Talk:Independent State of Croatia/Archive 1

Territorial details
The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia came into being later that year, with the same teritory as the preceeding Kingdom..

Does this mean the bits (near Trieste, i recall?) that the allies didn't hand over to Yugoslavia til later; were not part of the Kingdom? Morwen 17:53, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, more or less. Italy had Istria, Zadar and Lastovo between the world wars. IMHO it's unfortunate that you added an article instead of adding a redirect to Ustase, now we get an analogous soap opera again... --Shallot 20:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What did I tell you... :< --Shallot 19:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment from 193.198.144.54
There isn't a word about Bleiburg and what happened there in 1945. Well, more than 520.000 Croats (Croatian army+Croats civils) by Tito's partisans. Here is an most important name: Ko&#269;a Popovi&#263;, comandant of II. army, under his command a Bleiburg tragedy has been done. There are also Kosta Na&#273; (ex &#269;etnik) and Dap&#269;evi&#263; (I have forgotten name). Of course, all were executed without any trial. Croatian army had surenderred to Montgomery's eight army, but English army had returned them to comunists slayers. And after that, they surrender ti partisans with Geneva rights (with white flag, and they all gave their weapons). This is only one tiny reminder to history, only the truth. Also, same &#269;etniks did Vukovar in 1991. But, we Croats will defend our country from lies and enemies, because THE TRUTH IS MORE DEEPER IN THE SEA, THAT IT IS SEEMS TO BE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.144.54 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This is called Bleiburg massacre. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

moved from another talk page
(moved Talk from Talk:History of Croatia)

User Or
This Or guy is getting ridiculous. He keeps removing valuable information without explaining why he is doing this. It is, so far, his only contribution to Wikipedia, except that I suspect he was also behind erasing Jasenovac three times until he was banned. Danny


 * Sergeus
 * Isn't it obvious? He is probably one of those Croat nationalists. The one of those who covered up most of Croatia's criminal work in WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.41 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Pavelic papers, Ustase
I deleted the crappy pavelic papaers link. It belongs to the Croatian history page as much as a PLO propaganda site to the history of Israel.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)


 * The crap about ustaše CC has been removed. If the "Igor" personality (or similar obsessives) continue to pollute this page, then Serbian history page will be "exposed" in a similar manner-everything about Serbian imperialism and genocides, especially ideology of Greater Serbia-http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/
 * Anyway- this link, if I see it again, goes under NPOV label, while Serbian history will have "lovable" addenda.


 * Mir Harven

Chetniks
I'm reverting Igor's change "known to have" -> "accused of having" as several books have been written documenting chetnik crimes against civilians during the WWII. Cf. http://www.mzt.hr/projekti9095/6/02/101/rad_e.htm To put it bluntly, if the list of accused Ustashi clergy has a place here, so does this. --Shallot 15:32, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Numbers of victims
Kakve su ovo bezvezne brojke o Jasenovcu, Bleiburgu i Oluji ? Otkud takve bljuzge ? Ispraviti to.

M H


 * AFAIR, I took the first two from the moderate approximations. I didn't add the number for the third, but didn't verify it further as it didn't seem too far off from what I heard elsewhere. Please explicate what numbers you think there should be. (And remember to write in English as well :) --Shallot 01:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Dojadila mi dosadna engleština, no, hajde de. Take a look on Žerjavi&#263;'s figures, where he broke down victims according to perpetrators etc. Especially http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/ and the chapter http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p07.htm . Of course, there are indications that Žerjavi&#263; was, maybe, wrong: http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/19990912/novosti.htm, ie. that ca. 180 k Croats had been killed. But, although a few other articles appeared-http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20010228/novosti1.htm#bla - there has been no further reliable investigation, so therefore one must rely solely on Žerjavi&#263;'s figures.


 * M H


 * I've used that number (45-50K -> "up to 50K") now. Some anonymous from a .cg.yu domain is constantly trying to decrease that number and increase the other one, too. --Shallot 17:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Pa-neka se samo trude. Svaka gica dodje na kolica.Mir Harven 17:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Let us translate this briliant prose by Mir Haven: Let them try. Every pig comes for slaughter. - This is pure Racism, and if Shallot were a honest and neutral moderator, he would have banned Mir Haven immediately as per wikipedia policy. But he chooses to let this racist comment stand, as he thinks that, being in Serbo-Croatian it would not be understood by a wider wiki community. The fact that this is a grave insult to Serbs, slaughtered in WWII - a reference is to that, does not bother him a bit, as he probably agrees with his Serb-hating peer.Kmetsar 07:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Death count during WW2 in NDH
Yeah, it's me (now logged). These figures about 400 k "Ustase victims" is clear nonsense, since statistical breakup shows that the number was ca, 320 k, and it included all and everyone. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p07.htm These numbers fit perfectly with Serbian demographer Kocovic's (who did not try to analyze details)-http://www.hr/darko/etf/bul2.html. Interestingly enough, Croat Zerjavic got higher figures for Serbian death toll and lower for Croatian, in comparison with the Serbian demographer,Mir Harven 18:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

