 1995 because of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Good luck with proving that.
• "Saying that the Ustasa movement was installed is also POV. Hitler first wished to keep together Yugoslavia and tried to install Vladko Macek, which didn't happen. Slavko Kvatrenik declared Croatian independence prior to German's entering Zagreb and they simply accepted it. If the Ustasa movement was installed it couldn't have been by several parties at once, and if so, those parties would have recoginzed Croatia's independence that very day." - If NDH was NOT a puppet state then why is Hitler's opinion relevant? But if it WAS a puppet state then ANY regime which subsequently came into power was by definition installed by the Germans. I can't remember Ustaše running in any elections to win power in the country. Do you?
• Concerning the racial policy bit - the lead says that "racial policy that led to genocide over hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma". Again, it is entirely irrelevant what the actual laws stated in light of the well-evidenced fact that many Jews, Serbs and Roma were exterminated. The point is that a racial olicy was instituted which made concentration camps and genocide possible.
• I don't see how "escape" clashes with the idea that someone knew where he was (which you should be able to prove anyway). It is safe to assume that he would have been arrested and shot had he not escaped towards the end of the war so it qualifies as an "escape". How would you describe it alternatively? He just happened to go on a state visit which just happened to coincide with the disappearance of his state and which just happened to last about 15 years? Timbouctou 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the term fascist, my logic did not imply what you have outlined but I can see where you would have come to such a conclusion. My point was that the term fascist is vaguely defined but under examination of what we know to be fascist and what the Ustasa movement was, it wasn't defined enough as a political movement in all aspects of political life to be coined fascist and the term is mainly used by the NDH's political opponents which immediately offsets the neutrality of this article. Through decades of yugoslav historiography which has been accepted as modern Croatian historiography one can not see any actual analysis or study proving the fascist nature of NDH. It was simply branded so through sourcing. However, I guess all that really matters here is what Britannica has to say as it seems to trump everything else. I don't see the point in a discussion page either if you really think about it.

Regarding the dejure control of the yugoslav government in excile: they capitulated and international law points to dejure and defacto control as necessary foundations to any type of sovereignty. The RSK for a large portion of Serbia's aggression on Croatia did infact have defacto control, but it had no dejure control - I think only one country recognized it. The NDH was recognized by dozens of nations both in and our of the Axis sphere. Today a familiar example would be to look at the recent happenings in Kosovo to understand how the process works. Looking back to the Republic of Croatia's situation, I should highlight that the RSK took up about only a third of the modern day Republic of Croatia, meaning the proclaimed and democratically created Republic of Croatia controlled over two-thirds of it's internationally recognized territory.

Regarding the need for elections in 1941: the Ustasa movement set up the country and proclaimed it, and was welcomed by plebiscite by the Croatian people, welcomed even by the leadership of the HSS - I would be extremely shocked if you could find me (after years of Croatian oppression in the first yugoslavia) any Croatian documentation of anything other than euphoria on April 10th 1941. It simply didn't exist and your notion of the need for a democratic process is very ethnocentric. According to your logic, most of the entities that existed in the world prior to the French Revolution simply didn't exist or were illegal. The Ustasa movement proclaimed the state, no one appointed them to do so, and by doing so, they were accepted by the Axis who really had no other choice as their first options fell through.

Concerning Racial policy in NDH, you go from a hundred thousand figure to saying genocide and then back to many people were exterminated. I'm very familiar with the camp facilities in Croatia and the demographics of that era. The camps were established as labor camps for those who were deemed enemies of the state - regardless of their nationality if they were not Jewish (which is a whole other issue). First you are claiming that what the law stated is irrelevant but then claim that the laws in fact enabled the establishment of extermination camps. So which is it? Could you please provide me a few sources on the laws concerning non-jewish citizens of the NDH which placed them in these facilities and which of these facilities were used for extermination and by what means?

Concerning escape, the idea that he escaped would indicate that he was in hiding from all enemies of state - which would obviously include the Western Allies.AP1929 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly this is getting kind of boring. I would much rather prefer to discuss these issues with people who aren't paid to be here to push the Republic of Croatia's alleged anti-fascist political agenda; who have legitimate Western educations and actually know how to communicate in the English language. AP1929 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"My point was that the term fascist is vaguely defined but under examination of what we know to be fascist and what the Ustasa movement was, it wasn't defined enough as a political movement in all aspects of political life to be coined fascist and the term is mainly used by the NDH's political opponents which immediately offsets the neutrality of this article. Through decades of yugoslav historiography which has been accepted as modern Croatian historiography one can not see any actual analysis or study proving the fascist nature of NDH. It was simply branded so through sourcing. However, I guess all that really matters here is what Britannica has to say as it seems to trump everything else. I don't see the point in a discussion page either if you really think about it."

• This is plain ridiculous. "Political opponents" of the Axis forces and their allies is pretty much the entire post-WWII Western world, probably extending to what qualified historians in the West (as well as in Yugoslavia) had wrote about it in the last 65 years. Where else do you suggest Wikipedia should look for sources for its statements? I suggest you read WP:OR, WP:FORUM and WP:UNDUE and return to his discussion when you have something to offer other than your personal musings about the topic.

"Regarding the dejure control of the yugoslav government in excile: they capitulated and international law points to dejure and defacto control as necessary foundations to any type of sovereignty."

• I assume France did not exist either in your world. You should definitely drop by at Talk:Vichy France and Talk:Provisional Government of the French Republic to share your revelations with the world.

"Today a familiar example would be to look at the recent happenings in Kosovo to understand how the process works."

• Really? While it is true that Serbia lost de facto control of Kosovo some 10 years ago and that it gradually lost de jure control in the meantime, I must have missed the memo about Serbia actually capitulating to a foreign power and then overwhelming the power and retaking control of the territory.

