Talk:Bleiburg repatriations/Archive 5

Zerjavic and “demographic estimates” of Bleiburg
In "Manipulations with WW2 victims in Yugoslavia”, Zerjavic cites the following victim estimates for Bleiburg – 45.000-55.000 Croats/Bosniaks, 8.000 Slovenes and 1.500 – 2.000 Serbs. This adds up to 54.500 to 65.000 total, somewhat different than the 70,000 total victim number quoted by Tomasevich. Since Zerjavic adjusted his numbers over time, and since Manipulations is a later work than the source quoted by Tomasevich, I suggest these numbers be used.

This gets to a related issue. Zerjavic’s census-based estimates, are good for estimating totals (e.g. total number of Serbs or Croats killed), but the census data say nothing about subtotals - e.g. number of Croats killed after Bleiburg, vs. number of Croats killed by Nazis-fascists-Ustashe. So to get Bleiburg numbers he had to do some additional guesstimating. How far off these guesstimates can be is illustrated by fact that for 1990s Bosnian War, Zerjavic overestimated the number of Croat victims by 500% and Bosniak victims by 130%, over what human rights groups now estimate are the true totals

For Bosnian War estimates it looks like Zerjavic took what was then the generally-accepted total number of victims - 200.000 - and he increased it a bit to 220.000, then sought to guesstimate the ethnic composition by using other info – news reports, etc. In any case he greatly overestimated the number of Croat and Bosniak victims. For Bleiburg victims he did similar guesstimates, and his Croat-Bosniak totals (45,000 to 55.000) turn out to be more than 3 to 4 times the named victims list total (13.300) of the Croatian state Commission for the determination of war and post-war victims.

It should be noted the long-time, generally-accepted Bosnian War victim total (200.000) also turned out to be double the current 100.000 estimate, based on named victim lists, which is now accepted by human rights groups as the correct number. The original 200.000 estimate was made by a neutral source (the UN) at a time of much better communication and international media and UN observers on the ground. Since it still turned out to be twice the true number, one should be all the more cautious of Bleiburg estimates that come from more politically or nationally biased sources Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * He did not just do demographic estimates, he compared the calculated demographic losses with various available sources, such as the state-wide 1946 victims lists, veteran publications, monographs... Here's what he wrote about it:


 * "The second part of my book gives a survey of actual losses published in other sources, i.e. monographs issued by people's committees in individual municipalities and districts, the Karlovac Historical Archives, the Federal Association of the Liberation War Fighters, and by some other authors. Registered, collected and classified data on the actual losses have been important for checking the statistically calculated results. Registered data for Croatia (available for all municipalities and districts), numbered 266,600 losses, while statistically calculated data showed 271,000 losses. For other republics and provinces 80-90% of the data was compiled, which denoted that the actual data could approximately match the statistically calculated data" p.10


 * That is how he made the detailed estimates of human losses, including Bleiburg, and Jasenovac too. His estimate for Jasenovac was 85,000 (upper link, p.11) and up to 100,000 at most ("Opsesije", p.69). 25 years later, the Jasenovac Memorial Site gives almost the exact numbers. Regarding Bleiburg, the Croatian "Commission on Establishment of Wartime and Post-war Victims" did not publish a complete list of Croats (and Bosniaks) that died in the Bleiburg events, only a list for Croatia of up to then (1999) collected data. Tezwoo (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Zerjavic had the extra data only for one side - i.e. victims of occupiers and collaborators, where there were named lists of victims, e.g. from questions asked about victims in 1960's censuses, which also included questions about Jasenovac victims. As Zerjavic states, these censuses did not collect data on victims on the other side. As far as I know, named victims lists for victims on the other side, including Bleiburg, were first published, after Zerjavic's death, by the state Commission for determining war and post-war victims, which claims to show 13.300 named victims of Bleiburg. As noted, these numbers are considerably below Zerjavic's estimate, even if we were to inflate the numbers further, for the 20-30% of those missing for various reasons from the list, like Zerjavic did with the other named lists.


 * Now the question is how complete is the list of 13.300 Bleiburg names? Sources state it was created working with Ustashe émigré organizations, including the Vatican ratlines priest, Krunoslav Draganovic, who spent 25 years documenting victims of what he called “partisan crimes”. Since he helped many Ustashe and Nazi leaders escape, he no doubt had excellent access to the entire Ustashe émigré community in compiling his lists. Additionally, sources say the Catholic Church across Croatia and Bosnia mobilized widely to assist the Commission in compiling names. The Church has registers of births and deaths, including info on when and how people died, in which the great majority of Croats were recorded at the time. All this would indicate that the list of 13.300 named Bleiburg victims may be pretty good, with an additional 20-30% missing, as is the case with some of the named list sources on the other sideThhhommmasss (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, I find Croatian Wikipedia to be highly unprofessional and biased, but in their Bleiburg article “Krizni put (1945)”, they say this of Zerjavic’s estimate of 50.000 Croatian and Bosniak Bleiburg victims: “From the demographic calculations of the total number of victims and known data on victims of fascism, Vladimir Žerjavić in his book ‘Obsessions and Megalomania about Jasenovac and Bleiburg’ concludes that the total number of Croats and Muslims killed on the NDH side is 99,000 (70,000 Croats and 29,000 Muslims). In his words, it is difficult to estimate how many of these died in battles during the war; maybe half”. Thus while the total number of Croat victims on the NDH side, during the war and post-war (70.000) seems to have been reasonably deduced, Zerjavic himself states that the proportion of these killed post-war, i.e. as part of Bleiburg, is pretty much a total guess.


 * It should be noted that the named victims lists compiled by the Commission on war and post-war victims, shows much fewer than half of the NDH-side victims being killed as part of Bleiburg, thus further indicating that Zerjavic overestimated Bleiburg Croat victims, and possibly Bosniak. Also if we take Zerjavic's estimates of victims of fascism, based on named lists, and to this we add the named victims on the NDH side, from the 1990's Commission, they roughly add up to Zerjavic's total demographic estimate of all Croat victims, based on census data. Thus between these 2 named victim list sources, there do not appear to be any large numbers of missing Croat named victims, and thus it also appears there are no missing large numbers of victims on the 13.300 named Bleiburg victims listThhhommmasss (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * NOB veteran publications and wartime documents give information on the losses of the enemy side as well, and emigrant literature also published data on the losses of the NDH forces, so he didn't have to just guess. NDH documents were also available. Most recent studies (like Portmann, Geiger or Grahek Ravančić) show a higher number of victims than the Žerjavić estimate, not a lower one or the same number. The Slovenian Institute of Contemporary History of Ljubljana collects data on the losses of Slovenia in World War II and its aftermath. Their most recent update of the victims list was in 2018, unlike the Croatian one which stopped working in 2000 and was dissolved in 2002. The 2008 Slovenian data showes that 14,274 Slovenians were killed after the war, and that is higher than the 8-10,000 estimate by Žerjavić. The Croatian Commision cited that 190,000 victims were in Slovenia alone, and they didn't say that the 13,000 number is final or close to the total number of Croat victims. Tezwoo (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, according to Žerjavić, the total number of Serbs that died during the war in the NDH of all causes (combatants, civilians, died of typhus...) is 322,000, which is in collision with the number given by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (which you cited in the article). The USHMM says that 320-340,000 Serbs were killed by the Ustaše between 1941 and 1942 alone , so the USHMM is incorrectly cited because the total number for 1941-1945 by their figures is much higher than that. Tezwoo (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If the Zerjavic quote on the hr.wikipedia "Krizni put (1945)" page is correct, he determined the total number of NDH-side victims. war and post-war (70.000) from demographic estimates of total Croatian losses (192.000), then subtracted estimates of Croatian victims of fascist-collaborators (based on named lists - it appears these equal to 122.000), and then further guesstimated that 50% of the 70.000 total NDH victims were killed as part of Bleiburg. Maybe someone can check the quoted source. Zerjavic specifically states that in Yugoslavia they only collected named lists of victims of fascists-collaborators. I have not seen him mention any victim lists on the other side. Can you provide a quote from Zerjavic where he states he had access to named lists of victims on the NDH side? Recent Croatian literature says that the 13.300 named Bleiburg victims of the 1990's Commission still represents the most comprehensive list of named Bleiburg victims.

The Slovene commission is interesting, since they now estimate some 96.000 total Slovene victims, much higher then Zerjavic's estimate of 42.000 Slovene victims. The vast majority of these victims, e.g. more than 70.000, were killed by fascists-collaborators, so this too is much higher than Zerjavics's estimate of total Slovene victims, also much higher than the number of named Slovene victims of fascism on Yugoslav named lists. Now they also say that of the 96.000 total victims, only some 52.000 have been confirmed. So its hard to say what is going on, since they have not published the details in a way that anyone can analyze. But if Zerjavic underestimated Bleiburg victims, then he could've also considerably underestimated Serb victims and victims of Nazi-collaborators in Croatia, just like according to the Slovene commission, he greatly underestimated Slovene victims of fascists-collaborators.

In any case the difficulty is that many of these lists have not been published, so other researchers can't verify them. The 1990's Croatian Commission was headed by a noted right-winger, Vice Vukojevic, who claimed that "the Jews in Jasenovac exterminated themselves", and found only 260 Jewish victims in all of Croatia, which represents Holocaust denial, since most other sources now estimate 30.000 Jewish victims, or nearly 80% of Jews in the NDH, with perhaps half or more from Croatia itself. Thus the Commission obviously had an interest to minimize victims of Ustasha and Nazi-fascists, while maximizing victims of the opposite side. Thus the validity of their 13.300 named Bleiburg victims can also be questioned. In any case, if for Croatia we add up the total named victims lists from both sides (using the Commission's data for the NDH side), the totals do not seem to indicate any large numbers of missing victims, compared to Zerjavic's demographic estimates of total Croatian victims

Btw, the Slovene Commission speculated there were 100.000 total Bleiburg-related victims, but later Mitja Ferenc, most responsible for uncovering post-war graves in Slovenia, said the figure is lower, perhaps "a few ten thousand", which includes all - Ustashe, chetniks, Slovene Home Guard Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention named victims lists for NDH losses at that time. I said that NOB reports and documents also reported losses of the enemy in various battles and operations. The reports of the NDH authorities did the same, and these were available to Žerjavić at the time he did his research, as well as various books written by emigrants. The only critique of Žerjavić's research that I found, regarding Bleiburg, was from people that claim that his estimates were far too low, like the one from Kazimir Katalinić (, this is Žerjavić's reply to Katalinić's criticism).


 * As for the Slovenian research, that number does not just include Slovenes. 53,473 deaths were confirmed in registers of deaths, but for obvious reasons not everyone was registered there. The number of Slovene deaths is higher than the estimates of both Žerjavić and Kočović. The Slovenian research is the only thorough one of the former Yugoslav countries so we can't compare the results of Žerjavić and Kočović with other ones, though most authors that I've read give higher figures for both Serb deaths in NDH and post-war deaths. Anyway, all reliable estimates and surveys should be mentioned in the article. For example, both Mitja Ferenc's remark and that of the Slovenian Commission are in the article, without stating that one is more accurate than the other. Tezwoo (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t know Katalinic, but if he's a Croat historian, then he may be like many Serb historians, who also agree that Zerjavic’s estimates are gross underestimates, but of course in their case, of Serb victims, and they provide their own estimates which are multiple times higher. Btw, there are also estimates considerably lower than Zerjavic’s - e.g. Tudjman’s estimate of 35.000 to 40.000, Djilas’s of 20.000 to 30.000, etc. Both these were well-informed sources, since at the time of Bleiburg, Tudjman was a Croatian representative at the Headquarters of the Yugoslav Army, and he also wrote of the “Bleiburg myth”, stating that estimates of hundreds of thousands of victims were much too big (Tudjman’s numbers are also consistent with Ferenc’s recent estimates of “a few ten thousands”)


 * On Google Books we can see a quote from Zerjavic’s “Obsession and megalomania with Jasenovac and Bleiburg”, where after figuring out total Croatian and Muslim victims on the NDH side, war and post-war, he says it is difficult to tell “what percent of them were killed during the war, but if we estimated this at 50%, that means that [Croat and Muslim] victims might amount to about 50.000”. Thus, he himself says this is entirely a guesstimate of what the numbers of Croat/Bosniak Bleiburg victims might be, and mentions no named Bleiburg victims lists in arriving at these numbers. Then others like Geiger, Grahek Ravančić, Portmann, etc, take Zerjavic’s guesstimate, turn this into a “minimum estimate”, and add guesstimates of their own on top, with few named victims on the Croat side to back them up. In fact, Grahek Ravančić writes that total Croat named victims that might be related to Bleiburg, amount to only some 5.000 names, and even these are dubious


 * So we have estimates of Croatian victims from 45.000 to 200.000, and even more, based on 5.000, or fewer named victims. This is very different from Zerjavic’s estimate of some 800.000 total victims of fascists-collaborators, which are 75% backed up by some 600.000 named victims from the 1964 census. Instead Zerjavic’s estimates of Croat/Bosniak Bleiburg victims resembles his estimates of 1990’s Bosnian War victims, where without named victim lists, he overestimated Croat victims by 500%, and Bosniak by 300%. It's also similar to other estimates of total Bosnian War victims, before named victims lists, that consistently overestimated total victims by 200%, 300% and more.