213.149.106.11 said Shallot your number from Ustasa sources


 * Oh, that's a most convincing argument, given that they were mostly from Vladimir Zerjavic's stuff, and he was a partizan. I'm seriously not sure how you expect to be taken seriously... --Shallot 23:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To the anonymous user: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t081/t08100.html says 500,000, http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t034/t03448.html says 600,000. I'm not sure why they can't get their numbers consistent, but anyway, nobody's impressed with your insisting on really high numbers (you started with 900,000, remember?)... --Shallot

Pavelić after 1945
Zocky, where did you find this information that Ante Paveli&#263; fled from .yu territory via pop &#272;uji&#263; and then to Spain? I have only seen some fairly exact references to a Franciscan called Draganovi&#263; in Rome, and then a trip to Argentina, no Chetniks involved... he did end up in Spain during Franco, where he died. --Shallot 16:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I learned it in school. Hmm... I'll try to find some references somewhere. Zocky 17:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find any references, so I removed it. Zocky 18:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not impossible that some of it was pro-Partizan spin. Oh well :) That document I linked later does mention collaboration between exiles of both factions, but that's not the same. --Shallot 18:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More content elsewhere
I think there still may be some more content for the history section of this page to be extracted from Ustase. --Shallot 00:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ustase and Chetnics
Yes, Yes, but don`t forget that Ustase died together with Chetnics

and they also fought together in Bosnia. This all has nothing to do

with Vukovar, unless you want to say that Croatian army were Ustase

and JNA were partisans? :-)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"puppet state"
(I'm moving the scattered discussion with 83.109.x.y anonymous here --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;  )

Even if it is your opinion that the government of Croatia were "a group of unelected wannabe criminals", this is totally unacceptable in an encyclopedia article, and not in accordance with our NPOV policy. It was previously dediced not to label any state "puppet state", as in the case of the German Democratic Republic and other states which were, from a western point of view, viewed as Soviet puppet states. Also, "attack" is not a neutral wording. Italy and Germany were allied with the King of Yugoslavia and the intervention was approved by the legal head of state. This needs to made clear in the article. I'm going to remove any POVs or attempts to rewrite history from Serbian POV which are inserted there. 83.109.161.6 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not the legal government of Croatia, because only the Axis Powers recognized it, after their tanks helped it come to power!
 * Also, when did the King of Yugoslavia allow for his country to be dismembered by his "allies"? I missed that little tidbit, honestly. :P
 * It is not Wikipedia here that is branding NDH as a puppet state, it is the prevalent opinion of the world's historians, and of the people and historians of the country in question.
 * Deal with it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not for Wikipedia to decide which governments are "legal", which would have terrible implications and lead to endless disputes, and which have nothing with NPOV to do. The Croatian government was the actual government of Croatia, and we have to stick to it, just like we have to stick to the fact that the various communist governments of Eastern Europe were the actual government of those states, even if considered "illegal" by former or current governments. 83.109.161.6 15:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing being "decided" by Wikipedia - it describes the consensus. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We cannot treat states differently. If "puppet state" as a description of Soviet puppet states is POV, it is also POV as a description of independent, souvereign states allied with the Axis powers. 83.109.157.88 08:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What states are we treating differently? We're not talking about any Soviet states here, we're talking about the NDH. It was neither independent, nor sovereign. If any countries deserved the moniker "puppet state", this was one of them because it fits the definition perfectly. If you wish to change the definition, fine, but do it at that article first. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Basic facts: Croatia was de jure a souvereign state allied with Italy and Germany. You are accusing it of in reality having been a "puppet state" because of alleged Italian and German influence over Croatian politics. Fine. You may describe this in the article at length. But the lead section(s) should be based on the actual legal status of Croatia and its legal relationship to the Axis powers, not accusations which are in essence POV.


 * What do you base this de jure sovereignty on? Did the League of Nations recognize it as such? Did the Kingdom of Yugoslavia recognize it as such? If they signed the Tripartite Treaty with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, why did they dismember it without the consent of its King? I see no logic in this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Compare Iraq. The US-installed government of the occupied country is not described as a "Bushist puppet government". I'm not going to tolerate that you enforce separate standards for different countries. You have to respect the NPOV policy like all others. 83.109.168.51 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Iraq situation is simply not analogous to this one. Please judge this case on its own merit. And don't insist on applying some sort of a new NPOV policy in a place where the policy has already been applied. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Splitting of this article
I suggest this article to be splitted and heavily modified. There are two main reasons. This article is part of "History of Croatia" series and most of the articles there (all except first two and this one) have a title starting with "Croatia_in_". I think there should be an article titled "Croatia during WWII" and that article "Independent State of Croatia" should be excluded from the History of Croatia series. In my oppinion there are two very good reasons for that.

First is there are lots of facts relevant for Independent State of Croatia article which are simply to detailed information to be put in Croatia during WWII. For instance, administrative divisions of NDH, economy of NDH, and such info. Therefore I think article about NDH should not be tied directly to "Croatia during WWII", my oppinion is article about Independent State of Croatia should be permitted to develop freely outside the "History of Croatia" series.