"Regarding the need for elections in 1941: the Ustasa movement set up the country and proclaimed it, and was welcomed by plebiscite by the Croatian people, welcomed even by the leadership of the HSS - I would be extremely shocked if you could find me (after years of Croatian oppression in the first yugoslavia) any Croatian documentation of anything other than euphoria on April 10th 1941. It simply didn't exist and your notion of the need for a democratic process is very ethnocentric. According to your logic, most of the entities that existed in the world prior to the French Revolution simply didn't exist or were illegal. The Ustasa movement proclaimed the state, no one appointed them to do so, and by doing so, they were accepted by the Axis who really had no other choice as their first options fell through."

• You seem to be a stickler for definitions so let me quote the definition of the word plebiscite - "a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal." So was there a direct vote in which an entire electorate was asked to either accept or reject the creation of NDH? Yes or no? If not, I'm afraid we have to accept your idea of the level of support NDH had as pure speculation. The comparison with the French Revolution is out of place - the French Revolution was a sudden and fundamental political change in which people who had little or no political rights became emancipated. HSS, HSP and even Ustaše were founded in a different century and had many options to legitimize their actions by simply asking voters. Even the Nazis in Germany had to win parliament seats fair and square in order to do with the country what they wanted to do. Pavelić and his crew on the other hand simply appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed whatever they wanted to proclaim (I suppose one could say he saw politics the same way you see Wikipedia). There are numerous books and studies discussing the popularity of the Ustaše and their pet project among the Croats and they all claim that HSS was by far the most popular party in the country whereas the Ustaše and even HSP were seen as marginal groups at the time - and even Pavelić himself admitted in his May 1941 filmed speech that people "used to call them nutcases". This is in contradiction with your perception of Croats being ecstatic about the whole thing.

"The Ustasa movement proclaimed the state, no one appointed them to do so, and by doing so, they were accepted by the Axis who really had no other choice as their first options fell through."

• The Axis had no other choice than to accept what the Ustaše had proclaimed? Really? This is some seriously acrobatic logic my friend. What do you suppose compelled the Axis to accept what the Ustaše had proclaimed? And you don't think that the fact that Pavelić was literally trucked in to Zagreb from an Axis country where he spent years before the war or that he officially proclaimed the country subject to a foreign ruler offers no hint as to who his political sponsors were?

"Concerning Racial policy in NDH, you go from a hundred thousand figure to saying genocide and then back to many people were exterminated. I'm very familiar with the camp facilities in Croatia and the demographics of that era. The camps were established as labor camps for those who were deemed enemies of the state - regardless of their nationality if they were not Jewish (which is a whole other issue). First you are claiming that what the law stated is irrelevant but then claim that the laws in fact enabled the establishment of extermination camps. So which is it? Could you please provide me a few sources on the laws concerning non-jewish citizens of the NDH which placed them in these facilities and which of these facilities were used for extermination and by what means?"

• Actually I think this bit is completely irrelevant to this article as it should deal primarily with AP's biography and his role in whatever the NDH was known for (which is, per consensus, wholesale killings). I admit I don't know much about the intricacies of Ustaše legal system, nor do I think this is relevant to this article as such. There is no doubt that some racial policies did exist and that scores of people were imprisned and killed in camps designed specifically for that purpose. If you (or the reader) happen to need more information about the details of specific policies introduced by NDH or the concentration camps in NDH or the legal framework which made it all possible I'm sure you are more than able to find some yourself in Wikipedia's own related articles or in other places on the Internet.

"Concerning escape, the idea that he escaped would indicate that he was in hiding from all enemies of state - which would obviously include the Western Allies"

• I'm sure a stickler for definitions such as yourself will appreciate Merriam-Webster's definition of the term which defines to escape (the verb) as "to get away" or "to avoid a threatening evil". Alas, it seems that your excellent education failed to equip you with the basic capabilities of distinguishing the difference between "reading" and "reading into".

"I would much rather prefer to discuss these issues with people who aren't paid to be here to push the Republic of Croatia's alleged anti-fascist political agenda; who have legitimate Western educations and actually know how to communicate in the English language."

• Contrary to your belief, Wikipedia is not a forum. The purpose of this page is not to discuss issues regarding the topic, but issues regarding the article. If you are unable or unwilling to contribute to the article in a constructive manner (and btw I have yet to see any reliable source or reference for anything you cared to share with us here) then you are NOT doing anything constructive for the project. You have been kindly asked to follow Wikipedia's policies on more than one occasion, but you have stubbornly ignored every piece of advice given. Not only are you using this talk page as a soapbox, you are also incapable of expressing a minimum level of civility towards other editors. Long story short - we would all much rather prefer to discuss this article with Wikipedia editors who abide by Wikipedia policies. Please don't bother posting here again unless you have a reliable reference for whatever you want to claim. Timbouctou 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A discussion page on wikipedia actually is a forum, that's precisely what a forum is. What I have written here specifically addresses the article which is not by any means neutral. I don't see the point in sourcing anything because between yourself and another user in particular - there is a totalitarian method of editing here specifically on NDH and yugoslavia related articles with a specific agenda at hand. I'm not going to waste my time here for now as I need to wait for modern studies on such matters to accumulate and by that time maybe you too will know something about NDH and or international policies; as so far you have demonstrated nothing beyond what kids in grades 4 to 8 learned in SFRY. Note to you, the Ustasa Movement was not the HSP and neither were allowed to legally act within the totalitarian Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The legitimacy of the HSS laid within the fact that it was the only party which was able to act freely within the democratic process after the pronunciation of the January 6th dictatorship. The Ustasa Movement was more involved secretly however within Croatia than it was in exile, and this is pointed out by the modern day guru of the pre-war Ustasa movement Mario Jareb.AP1929 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AP (who derives his user name from the founding year and leader-initials of a decidedly fascist totalitarian party :) generally likes to accuse all users who oppose him of "totalitarianism". Communist conspiracies will likely follow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You came to those conclusions yourself, and if you're going to accuse me of the former, know that the Ustasa movement was neither fascist nor a political party. The only person that worships totalitarianism and fascism (red fascism) and totalitarian dictators is you.AP1929 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav

Someone added Yugoslav fascist leader, but the fact is, Yugoslavia had no fascist leader, except maybe Prince Pavle.

