Talk:List of mass executions and massacres in Yugoslavia during World War II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notable massacre missing

The 1942 raid in southern Bačka is a notable massacre that is missing from this list. 23 editor (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List is incomplete. All chetnics massacres of Croat civilians are left out. By the list it seems Chetnics killed only muslim civilians which is false.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.250.144 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 

Added today some of them Jelicradica (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Needing translation from sr-wiki

• w:sr:Категорија:Ратни злочини у Југославији у Другом светском рату--Zoupan 18:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion per BRD

OK as per @Peacemaker67, let's discuss the so-called Pljeva massacre, which has no article and only one debatably reliable (given the author's known history of bias and controversy) source I could find despite a direct search (see [1]) and Google searches (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), which would be Hoare's 2013 Bosnian Muslims in the Second World War (Bosniaj islamanoj en la Dua mondo Militas). Oxford University Press; ISBN 978-0-231-70394-9. However, I cannot access what exactly was written as there is no extract of text, and I doubt there would be much since the book is centred on the Bosniak community and the alleged "Pljeva massacre" has to do with 53 Croats (but another editor keeps reverting it back to 41) executed by the Partisans. I found an extract of Hoare's book and it does reference the 41 killings here (pp. 96-97). More importantly, however, to compare the Pljeva executions (if they can ever be validly sourced) to be the equivalent of such massacres as Grabovac, Glina, Kulen Vakuf, Kraljevo, Kragujevac, Srebrenica, Višegrad, Drakulić, Šargovac, Motike, and Foča, in which so many thousands were killed, displays an offensive lack of judgement in my opinion. It's like comparing the Warsaw ghetto to the Battle of Springmartin or the Draft Riots. And why then are some of the other "massacres" on the list called "executions", such as Pančevo and Jakljan, or by military terms such as Battle of Dražgoše and Operation Alfa and Barbara Pit? That makes no sense and is unfair and inconsistent. Quis separabit? 05:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My view is that it is reliably sourced as a massacre that occurred in Yugoslavia, that is all that is required. And I totally reject your characterisation of Hoare, which betrays a strong POV given the wide citation of him in academic circles outside of the Serbian Academy of Sciences. Cherrypicking what is a massacre based on who the victims were is really what is offensive. It is still a massacre if soldiers are unarmed and hors de combat. The Partisans executed Home Guards after trying them for crimes, that is different. Massacres or executions should be called what they are called in reliable sources, Hoare refers to not only this massacre, but another one of around 40 at Korenica in September 1941. If you insist, RfC it. We are not here to right wrongs. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, for the nonce I'll just ask this and then compose my thoughts and see if there's anything else I need to ask. Why are some of the others on a "list of massacres" called "executions", such as Pančevo and Jakljan? And my opinion of Hoare remains. We will have to agree to disagree. Quis separabit? 07:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Cherrypicking what is a massacre based on who the victims were is really what is offensive" -- I don't think I did that here. (Maybe in our conversation on your talk page ...). I distinctly referred to numbers. Is it considered a massacre if one person dies? How about two people? I was referencing the numbers in massacres such as Grabovac, Glina, Kulen Vakuf, Kraljevo, Kragujevac, Srebrenica, Višegrad, Drakulić, Šargovac, Motike, and Foča, as I pointed out, compared to the Pljeva or Daska executions. Quis separabit? 07:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, perhaps that is what they are called by the sources? I didn't add them, so far as I can remember anyway. Perhaps you should search the history and contact the editor that did add them. Some of the sources used on this list are very marginal, but Hoare isn't one of them. Your opinion about him is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether this list should include "executions". My view is that all extra-judicial executions should be on this list, along with massacres. The question is whether executions conducted by the various warring factions as the outcome of some form of judicial procedure should be included. The Partisans conducted courts-martial, as did the authorities of the NDH. Both were probably of dubious juridical value, so do we include them all and just note they were the outcomes of "quasi-judicial" processes, or leave them out altogether and specify that in the lead? I'm fairly relaxed either way. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the name of this list should be changed, perhaps to List of executions, extrajudicial killings and massacres in Yugoslavia or List of extrajudicial executions and massacres in Yugoslavia? What do you think? Quis separabit? 08:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to re-title it, the scope just needs to be defined clearly, as we do with many articles and lists. Most sources will call it a massacre (or whatever). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So how come the Battle of Dražgoše is described in the list as "The Wehrmacht executed 41 civilian hostages in the village" not "massacred"? Quis separabit? 10:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the scope of the list? Are you saying it shouldn't be included? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