Second reason is the fact that today Croatia wasn't represented by NDH in WWII. That is not my POV, that is POV of every Croatian government since 1990. Croatia is based on fundations of ZAVNOH (or AVNOJ), not NDH. I'd like to state again this is not my point of view, but of modern Croatian state (for example, see speech of the president of Croatian parliament on 22.6.2005). Therefore, it is a bit awkward that "Croatia during WWII" links to "Independent State of Croatia".

So, action I propose is:
 * Duplicate this article as "Croatia during WWII".
 * Remove "Independent State of Croatia" from "History of Croatia" series
 * Remove excess information regarding partisan uprising from "Independent State of Croatia" (leave just facts which article about "Independent State of Croatia" needs)
 * Remove excess information regarding Independent State of Croatia from "Croatia during WWII" article; make clear that there were two different entities... "representing" (or whichever verb would be more adequate) Croatian people/state during WWII; maybe even rewrite the whole article

Now, I think this is a very good idea (I do not regard all of my ideas as very good, but this one I do). There fore, I'd like any editors which think this is a bad idea to state why they think this is a bad idea, not just "I like it his way". :-) --Dijxtra 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should not be a direct identification between "Croatia (1941-1945)" and "Independent State of Croatia" - it was merely convenient to put it like that in the template.


 * I'd just move this to Croatia during World War II, and keep the redirect IDC (and NDH etc), because if we split it off yet again, we will have even more duplication - notice how much excess information there is in Ustaše.
 * Having said that, the trivial information about NDH could be reorganized into better sections in the article titled CdWWII.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. And why wouldn't we just be bold and reorganize everything? Take info from Usta%C5%A1e and add it to NDH article, leave just a bit of info in Usta%C5%A1e and add a, then proceede as I sugested above? Then we would have Usta%C5%A1e article that deals with Ustaše, not NDH, we would have NDH article which is nice and complete, and we would have the "Croatia_in_WWII" thingie. --Dijxtra 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit hasty, are we?


 * It's not hasty at all - in the same template where it was convenient to link it, I had named it "Croatia during WWII" and it was like this for months.


 * October 4, 16:36: Dijxtra proposes move of the article. October 4, 18:29: Joy agrees. October 4, 19:33: Joy moves the article, with explanation "cf. Talk"! That IS hasty - or perhaps you think that three hours are enough for everyone interested to notice the discussion and participate? Nikola


 * Whatever, I was simply being bold. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. If you were simply being bold, then why have you put a misleading edit summary with your move? Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Misleading? I can't seem to figure out where that summary went, but I'm pretty sure I said "cf. Talk" at the end of it. Whatever the hell you thought was misleading in the preceding sentence was practically anulled by that, given that anyone could see the whole argument here in plain text. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * During the Second World War there existed a political entity called "Independent State of Croatia". It most definitely should have an article, and its article should be under its name, as is usually the case with political entities. I agree that there is no point in duplication, and so no need for a Croatia during WWII article.


 * I wouldn't agree. Take an example of this 3 articles (sections): History_of_the_United_States, History_of_the_United_States_%281918-1945%29, Prohibition. My point is, you have a small and concise "Croatia in WWII" which incorporates short history of NDH and short history of ZAVNOH Croatia, and than another elaborative article about NDH (and possibly partisan uprising in Croatia specifficaly which doesn't exist yet). --Dijxtra 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Both in your original suggestion and here, you are backing your opinion with completely unrelated points. The example has nothing to do with this article, because the US has existed in complete continuity during these periods, while Croatia hasn't.


 * Yes, it has everything to do with it. The History of Croatia series talks about Croatian state in only 2 or 3 of it's articles (Medieval Croatian state and Modern Croatia, possibly NDH). Therefore, this is not "History of Croatian state" but "History of Croatian lands". And those lands existed in continuity (as any piece of land did). Therefore, I don't see why we couldn't have one condensed article (History of Croatia), one overview series, and then article about every event/person/entity/historical period mentioned in these articles? --Dijxtra 11:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that is exactly what we do have. Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ummm, let me count. One, two... no, we do not have 3 levels of articles. We have one condensed article, no article in overview series (at least I don't see an article named "Croatia during WWII") and badly fromed article detailing NDH (which includes some facts irrelevant for NDH and relevant for nonexistent "Croatia during WWII" article). That's what we have and I think that's wrong. --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your point, and you have provided nothing to back it up. Article on NDH should incorporate history of NDH, on its entire territory. Nikola 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please reread my writings. As you will see I second that "Article on NDH should incorporate history of NDH". And, of course, I will skip the part when you say "I have provided nothing to back my points up" since you did not quote problematic points, so you are probably just beeing destructive. If you'd like to discuss my points, please cite those problematic and say why you think they are problematic (as I think they are perfeclty OK). --Dijxtra 11:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey man, which points???? Article on NDH does incorporate history of NDH. That is not reason to move it anywhere. I have read and reread your writing multiple times. "There are lots of facts relevant for Independent State of Croatia article which are simply to detailed information to be put in Croatia during WWII" - this is actually reason against the split.