See here what Wikipedia says about Vlassov: "General Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov or Wlassow (Russian: Андрéй Андрéевич Влáсов, September 14 [O.S. September 1] 1900 — August 2, 1946) was a Russian former Soviet Army general who collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II.[1]"

So, as we can notice, he wasn't Soviet general, but Russian, even though, formaly, Russia didn't existed, but since we can't say he was a Soviet (chap was highly anti-communist and pro-Russian), we say Russian (becouse he was highly pro-Russian and Russian nationalist). I don't know how people can't understand so simple thing.

Adding Yugoslav fascist leader is nonsense, firstly it is not referenced, secondly how could he be Yugoslav fascist leader (maybe he represented Greater Yugoslavia, who knows?), and the most importantly he was highly anti-Yugoslav and higly pro-Croatian.

And adding nonsenses like this makes Wikipedia bad reputation, or political playground, so stop it.--Wustefuchs (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Secon thing. Section "Nationality" in infobox is highly unsourced, becouse Pavelić had many citizenships (and nationality isn't always necessary a citizenship, it can also be a ethnicity). Pavelić was, by citizenship, Austrian-Hungarian, Yugoslav, Croatian and Argentinian. His latest citizenship was Argentinian so... why should we write about his "nationality". And another thing about this, it makes article unstable, and, nobody sees him as Yugoslav in literature or anywhere and he had so many "nationalities". And my proposal is voting about that we erase "Nationality" section from infobox. Vote "yes" if you agree to be erased and vote "no" if you don't want it to be erased.

1. Yes--Wustefuchs (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. What is the point of this? If I had a nickel for each time I've seen this rhetorical ploy employed... xD Post a "vote" you just invented, and WP:CANVASS all the folks you think will vote your way. It is not so easy to circumvent sources and actual discussion, Erwin.

This is not how things are done on Wikipedia. I certainly won't accept any "vote" as an argument under any circumstances regardless of the outcome (per guidelines). I do however accept that the current lead is ambiguous so, rather than voting, I suggest we find a less ambiguous phrasing that does not make him sound like a "Yugoslav fascist leader" and mentions that he was a Yugoslav as well as Croatian politician.
As for the infobox, I don't think a global plebiscite on the question would do much to erase sourced historical facts. :) It will be a cold day down under when members of the Yugoslav Parliament cannot be described as Yugoslav citizens on enWiki... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My friend, then we sort that out very easly, just watch.--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you will also agree when I say that nationality can mean so many things, while citizenship is more correct. So I just changed nationality to citizenship, we all happy now?--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, it seams you are not completly aware what nationality means. Nationality is membership to a nation or in some state, so Pavelić is by nationality Croat.--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Assume good faith and adjust your tone accordingly, DIREKTOR. It seems to me that the issue is not whether AP was a Yugoslav national (he clearly was) but whether to include the fact in the infobox. Since we also know he held several other nationalities (in addition to "Croatian" if you count NDH) we are unlikely ever to arrive to an infobox-appropriate formulation which would be useful to our readers. Biography infoboxes are supposed to represent short summaries of vital pieces of information about a person - they are not considered article subsections themselves ad it is standard practice that if a bit of information requires a lenghty explanation the parameter referring to it should either be dropped altogether or it should link to a separate section of the article where this is discussed in more detail. If we select one of several possible nationalities we risk to make it look misleading. If we list all of them without explaining it further then it defeats the whole purpose of the infobox. I see no point in insisting on keeping this bit of information in the infobox (for comparison most biographies of Croats who were born in Croatia when it was part of Austria-Hungary DO NOT list them as "Austro-Hungarian" nationals - in most cases we simply omit that parameter). If you really want to be pedantic about it than Josip Broz Tito's infobox should state that his nationality was Austro-Hungarian (1892-1918) and Yugoslav (1918-1980) similar to what you can see in the Adolf Hitler article, and AP's entry should then list Austria-Hungary (1889-1918), Yugoslavia (1918-1959) and Croatia (1941-1945).
• Regarding the succession boxes mess - again, there are issues with them which defeat their purpose. I have yet to find out what exactly was the "Poglavnik"'s role in the administration of NDH. All Wustefuchs can come up with are references to the fact that he was indeed referred to as such but this does not shed any light on what being Poglavnik legally meant. We already had this discussion earlier and I thought that the previous version (before your "fixes") was the best way to present available information. The "fixed" version makes no sense and is totally confusing to an average reader (so according to the current version a reader may think that Aimone was prince designate before 1941 and Mandić assumed his Prime Minister office in 1945). Also, I find it ironic that you insist on describing AP as a Yugoslav national and supporting it with the fact that he was member of the Yugoslav parliament, but you refuse to put in the word "Yugoslav" in the "Member of Parliament" succession box (or the infobox for that matter). Any reader who skims through he article will automatically assume that he was MP in the same country he was later head of, and because of that will be puzzled by the "Yugoslav national" entry. Instead of exchanging demeaning remarks in the talk page this should be dealt with a new Template:S-par parameter for the Yugoslav National Assembly. This leaves the issue of his successors and predecessors in the parliament seat. I assume there were no successors as the parliament was disbanded in 1929. As for predecessors, we would need a referenced source to claim what constituency he was elected to parliament from and include his predecessors from that constituency (presumably the ones who won seats in the 1925 election). Until we get that kind of information, a succession box saying that he was succeeded and preceded by question marks doesn't really add anything to the article. (And if the Yugoslav election system was anything similar to what we have in Croatia today (proportional representation with people elected from party lists), the succession box probably is not appropriate at all, which is also the reason why we don't have any for members of the modern Croatian parliament).
• @ Wustefuchs: Yes, nationality means "mebership of a nation" and "nation" is defined as a "politically organized people" and "people" is an ethnic category defined as a group of person sharing the same language, culture, etc (e.g. it's synonymous with "ethnicity"). That's the reason why there are millions of Kurds and Basques in the world, but not a single one of them could be described as a Kurdish or Basque national, at least not until independent Kurdish or Basque countries come into existence. In Pavelić's case Croats (the people) were politically organized (e.g. had a nation state) only between 1941 and 1945 and it would make sense to list him as a Croatian national only for that period. A baby born in Zagreb in 1942 and who died in 1944 would be a "Croatian national" only, but anyone who lived here before or after NDH is considered to have had other superseding nationalities before 1941 and after 1945 (Austro-Hungarian and/or Yugoslav). There are many persons living in Croatia today who were born in the early 1940s in the Italian-occupied Dalmatia or in Istria and I know for a fact that they had the option to be listed as being born as Italian nationals in the 2001 Croatian census. Timbouctou 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We agree in in almost everything you said now. Like I said, the best option would be if we would erase "nationality" and "citizenship" becouse that isn't so important. Why it is not important? Becouse it is not constructive in any way, moreover, reader can get impression, by reading, that Pavelić was Yugoslav extremist, a Yugoslav fascist, just by reading a infobox or begining of the aricle when it was stated "Croatian and Yugoslav fascist leader". I even think that we should erase ethnicity and his religion, becouse that can't tell about person very much. It is clearly he was a Croat, jut by reading the article, not importaint in wich way. And about his Catholicism, he was inactive catholic who stated that he would convert to orthodoxy if Orthodox people of Croatia would become Croats. heh. But, we will do all that later.