 * Slovene estimates of some 96.000 victims of WWII are only of Slovene residents. Their estimates of Slovene victims of fascists-collaborators is around 72.000, more than double Zerjavic’s estimates. Based on that, similar arguments can be made that Zerjavic also underestimated Serb victims of fascists-ustashe, then turn his estimate into a “minimum estimate”, then add other estimates of Serb victims in the NDH – 500.000, 700.000, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * One other thing that has proved unreliable, are guesstimates of victims at individual sites, made before these were excavated and even during excavation. Thus in the 1990s some organizations stated there were 10.000 to 15.000 victims at Huda Jama, and even once they opened the tunnel and started excavating, they estimated 7.000 victims, based on the size of the remaining pit to be uncovered, etc. Both these turned out to be very large overestimates, and both are similar to other existing estimates of number of victims at Harmica, Gornji Hrašćan, Tezno, etc, where they similarly have not started or completed excavations. Thus such unproven estimates should be considered with caution. Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We need to be steering away from making our own conclusions about estimates, or comparing them to other estimates made by a different method, and stick to what is in reliable sources. I suggest, where there are estimates, that it is made clear that unless the specific site has been excavated or a list of the killed is available, these estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. There are lots of axes to grind among people writing about these events, and lots of reasons to inflate or reduce estimates to suit different purposes. We should just stick to what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To challenge Žerjavić's research you need a reliable source, most of this discusion is original research. There is a critique by Kazimir Katalinić who used the same method as Žerjavić, but he applied a higher growth rate of Croats and Bosniaks from 1931 to 1941 and thus got a much higher number of Croat-Bosniak deaths. Neither Tuđman nor Đilas made an indept research into the number of victims. I don't see how is that in line with Mitja Ferenc, Ferenc said that in Slovenia alone there were tens of thousands of victims, so that doesn't include graves in Croatia. See the question of the interviewer in the article, it reads "slovenskih tleh" (Slovenian soil).


 * Žerjavić didn't publish only one book or scientific paper about Bleiburg and the war-time losses. The part you cited was his demographic assessment in Obsession and Megalomania of Jasenovac and Bleiburg, but he made another calculation in the same book based on the report by Kosta Nađ on the final operations, the number of captured troops and civilians, as well as those killed in battle. And also, the British report on the repatriations from the Viktring camp until 31 May. Based on that, he got a figure of 45-55,000 killed Croats and Bosniaks. In 1995, Žerjavić published another paper where he gave more specific figures on Croat-Bosniak WW2 and post-war casualties and the cause of death, which for Bleiburg was 45,000 Croats and 4,000 Bosniaks. Even more detailed is the "Structure of actual losses of Croats and Muslims in the NDH" from 1994 ("Poginuli, ubijeni i umoreni 1941-1945 /u tisućama/"), there is a table from that in Geiger's paper.


 * Further on, Grahek Ravančić is referring to the "žrtvoslovi" (individual name lists, or victimologies) which are mostly privately published books containing the lists of dead by region or city/village. She said that those (the Croatian ones) contain more than 5,000 confirmed and named individuals killed during Bleiburg, while other "žrtvoslovi" (not the previously mentioned ones) often don't have the exact death location or year and cover the entire World War 2, so it's difficult to determine how many of the listed people fall under the Bleiburg events. And the cited figure doesn't include the research of the 1991 Commision. Taking that into account, about 30% (if everyone from Grahek Ravančić's figure are among the 1999 Commision's list) to 45% (if none of them are among the 1999 Commision's list) of Žerjavić's 45,000 estimate for Croats are individually named. Considering that the systematic research in Croatia stopped in 2000, and that it's been 74 years since the Bleiburg events, I don't see how this brings into question Žerjavić's estimates.


 * The figures of the Slovenian Institute of Contemporary History are Slovenian residents, yes, and those include Slovenes, Jews, and Germans, while you are comparing them to Žerjavić's estimates for Slovenes only.


 * There are very few massacre locations where all victims were excavated. Huda jama is an exception because all of the victims were located in an enclosed mine, so investigators were able to exhume all of them and give the exact figure. In most other cases the excavations are difficult due to the terain of the mass graves, like in Kočevski rog which is a mountainous area of 800 square kilometers of dense forests and any karst pit is a potential grave site. The Tezno trench is also in a forest, and the Yugoslav authorities put a lot of effort to conceal the graves. Tezwoo (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Zerjavic, I think a direct quote is needed, to describe how he derived the numbers. Also we should avoid quoting unreliable sources, such as Dizdar's claim of 62,000 Croat named victims, when Geiger states that Dizdar gives absolutely no proof for these claims - no sources, nothing. Others state that the named victims lists total 5.000 to 10.000 names, the latter put together over 7 years, by a State commission that included participation from many Ustashe emigre sources, including a priest who helped leading Ustashe escape to South America, and spent 25 years collecting names of victims of partisans, plus participation from the Catholic Church throughout Croatia and Bosnia, etc.

Also the total number of NDH troops surrendered, does not provide an estimate of the proportion killed. Tudjman also quotes Kosta Nadj's numbers on surrendered NDH forces, and at the time of Bleiburg Tudjman was a Croat representative at Yugoslav Army Headquarters, from which all this was no doubt commanded. Tudjman gives a total estimate of 35 to 40 thousand for all Bleiburg-related victims (I added facts on Tudjman role at the time of Bleiburg, plus Croat sources on how 1990's Commission collected its data, so people can judge their credibility, but all this was erased)

The point about Huda Jama is that all estimates of victims made before and even during excavations proved to be many times higher than the true numbers. In general all estimates of people with agendas (Croat emigre sources, nationalist Croat and Serb historians, etc), should be taken with a grain of salt and need multiple, independent, convincing proofs. You say Katalinic increased Croat and Bosniak population growth rates compared to Zerjavic, to get much higher estimates of Croat/Bosniak deaths. Similar Serb sources increased Serb population growth estimates, to get much higher estimates of Serb victims in NDH, yet I would not call either reliable. As a comparable example, Sava Strbac claims some 1,300 Serbs were killed following Operation Storm, after the 1990's war in Croatia. Since he is a biased nationalistic source, I would not consider him reliable. There are independent, more reliable sources that seem to confirm some of his claims - e.g. field documentation of 677 named victims killed after Operation Storm (including fact majority appear to be civilians, many older people), made by the Croatian Helsinki Organization, plus Croat government reports of some 700 additional, confirmed, named Serbs missing, most reported missing after Operation Storm, etc. Thus, I would rather quote these sources, than Sava Strbac Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * All sources for Žerjavić are in the article, and are available for reading online. I can agree with removing Dizdar's number. I also think that it is unnecessary to list estimates on the numbers of killed in the Background section, since there is no reason to list only the estimates of people killed by the Ustaše, and not those of other units. That would require a whole section to cover it. The World War II in Yugoslavia article has a section about the casualties during the war, so a "main article" tag is enough in my opinion.


 * Tuđman didn't have a high position in the Headquarters (there was no "Croat representative at the Headquarters" position), and to say that he is a well-informed source is original research. That's why I removed that sentence. Regarding the Commission, it's members included people like Slavko Goldstein, so their intention was probably to include every notable person who dealt with the issue from "both sides". Krunoslav Draganović died in 1983 so they couldn't work with him. They did use the documentation he collected, but that was only one of many sources they listed in their report. The source you provided from hkv.hr writes positively of the Commission's work, and doesn't say anything negative about Draganović.


 * The estimates of the number of victims in the mine in Huda jama were initially 400, once the barricades were breached.  Sometimes the initial estimates proved to be higher, and sometimes lower, there is no rule in that regard. Tezwoo (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll try to track down Zerjavic’s quotes on how he derived his estimates, since I think this is much more useful than just throwing numbers around. Also many western sources indicate that the post-War killings were in large part vengeance for intra-War killings and genocides, thus quoting one set of numbers, without mentioning the others, is in my view not correct


 * Page 7 here states that before it was opened, Slovene groups claimed 10 to 15 thousand victims in Huda Jama. Here is another article, from immediately after the discovery of the first 120 remains, speculating about 7.000 victims. Others repeatedly claimed 3.000 to 5.000 remaining Huda Jama victims, even years after digging started, all based on estimates of pit size – i.e. similar method to what Ferenc used to estimate 15.000 victims at Tezno, based on 1175 actual recovered remains — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * During WWII Tudjman rose to communist political commissar of the 32. Yugoslav Army Division, i.e. one of the top 2 leaders of the entire division, then during Bleiburg was at Yugoslav Army HQ, later became youngest Yugoslav general, and president of Belgrade Partisan football club, run by leading Yugoslav Army generals. He most likely personally knew Kosta Nadj and other top Yugoslav Army leaders, wrote extensively on Yugoslav military history during the 50s and 60s, later became head of a leading historical institute in Yugoslavia, and in 1990’s had Yugoslav Army and UDBA leaders join his Croatian government. Thus it would be very difficult to claim that Tudjman was anything other than a very knowledgeable insider (it would not surprise me to learn he participated in Bleiburg in some way)


 * Sources say the “Vatican ratlines” priest, Draganovic, spent 25 years extensively documenting "WWII and post-war victims", and that this documentation was included in the work of the 1990s Commission, along with information from other Ustashe émigré sources, who had been writing about Bleiburg and their victimologies since the 1950s, plus the participation of the Catholic Church throughout Croatia and Bosnia, with their books of births and deaths for the vast majority of Croats at the time


 * Regarding Slovene named victims lists, its authors state that the 14.000 includes some killed during the last battles of WWII, and also quite a few who died after the war in holding camps, particularly during the intense heatwave in the summer of 1945. Thus they state that not all the 14.000 were deliberately killed post-War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As in the case of estimates of post-war killings, there are many different estimates of the numbers of deaths during the war. There are separate articles that deal with it. The background section should be a brief summary of what happened prior to the late stage of the war, and listing various modern-day estimates of deaths for persecuted nationalities is not a brief summary. For example, the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) article doesn't have statistical estimates of civilians killed by the Nazi Germany. Foibe massacres also doesn't have estimates on the numbers of civilians killed by the Italians. And it is debatable to what extent was revenge for war crimes a factor. The Slovene Home Guard did not operate camps or commit mass war crimes, yet their fate was even worse than that of the Ustaše.


 * Huda jama is not comparable to Tezno. In the case of Huda jama (a mine that was closed for about 60 years), investigators couldn't give an exact estimate for a long time due to its interior and the fact that the victims were located in two deep shafts. Tezno is a trench that is not nearly as deep and investigators were able to conduct probing of the entire length of the trench, and found human remains in its entirety. 1,179 corpses were exhumed only from 70 meters of the 940 meter long trench.


 * Tuđman did not state that his estimate is based on insider information he got during his time at the Yugoslav Army HQ. I agree that he can be included in the article, but to say that he is a well-informed source is original research, and not a neutral point of view. I also don't see a reason to mention Draganović when he is just one of many sources that were used by the commission, including the archives of the National Liberation Committees and the Communist Party.