 * So, what other means do you suggest for creation of "Croatia during WWII" article? Let me remind you that article does not exist and this fuss is all about that. It is not natural to have article about "Independent State of Croatia" covering "Croatia during WWII" just as it is not natural to have article named "Axis powers" to cover "World during WWII". --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If that wasn't clear so far, I suggest that "Croatia during WWII" article is not created. And yes, it would be fully natural to have article named "Axis powers" to cover Axis powers during WWII. It's not as if the article on NDH covers entire Yugoslavia. Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Now I should again emphasise that parts of Croatia were submited to Italy and Hungary and Croatia statehood was represented by ZAVNOH since 1943... but, we were there already... I think we'll need some outside help here. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Second reason is the fact that today Croatia wasn't represented by NDH in WWII" - sorry, but it was. Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, would you please take a map of NDH. Then take a map of Democratic Republic of Croatia (formed in 1943, in case you wanted to say that country didn't exist in Croatia durin WWII). Now, please take a map of modern Croatia. Now please, tell me, does modern Croatia resemble NDH or ZAVNOH Croatia? Does modern Croatia have Istra, Dalmatia, Zadar, Rijeka? Does modern Croatia include Bosnia and Herzegovina, parts of Vojvodina, Zemun? Now, can you tell me which of these two countries was recognised by the side that won WWII? No, what does all of that tell you? --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That tells me that you still consider a partisan military zone a country, and that you even think that republics of Yugoslavia were countries. It also tells me that you either think that Germany of today doesn't have continuity with WWII Germany because it doesn't resemble it, that Turkey of today doesn't have continuity with Ottoman Empire because it doesn't resemble it, etc. or that you have inconsistent view of history. Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, see, the thing is ZAVNOH Croatia resembles todays Croatia because today Croatia is based on ZAVNOH Croatia. Furthermore, Constitution of Croatia states "... establishing the foundations of state sovereignty during the course of the Second World War, by the decisions of the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia ..." (more details). And, yes, I consider "partisan military zone" a country, just as I consider Nazi military zone a country, since they both had their parliament, their leader and their army. And were officially recognised at least by their allies. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any point in removing the political entity into its own article that would be a skinny stub, and keep the history elsewhere. This fragmentation can only cause information to be presented in a non-balanced manner, which will almost inevitably lead to edit wars when we're talking about such a controversial topic.


 * I don't see it also, but that's not what I have done or suggested. Nikola


 * The Partisans set up their own, different state during World War II in Croatia (and elsewhere) - there is little reason to have NDH statehood trump their statehood, especially given that theirs actually was not transient.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please. You can't compare an established, organised and internationally recognised (by the Axis at least) country with a temporarily liberated territory. Nikola 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, the NDH clearly had as much establishment and organization in its first couple of years as the Partisans did in their first couple of years. Sure, they started controlling a pre-existing system, but that doesn't mean that their new state inherited the establishment or organization of it - they effectively shut down the legislature because they could not establish themselves over it. That's not really a decent state by 20th century standards. As far as international recognition, I don't consider recognition by Axis and other Axis-controlled countries a valid example of "international recognition". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * You don't have to, it was recognised anyway.


 * It was "recognized" and the recognizers were multiple countries which qualifies as "international", but the phrase "internationally recognized" is either used meaning "recognized by all relevant international factors", or not used at all because other use has no useful meaning! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * (By the way, at least by Finland too.)


 * Finland was probably "co-belligerent" at the time so that's a lousy alibi. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * As for "as much establishment and organisation" - where did you got that from? Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * From history books? :P Come on, let's not be naive. The invasion was done by Wehrmacht and other armies. Kvaternik, Pavelić and the rest of the gang (sic - lit.) were only able to enter the territory because of the former. They were not part of the establishment, or a shadow government, or anything like that. They seized power and started issuing decrees. They had no real army, no real police (at least I can't see how the royal gendarmerie could have had anything to do with them?!), no real legislature. The only thing they appear to have attempted to use was the judicial system, but for their purposes they couldn't even do that properly, and had to start numerous courts-martial ad hoc. Oh and they had the football federation which joined FIFA, yeah, although they didn't have Hajduk, which apparently defected. Not exactly a shining example of an organized state. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * And, by the way, this smells quite like presenting today's Croatia as completely unrelated to NDH, which it just isn't. Nikola 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, I don't propose that! I propose making a "Cro during WWII" article that would balance between NDH and AVNOJ. The verb "balance" has nothing to do with who's right or who's wrong (as those ar POV things), but with amount of space allocated to each of the two. (Aprox.) half of the article to short history of NDH, and another half for partisans. If you wan't more info, go to speciffic articles. That's my idea. And I think "History of USA" is made that way... --Dijxtra 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You can "smell" anything you like from it - but today's Croatia is indeed as related to the NDH as it is to the Banovina Hrvatska or indeed SR Hrvatska - which is to say, they are part of its history, nothing less, nothing more. In fact, I would think that having NDH in an article that deviates from the titles used in the History of Croatia series makes an impression that it is a matter separate from the history of Croatia. D'oh! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * You should really stop with onomatopoeic sounds when discussing important topics. Nikola 05:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If history of Germany template has included articles Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, Croatian history template should include NDH article as well.