So, my point is, why to keep his "citizenship" or "nationality" when he had so many, he was Austrian-Hungarian, Yugoslav, Argentinian, Croat. Funny thing would be if we would put Yugoslav in Tuđman's infobox or for Adolf Hitler that he was Austrian-Hungarian. And even if we would follow his latest nationality, he would remain Argentinian. DIREKTOR stated that the proof he was a citizen of communist Yugoslavia is that they asked from Argentina his extradition, but Adolf Eichman was extradited to Israel, and even judged in Israel.--Wustefuchs (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I did Assume good faith, and my tone was just normal. I thought I had a good idea by changing nationality to citizenship, and so I "stabilized" the infobox for a while, that's why I said "just watch"... not threat... :)--Wustefuchs (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Eichman was not extradited to Israel and could not have been be extradited to Israel, he was smuggled out in great secrecy by the Mossad. I think they even made a film about that.

Wustefuchs, there is really no disputing he was a Yugoslav "national". What else was he? An NDH citizen?? xP If you can show he was a Spanish or Italian or Argentinian citizen/subject I will concede the point.

While I do applaud your ingenious stroke in the infobox, I do not see any solution for the lead problem... AP was a Yugoslav politician. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I think this deserves a special section.

About that average reader could get confused with this Poglavnik, PM, Monarch etc. I suggest that we erase Mandić as succesor and maybe we also can erase monarch.

• Monarch didn't had so much authority, but also de iure he was a king, but only until 1943... so I'm still confused about this.

• Mandić didn't inheirt him as Poglavnik, but he remained Prime Minister, a de facto leader of Croatia when Poglavnik flee the country.--Wustefuchs (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The king-designate definitely stays, Pavelić himself invited him into the position. As for Mandić... he did succeed him in the function of prime minister so as these sort of infoboxes go he should stay as well I think... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested this becouse someone could get confused becouse of that "Prime Minister".--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I hope this is the end of editing the infobox...--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No it is not as we still haven't solved the Poglavnik issue. The dedicated article clams that the title meant prime minister 1941-43 and head of state 1943-45 (e.g. the two offices seems to have never been united in the title of Poglavnik). This should be reflected in the infobox with separate entries for head of state and prime minister roles, and the same should be done with the infobox. In fact, according to historical records the only tangible thing that Poglavnik's office actually meant was "head of the ustaše movement" - which means an additional entry for his role as Ustaše leader is needed and that entry alone should use the title Poglavnik (preferably linking to the Poglavnik article). Also, a stub about Bradina should be created (I'm not happy with the piped link pointing to Konjic) and his party memberships should be listed chronologically with the latest on top and earliest on bottom. Also, he was never a member of HSP but HČSP and this should be corrected. Changing "Member of Parliament" to "Member of the Yugoslav National Assembly" would also be helpful as the current formulation is misleading to readers. Also, I'd like to see a reference for the claim that he was Roman Catholic. Timbouctou 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

At this time I would like to point out the difference between "misleading" and "unspecific", because I think you mean the latter. The entry in no way suggests in which parliament he served so it cannot, by definition, be "misleading".