 * The reference for the Slovenian victims list (Milko Mikola) says that "14,274 persons were killed without a trial in Slovenia after the war". Tezwoo (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is an entire Wikipedia article on WW2 Demographic Losses in Yugoslavia, discussing Zerjavic’s methodology in detail, although it does not address his Bleiburg methods. I think a 1 or 2 sentence direct quote from Zerjavic is needed on how he derived his Bleiburg estimates, since many others use his estimates, to add their estimates on top. And most people know the Nazis killed millions in Poland, whereas many fewer know about the extent of Ustashe genocides against Jews, Serbs and Roma, thus I think it's important to include this. Btw unlike this article, I’ve not found any separate article on the post-Operation Storm killings, after the Croatian War of the 1990s, even though as a percent of victims on the opposite side they are of the same order as Bleiburg (with relatively many more civilians killed), and there are also a series of separate articles on Serb massacres in Croatia in the 1990s, all of which, and perhaps even taken together, had fewer victims that the post Operation Storm killings.

I agree that actions against Slovene collaborators were particularly harsh, but as Tomasevich, Gregor Kranjc and others note, in WW2 the very survival of the Slovene nation was at stake, since the Nazi-fascists planned to wipe out the Slovene nation completely. Thus Slovene collaborators placed themselves on the side of ethnocide against their own nation, helped the occupiers kill more than 70.000 Slovenes, put up to 100.000 Slovenes in concentration camps, etc.

This is different from France where the Nazis did not try to wipe out the French. Wikipedia also says the Nazis, with collaborator help, killed 20.000 French Resistance fighters. From Orpheus’ documentary, The Sorrow and the Pity, on French collaboration, it is clear that the main reason for the extra-judicial killing of some 10.000 French collaborators at the end of the war, was their betrayal of French Resistance members to the Nazis. In Slovenia, out of a 30 times smaller population, Slovene collaborators helped the occupiers kill more Slovene partisans – some 32.000, for which 14.000 collaborators were killed post-War, similar ratios as in France

Btw I’ve not seen any evidence that French collaborators killed as many Frenchmen, as Slovene collaborators killed Slovenes. And Zerjavic estimates that the Ustashe exterminated some 120.000 Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians in concentration camps and pits, alone. Again. I've not seen any evidence that French collaborators killed even 1% as many French civilians. Given that, post-war killings of French collaborators appear proportionately harsher than many estimates of post-war killings of Ustasha and NDH collaborators

In Czechoslovakia, aside from the Holocaust, it looks like the Nazis killed some 60.000 Czechoslovaks, fewer than occupiers/collaborators killed Slovenes (out of a 10 times smaller Slovene population), and considerably less than just the Ustashe alone killed and exterminated. For that, Czechs under Benes, with Allied approval, expelled 3 million Sudeten Germans, killing at least 20.000 to 30.000 Germans, according to some as many as 200.000, again relatively harsher reprisals than against Slovene and Croat collaborators (there are Youtube videos showing, what they claim are lots of German civilians, killed post-War)

On Huda Jama, I'd think it’d be easier to estimate remaining victims in its much smaller space, than at Tezno, and you say the opposite – in any case the fact is that at Huda Jama, the estimates of victims both before and for years during excavations, turned out to be many times the true numbers.

What I mention on Tudjman's role can be found in his Croatian Wikipedia article - i.e that in WW2 he rose to division-level political-commissar, the co-equal of the military commander of the division, and that “in January 1945 he was sent to Belgrade, where he started to work as a representative of the People's Republic of Croatia at the Yugoslav Army Supreme Headquarters”, where he was also during Bleiburg. Those are facts - I will leave it up to others to decide if that makes him an insider or not, and what the Supreme Headquarters might have been preoccupied with in Spring-Summer 1945. Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of this is off topic, in addition to being very dubious calculations and comparisons. In some cases you calculate all war-related casualties, in some only military casualties, in some only civilian casualties, in some the Jews are included, in others they are not. For example, for France you used only the numbers of killed French resistance fighters. The French had many casualties during the Battle of France, on the Western Front in 1944-45, and many civilians were killed during the German occupation of France. In total around 210,000 combatants and 390,000 civilians died during the war, according to Gregory Frumkin (Population Changes in Europe Since 1939). Of the 9-10,000 people killed during and after the liberation of France, many were killed by the French communists, who were loudest in the calls for "vengeance" and "justice".


 * It should also be taken into account the fact that unlike in other countries, in Yugoslavia there was a civil war in which all main sides committed war crimes to a greater or lesser extent. As noted by Keith Lowe: "Yugoslavia was the site of some of the worst violence in Europe, both during and after the war. What makes the situation here unique is the many layers that made up the conflict. Yugoslav resistance groups fought not only against foreign aggressors in a war of national liberation, but also against troops of their own government in a war of revolution, against alternative resistance groups in a war of ideology, and against gangs of bandits in a battle to impose law and order. These different strands were so intertwined that they were often indistinguishable from one another. But there was one thread in this tapestry of violence that stood out amongst all the others: the issue of ethnic hatred. The power of this hatred was harnessed by all sides in the war, whatever their alternative agendas. Almost half a century before the civil war that would give the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ to the world, Yugoslavia was embroiled in the closing stages of one of the most vicious ethnic conflicts of the twentieth century." (Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II, p. 250) So while the comparison with the extent of crimes in the aftermath of the war in other countries was not the topic, and is not covered in this article, I highly doubt that there are sources that would claim that the events in Yugoslavia were "not that harsh".


 * As for the Background section, if we make assumptions on what people reading the article know or don't know, we can also assume that most people that open this article already have a basic knowledge on what happened during the war. And for those that don't, a mess of numbers won't give any new information that the previous three sentences (about the racial laws and the systematic persecutions) don't. Furthermore, there is the issue of which persecutions to mention in the background, the inclusion of combatant deaths, and the issue of which numbers/estimates to use for those persecutions. I think that all of that is unnecessary and would require a complete separate section to cover. Tezwoo (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * First, researchers like Gregor Kranjc and others make comparisons of post-War retributions in former Yugoslavia and countries like France. Second, I’m comparing only people killed directly by collaborators. French collaborators did not kill Frenchmen in the Battle of France, they did not even exist then, and unlike the Ustashe, they did not massively exterminate Jews and others in their own death camps. By far the main actions of French collaborators in France were against the Resistance. Wikipedia states there were altogether 20.000 Resistance members killed, and I have not seen any evidence that French collaborators on their own killed even 5.800 people, like Slovene collaborators on their own killed 5.800 Slovenes (adding joint military actions with Nazi-fascists, it looks like Slovene collaborators participated in killing some 24.000 Slovenes - i.e. more than all Resistance members killed in France, and most of these were no doubt killed just by Nazis).


 * As noted by Zerjavic, Ustashe directly, on their own, just in concentration camps and pits exterminated 120.000 mainly Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians. Can you show where French collaborators, acting entirely on their own, similarly exterminated 120.000 civilians, so we are talking apples to apples? (in fact this is not even the total number of civilians killed by Ustashe, since they also killed many additional Croats and other civilians outside of concentration camps and pits, and beyond civilians, Ustashe, solely or in joint actions with Nazi-fascists, killed many more partisans). Even the Nazis were only appalled by the Ustashe mass slaughter of civilians, women and children.


 * As clearly shown in the documentary, The Sorrow and the Pity, French collaborator actions against the Resistance and post-War retribution were closely connected – you cannot understand the latter without the former. Same holds for former Yugoslavia, and it holds for understanding numbers. Thus, if Ustashe killed and exterminated 30 or more times as many civilians as French collaborators, it is not surprising that the retributions against Ustashe were also larger, even though partisans did not kill nowhere near 30 times as many, or more, Ustashe, as the 10.000 French collaborators killed in post-War retributions. Btw, Zerjavic and Slovene researchers indicate that Nazi-fascists, together with collaborators, killed some 90% of intra-war victims in both Slovenia and Croatia, and among local forces, only the Ustashe committed 3 genocides. So while Yugoslavia was indeed engaged in a vicious conflict, only one side did 90% of the intra-war killing, and perpetrated all the genocides Thhhommmasss (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Gregor Kranjc comparison with France is something completely different. He wrote that the equivalent to the number of Slovenes killed after the war would be the killing of 350,000 citizens in France. He also wrote that violence was a means to ensure a successful communist revolution.:


 * "[...]unlike France and other Western states, where 'the majority of the most severe "punishments" meted out for wartime activities were completed before formal or official tribunals had been set up to pass judgment,' in Slovenia and Yugoslavia 'summary mass killings and convictions were unleashed by order of the new communist government.' The proportional size of the victims in relation to Slovenia's small population was also unique: in postwar France, it would have been the equivalent of the government executing over 350,000 French citizens. In addition, unlike most of Europe, in Slovenia as in the rest of Yugoslavia (and in the Soviet Union), the most severe form of punishment — death — was applied, almost as a rule, to membership in collaborating units. "


 * "Nor was the bloody postwar settling of accounts entirely unexpected. From the outset, Tito was convinced that a Yugoslav Communist revolution would be born out of a successful war of liberation. Violence was, in the final assessment, the means to ensure success." (To Walk with the Devil: Slovene Collaboration and Axis Occupation, 1941-1945, p. 225)


 * On the fate of Slovenes (mainly the Slovene Home Guard), Tomasevich wrote:


 * "They met this fate without any legal proceedings, simply because during the war they had been resolute foes of the Communist Partisans, who, desiring a clean slate, wanted to make it impossible for them, alone or with outside assistance, to endanger the new order in Yugoslavia. The chief reason for this brutal action was ideological and political, although the hatred and enmity that had accumulated over the four years of war and revolution undoubtedly played a large role." (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, p. 774)


 * And more from Keith Lowe:


 * "It is only the involvement of the Yugoslav state that points the way to a new theme that I have not yet discussed in depth – the idea that much of the violence was politically motivated. Almost all of the events described up to now were brought about by individuals or groups acting outside state control, and who were eventually brought back into line by a combination of the Allied armies and traditional politicians. In Yugoslavia it was the state itself that conducted the violence, the Allies were absent, and traditional politicians had been replaced by revolutionaries." (Savage Continent, p. 264)


 * So all three of these sources stress out other reasons for the purges in Yugoslavia after the war, and not an alleged proportional reaction to crimes committed during the war. That was a pattern across eastern Europe, and obviously the Partisans or the new Yugoslav authorities committed most of their crimes at the end and after the war when only then did they achieve full control of the country. But still, this doesn't solve the issue of whether to include numerical estimates on war-related deaths, and whose estimates and how many of them, in the Background section. As I said, it would require an entire section to cover it, even if we agree to stick with Žerjavić's research (which we can't since most sources give much higher estimates than he or Kočović did). Tezwoo (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kranjc also talks of the numbers killed by the collaborationist in Slovenia, as part of his discussion of post-War reprisals. The only thing he does not do, is take the estimate of some 24.000 collaborators killed by Slovene collaborators, and then also multiply it by the 30 times larger French population, to get the 720.000 Frenchmen that French collaborators would have had to kill to equal the “effectiveness” of Slovene collaborators – this is more than all the French killed in WWII (and the vast majority were killed by the Nazis). Had French collaborators on their own killed the same proportion as Slovene ones, i.e. 174.000 Frenchmen or 30% of all French WW2 deaths, do you think the postwar reprisals in France would have been different? Same question if jointly with the Germans they had killed 720.000 Frenchmen, i.e. 20% more Frenchman than died in all WW2, to equal the deeds of Slovene collaborators? Had French collaborators on their own in concentration camps and pits proportionately exterminated 840.000 French civilians, with hundreds of thousands of women and children, down to newborns, to equal the Ustashe, would the postwar reprisals have been different?