 * You are forgetting one very important thing. There was no other state in Germany apart from 3rd Reich. There were 2 diferent states (3, if you count London government in exile) in Croatia. Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany didn't coexist, they existed in different times. ZAVNOH Croatia ("led" by Andrija Hebrang (de facto Tito)) and NDH ("led" by Ante Pavelic (de facto Nazis)) did coexist on the same territory in the same time. See the difference? I think the fact of simultanous existence of this two entities isn't emphasized enough in current article and just can't be emphasized enough if the article is called "Independent State of Croatia". --Dijxtra 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The two entities were not of the same kind. You can't call ZAVNOH Croatia a state.


 * No? So, how do you call "Democratic Republic of Croatia"? --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to? Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, lapsus calami, not Democratic but Federal (Yugoslavia at the time was Democratic: Democratic Federal Yugoslavia). See Federal State of Croatia. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Either way, see for example History of Russia, which was also quite turbulent: Early History, Muscovy, Imperial Russia, Soviet Union, Russian Federation. Chapters are named after historical names of the country whenever applicable. I see no reason not to do the same. Nikola 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Because in this situation, historical name of the country is not applicable. Since there were 2 countries in same territory in same time, and modern Croatia is based on one not mentioned in the name of the chapter. --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * These weren't countries (and, two countries can't exist in the same territory in the same time). Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure thing they can. See Republic of Serbian Krajina. Only exception is that RSK wasn't officially recognized, while Federal State of Croatia (as a part of Democratic Federative Yugoslavia) was. You just need to have to sides of the world in a war, where one side recognises one country, and the other sire recognises the other country. And, voila, you have two countries existing in the same territory in the same time. --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it might be a bleak part of Croatian history (so is Nazi era for Germany's history), but that is no reason for us at Wikipedia to try to erase it. And I don't see any weight in argument that it is POV of Croatian state today that their state has nothing to do with NDH - because I'm sure that Shroeder's government also doesn't see any corelation between Third Reich and BRD. Furthermore, earlier governments of modern Croatia have looked upon NDH tradition with a degree of appreciation (one Croat once told me that he dislike Croatian currency, Kuna, because he feels that it is chosen to emphasize continuity between NDH and today's Croatia). -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  12:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that some piece of info is a POV of Croatian government I was trying to prove that the info is NPOV (because, if Croatian governemnt denounces NDH, and we are aware of accusations that Croatia is trying to revitalize NDH, then modern Croatia obviously can't be based on NDH legacy). --Dijxtra 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your “syllogism” is logically very incorrect! You said:

if Croatian governemnt denounces NDH + and we are aware of accusations that Croatia is trying to revitalize NDH -> then modern Croatia obviously can't be based on NDH legacy

I simply fail to see how it is obvious for you that if someone denounces something, he can’t be based upon its legacy! Let’s follow your line of logic, and see where it leads us:

Thief denounces theft -> therefore Thief obviously can’t have stolen money. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  18:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your "parallel" is quite strange. We are talking about supporting or denouncing something. This parallel would be more apropriate: if american government says "war in Iraq is a bad thing" than it obviously is because Americans are those who are to be accused of starting it.


 * But if you wish, I will agree that particular argument was ill-formed and even not neccessary since it is quite obvious that modern Croatia is not based on NDH legacy. If you do not agree that fact is obvious, I'll provide facts to make it clear. --Dijxtra 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that Croatian government today denounces NDH, but that is not what we are discussing here. We're discussing if NDH article has its place in Croatian History series or not!


 * I agree. I'm glad we can skip to the real topic now :-) --Dijxtra 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is that if Nazi Germany article is listed among other main articles of History of Germany, then NDH article must be listed among articles about History of Croatia. Croatian example is analogous with German in almost all aspects.. yes, there is a number of differences (for example, Germany has paid a certain part of war damage, unlike Croatia, and more importantly, in Germany was enforced process of de-nazification), but for our current problem these differences aren't of crucial importance. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  13:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right, but I can't understand why everybody just refuses to acknowledge that NDH was a puppet state and that not all of Croatian people supported NDH, but in fact, some of Croatian people formed another state which was a federal unit in larger federal republic of Yugoslavia? Nazi Germany was sole country on German soil. There was no resistance in Germany, and there fore, no other state there. On Croatian soil, there existed two states. One of them ceased to exist in 1945, and the other in 1991. The problem is that the chapter in Croatian history series is called like the first one. My oppinion is the chapter about Croatia durin WWII should not be called after any of this two states. Take example of Serbian history. Not only you do not have an article about Nedić Serbia, you don't even mention it in you article about Serbia in WWII (which too de facto does not exist, but is incorporated into article about first Yugoslavia, which ceased to exist upon Nazi intervention). I am not proposing such a drastic meassure, to remove any mention of Nazi puppet state from History of Croatia series (as is the case with Serbian series), I am merely proposing equal coverage of both states in Croatia during WWII article, and then another article about NDH. We need to have neutral prospective, not right-wing prospective. And currently we have a right-wing POV here, just as if NDH was only thing of importance in Croatia during WWII. --Dijxtra 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, because it wasn't. NDH had support of Croatian population. No, not all, but most Croats did support it.