The title of the office he occupied was "Poslanik" (lit. "emissary"), which in English is always translated as "Member of Parliament". We really cannot invent titles such as "Member of Parliament of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" here. Two more notes: 1) Listing his prime minister in no way means he was subordinate to him; 2) I'll leave the "Poglavnik" issue to Wastefox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are mixing up "clarification" and "invention". Saying that he was member of parliament X is in no way WP:OR. We are not inventing anything if we are avoiding confusion that an average reader might experience. When in doubt it is always better to include a few extra words than to deal with comments by misinformed readers on this talk page down the line, which will be caused by us blindly following the established convention. The convention used on Wikipedia certainly was not designed to deal with people who were members of parliament in on country and then heads of state in another. Hypothetically, what would DIREKTOR do if he had to make an infobox for a person who at different times served in both the modern Croatian and Bosnian parliaments (which is a theoretical possibility). You would just list "Member of Parliament" twice? How informative. Also, "unspecific" IS "misleading" in this case. We should be idiots not to understand that readers will inevitably make a wrong assumption BECAUSE we insist on ambiguous wording. The reader automatically assumes that if no other determiner is used that MP naturally refers to the parliament of the country of his nationality. Besides, how would you, a fan of commonly used translations of offices held, explain FULL parliament and assembly names used in Template:S-par? Timbouctou 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll ignore this Waste-Fox. AP was named Poglavnik of the Ustaša Movement when he found his revolutionary organization in Italy. With proclamation of NDH in proclamation of Slavko Kvaternik from April 10, 1941 he was also named Poglavnik. Now, ther was never a definition by Constitution or by some law what Poglavnik realy means, but it is very known that he named Government, hold all state power in his hands. Between 1941 and 1943 in newspapers, on television, on parades he is refered as Poglavnik also. When king Tomislav abdicated he formaly becomed Head of State and he continued to hold title of Poglavnik, and at the same time he named Nikola Mandić as Prime Minister (Predsjednik Vlade).--Wustefuchs (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If we are to be encyclopedic than we must stick with what the formal role of Poglavnik was. Sure, he was referred to as "Poglavnik" by the media and everyone else, but like you said, the title was NOT based on any law passed by NDH. In that sense it was nothing more than a nickname. NDH had a head of state (referred to as such) and it had a prime minister (also referred to as such) throughout its existence, and it would have continued to have them even if Ante happened to have been killed before the end of the War, although the persons who would have replaced him probably wouldn't have been referred to as "Poglavnik". The only legal meaning of the term is actually "Leader of UHRO" and that is exactly what we should tell the readers. Timbouctou 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Timbouctou. The infobox entry "title=" is for "titles", not clarifications. "Member of Parliament of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" is not a title. What is there to discuss? By your definition of "misleading" every title in existence should carry the name of the state in it for Wikipedia purposes.

The reason why we don't use states in titles is because in most cases we don't need to (we don't need to specifically say that a French politician was member of the French parliament). But this case is different and we should. Also, you are completely right about "every title in existence carrying the name of the state in it for Wikipedia purposes". Also, if I choose to discuss things DIREKTOR-style I could use your argument and extend it ad absurdum to fit my purpose and suggest that the whole Category:Representatives in the Yugoslav National Assembly (1921–1941) is pointless and should be merged into Category:Members of Parliaments (because hey - it's always translated that way). In fact the more I think about this I'm becoming more convinced that the same formatting with the assembly name (or at least a demonym) should be used for ALL the people who were at some point members of defunct parliaments and assemblies in former Yugoslavia. And btw you did not reply what would you do with an article about a person who served in several different parliaments sme of which are defunct (like many Yugoslav politicians did) or in several present-day parliaments (like many Bosnian Croat politicians potentially could). Timbouctou 19:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The "title=" infobox entry uses the official title alone, without "clarifications". Wikipedia categories are supposed to have names that disambiguate between each other. Your ad absurdum is absurd :). Your whole argument above was based on the claim that it is "misleading", which is demonstrably not so since the entry mentions no country whatsoever, and even lists Alexander I of Yugoslavia as monarch. Its an infobox, Tim, its not supposed to explain everything. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Wustefuchs. The noun "waste" in its primary meaning is a synonym for "desert". A more literal translation of "Wüstenfuchs" would be "Wastefox" ("wüste" = "waste" = "desert"). I had not meant it as a provocation. (Also, correct me if I'm wrong but Field Marshal Rommel's nom de guerre was "Wüstenfuchs", rather than "Wüstefuchs" :)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's WusteNfuchs, but I forgot to add "n" when I registrated to Wikipedia, so I have unicate name now. Ok, I get it now, no problem.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To get back on the subject. Neither his title "Prime Minister" was described in any law or Constitution. Only king and Mandić had described titles by the law. Pavelić was de facto leader or Poglavnik of NDH. Like you said if someone would succeed him during the war he wouldn't have title of Poglavnik, well ofcourse he wouldn't. Same thing with Adolf Hitler, the Führer was succeeded by Karl Dönitz with title Reichspräsident.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And not to forgot, Hitler was de iure Reichskanzler and Reichspräsident, but still, refered as Führer.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No. His official title was "Führer" as well. It was not an informal form of address. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Can you show which article of the Reichs' Constitution describes duties of Fuhrer? But that is not even so ipmortant.

Ther are many documents from 1941 to 1943 wher Pavelić brings a variety of laws signed as "Poglavnik, dr. Ante Pavelić". One of those documents is Provision for orders, medals and decorations of the Independent State of Croatia for Military Order of the Iron Trefoil declared on 27 December 1941 wher Pavelić signed a provision as Poglavnik Nezavisne Države Hrvatske Dr. ANTE PAVELIĆ v. r. ( Polavnik of the Independent State of Croatia Dr. ANTE PAVELIĆ v. R.) He signed this togehter with dr. Mirko Puk, Minister of Justice and Worship.--Wustefuchs (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims

At the beginning of the aricle it is stated that he is responsible for deah of hundreds of thousends people in concentration camps. Now, this is the list of NDH concentration camps and number of victoms:

• Jasenovac - 77,743-100,000 (we can say around 85,000)
  • This source says that ther was 77,743 victims in Jasenovac http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm#Jasenovac Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century. 100,000 says BBC over here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1673249.stm , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4479837.stm .
  • Franjo Tuđman stated that ther was between 60,000-70,000 victims
  • Slavko Goldstein stated that ther was between 60,000-90,000 victims
  • Bogoljub Kovčić stated tat ther was 70,000
  • Vladimir Žerjavić stated 83,000
  • Centar Simon Wiesenthal estimated around 85,000 vitims