Also, as Kranjc, Tomasevich and others state, Slovene collaborators, participated in the Nazi-fascist ethnocide against the entire Slovene nation. The Ustashe killed dozens of times more people than French collaborators, while perpetrating genocides against Serbs, Jews and Roma. They make this the center of their discussion of the differences in both the scope and nature of Slovene-Croat vs. French collaboration. I will agree there were some differences in post-War retributions, if you agree to these differences in war-time crimes – ethnocide, genocide, etc. Or if you insist on just post-war differences, and since Lowe mentions the 90s, lets also discuss the fact that I know of no other case where winning soldiers slaughtered hundreds of old people (many in their 70s, 80s and 90s), as when Croat soldiers killed hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand, Serb civilians after the Croat War

Wikipedia states that some 10.500 French collaborators were killed in “epurations sauvages”, i.e. “wild purifications”, done without trials, compared to 14.000 Slovenes. This is same order of magnitude, while, as noted, I’ve not seen any evidence that French collaborators killed as many Frenchmen, as Slovene collaborators killed Slovenes. In subsequent “legal purifications”, some 130.000 French were convicted (6.700 sentenced to death, 770 executed), in trials which The Sorrow and the Pity indicates differed very little from Vichy “justice” (e.g. film shows a women, accused of betraying a Resistance leader to the Nazis, and after the war, the French police tortured her, sentenced her to 17 years in prison, while it’s not at all clear she betrayed the leader, who in any case survived)

It is true that in Yugoslavia all the reprisals were carried out by the state. In this regard they were more similar to the Allies-approved expulsion of 12 million Germans from central and eastern Europe. Thus with the approval of the Allies, the Czech state, after the return of the right-winger Benes, expelled 3 million Sudeten Germans, during which anywhere from 30.000 to 200.000 people were killed. The Benes decrees are still in effect today (Czechia refused to remove them when joining the EU), while Benes’s statue stands in front of the Foreign Ministry, making everything legal. Thus I assume Lowe has no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Kranjc didn't do that because he probably didn't think that it is possible to compare numbers in such a way, and thought that the main reason for the crimes in the aftermath of the war in Yugoslavia/Slovenia was of political or ideological nature. Other sources, which were mentioned in my previous comment, also follow that line, especially in the case of the Slovene Home Guard. All of these sources mention crimes of the Axis forces too, but they don't point them out as the only or primary reason for the crimes after the war. As Michael Portmann writes:


 * "Nowhere else in Europe after WWII the link between legitimate and legal punishment of “real” (domestic and foreign) war criminals, collaborators and “people’s enemies”, retaliation upon war enemies and elimination of political opponents in order to consolidate power is closer than in Yugoslavia. These three elements have to be considered as the main motives and causes for all communist repressive measures between 1944 and 1950. It is often impossible to state which of these three motives in a specific case finally prevailed and each of them could have played a role already since the end of 1941." (Communist Retaliation and Persecution..., p. 73)


 * The only sources that make comparisons of Croatia or Slovenia and France in 1944/45 are those stating the obvious that the killings of collaborators and political enemies in Yugoslavia were of a much larger scale than in France, and even those sources are rare (which make comparisons with France). And on the topic of the civil war in Slovenia, for example, both Portmann and Tomasevich wrote about the revolutionary terror practiced by the Slovene communists during the war. Portmann writes:


 * "The communist-dominated, legitimate resistance against the occupying forces was from the beginning accompanied by revolutionary terror against any sort of political enemies." (Communist Retaliation and Persecution..., p. 71)


 * Similarly to Tomasevich:


 * "In Slovenia, where the population was nationally and confessionally homogeneous, the mutual terror that was practiced during the war by both the Partisans and the collaborating forces was based on the ideological and political opposition between the Communist revolutionaries on the one side and traditional Catholic Slovenes on the other." (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, p. 774)


 * And no, I'm not going to discuss about Operation Storm here (there is a talk page for that if you see any issue in that article), or what goes on in the Czech Republic. Tezwoo (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomasevich and most other Western writers also says that the Croat-nationalist Ustashe, supported by the vast majority of the Croatian Catholic Church, committed genocide, and most authors state they committed not one, not two, but 3 genocides - against Jews, Serbs and Roma. They say no such things of the Partisans. As for Slovenia, both Tomasevich and Kranjc state that the Catholic Church basically fanned a religious civil war, with the Slovene quislings fighting on the side of the Nazi and fascist forces who sought to wipe out the Slovenes entirely as a people, and estimates of war deaths by Tadeja Tominsek-Rihtar indicate that the Nazi-fascist and Slovene collaborators, killed approximately 90% of the Slovene victims during the war, thus committing 90% of the "mutual terror". As far as post-War retribution, at Potsdam the western allies agreed to the expulsion of 12 million Germans from eastern and central Europe, during which up to 500,000 Germans were killed. The right-wing Czech politician, Benes, ordered the state-led expulsion of 3 million Germans from Czechoslovakia, during which at least 20.000 to 30.000 were killed, while some others claim up to 200,000 Germans were killed (there are old videos on Youtube which claim to show piles of German civilians shot next to roads)Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

May 1945 picture
The picture of the Janovac victims shows the sole en heel of a German WW2 combat boot. who uploaded, certified this picture ? Why should someone of a NDH persecuted minority wear such an item ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschiedenis Betweter (talk • contribs) 12:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

According to Nataša Mataušić, head of the Jasenovac Memorial Site, it is not known who are the victims and the perpetrators of the crime in the picture in question. The photograph is not from Jasenovac, but from Sisak in May 1945, and the Partisan press presented it as an Ustaše crime. Mataušić wrote in Jasenovac - fotomonografija, page 23:

"Na izvornoj fotografiji objavljenoj u Vjesniku, kao i na ostalima iz serije fotografija o navedenom zločinu ustaša, mogu se razaznati muškarci u odorama s vojničkim cokulama na nogama, ženske noge u cipelama visokih potpetica... - što je neke od istraživača navelo na zaključak da fotografije prikazuju ubijene (od strane partizana) vojnike i pristalice NDH nakon njihovog ulaska u Sisak. Državna krugovalna postaja Zagreb izvijestila je 6. svibnja 1945. godine da su prigodom ulaska u Sisak partizani ubili oko 400 građana. Zbog svega navedenog pri razmatranju ovoga događaja treba biti krajnje oprezan, a o krivnji ove ili one strane moći će se sa sigurnošću tvrditi tek u slučaju da se pronađu čvrsti dokazi o počiniteljima."

"In the original photograph published in Vjesnik, as well as in others of the series of photographs of the mentioned Ustaše crime, men can be discerned in uniforms with military boots on their feet, and women's legs in high heels shoes... - this led some researchers to conclude that the photographs depict soldiers and supporters of the NDH killed by the Partisans after they entered Sisak. The Zagreb State Radio Station reported on 6 May 1945 that at the time of entering Sisak, the Partisans killed about 400 citizens. Due to all of the above mentioned, extreme caution should be taken in the consideration of this event, and the guilty plea of this or that party will only be valid if there is strong evidence regarding the perpetrators." Tezwoo (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Chetniks or Montenegrin National Army?
My reference to Chetniks in the intro was erased, with the reason given that they’re included in the Montenegrin National Army (MNA). I checked, and the MNA was a marriage of convenience, created on March 22, 1945 between the Chetnik troops of Pavle Djurisic, and the Ustasha-supported Montenegrin separatist, Sekula Drljevic, whose sole purpose was to provide the Chetniks safe passage across the NDH, when they were fleeing the Partisans. How much of an “Army” this was, is indicated by the fact that only 2 weeks later, after initially allowing Djurisic’s Chetniks to cross the NDH, the Ustashe, with the help of the MNA commander, Sekula Drljevic, attacked the Montenegrin Chetniks, i.e. the “MNA” at Lijevce Field, executing 150 Chetnik commanders after the battle, and attaching the surviving Chetnik troops to Ustashe forces. The Wikipedia Lijevce Field article describes Djurisic’s forces as Chetniks. If instead they were MNA, why not go into the Lijevce Field article and replace all Chetnik references to MNA? Mitja Ferenc describes the Tezno victims as “Chetniks and Ustashe”, not MNA, Ivo Goldstein also writes of Chetniks at Bleiburg, not MNA members, etc. So when most authors refer to them as Chetniks, why the insistence on calling them MNA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the official name of the unit of around 6,000 Montenegrins under Sekula Drljević at that time, which was present at the Bleiburg field and was retreating together with the NDH forces. They were opposed to the main force of the Chetniks, led by Draža Mihailović, who were then in Bosnia. Other Chetniks, such as those of Momčilo Đujić, were retreating towards Italy and were not repatriated, so they are not a part of this event. While we could refer to them as the Montenegrin Chetniks as some do, for other Axis units like the NDH army the official name is used as well (Croatian Armed Forces).


 * "Mimo navedenog broja u operativnom pogledu u sastavu V. sbora HOS-a NDH, sa sjedištem u Karlovcu, nalazila se i Crnogorska narodna vojska, ustrojena potkraj travnja 1945., pod zapovjedništvom Sekule Drljevića, razvrstana u šest divizija s nešto više od 6000 vojnika, koja će se s njime povlačiti prema Austriji." (Zdravko Dizdar, Prilog istraživanju problema Bleiburga i križnih putova, p. 126) Tezwoo (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The official name of the Chetniks was "The Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland". So according to your logic, I should now go and replace this for Chetniks in all English Wikipedia articles that mention Chetniks. Much better known historians than Dizdar - like Tomasevic, Ivo Goldstein, Mitja Ferenc and many others - describe the Serbs and Montengrins at Bleiburg as Chetniks, not the brief name invented to let them flee across the NDH. I know Croatian nationalistic historians may be reluctant to call the forces retreating with Ustashe as Chetniks, just as similar Serb nationalistic historians don't like to mention Chetniks fleeing together with their Ustashe brethern Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree with using the common name in this case, which is "Chetniks", they were hardly the "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland" at this point. Their leader had been dismissed from the government-in-exile in July 1944, and dismissed by the king as chief-of-staff the following month, and they had been told by the king to join the Partisans in September and refused. There is a very good reason "Chetniks" is the term used by the vast majority of sources, it doesn't buy into the propaganda aspect of the so-called "official" name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also for using Chetniks, and I wrote Chetniks in the article for the retreating Serb and Montenegrin forces, the same name used by all the historians mentioned above, but then it was deleted by Tzowu. As those authors mention, the MNA consisted mostly of the Chetniks commanded by Pavle Đurišić, a particularly vicious follower of Draza Mihailovic, who only split with him at the beginning of 1945, because he thought it would be better to flee West, instead of stay and fight. The name "Montenegrin National Army" was invented 6 weeks before the end of the war, to get these Chetniks across the NDH. But if Tzowu insists on using MNA here, then certainly at least in the article on Lijevce polje, all references to Chetniks should be deleted and replaced by MNA, since there too, as per Tzowu, they were officially the "MNA" Thhhommmasss (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Editorializing
Please do tell me, Thhhommmasss, which method did you use to translate this:

"Sačuvani ostaci potvrđuju da je riječ o dva tipa obuće: vojničke cipele i čizme te opanci izrađeni od automobilskih guma."

to this:

"Only two types of footwear were recovered: military shoes/boots plus "opanki" (footwear worn by Serbs and Montenegrins)"

which you claim is a "direct quote from Ferenc"? Tezwoo (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I meant a direct citation from Ferenc, who mentions only military shoes and boots, plus opanki found. I will put in direct quote from Ferenc with requisite explanation what opanki are. Following your M.O. I will comb through all your stuff to similarly revert where I found you did not quote precisely, since my citation in substance does not differ one iota from what Ferenc says, i.e. that only the 2 types of footwear were uncovered, thus your reversion had zero justification, other than POV-pushing Thhhommmasss (talk)
 * No, he mentions that they found military boots and shoes and peasant shoes made from car tires. "Opanki" for some reason confused you to wrongly connect it with "footwear worn by Serbs and Montenegrins", which is obviously not what Ferenc wrote. Since "opanki" are causing confusion, check out the Wiki article on opanak. Tezwoo (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He says the victims included HOS and Montenegrin Chetniks, makes no mention of civilians or any peasants. Show me where HOS troops at that time wore "opanki made of automobile tires" Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a 1944 report from the VII Ustashe Guards Brigade (from the 2013 book "Ustaška vojnica 2", p. 208) :"Ljudi su bili šaroliko obučeni. Neki su imali pola civilnog odiela, dok su opanci zamienili cipele. Do odjeće dolazili su sami, kupujući ili iz borbe svlačeći partizane, koji su bili u dobrim engleskim odorama. Radi ove nejednakosti vojska svojom vanjštinom davala je veoma loš dojam."
 * Their military forces always had problems in acquiring equipment for their soldiers, and often wore civilian/peasant shoes. "Opanak" is a type of peasant shoes worn across southeastern Europe by all ethnic groups. Tezwoo (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Cited Geiger victim numbers do not add up
The intro to the Number of Victims section cites the following from Geiger: “Based on statistical calculations, a minimum of 70,000 to 80,000 people were killed.” and for this he entirely references Zerjavic, starting with page 161 in Zerjavic’s “Manipulacije žrtvama drugoga svjetskog rata 1941. – 1945.” This source is available online and on page 161 Zerjavic writes that with regard to everything associated with Bleiburg and the aftermath: "the total number of Croats and Muslims killed could be between 45 and 55 thousand. In addition… up to up to 2 thousand Serbs and Montenegrins, and about 8 thousand Slovenes White Guards lost their lives”.