 * Now, this is a very, very, very wrong piece of information. Most of Croats suported NDH just few months, until Pavelić gave away Dalmatia, Rijeka, Zadar and islands and until Ustashe started terrorising the population. After initial few months, most of Croats weren't supportive of NDH.


 * Yes, some did organise a resistance, and that resistance ultimately did prevail.


 * Oh, come on! Resistance organised by minority of Croats, unsuported by population, prevailed over army supported by Axis powers? Hello? --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But no, territory liberated by that resistance was not a country, even if it expanded so that, at the end of the war, it encompassed entire Croatia. True, it is not the same situation as if in Germany, but it wasn't different enough to warrant a specific article. For example, somewhat similar situation happened in France, and article about France in WWII is, lo, at Vichy France. Nikola 10:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * French independence movement had a assembly and proclaimed a state? --Dijxtra 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly gung-ho about the whole state vs. state argument. I think that we should instead focus on the plain facts - there were these two states formed, but the primary reason for all this was the Second World War; when the war ended, both of these states lost their previous form (the NDH disappeared completely; the FRH morphed into SRH in peaceful conditions). That's why the most pertinent title for the history chapter is "Croatia during World War II".
 * However, about that last bit, I can't say anything other than - hear, hear! Such a situation could actually be seen as a product of propaganda of both the right-wing Croats and the right-wing Serbs, which is quite ironic. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Sorry, lost you there for a moment... which last bit? :-) --Dijxtra 23:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence in the large paragraph above, basically. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;
 * For all it matters, I agree with Joy. It really isn't right that "Croatia in WWII" redirects to an article that doesn't mention ZAVNOH with a single word.  As much as I remember from history, the communists did make quite an effort to set up a parallel government structure; it was a part of their political program to turn the war of resistance into a regime change.  There was also less of a chance the Allies would bring back the royal family and/or the Soviets introduce a government to their liking if one was already in place.
 * The French analogy fails on this account, and on one other: though Vichy France is the only article in this period the History of France template links to, the template links to "Vichy France", not "France in WWII". This is very imperfect: IMHO ideally "France in WWII" should exist, encompassing info about Vichy, the Free French, the French resistance and the history of the German occupation of the country, plus possibly the immediate aftermath up to the establishment of the Fourth Republic.  But Wikipedia is imperfect, that's why we love it, right? :).  In my view, there are two possibilities for Croatia:
 * (very dodgy) The French way: no "WWII in Croatia" article, Cro history template links straight to NDH, and let's argue from here. Personally I would support including a separate link to ZAVNOH just below it, per chronological order (1943).
 * (IMHO in the spirit of NPOV) Separate "Croatia in WWII" article that can be a stub at first and grow into a general overview with sections on NDH and the resistance, and links to the more detailed articles.
 * I may do this myself... I just might, but not tonight. Miranche 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, I had idea of this kind: supporters of status quo say this is an article about Croatia in WWII. Then, lets fill it with relevant info - info about ZAVNOH and partisan movement. When amount of info about NDH and partisan movement comes to 50-50, it'll be obvious to everybody the article needs renaming. But, at the moment, I don't have enough time to do that... but you can help ;-) --Dijxtra 11:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll change the template and see how does it work... Nikola 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup this is more accurate, thanks :) I want to at least start on what I suggested under 2. but don't have time in the next couple of weeks to produce more than a stub, so whoever wants to... Miranche 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the talk in detail. Here's my take on it: Miranche 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The legitimacy of any entity that existed during WWII on present Croatian territory is questionable.  NDH was recognized by the Axis powers and co-belligerents but partially occupied by them and constantly struggling to keep control of its territory. ZAVNOH Croatia was a political project gaining strength that struggled and eventually succeeded to gain Allied recognition as a federal unit of DFY.
 * 2) Unsigned, probably Obradovi&#263; Goran: "You can't call ZAVNOH Croatia a state." -- I did not see a single argument in support of this claim except by Nikola: "You can't compare an established, organised and internationally recognised (by the Axis at least) country with a temporarily liberated territory." -- The transiency of territory of ZAVNOH Croatia does not imply legal transiency. Analogously you could claim that NDH wasn't established and organized because it lacked control of huge swaths of its territory. Legally ZAVNOH Croatia was a state at least from the moment it was mentioned in the founding document of DFY on 29 Nov 1943, see AVNOJ.  Then there is a continuous legal succession from ZAVNOH Croatia to NRH to SRH to modern Croatia, which brings me to...
 * 3) Nikola: " 'Second reason is the fact that today Croatia wasn't represented by NDH in WWII' - sorry, but it was." and then again "And, by the way, this smells quite like presenting today's Croatia as completely unrelated to NDH, which it just isn't."  Nikola sorry, I did not find any arguments supporting these claims.  One may claim dual continuity at best, de jure from ZAVNOH and de facto only in part from NDH. HDZ toyed with this for political ends in the 90s, but its treatment of NDH was equivocal and largely opportunistic: supporting it to fire up extremists and scare/provoke the Serbs, but denouncing it to keep its political capital among moderates and abroad.  IMHO any unbiased inquiry would show that in its territory, laws and symbols (the kuna being a notable exception), as well as in the view of a large majority of its citizens, today's RH primarily represents a continuation of SRH and/or of the historical Croatian kingdom/ part of Hungarian/ Habsburg/ Austro-Hungarian kingdoms and empires, not of NDH. Claiming otherwise represents a (both Croatian and Serbian) rightist POV and should be given its rightful place, but not be incorporated into the structure of the "History of Croatia" series.
 * 4) Dijxtra and Joy, I mostly agree with your argumentation why the article should be split but I think the original strategy Dijxtra proposed set this discussion on the wrong track. I see no reason to copy the NDH article and base the "Croatia in WWII" article upon it.  Be bold, why fear the void: start "HR in WWII" from scratch, let NDH have this article, and let the articles develop from there.  I think we can safely say HR in WWII is was a territory in the state of civil war among partisans, Ustaše, Chetniks, Germans, Italians and Hungarians.  There's a (possible) start.
 * 5) But finally, I think this reveals the real motivation for the "Cro in WWII = NDH" argument, and the real point of contention here. Obradovi&#263; Goran: "Yes it might be a bleak part of Croatian history (so is Nazi era for Germany's history), but that is no reason for us at Wikipedia to try to erase it."  Removing NDH from the main "History of Croatia" track is not equal to erasing this, there is plenty the "Cro in WWII" article must say about Ustaše atrocities. What I see happening, the justified fear of Ustaše apologist revisionism motivates going one step too far into equating Cro in WWII with NDH, lest "the truth" be forgotten.  In doing so, it ends up misrepresenting the facts on the ground, which were, in short, a huge mess -- enough of a mess that it's impossible for the NDH article to do justice to it within the main "History of Croatia" series.
 * 6) Finally, is there a history work we could sometimes refer to? Possibly??? Just for the data, we'll do the analysis ourselves.