• Jaovno - 30,000-40,000
  • http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/107424/Default.aspx

• Stara Gradiška (part of Jasenovac) - 12,790-75,000
  • Jelka Smreka, Gradiška, ustaški koncentracijski logor
  • Davor Kovačić, Iskapanja na prostoru logora Stara Gradiška i procjena broja žrtava

• Pag - 8,500
• Đakovo - 3,500
• Jastrebarsko - 1,018
• Lepoglava - 1000

If we count all numbers of victms from those camps (I'll take the highest numbers) then we got 228,518 victms not hundreds of thousends, but two hundred twenty-two thousand and five hundred and eighteen victms.

Besides that people died elsewhere, as I stated in my earlier edit, and ther was around 300,000 and 350,000 Serbs killed in total (including the camp): Ustašas very rearly killed Jews and Roma outsied of camps, and total number of dead inocent Jews in NDH is, acconring to Slavko Goldstein is 39,500, and according to Žerjavić between 25,800-26,700. Number of dead Roma is around 10,000

So when we collect all that numbers we got around, as I said 300,000-350,000 maybe 370,000-380,000 victms, that are inocent (that is not partisans, not criminals not soldiers of any side).--Wustefuchs (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I hope you understand, Wustefuchs, this is a HUGE issue. We are absolutely not allowed to research or "add-up" the victims in the manner above - that constitutes WP:OR. Not only that, but the professional sources on this issue differ hugely on their total sum, and may I add what you have there are (unfortunately) the lower estimates.

I myself would start by trying to see what prof. Tomasevich has to say on the numbers. He generally does not utter a word without a ton of sources and a thorough objective evaluation... In any event I would seriously recommend we drop this for now. Its not a discussion for this article anyway, but for the NDH article itself. It would be necessary to open a new section on the talkpage there, probably post an RfM, invite other users, etc etc.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a big issue, but hundrits of thousends are many numbers. But you call on WP:OR, so I have nothing to do. And maybe this is place for article about NDH, so we can close this question for some time.--Wustefuchs (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really no question at all that it is indeed a big issue. There is no question that it is hotly debated and disputed. I will also politely add that you should have already known about WP:OR yourself, thus eliminating the need for someone to "call on it". We generally do not follow policy only when it is "called on". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A discussion about the number of victims of Ustaše crimes is a big one. Numerous times contradicting numbers were presented on Wikipedia and fiercely quarreled over by nationalists. The numbers range between ridiculous extremes, from 70,000 to 700,000. Do this properly or don't do it at all. I myself suggest that you spare us all a repeat performance and simply leave the text at "hundreds of thousands", which seems accurate by most accounts. (Then again your perception of myself as some sort of an "adversary" may well prompt you to deliberately go against my advice - reverse psychology. C'est la vie... :))).

I will however say that your introduction is such accurate numbers is, at least, never going to stick. A proper estimate there simply has to be a synthesis of at least several studies, giving a range of numbers, exempli gratia "100,000-300,000"... The proper approach would be to try to find independent, non-ex-Yugoslav professional authors, published by reliable university presses, gather them here and display the data as it is uncovered. I however feel your research on this subject may be a tad biased in that you may simply be unwilling to present too high estimates. Am I being paranoid? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't say you are paranoid. But total number of victims in Yugoslavia, during the World War II is:

• Serbs - 487,000
• Croats - 207,000
• Bosniaks - 86,000
• Jews - 60,000
• Montenegrins - 50,000
• Slovenes - 30,000

Total - about 947,000 South Slavs

(Numbers are according to Ivo Goldstein)

On the other hand Yugoslav Federal Bureu, trying to drain the money from West Germany represented 1,671,000 victims (!). Germany refused to pay, so, very funny thing, they halved number of victims to get money, so in 1964 they represented in total 509,849 vitims.

• Serbs

It is clearly that Ustaše didn't kill all of those people, so, according to Ivo Goldstein and Bideleux's book (not my own research) on terittory of NDH (not whole Yugoslavia) lived 2,1 milion of Serbs. 330,000 of those Serbs perished and 217,000 perished as victims of fascist terror. Of that, 124,000 in their towns and villages; 93,000 in concentration camps; 82,000 as partisans (not crime to kill partisans, so we don't count those), 23,000 as member of Chetniks (killed by Ustaše and partisans, also we don't count them as crime).

• Croats (Bosniaks included)

3.4 milions of Craots lived on terittory of NDH, 135,000 perished; 46,000 as partisans (again, not crime) and 19,000 in camps. 70,000 of Croats were killed by partisans.

Again, I'll say, this is not my own research but research of Ivo Goldstein and by book of Robert Bideleux named The Balkans: a post-communist history on page 191. --Wustefuchs (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A great many problems there.

• First and foremost: you posses no information on the actual victims of the Ustaše. Merely on "fascist terror". Need it be said here that the troops that actually did most of the real fighting for the Axis were (as usual) the Germans? "Fascist terror" can mean Prinz Eugen SS and Whermacht victims, far more than the Ustaše, who were actually a rather small military force (the Home Guard were large but practically useless, and mostly served as static defensive units). The bottom line is: we can discern nothing from the above numbers.
• I am suspicious as to the number of "70,000" dead Croats at the hands of the Partisans, can we see some corroboration? It does not fit, in which capacity were they killed?
• Is it a "crime" to kill Partisans? Why, yes. Lets not lose sight of the legal situation. The Partisans were the legal military of the (universally recognized) "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia". Ustaše members were rebels (in fact their name translates as "rebels"), the fifth column - they were not enemy combatants. So rebel citizens of Yugoslavia killing Yugoslav soldiers are indeed guilty of high treason and murder. Furthermore, Partisans prisoners and wounded were almost without exception executed on the spot by Ustaše. The Partisan death toll should be added without a doubt to the number of deaths. Chetniks should probably also be counted.
• Goldstein is just one of MANY authors that published such numbers. We cannot possibly write anything without additional sources.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I qouted the book and wrote fascist terror, but how many people did killed "Prinz Eugen" division on terittory of NDH? Only a small number of people. Their main activity was in Serbia and Montenegro. And most of crimes comited in NDH was by Ustaše. We all know that Germans carried out mass murdering of Jews and Serbs along with Hungarians mostly in Banate and Vojvodina (not terittory of NDH).