This totals 55 to 65 thousand total victims, and nowhere does Zerjavic use the word "minimum" for his estimates, which Geiger adds. Given that Zerjavic is the much more quoted authority, I suggest his figures be used at the top of the section, instead of what appears to be Geigers incorrect references to same Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He doesn't reference Žerjavić. For that number, Geiger cites this in his reference number 44: "See M. Grahek Ravančić, “Razmišljanja o broju pogubljenih i stradalih na Bleiburgu i križnom putu”, Časopis za suvremenu povijest 40 (2008), no. 3, pp. 851-868; M. Grahek Ravančić, Bleiburg i Križni put 1945. Historiografija, publicistika i memoarska literatura, pp. 317-333, as well as the sources cited therein."
 * Grahek Ravančić in "Bleiburg i križni put 1945: historiografija, publicistika i memoarska literatura" on p. 322-323 says :
 * "Iako postoji veći broj radova koji obrađuju žrtve Bleiburga i križnoga puta, cjelovitima i najpouzdanijima (do sada) mogu se smatrati istraživanja Vladimira Žerjavića, prema kome ukupni broj poginulih “kvislinških i kolaboracionističkih” snaga u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme rata iznosi 125.000 ljudi. Od toga oko 50.000 ljudi izgubilo je živote na Bleiburgu i križnom putu, a 10.000 bilo je izručeno iz logora Viktring. Njima pribraja oko 10.000 poginulih Srba i Slovenaca, što u konačnici daje ukupnu brojku od oko 70.000 ljudi. Taj podatak bio bi donja granica, s obzirom da nove spoznaje slovenske historiografije, poput iskapanja u Teznom, gdje je stradalo oko 15.000 ljudi, nužno unose određene korekcije u navedene brojke. Jednako tako, najnovija istraživanja slovenske historiografije pokazuju da je broj stradalih slovenskih domobrana veći nego što to spominje Žerjavić. Sve zajedno upućuje da bi se ukupna brojka stradalih mogla kretati oko 80.000."


 * "Although there is a large number of works dealing with the victims of Bleiburg and the way of the cross, the research of Vladimir Žerjavić can be considered complete and most reliable (so far), according to which the total number of “quisling and collaborationist” forces killed in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war was 125,000. Of these, about 50,000 people lost their lives at Bleiburg and the way of the cross, and 10,000 were extradited from the Viktring camp. He adds to them about 10,000 killed Serbs and Slovenes, which ultimately gives a total of about 70,000 people. This data would be the lower limit, given that new findings of Slovenian historiography, such as the excavations in Tezno, where about 15,000 people died, necessarily make certain corrections to these figures. Likewise, the latest research in Slovenian historiography shows that the number of killed Slovenian Home Guards is higher than that mentioned by Žerjavić. All together, it indicates that the total number of victims could be around 80,000."


 * Therefore, that number is based on Žerjavić and the newest research in Slovenia. Tezwoo (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * From the same Martina Grahanek Ravancic "Controversies about the Croatian Victims at Bleiburg". page 46: "But most of these allegations are not supported by a systematic investigation of documents, although Vladimir Žerjavić offers a demographic analysis. Based on the population censuses from 1931 and 1948, and on a statistical assessment of expected population growth, Žerjavić concludes that, only around 75,000 army personnel and 45,000 civilians arrived at the Austrian border, and that the advance of the Yugoslav army in 1945 resulted in the disarming of only part of the NDH forces.148 He believes the largest number of victims occurred during the “death marches”, during which 26,500 soldiers and 6,800 civilians perished. He estimates that in actions before the surrender, 11,600 people lost their lives, with another 12,000 interned in the camp at Viktring. Although his research is still an estimate and the numbers may appear small compared to earlier estimates, Žerjavić’s study is the most precise and most widely accepted analysis to date". This is a total of 56,900. Btw she notes that of these 11.600 were killed in combat
 * Btw, post-Zerjavic the Croatian State Commission on War and Post-war victims was able to document a total of 13,300 victims of Bleiburg from alla Croatia and Bosnia, compared to Zerjavic's demographic estimate of 45,000-55,000. So he did not have a chance to examine these figures, nor the fact that in Slovenia 90% of victims were soldiers, etc Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't say that 11,600 were "killed in combat", but "in actions before the surrender", whatever that means. And that is cited to a different source from Žerjavić, the first one in which he dealt with Bleiburg ("Otvoreni dossier: Bleiburg" from 1990). He did a lot of works following that one. Also, if you add Slovene, Serb, and Montenegrin losses to that, it would add up to close to 70,000, like Grahek Ravančić, or even Tomasevich 2001, p. 765 say.
 * Unlike the Slovenian researches, the ones in Croatia never finished their work and were abruptly dissolved in 2002. Tezwoo (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said Zerjavic is the widely quoted authority, even though based on subsequent Slovene and Croatian Commission he may have underestimated Slovene victims, while perhaps greatly overestimating Croat victims. Regardless of what I think, he should be cited first. In what I quoted from Grahanek Ravancic, Slovene victims are already included in Viktring estimates of 12,000 victims, since most of these were Slovenes, and no Croats are cited at Viktring. Many of the other numbers are by much less cited authors, and sometimes simply do not add up. Also fact that not all these victims were killed post-combat, should be added. Vida Dezelak Baric stated that some Slovene victims counted as post-War victims, may have in fact died in final battles. Other sources state that up to 25.000 collaborationists and German soldiers were killed in these final battles in Slovenia, as were thousands of Partisans. Furthermore, current Slovene post-war numbers include all killed, they do not break-out just Bleiburg-related. Thus Slovene figures almost certainly include some collaborationists killed after surrender on the Coast, members of Italian fascist units fighting with Nazis, etc. - i.e. not just Bleiburg-related
 * The Croatian Commission functioned for 10 years, and Croatian newspapers say they worked with extensive support from Catholic Church and priests throughout Croatia and Bosnia (who had birth/death records of nearly all Catholics - the majority of Slovene victims were confirmed that way), exile groups (i.e. Ustashe) who had been documenting Bleiburg for decades, plus researchers and institutes across Croatia, and also included 2-decades-long work documenting Bleiburg by well-connected Vatican ratlines priest, Krunoslav Draganovic. This sounds like a pretty substantial effort. It seems Slovene Commissions was pretty small, looks like 3-4 researchers, and it says they started work in 1997, and 7 years later, in 2004 published their first report, which does not differ much from current figures. Plus unlike Croatian Commission which heavily focused on victims of Partisans, and post-war ones in particular, nearly ignoring victims of Ustashe and occupation forces, the Slovene commission did serious work counting victims on all sides. Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Žerjavić in "Opsesije i megalomanije oko Jasenovca i Bleiburga" on page 78 cites data on the numbers of extradited persons from the Viktring camp, which are as follows: 12,196 Croats, 8,263 Slovenes, 5,480 Serbs, and 400 Montenegrins. A total of 26,339 people. This information is also written in this article, and cited by Rulitz and Grahek Ravančić. Therefore, there were obviously a lot of Croats in the Viktring Camp. In fact, a relative majority of them were Croats, so Slovene and other victims are clearly not included in that number cited by Grahek Ravančić.
 * Regarding the commissions, what you claim is contrary to what sources that discuss their work say. Here is what Rulitz in "The Tragedy of Bleiburg and Viktring, 1945" writes on pages 112 and 113:
 * "The governmental commissions in Croatia, however, do not equal the extent of Slovenia’s commitment to the discovery of mass graves, which accounts for some big deficits in the research of the mass graves and the Communist crimes. Up to this point, there were neither exhumations nor a state-funded reprocessing of the Communist past on a larger scale in Croatia."
 * "Only the Republic of Slovenia as the sole constituent republic of the former Yugoslavia furnished a state-funded governmental commission that provided serious academic research."
 * Grahek Ravančić in "Bleiburg i križni put 1945..." on page 23:
 * "Sustavna istraživanja masovnih grobnica na području Slovenije, dala su do sada jedine čvrste i neosporive brojke masovnih likvidacija na križnim putovima." ... "Ti naslovi pokazatelj su dugotrajnih, organiziranih, interdisciplinarnih istraživanja, koja zaista mogu poslužiti kao primjer."
 * "Gdje je u svemu tome Hrvatska? Godine 1991. Sabor je osnovao Komisiju za utvrđivanje ratnih i poratnih žrtava, a njezino djelovanje stvarno je počelo tek 1994. Već 2000. njezin rad je zamrznut, a 2002. konačno je bila ukinuta. S obzirom na dani zadatak, komisija nije ispunila svoj primarni cilj, a tragovi koji su ostali iza nje nemaju većeg odjeka."
 * Translation:
 * "Systematic research of mass graves in Slovenia has so far yielded the only solid and indisputable figures of mass liquidations on the way of the cross." ... (she then cites some publications in Slovenia) "These titles are an indication of long-term, organized, interdisciplinary research, which can really serve as an example."
 * "Where is Croatia in all of this? In 1991, the Croatian Parliament established the Commission on Establishment of Wartime and Post-war Victims, but its actual activities began only in 1994. As early as 2000, its work was frozen, and it was finally dissolved in 2002. Given the task, the commission did not fulfill its primary goal, and the traces left behind do not resonate much."
 * Finally, Deželak Barič on page 36 gives the following categories for victims of the post-war period among Slovenian citizens, which are the basis of the 14,999 figure: "Povojni poboji" (post-war killings), "Sodba vojaškega in civilnega sodišča" (judgments by military and civil courts), "Taborišča" (camps), "Zapor" (prisons), "Pogrešan" (missing), "Posledica represije" (consequence of repression), and "Neugotovljeno" (not identified). Tezwoo (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from Zerjavic, "Yugoslavia-Manipulations with Second World War Victims", Zagreb 1998:
 * The same publication gives data on Croatian and Muslim victims who were killed at Bleiburg (on the Austrian-Yugoslav border), and during the so-called Way of the Cross (Death Marches). On the basis of the number of 12,196 Croatians, whom the British extradited from the Vitkring camp near Klagenfurt, and the number of the Yugoslav Army captives, the total number of the slain Croatians and Muslims could be estimated at between 45 and 55 thousand. 41,000 Croatians emigrated. In addition to these victims, about 1,500-2,000 Serbian and Montenegrin Chetniks were killed in connection with the Bleiburg massacres, as well as about 8,000 Slovenian Belogardists

Thus his total, including Viktring, of Croat-Muslim victims is 45-55 thousand, which when adding Slovene and Chetniks is 54,500 to 65,000

Sistory describes how the Slovene estimates were put together - i.e. by a total of 3 researchers from a small institute (and even then all 3 did not work full-time), yet in a few years they were able to document over 53,000 WWII victims by going through Death books, which at that time were kept mostly by the Church (the total Slovene population was about half the Croatian population at the time). Btw, the fact that the Slovene researchers were able to confirm only some 53% of the estimated total WWII Slovene victims (99,000+) through death books, is interesting, and they do not provide a good explanation for that. Nor did they publish their raw data for other researchers to review, as is now standard scientific practice. In any case 3-6 researchers from any Croatian institute, the Church or other entities could put together a similarly comprehensive list, particularly now that many of these records are digitized. Given that the Church, which holds most of the death books from the time, was extensively involved in the Vukojevic Commission, it is hard to understand what they could not have done compared to 3 Slovene researchers.