Muslim Croats
Poglavnikova Dzamija was made for Muslim Croats. One of the highest ranking officials in NDH was a Muslim Croat: Džafer beg Kulenović, president of the NDH (as well as Osman Kulenović). Whether or not you believe the people who considered themselves Muslim Croats are misguided Bosniaks is irrelevant. They considered themselves as such, as did the NDH. Therefore, it is accurate to call them Muslim Croats.

Also, "This theory is today considered to be highly offensive and nationalistic, and Bosniaks recognize it as an attempt to "destroy" their Bosnianhood." This is total POV. Talking about "destroying Bosnianhood" has no place in an encyclopedia. It should be enough to say that "Many Bosniaks consider this idea offensive and a product of Croatian nationalism". --Thewanderer 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Many Bosniaks accepted the NDH (in some cases were forced to accept it) and immediately became involved." - In fact Bosnian Muslims fought on all sides (NDH, German, partisan and chetnik) in the war. A further statement says: "In respect to the soldiers of Muslim faith, a mosque was built in Zagreb - Croatia's capital city- known as "Poglavnikova Dzamija" or Poglavnik's Mosque." Well, I don't know if the reference to "soldiers" here is necessary but what do you call Poglavnikova dzamija? The Ustase had plans to build a mosque in Zagreb but later it'd been decided that Mestrovic's pavilion be turned into a mosque. This was not a new building but an existing building to which minarets were added. (The present Zagreb mosque is of a much later date).

I think the correct term would be "Bosnian Muslims". The term Bosniak is used after 1993 while Muslim Croat would refer only to that part of the population who regarded themselves Croats of Muslim faith. Dzafer Kulenovic was one such example but he was no representative of the Bosnian Muslims as he himself said. Cukor 17:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is this : 'Bosniaks' as a national identity did not exist in the 1940s or anywhere prior to 1960. Ther term "Bosniak" was used in history in the same context other Croatian provinces were titled i.e Dalmatians, Slavonians, Panonians, Istrians etc. Same thing with "Bosnian". Prior to NDH in the early 20th centuries, many of the muslims in the Yugoslav parliament identified themselves as Croats, only one identified himself as a Yugoslav muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP1929 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A few very basic things
Those who want to glorify Pavelic and his Independent State of Croatia shall go somewhere else to do that.

About Pavelic's titles:

He was poglavnik for his Ustashi - for all others - just brigand, Nazi collaborator, nobody.