• Well, this number of 70,000 dead Croats murdered by the partisans is also quotation from the book, and since it is not important to the article we have no need to discuss it... agree?

• And I said it is not a crime to kill a partisan. Recognized as a legal army or not, it is not crime (If they are recognized it is not crime becouse it was a war, and if not recognized [they weren't at first, I think they were recognized as allies at Teheran Conferetion in December 1943] they were only a rebels. But you should know that rebels are also considered as an army and should be treathed as a regular army (but rebels also need to be organize as an army, not bunch of terrists).

• You have also a source from Yugoslav Federal Buereu from 1964: 509,849 vitims in total (that is, in whole Yugoslavia).--Wustefuchs (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Its not just the 7th SS Prinz Eugen, I just mentioned them to differentiate from the Wehrmacht. Like I said, we have no way to discern how many of the victims of "fascist terror" were actually Ustaše victims, and not Italian or German victims. It is not something we can ignore.
• Agreed.
• Killing Partisans is indeed a "crime" in legal terms. Note: the sentence "it was a war" means absolutely nothing with regard to the Ustaše. The Germans were at war with Yugoslavia, the Ustaše were Yugoslav civilians in revolt and collaborating with the enemy (fifth column). They were NOT, under any circumstances, considered enemy combatants at war with the Allies. You're right, though, strictly speaking we should try to find out how many the Ustaše killed AFTER November 1943, but its a far bigger error to exclude the Yugoslav military entirely.
• Does the last source refer to Ustaše victims?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Italians and Wehrmacht didn't killed significant number of civilians. But crimes in NDH were commited by Ustaše, Yugoslav partisans and Chetniks, mainly. And we are talking only about Ustaše crimes.
• And no, it's not a crime, especially in battle. We aren't talking about POWs. According to Geneva Conventions "Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity... ...Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war."

We are talking about the parties of the conflict, rebbels or not, ustaše or partisans, all the same. War is not a crime, killing POWs is diiferent story.--Wustefuchs (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Independent State of Croatia had declared a state of war, that is very important. So officially, in both states, the war was conducted.--Wustefuchs (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to repeat myself constantly.

• Quite simply: no. Not all crimes in the NDH were committed by the Ustaše, not by a long shot. Find real information.
• This is really getting ridiculous. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: they were legally not combatants, but civilians. The Geneva Conventions have absolutely nothing to do with this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with you, this is getting ridiculous. If so, only Chetniks were legal army in Yugoslavia, and all big battles of partisans was led by bunch of civilians (until december 1943). Heh... no energy to disscus any more.--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And to tell you. US, Brits an' all allies were at war with NDH officialy. And NDH wasn't at war with SSSR, that's the reason Red Army never entered NDH, but they led partisans to advence. They didn't enter, becouse, officialy, Soviet Union wasn't at war with NDH, same reason, NDH couldn't send Croatian uniformed soldiers but volunteers in German uniforms. You, I hope, understand what means part of conflict.

Same reason, why Republic of Croatia declared Bleiburg masscre a crime against humanty - Partisans didn't respect Geneva Conventions about the POWs.

And to me, it seams you are playing legal farce lol. Look at this way, Croatian Parliament never officialy recongized Kingdom of Yugoslavia, then they are, officialy ocupators, and Ustaše are freedom fighters that is, they led Resistance movement. At least, NDH was recognized by Croatiam Parliament. :)--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• There really isn't much to say. You are unable to understand that I'm speaking from a legal, de jure standpoint. De facto the Ustaše, and yes the Partisans before 1943, were indeed military organizations, but legally they were civilians. Both of them. The Partisans were quite illegal indeed before Tehran. How anyone could possibly contest all this is beyond me...
  This is exactly why nobody was persecuted by international WWII crimes tribunals for Bleiburg or for the Soviet massacre of the Cossacks. They were all legally Yugoslav and Soviet citizens, civilians summarily executed for high treason during wartime. This in not to in any way diminish the horror of either of the two events, mind you

• No. The Allies never diplomatically recognized the NDH, and did at no point declare war on it. To do so would be an utter fiasco. They fought the Ustaše, sure, just as they fought all Axis fifth column troops, but this has nothing to do with recognition. You have a lot to learn about this topic, methinks. The Red Army left Yugoslavia after assisting in the Belgrade Operation. They entered because the Partisans were no good at urban warfare and could not take Belgrade on their own. They left because Yugoslav Prime Minister Tito had Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin had agreed that they would do so some months before in their meeting where they agreed on all the details of Soviet involvement on Yugoslav territory. The very idea that they did not enter the NDH because they were "at peace"(!) with a fascist Axis puppet they never even recognized is such unimaginable nonsense its almost funny.