And again, the Slovene estimates are not just related to Bleiburg, but instead include collaborationists from other parts, per Dezelak-Baric include at least some killed in final battles (per Zerjavic, of his estimated 44-55 thousand Croat-Muslim Bleiburg victims, he estimated more than 11,000 of these were killed in final battles). Slovene estimates include those sentenced to death via trials, or died in camps (Dezelak-Baric says summer of 1945 was extremely hot, some POWs died in camps, as btw did many German POWs in Allied camps), plus the estimates demonstrate that 90% of all Slovene victims were collaborationist soldiers, fighting under the command of the SS Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

btw, Tudjman, in Bespuca povijesne zbiljnosti, p.105, cites same above numbers (i.e. 12,196 Croats, 8,263 Slovenes, 5,480 Serbs, and 400 Montenegrins. A total of 26,339 people), but states that these are totals repatriated from Austria, not just Vitkring. He cites 2 other Allied sources of 25,000 total Croats in all Austria, but it is known that not all were returned Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The figures from the quote you gave from Žerjavić are already in the article, and it's not a 1998 work, but a 1993, which gives the same figures as "Opsesije i megalomanije oko Bleiburga". In it, he doesn't give a total figure for the Bleiburg events. Tomasevich (2001, p. 765) and the already mentioned Geiger for the 70,000 total cite Žerjavić's 1990 work "Demografija o Bleiburgu" ("The Demography of Bleiburg"), and I somehow doubt that both Tomasevich and Geiger would misquote Žerjavić there. This is the quote from Tomasevich:
 * "(...) almost 50,000 were killed in connection with events at Bleiburg and about 10,000 in connection with events at Viktring (discussed in the section on Slovene forces below). When victims of other nationalities—about 10,000 Serbs and Slovenes—are added in, a total of about 70,000 deaths of all nationalities can be attributed to events at Bleiburg and Viktring and their immediate consequences."
 * Žerjavić had other works on Bleiburg in the following years, most of which are not available online.
 * As for Tuđman, what he wrote is not different from what is in the article written already. Only a smaller number of those in retreat managed to reach Austria, and an even smaller number of those were admitted by the British in POW camps. The majority were captured by the Partisans in Yugoslavia. The 26,339 includes all POW camps, but the largest numbers were in Viktring. Per Rulitz, p. 62:
 * "According to the British war diary of the 5th Corps in Klagenfurt, 26,339 people from the camps were extradited on the whole. The numbers of the 5th Corps are only based on estimates: 12,196 Croats, 8,263 Slovenes, 5,480 Serbs, and 400 Montenegrins". Tezwoo (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Find a single quote where Zerjavic himself cites 70,000 victims, and what were their components. The Opsesije and megalomanije specifically cites a total 50.000 Croat and Muslim victims. Here is how Geiger states how he got to Zerjavic's 70.000, from Geiger's table 10, where in his detail he cites the following figures from Zerjavic:
 * 45,000 to 55,000 Croats and Muslims
 * 8,000 to 10,000 Slovenes
 * 2,000 Serbs and Montenegrins
 * which equals 55,000 to 67,000, or per "Geiger math" that is 70,000, which then becomes the main source for Geiger's "statistical minimum estimate of 70,000 - 80,000", even though Zerjavic nowhere states that his lower figures are a minimum
 * which equals 55,000 to 67,000, or per "Geiger math" that is 70,000, which then becomes the main source for Geiger's "statistical minimum estimate of 70,000 - 80,000", even though Zerjavic nowhere states that his lower figures are a minimum

Btw Grahanek-Ravancic specifically states that of Zerjavic's Croat estimates of some 45,000 victims, 11,600 were killed pre-surender, so some 34,400 Croats were killed post-surrender. And she counts the 12,000 supposed Viktring victims twice, even though Zerjavic specifically says that 12,000 were already included in his 45,000 estimate

Btw quoting mainly nationalistic Croat sources as the main sources for Bleiburg, is like quoting the similar Serb source, Dragan Cetkovic and his estimates of 120,000 to 130,000 Jasenovac victims, as the main estimate for Jasenovac Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't find the quote from Žerjavić when his works are not available online except a few which are already mentioned in the article. Here you are conflicting two sources from Žerjavić. The one from 1990 cited by Tomasevich and Geiger or Grahek Ravančić, who cite a figure of 70,000 as a total, and the 1992 one (also in 1993, which you are quoting here). Those source have different numbers.
 * As a side note, you do know that there are dozens of sources out there that talk about hundreds of thousands of killed in Bleiburg or in general in the aftermath of WW2 in Yugoslavia? And I'm not talking about emigrant literature. Look at what Rudolph Rummel wrote in his book about democide for Yugoslavia and Bleiburg. Judging by the criteria being used in other articles for casualties of WW2 in Yugoslavia, there really is no particular reason to not include those estimates too. Yet here we are, discussing a difference of a few thousand. Tezwoo (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of sources, and not just Serb, who cite 700,000 victims for Jasenovac, so let's use those for Jasenovac victims. If we ignore her clearly wrong double-count of Viktring, Grahanek-Ravancic cites Zerjavic as stating there were a total of 45,000 Croat victims, of whom 33,400 were killed post-surrender. That is what Geiger then cites to somehow get to his "minimum of 70,000 to 80,000 Bleiburg victims". Other Croat emigre sources claim up to 1 million Croat Bleiburg victims, or 5 times more than the total Croat WWII victims of 192,000, per Zerjavic. So clearly there is massive inflation here, driven as some historians have stated, by ideology and competitive victimhood


 * And btw, the Slovene Commission which came up with 100,000 victims, was headed by Joze Dezman, an entirely non-credible source. Spomenka Hribar who was among the first in Slovenia who called for a reckoning with the post-war killings, notes that Dezman claims Slovene collaborators were not collaborationists, and he also claims that the Partisans killed more Slovenes than the occupiers, when people like Dezelak-Baric estimate the occupiers and their collaborators killed more than 75% of all Slovene victims, even when the post-war killings are included. Mitja Ferenc, who made some overestimates of his own, subsequently disavowed these numbers [User:Thhhommmasss|Thhhommmasss]] (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the only article out there, look at the others and try to use Žerjavić as the main source. And you are again conflicting two Žerjavić's sources, the 1990 one and the 1992/1993 one. Grahek Ravančić did not count anything twice. Look at the Tomasevich quote again, he says 10,000 Croats and Muslims for Viktring and 50,000 for Bleiburg, and quotes Žerjavić's "The Demography of Bleiburg" from 1990: "When victims of other nationalities—about 10,000 Serbs and Slovenes—are added in, a total of about 70,000 deaths of all nationalities can be attributed to events at Bleiburg and Viktring and their immediate consequences." Just like Grahek Ravančić, so it is fairly certain that at least in that 1990 work, Žerjavić mentioned the 70,000 total figure. Tezwoo (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is Zerjavic directly, in his own words, from his 1993 source, in which makes it clear he included the Viktring figures in his 45-55 thousand Croat-Bosniak victim estimate:
 * "On the basis of the number of 12,196 Croatians, whom the British extradited from the Vitkring camp near Klagenfurt, and the number of the Yugoslav Army captives, the total number of the slain Croatians and Muslims could be estimated at between 45 and 55 thousand. 41,000 Croatians emigrated. In addition to these victims, about 1,500-2,000 Serbian and Montenegrin Chetniks were killed in connection with the Bleiburg massacres, as well as about 8,000 Slovenian Belogardists"
 * Btw Tudjman cites that exact same 12,196 number, via British sources, as the total number of Croats repatriated from all of Austria to Yugoslavia, not just related to Viktring (other sources confirm this) So per Tudjman, Zerjavic is wrong that this is associated with Viktring. Per Tudjman, Zerjavic is estimating 44-55 thousand Bleiburg victims, based on a total of 12,196 Croat forces repatriated from AustriaThhhommmasss (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a quote from a 1993 source . In a 1990 source, cited above by Tomasevich, and by Grahek Ravančić on page 46 of "Controversies about the Croatian victims at Bleiburg and in "Death marches" ("Otvoreni dossier: Bleiburg", where "The Demography of Bleiburg" was published), he says 50,000 for Bleiburg, 10,000 for Viktring (Croats and Muslims), and 10,000 for other nationalities. Therefore, Grahek Ravančić, and later Geiger, both of whom cite the 1990 source, did not count anything twice.
 * The "12,196 Croats repatriated from Austria" number is for all POW camps (and not those on the Bleiburg field on 14 May). However, the Viktring camp was the largest camp and probably the vast majority of those repatriated were from that camp. It is customary to name these events after Bleiburg and Viktring, although there were repatriations and surrendering in other places too. Tezwoo (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not seen the cited 1990 Zerjavic source, but in any case you would be citing an earlier Zerjavic citation, against his later views. That's not the way things work on Wikipedia. It is 100% crystal clear from his 1993 citation, accessible to everyone and no doubt republished with his permission in 1998, that he included Viktring in his numbers, regardless of the fact he obviously cited wrong Croatian figures for Viktring. Geiger does not cite any separate Viktring figures for Zerjavic, instead has 44-55 thousand as the total Croat-Bosniak numbers, which are same as Zerjavic's 1993 numbers, although Geiger then "rounds-up" these numbers multiple times


 * So just to recapitulate, since it gets confusing, for the sentence in the article - "Based on statistical calculations, a minimum of 70,000 to 80,000 people were killed" - it quotes Geiger. For this Geiger, in turn, entirely cites Grahanek-Ravanic, who in all her articles cites Zerjavic's statistical estimates as the most reliable source for her numbers. Then finally, the same Zerjavic she cites, cites himself as estimating 54,500 to 65,000 total Bleiburg victims. So per this math:


 * 54,500 to 65,000 = a minimum of 70,000 to 80,000   Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Geiger in his 2012 work, on page 161 in reference number 44, for the 70-80,000 figure, cites two works of Grahek Ravančić. Grahek Ravančić, in her 2009 work on pages 322-323, cites Žerjavić's 70,000 total from "The Demography of Bleiburg" and writes that due to the "latest research in Slovenian historiography" (excavations of mass graves and the research project to establish the total number of Slovenian victims), certain corrections are necessary. I provided the quote already:
 * "Iako postoji veći broj radova koji obrađuju žrtve Bleiburga i križnoga puta, cjelovitima i najpouzdanijima (do sada) mogu se smatrati istraživanja Vladimira Žerjavića, prema kome ukupni broj poginulih “kvislinških i kolaboracionističkih” snaga u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme rata iznosi 125.000 ljudi. Od toga oko 50.000 ljudi izgubilo je živote na Bleiburgu i križnom putu, a 10.000 bilo je izručeno iz logora Viktring. Njima pribraja oko 10.000 poginulih Srba i Slovenaca, što u konačnici daje ukupnu brojku od oko 70.000 ljudi. Taj podatak bio bi donja granica, s obzirom da nove spoznaje slovenske historiografije, poput iskapanja u Teznom, gdje je stradalo oko 15.000 ljudi, nužno unose određene korekcije u navedene brojke. Jednako tako, najnovija istraživanja slovenske historiografije pokazuju da je broj stradalih slovenskih domobrana veći nego što to spominje Žerjavić. Sve zajedno upućuje da bi se ukupna brojka stradalih mogla kretati oko 80.000."
 * So Grahek Ravančić is not "rounding-up" anything nor did she cite something wrongly. She is very clear that the basis for that range is the research in Slovenia and Žerjavić's total number of victims from "The Demography of Bleiburg". Or is Tomasevich also wrong when he on page 765 (2001 book) cites the same source as Grahek Ravančić? Or Slavko and Ivo Goldstein as well? And we already include all relevant sources available from Žerjavić and his estimates in the article. Tezwoo (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dragan Cvetkovic also thinks Zerjavic's Jasenovac numbers need to be adjusted, so let's put in intro of Jasenovac victim estimates his 120,000 to 130,000 and add, per Geiger, that this is a minimum. Perhaps Cvetkovic also cites Zerjavic's wrong estimates for total Slovenia victims of 42,000, whereas Dezelak Baric estimates them at 99,000. In fact Zerjavic underestimated Slovene victims of occupiers-collaborators by much greater amount than his supposed Bleiburg underestimates - i.e. yet more reason to increase Jasenovac estimates by even greater amounts. Also Dezelak-Baric specifically states that her total post-war figures include many unrelated to Bleiburg. She does not break out Bleiburg vs. non-Bleiburg, but for all we know her Bleiburg may be 8-10 thousands, so taking her higher totals and comparing them to Zerjavic Bleiburg-specific estimates, is per her, just plain wrong. Btw Tezno 15,000 are estimates, based on around 1,180 recovered, and Ferenc made similar estimates for Huda Jama, based on tunnel size, etc, which turned out to be 3 times overestimated. If he missed Tezno by same factor, then true Tezno numbers may be around 6,000, and even his 15,000 is well within Zerjavic's estimates of 55,000 to 65,000 total Bleiburg victims