His "Dr." is a honoric title "dr iuris" that has nothing to do with the academic "PhD" today. So, in order to avoid any confusion and achieve a necessary level of accuracy - I removed from this article the words "Poglavnik" and "Dr".

Also, stories about Tito's partisans and Chetniks are not here to explain anything - rather a text that draws attention from the very nature of this puppet Nazi state.

I included this article sa a part of WIkiProject Fascism due to the fact that this puppet state was established and run by Nazis and fascists and lasted only during their reign in this geographical region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purger (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I only wanted to change your "terrorists and saboteurs" back to "extremists", but ended up picking up the other title stuff as well when I used the earlier version of the article.--AHrvojic 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm a few years late responding to this "intellectual" - DR. Ante Pavelic attained his doctorate in Law at the University of Zagreb. I have a photograph of it - it's written in fine latin. AP1929 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Map wrong
The map on this article is wrong. It doesn't show the Pindus-Macedonian Principality, but shows it a part of Bulgaria and Albania instead. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And what about Nedic’s Serbia?
I think it’s strange that this article doesn’t cite or even link to Nedic’s Serbia, which was also a Nazi collaborationist government created from the division of the First Yugoslavia. I’m putting a link in the “See also” section, but maybe it should be more on the body of the article.--MaGioZal 07:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And in the same time you are removing Ustaše from the See also section?? Please do not remove the most important article to also see for readers interested in the Independent State of Croatia.  // Laughing Man 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I had removed the “Ustase” link from the “See also” section basically because the term is already present (and linked) in the first paragraph of the article and many times in the rest of the article, too. It wouldn’t add (or hide) any information from the readers. Anyway, I’ll keep the link, though I suspect of overlinking in this case.--MaGioZal 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged “History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945)” into this article
Hi,

Today I merged (and added to this article material from) the article History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) (see the last revision before merging) into the article “Independent State of Croatia” because:

01. The history of Bosnia and Herzegovina during this period (1941-1945) is basically integrated to the all the history of NDH;

02. The entire territory of nowadays Bosnia and Herzegovina was located inside the territory of the NDH, so is completely coherent to treat these articles as one.

That’s it.--MaGioZal 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That does not mean that we should merge the articles. I feel the history of History of Bosnia and Herzegovina in that time should be treated differently than the History of Croatia at that time. // Laughing Man 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. There is no historiographic reasons to create a separate article for the History of Bosnia separated from the History of Croatia. This would just serve as a eventual promotion of a subtle political agenda, which is clearly POV.--MaGioZal 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a promotion of political agenda, it's that the history of two nations are separate, and instead of a unilateral delete and merge, you should have requested the original article be expanded/partially merged, and could have had a "See Also" to this article. Do  you think readers clicking History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) link would expect to taken to an article about the history of Croatia? // Laughing Man 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But Croatia and Bosnia were contiguous parts of a same country between 1878 and 1991, and most spcefically between 1941-1945 inside NDH, which was an unitary state without political divisions (provinces, banovinas, republics, whatever…) inside. So it’s senseless to divide the history of Croatia and Bosnia during World War II, since they were part of the fascist NDH (in the same way that the history of Austria and the history of Germany were welded in the same World War II period as the history of Nazi Germany).--MaGioZal 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And lets’s check the current contents of the article History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945):


 * Once the kingdom of Yugoslavia was conquered by Nazi forces in World War II, all of Bosnia was ceded to the Nazi-puppet state of Croatia. The Nazi rule over Bosnia led to widespread persecution, murder, and near-total annihilation of the Jewish population, while the NDH Croatian state also specifically persecuted the country's Serbs. Many Serbs themselves took up arms and joined the Chetniks; a Serb nationalist and royalist resistance movement that both conducted guerrilla warfare against the occupying forces and committed numerous atrocities against chiefly Bosnian Muslim civilians in regions under their control.


 * Starting in 1941, Yugoslav communists under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito organized their own multi-ethnic resistance group, the partisans, who fought against both Axis and Chetnik forces. On November 25, 1943 the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia with Tito at its helm held a founding conference in Jajce where Bosnia and Herzegovina was reestablished as a republic within the Yugoslavian federation in its Ottoman borders. Military success eventually prompted the Allies to support the Partisan’s, and the end of the war resulted in the establishment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with the constitution of 1946 officially making Bosnia and Herzegovina one of six constituent republics in the new state.


 * The only Bosnia-specific citations in the article refers to Tito’s restauration of Bosnia-Herzegovina within the previous Ottoman-Austrian borders, which occurred after WWII in the Yugoslav Constitution of 1946, and the reference to the Sutjeska offensive. Both of these events could easily fit in the article about the history of NDH, and there’s no logical or historiographic reason (but maybe some kind of “ethnic pride” POV?) to create a separate article to Bosnia during this period.--MaGioZal 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge “Hanging in NDH” into this article
As I said on the page talk of the Hanging in NDH article, it seems like there’s no NPOV reason to not include the (rewritten) text of the article into this main article about NDH.--MaGioZal 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added "mergeto" to Hanging in NDH, to complement the "mergefrom" here. --Aleph-4 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)