• @"The Croatian Parliament never officialy recongized Kingdom of Yugoslavia". As I suspected, you have a lot to learn about this stuff. This is exactly the sort of uninformed nonsense I exepected to hear at some point.
  The Parliament of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia voted to merge into the National Assembly of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, legally transferring all its powers and authority into that body, and then joined it. The National Assembly then voted to merge with the Kingdom of Serbia into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Kingdom of Yugoslavia).Therefore:
  • When the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created, the Sabor had dissolved itself for several months. Apart from the fact that the Sabor had transferred its powers to the National Assembly, its members were a part of the National Assembly when it voted (virtually unanimously) to unite with Serbia.
    It may be interesting to note that this particular myth, which has absolutely nothing to do with the facts, was invented by the Ustaše and used in their propaganda.
  • It may also be interesting that the "Parliament of Croatia" did not even exist at the time. What is roughly today's Croatia was represented by the Sabor of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and also by the Diet of the Kingdom of Dalmatia (which also joined the National Assembly and voted overwhelmingly for the merge).

Nonsense on so many levels. Of teh quality of wartime propaganda, in essence... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

National Assemby didn't vote anything, that's the fact, but they sent delegation to Belgrade, you should know that...

Ok, that isn't even the point... we were talking what is crime, and what's not. If you have your source for number of victims, that is hundreds of thousands, then, please add it, if not, then I'll change that soon.--Wustefuchs (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's get to the case:

Book of Vladimir Žerjavić, named "Yugoslavia - Manipulations with the number of Second World War victims, published by Croatian Information Centre has numbers of people killed by Ustaše and Gemrans. It goes like this:

Victims	Number
Total	322,000
Partisans	82,000
Colaborators (Ustaše, Chetniks etc.)	23,000
Taken to the German camp in Zemun	20,000
Died of typhoid	25,000
Killed by Germans	45,000
Killed by Italians	15,000
Civilians killed in battles led by Ustaše, partisans and Chetniks	34,000
Killed in prisons, pits and other camps	28,000
Killed in Jasenovac-Gradina camp	50,000

Now, we see that numbers are around 300,000-350,000 by every source.--Wustefuchs (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Those don't give number of more then 300,000 killed Serbs (inocent civilians), but much, much less. So, I think that source of Goldstein of 217,000 dead Serbs is good. We can also add to the sentence died on terittory on NDH, and not to mention killed by whom....--Wustefuchs (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, Žerjavić, UN's expert, found 197,000 killed Serb civilians. So Goldstein's and Žerjavić's numbers are very, very close - 217,000 and 197,000. More then that is impossible. You should forget the old manipulative, propaganda books and investigations by former communist Yugoslavia about 1,704,000 killed so they can, as Kardelj stated, get more reparations. lol.--Wustefuchs (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... I love those word-games. They voted to send a delegation to Belgrade in order to merge with Serbia. That was the decision. They did not have a choice, really, Radić was a moron to "oppose" that. The State of SHS had no international recognition and was already occupied by the Italian and Serbian army, if they did not vote the Serbs and Italians would simply have partitioned Yugoslavia. We'd be living in "Serbia" and Italy right now, good call Radić! :) The Italians were really pissed anyway they did not get Dalmatia.

The bottom line is: check the facts, look-up the data. We're so flooded with nationalist nonsense here in Croatia very few people actually know their own history. Croats did genuinely want to join into a Yugoslav state, it was the culmination of a century-old national goal of the Illyrians, e.g. Zagreb's Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts. The fact that the Serbs ruled the new state and tried to Serbianize everybody :), essentially ruining the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, is a different matter entirely (though the Banovina of Croatia was eventually created, so..).

To business, though, you're right. Again, the two problems:

• That is for both the Ustaše AND Germans. The two may be impossible to separate since the Ustaše were under Wehrmacht command. This means we will have to mention that this is Ustaše AND Germans in the text if we are going to include this.
• I see the data, but its Croatian data. We need more sources, independent ones. For example: the Jasenovac victim count. Here you can read all about that [3]. "50,000" is the LOWEST known estimate, see especially the victim lists. I'm frankly not convinced Žerjavić is 100% neutral, or to be more clear, I think we need more, independent sources concerning total Ustaše victims. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the first number from wikipedia (600,000) is sourced by Yad Vashem, and they are, I will be polite, bad source. Becouse they officialy stated Ustaše murders in Jasenovac 600,000 people, and also, officialy, stated, that in total Ustaše killed 500,000 people. So, we can just ignore them.

Žerjavić's source about Jasenovac I don't whant to comment, I just qouted him from his book. Also, we should ignore research from communist time. They weren't very stabile about the numbers, they had habit of changing that te get more reparations. And let's stick to the some foreign historians (even though, Žerjavić is good enoguh, former partisan, Communist Party member, worked earlier with the number of victims for Yugoslavia, UN's expert), like example, a very good source, Simon Wiesenthal Center, says it was 85,000 dead, and I bealive that this is very good estimate, becouse it can be good compared with Tuđman's (60,000-70,000), Goldstein's (60,000-90,000), Kovčić's (70,000), Žerjavić's (very close 83,000)... Most sources say between 60,000 to 85,000-100,000 (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) all other is exaggeration.

But, our problem isn't Jasenovac, but total number, and yes, we will also write that they were killed on terittory of NDH by Ustaše and their Axis allies (or something like that). And only historians who deal with people killed on terittory of NDH are Croatian or Serbian historians, so it is almost imposibble to find British, Russian or Georgian historian who will dedicate his book to this. But I did add foreign source, qotation from book of Robert Bideleux, he is French I think (like it's important). Croatian sources are very good, I hope you are not thinking that Croatian historians are lower class then others and that you don't think Goldstain and Žerjavić are being subjective to NDH or something.--Wustefuchs (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now, I'll add information about number in total (Serbs, Jews, Roma etc) at the beginning, and add number of dead Serbs at the bottom of the article. Also, I'll add that they were killed on terittory of NDH by Ustaše and their allies, we agreed on this, didn't we?--Wustefuchs (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected this thread, as you can see we have a real situation with the Chetniks over there... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)