After we dispose of the matter below, I will start a RFC regarding changing the name of this article from List of massacres in Yugoslavia to List of executions, extrajudicial killings and massacres in Yugoslavia. Quis separabit? 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

HOARE COMMENTS

CAN I PLEASE GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM SOME OTHER EDITORS REGARDING THIS":

"Chetnik massacres of the Bosniak population took place in eastern Bosnia which had been "relatively untouched" by the Ustaše until the spring of 1942. These massacres were not acts of revenge, but "an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology of the Chetnik movement."{{sfn|Hoare|2006|p=143}}

I hold that this is an opinion masquerading as a fact, circularly sourced by the same author who made the comment. The comment should not be included, IMO, but if it must be then it should not be included as a fact, but as the opinion of one individual. What say you all? Quis separabit? 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Associate Professor Dr. Marko Attila Hoare is a history academic at Kingston University who has been a history research fellow at Cambridge, and also a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow whose research was published by Oxford University Press. It goes without saying that he, his work and his publisher all meet the requirements of WP:RS. As a historian, he conducts research, then publishes his findings. These are not his "opinions", they are his findings, based on his academic research. If you don't like them, find an equally academic source that directly contradicts him, then compare and contrast it with Hoare. Don't delete reliable, academic findings you don't "like". I can't be any clear than this. I have attributed him inline, that should be the end of the matter. If you continue to delete Hoare (or any other reliable source) from articles I watchlist, I will take you to ANI to explain yourself in front of the community. Capisce? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I still hold that this is an opinion masquerading as a fact, circularly sourced by the same author who made the comment. Hoare was "a history research fellow at Cambridge, and also a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow whose research was published by Oxford University Press", so?? Max Blumenthal and Catharine MacKinnon and Tim Pat Coogan and any number of biased, radical, extremist academics and "historians" have been published. Am I supposed to be impressed by Hoare's credentials? I am not. Quis separabit? 23:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You can "hold" whatever you like. I didn't detail them to impress you, I did it to explain why his findings are appropriate to be included in this list on the basis that they are reliable according to Wikipedia's policy. If you think he isn't a reliable source according to Wiki policy, take it to WP:RSN and be sure to ping me. But you'll want to bring a lot more than "what you think about it", you'll need reliable sources who have made findings that directly contradict Hoare on this point. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I have updated not removed text as per your well-appreciated instructions. Quis separabit? 05:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've give citations and references from book from Enver Redžić. He was historian and professor at University of Sarajevo and he was elected to the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as full member in 1984. He points out at numerous of crimes against Serbian population that already happened in eastern Bosnia in 1941 (and also in the list you have Raševića Gaj massacre in 1941 which was one of the first major war crimes in eastern Bosnia, done by Ustaše forces), which directly contradicts that Hoare's statement about relative "untouched" eastern Bosnia until 1942.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

MacDonald quote

The MacDonald quote that has been inserted does not contradict Hoare, who is making a point about why the Chetniks were massacring Muslims, not why they collaborated. MacDonald says it is "highly misleading to suggest that Četniks throughout the war collaborated with the Germans and Italians to carry out genocide of Croats and Muslems." This is a statement about what the Chetnik motive for collaboration WAS NOT. MacDonald denies that their motive for collaborating was so that they could massacre Muslims. MacDonald says nothing in this quote about what the motive of the Chetniks WAS for massacring Muslims, which they certainly did. The article isn't about Chetnik collaboration, it is about massacres, in this case, Chetnik massacres of Muslims. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

CONSENSUS SOUGHT BEFORE RESTORING FOLLOWING TEXT FROM BBC, WHICH HAS BEEN REWORDED TO AVOID COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The BBC offers a middle ground between the positions of Hoare and MacDonald, to wit, that the original nucleus of the Chetniks were ethnic Serb Yugoslav troops who had evaded Axis capture during the invasion, and then fled to the hills of Bosnia, Montenegro, and Serbia. Mihailovic established his first stronghold in the mountainous Ravna Gora area of western Serbia. Chetnik numbers were soon swelled by Serb peasants who had fled from Greater Croatia - non-Serbs were not allowed to join Chetnik bands. Many of these participants sought simply to defend their local villages from the Ustaše, whose ethnic cleansing campaigns even drew protests from the Germans because the brutal Ustaše campaign was fueling resistance movements.
The Chetniks were never a homogenous ideological movement, and many sub-groups paid no more than lip-service to Mihailovic's leadership. Some groups were anti-German, but others saw the emerging Partisans as a greater threat. The elements the Chetniks shared were loyalty to the old Royalist regime and an understandable desire to ensure the survival of the Serb people from what seemed to be the genocidal intent of the Croats and Germans, plus the hostility of Muslims (both Croatian and Serbian) and Communists. To achieve this goal, Chetniks strove to forge an ethnically-pure Greater Serbia by violently "cleansing" these areas of Croats and Muslims. The Chetniks were also usually reluctant to attack Axis targets, as this had traditionally provoked far more brutal and sanguinary retaliation upon local Serb populations. Mihailovic also needed to conserve his forces for a general uprising to coincide with the envisaged Allied rescue.<ref>[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d8lZVktqKH8J:www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_01.shtml+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Overview], bbc.co.uk (archived); accessed 18 November 2015.</ref>