 * Furthermore from Table 1 in Geiger (2012), while the 1990s Croatian Commission grossly undercounted victims of the Ustashe (e.g. only 293 Jewish victims in Croatia, compared to 20,000 estimated by most sources, and only 18,000 Serb victims compared to Zerjavic’s estimate of 131,000-plus) there is no evidence of similar gross undercounts of Croat victims, particularly not of Croat victims in NDH forces in Croatia. Thus in "Gubici Stanovnistva Jugoslavije" (p. 101), Zerjavic estimates a total of 45,000 Croats killed among NDH forces in Croatia. Whereas in Geiger (2012), Table 1, the Vukojevic Commission shows total of 41,855 victims (=ustashe+home guard+NDH armed forces) among NDH forces in Croatia. Thus compared to Zerjavic only some 3,000 (=45,000-41,885) are missing from the Commission total (i.e only some 7%), which also indicates not many NDH forces victims from Croatia are missing from their 13,300 total of Bleiburg victims from both Croatia and Bosnia. Geiger himself notes that the Vukojevic Commission focused almost entirely on victims of Partisans, while ignoring victims of Ustashe, so it looks like they indeed accounted for a very large percent of former, particularly among NDH forces which were by far main victims of Bleiburg. Plus Zerjavic estimated 25% of all Croat Bleiburg victims were killed pre-surrender, so that the post-surrender numbers need to be further reduced


 * Tomasevich entirely cites Zerjavic and in other places Grahanek-Ravancic entirely cites him. So did Zerjavic cite himself wrong when in Manipulations he cites 54,500 to 65,000 total Bleiburg victims, and specifically says this includes Viktring? And this appears to be his last word on the matter. Did Geiger (2012, Table 10) cite Zerjavic wrong when in his right column he cites 45,000 to 55,000 Croat/Bosniak victims, 8-10 thousand Slovene, and 2 thousand Serbs, which total to 55,000 to 67,000, with a mid point of 61,000, which in his left column Geiger then "rounds up" to a "Zerjavic estimate" of 70,000, which is an increase of almost 15%. So for Zerjavic Serb victim estimates let's start first by rounding them up by 15%, and then think of all the other reasons to increase Zerjavic even further, then make this increased number a minimum - so we are at Dragan Cvetkovic's 120.000 to 130,000 minimum Jasenovac estimate as by far the most reliable number to put in Jasenovac article


 * Btw, as I note above, the 1990's Croatian Commission numbers indicate, if anything, that Zerjavic's Bleiburg Croatian victim estimates are a substantial overestimate Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Who is stopping you from using Dragan Cvetković on other articles? I've used him in various articles for estimates of WW2 in Yugoslavia casualties. At least Cvetković did some research and has some backing in his numbers, unlike other sources generally used in WW2 in Yugoslavia articles that passingly mention various huge figures based on nothing. Which, coincidentally, you did not address.
 * Žerjavić's Slovenia estimate did not cover the entire modern-day Slovenia, and he calculated separately those that died abroad. The Slovenian researchers covered basically anyone who died during the war, including those that died in accidents.
 * Deželak Barič does not say that her 15,000 figure for victims of post-war retribution in Slovenia includes "many unrelated to Bleiburg". Luckily, I know Slovenian language.
 * Tezno? OK, let's discuss Tezno. Yes, it is an estimate, just like for every other camp or massacre site, except a select few where it was possible to count every single victim (like in Huda Jama due to specific circumstances of it being an enclosed mine). It is accepted by the Slovenian and Croatian governments (the centre-left ones)  and multiple reliable sources (Ferenc, Kurapovna, Grahek Ravančić...). I have yet to see a source that challenges that number. In fact, all I found are higher figures than 15,000. And no, your WP:OR doesn't count. See WP:Verifiability.
 * The Commission's table? In case you did not notice, there is an "Unknown" category, with 32,920 in the first part of the table, and 53,768 in the second one (ethnic groups). Further, the total number of casualties for Croatia (in modern day borders) is actually estimated at 327,000 (295,000 excluding areas ceded from Italy per both Žerjavić and Kočović, and 32,000 in those areas (Istria, Zadar, Rijeka, and the islands)). The Commission ended up with a total of 153,700, which means that about half is missing, which means that your calculation is wrong. This is why we use secondary sources instead of someone's original research. Tezwoo (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I found Zerjavic's estimate for total Croatian casulties among NDH forces, i.e. 45,000 in Croatia plus 22,000 in Bosnia, for total of 67,000. Geiger's Vukojevic Commmission Table 1 shows 41,885 armed foces casualties from Croatia (=ustashe+home guard+HOS), plus an additional 12,924 from Bosnia (Table 2), for a combined total of around 55,000. So compared to Zerjavic estimate, they were able to document 82% of NDH armed forces victims, and compared to him, there are only 12,000 missing (=67,000-55,000). Even if all these 12,000 missing came from Bleiburg (extremely, extremely unlikely), and we were to add them to their 13,300 total Bleiburg number, that would still be only 25,300 total Bleiburg victims, before deducting an additional 25%, per Zerjavic, killed pre-surrender. In any case, per data presented by Geiger, there is NO evidence of many missing dead among NDH armed forces, who were by far main victims of Bleiburg. Geiger also states the Commission entirely focused on victims of Partisams (which he ironically calls "the right victims", as opposed to "the wrong victims", i.e. Serb, Jews, etc, which he states they completely failed to address, and he also dismisses all their supposed excuses for doing same). Thus it appears that the Commision indeed did find a very high percent of these victims which were main victims of Bleiburg, so that even Zerjavic's Bleiburg estimates of 45,000 Croats appear a considerable overestimate. And just the notion that a whole Croatian Commission, plus the entire Church and many of its priests, plus multiple ustashe-emigre organizations, plus other Croatian institutes and researchers, could not do what 3 female Slovene researchers did in a few years (i.e. document the majority of Slovene victims against mainly Church-held books of dead), is totally unbelievable Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Žerjavić's estimates for Croat and Muslim losses (war and post-war) as part of the military forces of the NDH are 99,000 (Geiger 2012 p. 118, or Žerjavić 1992 p. 77), not 67,000. The Commission on Establishment of Wartime and Post-war Victims published their data only for the territory of Croatia, with more than half of victims missing (of a total of more than 300,000 for modern-day Croatian territory). Again, there is a reason why we use secondary sources, instead of attempts to find the WP:TRUTH. Read once more what Rulitz and Grahek Ravančić wrote about the work of the Commission and their comparison with the work done in Slovenia, because what you are writing here (without a source provided) is contrary to their works. Rulitz, pages 112 and 113:

"The governmental commissions in Croatia, however, do not equal the extent of Slovenia’s commitment to the discovery of mass graves, which accounts for some big deficits in the research of the mass graves and the Communist crimes. Up to this point, there were neither exhumations nor a state-funded reprocessing of the Communist past on a larger scale in Croatia."

"Only the Republic of Slovenia as the sole constituent republic of the former Yugoslavia furnished a state-funded governmental commission that provided serious academic research." Tezwoo (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 99,000 figure is Croats AND Muslims. The top of table on p.117 gives totals for Croats only - 45,000 Croats from Croatia, plus 22,000 Croats from Bosnia among NDH armed forces, which is 67,000 figure I gave (in this table he has another 2,000 from NDH-occupied Serb Srem, which is small). Thus per Zerjavic, Commission documented very large percent, i.e. more than 80% of Croat victims among NDH forces, by far the main Croat victims of Bleiburg. Commission specifically investigated victims in Bosnia - in table 2 Geiger cites 12,924 as Commission number for Croats in Bosnia who died as members NDH armed forces, and also states that Commission's Bleiburg numbers of 13,300 are practically all Croats so it is obvious they did not make any effort to document Bosniaks.


 * Vice Vukojevic who was head of that Commission, is head of the Bleiburg Honorary Platoon which organizes the annual Bleiburg Commemorations (recently forbidden in Austria because of fascist displays and Nazi salutes). He also proclaimed that Jews were in charge of Jasenovac, thus exterminated themselves, with NDH forces only serving as guards. It is inconceivable to imagine that a character like him would not turn over heaven and earth to find every last possible victim of what Tudjman called "the Bleiburg myth", i.e. the core foundational myth of right-wing Croatian nationalists, like Vukojevic himself. Similarly Bleiburg has been a central preoccupation of the Croatian Catholic Church, so that it is inconceivable that they too, key partners in the Commission, would not have done same - plus they have all death book records from that time. Geiger mentions Commission documented lots of Croats (i.e. "the right victims"), vs practically no Serbs or Jews ("the wrong victims")


 * I've not seen any source say that the 2005-2009 Slovene Parliamentary Commission documented a single named victim. I've seen them toss around generalities like 190,000 total victims on Slovene soil, which Ferenc has since disowned and now says it is in tens-of-thousands, certainly less than 100,000. Incidentally that Commission was headed by Joze Dezman, who as Spomenka Hribar (herself among first to call for recognition of post-war killings) notes, has proclaimed massive falsehoods that Partisans killed more Slovenes than occupiers, when in fact per Dezelak-Baric and others, occupiers-collaborationists killed 77-80% of all Slovene victims, war and post-war. Thus Dezman, the Commission head, has zero credibility. All Slovene victim numbers quoted here were documented and confirmed by 3 female researchers as part of a separate project at the small Institute of Modern History, as they themselves write, and these 3 did 100% of all the death book confirmations, with a good portion of project self-financed by that same small Institute. 102,000 victims of Bosnian War were documented by a single Bosnian NGO, and this is now used as the standard Thhhommmasss (talk)


 * The 1990s Croatian Commission's presented the results of their research in a report to the Croatian Parliament in 1999 called " Izvješće o radu Komisije za utvrđivanje ratnih i poratnih žrtava od osnutka (11. veljače 1992.) do rujna 1999. godine". The figure of 13,300 documented deaths in connection to Bleiburg is only for the territory of the Republic of Croatia, and is on page 20 of that report. The name of the table with that number is called "Structure of war and post-war victims in the Republic of Croatia by cause of death" ("Struktura žrtava rata i poraća u Republici Hrvatskoj prema uzroku smrti"). If it is not clear from the name of the table and someone still has doubt as to whether that relates to Croatia only or also for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the total number of deaths in the table is exactly 153,700. Geiger (2012) has the totals for Croatia and BiH on page 107 - Croatia is 153,700, and BiH is 99,228.
 * Therefore, your math is, yet again, wrong. And since you gave so much credit to the credibility of the Commission's research (without any source), let's examine that table a bit more (here it is: ). The 13,300 number is under the column "Missing on the way of the cross" ("Nestao na Križnom putu"), just next to the column "Missing" ("Nestao"), which is probably for those gone missing during the war only. There is another column there named "Killed outside of combat" ("Ubijen izvan borbe") with a total of 54,967 persons, including 3,474 Partisans, 10,652 members of various NDH armed forces, 29,103 civilians, and 11,214 with an unknown status. As it is hard to imagine that more than 10,000 Home Guards and Ustashe Militia from Croatia alone were killed as POWs before May 1945 (that would mean that almost the same number of them died as POWs and in combat), the only logical explanation is that this column also includes those that were killed as part of the Bleiburg events. According to the table, 27,531 Partisans and 10,941 NDH forces were killed in combat, and it is well known that many more Partisans were captured during the war and subsequently killed than members of the Axis forces.
 * Taking all of that into account, with the fact that for 9,886 persons the cause of death is unknown, there is absolutely no evidence that the Commission's report indicates that Žerjavić overestimated Bleiburg casualties for any ethnic group. Quite the opposite, if that Commission did such a good job as you suggest, the total number might be much higher than what Žerjavić estimated. Tezwoo (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Direct quote from Geiger (2012) p.95: "The most extensive list of the Commission on Establishment of Wartime and Post-war Victims of the Republic of Croatia in 1999 provides data on 13,300 persons who lost their lives at Bleiburg and on the “Way of the Cross”. He makes no mention that these are from Croatia only (in an article that is about total Croat losses, not just from Croatia), nor does he mention that in Table 10, where he again cites same numbers, along with other Bleiburg estimates that obviously include Bosnia. So your above interpretations are based on an inaccessible primary source, citing numbers which Geiger makes no mention of, thus appears to be original research. I on the other hand made my observations 100% based on numbers and statements Geiger Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In table 3, Geiger says "Human losses in Croatia during the Second World War and in the post-war period" when citing the Commission. In table 10 under ref 1 for that figure, he mentions "Croatia’s human losses during the Second World War". Nowhere did Geiger say that the 13,300 figure is for both Croatia and BiH, nowhere did Geiger say that this figure is close to the final one, and nowhere did Geiger praise the Commission's work. Your "observations" are not based on Geiger. Tezwoo (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone can read Geiger's sentence on p.95, where he makes no mention that the 13,300 figure relates to Croatia only. In fact in the very next sentence he compares the 13,300 with a figure that is clearly all Croats, including Bosnia ("But M. Šimundić estimated that the total actual losses of Croats at Bleiburg and the “Way of the Cross” may have been approximately 125,000"). So is Geiger totally clueless and compares apples and oranges?
 * Again, I am entirely quoting Geiger, whereas you keep pulling out figures he doesn't cite. Also as mentioned, from Geiger's numbers, the Commission's numbers of 55,000 total Croat WWII armed forces casualties from Croatia and Bosnia, is 82% of Zerjavic's demographic estimate of same (67,000). So per this comparison, the Commission did not miss many Croat Armed forces causalties, Bleiburg or non-Bleiburg, and armed forces, per Commission, were vast majority of Bleiburg victims Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Number killed
is there a most common figure on the number of victims or most agreed range that we could put in the intro? Or are the figures per source too vast? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oath
I've replaced "swore allegience [sic] to the SS and the Führer" with the quote "the Home Guards took a solemn oath to fight together with the SS and German police under the leadership of the Fuhrer against the Communist guerillas and their allies" (offered by Peacemaker67 at Talk:Slovene Home Guard). This has been thoroughly discussed before; if you can't keep from twisting the oath into something else, then please just quote it (or the source) directly and leave it alone. Doremo (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You again dropped a key part of the Tomsevich quote, like your previously dropped the Fuhrer part of the oath. I will make sure to fit in a verbatim Slovene Home Guard rant against Jews and their Bolshevik and Western gangster allies. In fact one of the most vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Western Allies speaches was delivered by the Slovene Home Guard leader, Leon Rupnik, after the Home Guard pledged for the second time, in 1945, to fight alongside the SS, under the leadership of the Fuhrer, against the Western Allis, a mere 3 months before that same Fuhrer killed himself in a Berlin bunker. This vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Allied rant was fully republished in the Catholic, collaborationist newspaper, Slovenec Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to make the quote as long as you like. Doremo (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, for the record here is the vicious anti-Semitic and anti-Western Allies speech that the head of the collaborationist Slovene Home Guard, Leon Rupnik, delivered to the Home Guards in 1945, after they swore that same oath a second time, to fight alongside the SS, under the leadership of the Fuhrer, against the Western Allies, just 3 months before that same Fuhrer killed himself in a Berlin bunker (reproduced from the Catholic, collaborationist newspaper Slovenec, January 31, 1945)


 * Why do our enemies want to destroy all this? Because the Jewish people, led by Satan himself, that nation which was wrongly called even the chosen people, wants to place gold as the only god on the world throne, make themselves the sole ruler over all peoples, denigrate them to the level of soulless, senseless slaves, to seize all the goods and pleasures of this world and thus turn the territories of all other nations into a desert. Who are our enemies? These are the people and nations who imagine that the Jew will share his lordship and his spoils with them and believe in the golden Moloch. They allowed themselves to be commanded, defrauded, bought, and forced into cannon fodder by the Jews, and in the deceptive hope of a false paradise became the indecisive tool of their Jewish masters, and so murderers, robbers, arsonists, and predatory, bloodthirsty beasts. If these beasts come from the east, they are the Bolsheviks, and they are helped as an unscrupulous, blinded tool by those we have come to know as the rich gangsters from the West

The Slovene Home Guard put this anti-Semitism into practice, when as one of their first acts they rounded up the few remaining Jews in Ljubljana, and shipped them off to Nazi concentration camps Thhhommmasss (talk)

What is the point in having an oath of some unit in a section intended to be a short summary of WW2 in Yugoslavia prior to its last months? Tezwoo (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tomsevich writes that the Oath was one of the things that earned the Home Guards the enmity of the Western Allies, along with fact they turned the great majority of Allied pilots to the Nazis, and in general considerably helped the Nazi war effort against the Allies. He states the Slovene collaborators were trying to play a dangerous game of allying with the Nazi and fascist occupiers to get rid of their Partisan enemy, then hoping to flip at the last moment to the Allied side. He says they failed and their subsequent fate was what came at the end of the war (p.129) Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is obvious from the text "The Axis authorities sponsored local anti-communist units. In 1943, these units were united into the Slovene Home Guard" that the Slovene Home Guard was an Axis military force. And I notice again a lot of content not found in the cited sources (for example, Tomasevich on pages 123 and 124 doesn't say this: "meaning Jews as well Soviet and Western Allied troops they referred to as the Jews’ “gangster servants"). Tezwoo (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Slovenian casualties
To avoid any confusion, this is the entire table for the number of victims (both military and civilian) in the territory of Slovenia and "deaths caused by", in Slovenian language, from Deželak Barič 2014, p. 17:

Tezwoo (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dezelak-Baric data on Slovene wartime casualties
Above table is war and postwar. On page 33, Dezelak-Baric writes specifically of 83,000 to 84,000 Slovene wartime victims, noting that Partisans were responsible for 6,700 of these, or 8%, while collaborators were responsible for 6,036 Slovenes killed. However, regarding collaborators she also adds: "We don't have data on how many people were executed or died in [German and Italian] concentration camps after they were handed over to the occupiers by the anti-partisan side". It is clear that the occupiers, with collaborator assistance, killed the vast majority, or over 75,000 Slovene wartime victims

Gregor Kranjc (To Walk with the Devil) writes that Slovene collaborators put together lists of Slovenes to be sent to concentration camps and to be shot as hostages, plus all German and Italian units had collaborators with them to find Partisans and Partisan sympathizers, thus they no doubt were responsible for numerous deaths of Slovenes, beyond the 6,036 direct deaths.

There's also this table based on Dezelak-Baric's data which shows that occupiers-collaborators killed 90% to almost 100% Slovene victims, year-to-year, during war:

Dezelak-Baric also has this table, showing more that twice as many partisans killed than all collaborators combined, including war and postwar: Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first table and the text under perpetrators ("Povzročitelji"), those are not the words of Deželak Barič. Those are your own words (original research) which you added to Slovenian Wikipedia in 2019, and which as a source has an interview of Deželak Barič. From the cited interview there it is clear that for a large number of persons she did not state the perpetrator for the year 1944. Yet you took the number of confirmed deaths caused by the Partisans, and attributed all the rest to the Axis forces. Here is the quote from the interview:
 * "Nemški okupator je v sodelovanju z različnimi tujimi enotami – ustaši, četniki, vlasovci – povzročil več kot 10.000 žrtev. Med njimi je bilo tudi veliko že omenjenih civilistov, med mobiliziranci v nemško vojsko pa je samo tega leta padlo več kot 4500 mož in fantov, skoraj vsi na ruski fronti.
 * Partizanska stran je v tem letu povzročila približno 2700 smrti, protipartizanska pa v samostojnih akcijah čez 2500 in v sodelovanju predvsem z nemškim okupatorjem še nadaljnjih 960, iz česar sledi, da tega leta druga prvič povzroči več žrtev kot prva."
 * That obviously doesn't add up to 27,000, the total for 1944.
 * The 1942 part, which are your own words as well, is also wrong. Deželak Barič says that the total number of victims was 11,000, of which 5,000 were civilians. Then she goes on and says that of the civilian casualties, 800 were caused by the Partisans, and the rest by the Axis. ("Kakšna je za teh 5000 struktura po povzročiteljih?" ... "partizani povzročijo med civilisti skoraj 800 žrtev, ostalo gre na račun okupatorja.") Yet you deducted the 800 number from the total victim death toll (instead of just civilians), and reached that 93% were the responsibility of the Axis. Tezwoo (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dezelak-Baric on p.33 of the book, writes that the Partisans were responsible for a total of 6,700 Slovene casualties, during the war, out of a total of 83.000 to 84,000, i.e. for only 8% of Slovene casualties. Period. You can repeat whatever you like, but that won't change that simple fact.


 * Btw, most of the missing in her annual figures are from the 12,000+ Slovenes killed, mostly on the Eastern front, after being forcefully recruited into the German army, against international law. She counts these as victims of the Red Army, same as she counts Slovenes recruited into the Italian army, as victims of the Western Allies in North Africa and in Italy. Some of these she places under unknown, if it is not known precisely whose bullet killed them. All that is a load of bunk, and all these Slovenes were victims of the Nazi and fascist allies of Slovene collaborators Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are again your views. Deželak Barič writes that for a total of 20,748 persons the "death caused by" is unknown (p. 17), and from page 33 it appears that the Partisans et al. were responsible for almost four times more civilian deaths than the Slovene Home Guard et al. ("Partizanska stran je v celotnem obdobju okupacije povzročila med civilisti 4.233 žrtev" ... "protipartizanska pa je povzročila v samostojnih akcijah med civilisti 1.009 žrtev." ... "V neposrednem sodelovanju z okupatorjem so povzročili vsaj še 227 žrtev."). And that's without the post-war period. Tezwoo (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * She writes with no ifs, and or buts that the Partisan side caused 6.700 deaths, and the collaborationist side 6,036 during the war. Elsewhere where there are any uncertainties she adds something like "at least a minimum". She says it is unknown how many of the civilians killed by the Partisans were collaborators, and she, Gregor Kranjc and others write the chief target or the Partisans were those who betrayed Partisans and their supporters to the Nazis and Italians, after which these Slovenes were shipped by tens-of-thousands to Nazi and Italian concentration camps, or shot as hostages, the vast majority of them being civilian family members and supporters of Partisans. Dezelak-Baric herself states it is unknown how many more Slovenes were killed by the collaborators betraying Slovenes to the Occupiers, but per what Kranjc writes it is very possible they played a hand in the majority of the 75,000 Slovenes that were killed by the occupiers and collaborators. In Bishop Rozman's September 1942 memorandum, cited by Tomasevich, Rozman proposed collaboration to Italians, above all for collaborators to find and turn over Partisans and Partisan-sympathizers to the Italians, because the Italians don't know the language and people, and therefore can't find the Partisan sympathizers by themselves. Thus per Bishop Rozman the main function of collaborators was to betray Slovenes to the Nazi and fascist occupiers, which is why they were so successful in killing 75,000 Slovenes, sending 65,000 more to concentration camps, etcThhhommmasss (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflating present vs. contemporary
Thhhommmasss, this a common sense we follow, Slovenia did not exist then, so you cannot identify if it would. A simple copyedit, and where I made has not any connection to 1945. If you want, we may incite an administrator who also understand this and related pages himself corrected these.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Like I said Tomasevich in 800 pages on WWII history on Yugoslavia never once mentions the Drava or Danube Banovina only Slovenia and Serbia (Chapter title: "Germany and Italy divide Slovenia", i.e. not Drava banovina). Are you saying your opinion matters more here than his, particularly since the Banovinas were 100% irrelevant for events of 1945? Serbia was spread across 4 banovinas, plus the separate Belgade district, not just the Danube banovina, so your equating Serbia with the Danube banovina is plain, FACTUALLY WRONG, and I see no reason for insisting on plain factually wrong info in WP. The NDH consisted of multiple banovinas, and going through all these would also be 100% irrelevant. I will venture to say that of the dozens Bleiburg articles cited, none mentions the Drava or Danube banovina, so you're just pushing your personal views Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like you would have understand nothing from the edit logs. So again Slovenia did not exist that time, and we should not conflate present-day status quo with contemporary situations. We use Tomasevich at several pages, but it does not mean would identify a present-day country back in time in a period when it did not exist (that all about what would be factually wrong). I did not equate any Banovina with any present-day country, it is a fact which Banovinas existed in Yugoslavia in 1941. When NDH was created, or course the previous system was abolished, and again, the places where they were mentioned has nothing to with 1945, as well with my personal views. Will Slovene Lands ok with you?(KIENGIR (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC))
 * All that has to be done here is to refer to the subject generically, ie "areas of Yugoslavia with a high proportion of Slovene population were divided between Germany, Italy and Hungary". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)