Quis separabit? 20:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

firstly, can you please stop using all caps. If you are not aware, it is considered equivalent to shouting. You haven't responded to my critique of the use of MacDonald yet. This is far too long for the purpose of explaining why the Chetniks massacred Muslims and Croats. It is more an fairly unsophisicated attempt to explain why the Chetniks collaborated, which isn't relevant here. There is a short passage that is directly relevant, which begins with "understandable desire" and ends with "Muslims". It also isn't a middle ground position between MacDonald and Hoare, it is just another view, albeit fairly unsophisticated and non-academic. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a valid source (BBC). Whether it meets your pedagogical prerequisites is irrelevant to me. If you wish, why don't you indicate how you would improve it. Quis separabit? 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I accept it is a reliable source. The issue is with what part of the tract you have written above is relevant to this list. I've indicated the part I believe is relevant, and am happy for you to insert that part without trying to compare it to MacDonald (which really isn't relevant, as it is about collaboration, not massacres), or Hoare. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::DONE FINALLY, PRAISE THE LORD  Done Quis separabit? 03:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly most of it is completely irrelevant to motives for massacres, I have therefore trimmed it to what I indicated I was ok with. And stop shouting like a child. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: sadly, I do not accept this bullshit. Restored. I don't care what you consider irrelevant nor do I care what you indicated you are OK with. (Napoleon complex, anyone?) Either we seek consensus or we go back to ANI. You are acting suspiciously like you think you own the article, which we all know is a no-no. I will agree to the removal of the following portion, and only the following portion of text (see below), as possibly extraneous and better placed elsewhere, i.e. in article about Chetniks. Quis separabit? 03:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Chetniks were never a homogenous ideological movement, and many paid no more than lip-service to Mihailović's leadership. Some saw the emerging Partisans as a greater threat, which would lead to further bloodshed down the road, in places such as Prozor and Gata. The elements which the Chetniks shared were loyalty to the old Royalist regime and ensuring the survival of Serbs in Axis/Ustaše-controlled areas.

I made it clear what section of your proposed text I agreed with (ie on which we apparently had consensus) yet you included all the irrelevant claptrap about the reasons the Chetniks collaborated. It isn't relevant to a list of massacres, and there is a requirement that material be relevant to the subject. If you want to add the material to another article to which it is relevant, fill your boots. But it has no place here. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus. I read "There is a short passage that is directly relevant, which begins with 'understandable desire' and ends with "Muslims", which I didn't exactly get but I did not dispute your initial truncations. However, then you start playing games, moving the goalposts and pushing your weight around ("Sadly most of it is completely irrelevant to motives for massacres, I have therefore trimmed it to what I indicated I was ok with"). You don't own this article. Bottom line is I have sought consensus and you have not. Quis separabit? 13:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please learn to thread discussions? Use one extra colon until it gets a bit unmanageable, then outdent using {{od}}

What I have is a desire to see that material in the article is relevant to the article. You have singularly failed to explain why information about the history of the Chetnik movement, Chetnik collaboration and Chetnik reluctance to attack Axis targets is relevant to massacres they committed, both here and in the MacDonald section I created. You also clearly don't realise what consensus is. I believed we had consensus for the inclusion of a portion of the screed of text you added to the article. Just so we are crystal clear, I'll re-paste it and strike what I consider to be the material that is irrelevant to Chetnik massacres. Then you can explain why you think the parts I have struck are relevant to the topic of this article:

The original nucleus of the Chetniks were ethnic Serb Yugoslav troops who had evaded Axis capture during the invasion, and then fled to the hills of Bosnia, Montenegro, and Serbia. Chetnik numbers were swelled by Serbs who had fled or escaped from Greater Croatia – non-Serbs were not allowed to join Chetnik bands, many of which sought simply to defend their local villages from the Ustaše. The Chetniks were never a homogenous ideological movement, and many paid no more than lip-service to Mihailović's leadership. Some saw the emerging Partisans as a greater threat, which would lead to further bloodshed down the road, in places such as Prozor and Gata. The elements which the Chetniks shared were loyalty to the old Royalist regime and[worked towards] ensuring the survival of Serbs in Axis/Ustaše-controlled areas. To achieve this goal, they strove to forge an ethnically-pure Greater Serbia by violently "cleansing" these areas of Croats and Muslims. The Chetniks were, however, generally reluctant to attack Axis targets, as such attacks had been met with brutally sanguinary reprisals in much of occupied Europe, as far away as Lidice and Cephalonia. Mihailović also needed to conserve his forces for a general uprising to coincide with the envisaged Allied rescue.

Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Attempted RFC

I would like to address the issues, as I see them, of bad faith editing, article "ownership" and inappropriate deletion of text by @Peacemaker67, despite extensive discussions and colloquies (see above), resulting in an unbalanced political narrative regarding the List of massacres in Yugoslavia, mostly in the Independent State of Croatia during WWII, which is now admin only edited until next May. Quis separabit? 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quis separabit?, Please post something resembling a question. RFC responders shouldn't need to read the full page to figure out what the issue is. Your RFC appears to be a complaint about an unidentified editor, rather than a question about what the article should say. Alsee (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alsee: Thanks. Quis separabit? 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have BOLDly removed the RFC template. I have no objection to a new and improved RFC listing. The initial question was hopelessly non-neutral and unclear. The revised question is marginally more clear, and still unusably non-neutral. It would easily be challenged and invalidated on that basis. Quis separabit?, please review WP:Writing_requests_for_comment. I strongly suggest you and Peacemaker67 attempt to agree on a clear, neutral, actionable RFC question. Skimming the discussion above, I have to note that repeated use of CAPSLOCK and phrases such as "bullshit" and "Napoleon complex" are generally unhelpful. Alsee (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I need to decompress and relax my nerves. We can move forward after. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

okey. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm ready when you are. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The World War II section's text is very unbalanced, on the Ustashe, it says "largest genocidal massacres ... [regions]", on the Chetniks, it says "According to Anglo-Croatian historian Dr. Marko Attila Hoare, these massacres were not acts of revenge, but "an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology of the Chetnik movement."[1] According to Kaplan and Nosarzewska, the Chetniks wanted to forge an ethnically-pure Greater Serbia in order to ensure the survival of Serbs in Axis/Ustaše-controlled areas by violently "cleansing" these areas of Croats and Muslims". Why is there no mention of Ustashe genocidal policies?--Zoupan 19:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you boldly add it? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the protection... Well, why don't you propose a draft paragraph here on the genocidal policies of the Ustase, and if we can form a consensus then ask for it to be added? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scope

Instead of having "List of massacres in Yugoslavia", which should be DAB (i.e List of massacres in the Bosnian War, List of massacres in the Kosovo War), the article should be moved to List of massacres in Yugoslavia in World War II or Massacres in Yugoslavia in World War II.--Zoupan 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A conflict-based approach would be fine with me, but I'm not sure about the dab idea. Were there no peacetime massacres in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia or the SFRY? Of course, such a WWII approach would require sections for the NDH and each of the various occupied territories, a couple of which are currently listed at List of massacres in Serbia. What about the various post-war massacres? Put them in with WWII? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there were numerous massacres in the peacetime KoSCS/KoY, particularly during the land reforms, so I don't think this will fly unless another scheme can be suggested. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't see how peace-time massacres should be grouped together with war-time ones. The article lists only war-time massacres, and is essentialy a list on World War II. Move to Massacres in Yugoslavia in/during World War II, and have List of massacres in Yugoslavia made up of sections linking to the said lists, adding two Inter-war periods.--Zoupan 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Article name change

Article name changed (as it should have been long ago) as per first line of lede: "The following is a list of massacres and executions that occurred in Yugoslavia during World War II". I put "executions" first simply out of alphabetical necessity, although there are clearly more examples of massacres. Quis separabit? 15:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be made clear we are not talking about individual executions, but mass ones. Do we propose to include every individual person executed by the Chetniks/Partisans/Ustase/Germans/Italians etc? Surely not. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Lede

Can I ask again why this text:According to Anglo-Croatian historian Dr. [[Marko Attila Hoare]], these massacres were not acts of revenge, but "an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology of the Chetnik movement."{{sfn|Hoare|2006|p=143}} According to Kaplan and Nosarzewska, the Chetniks wanted to forge an ethnically-pure Greater Serbia in order to ensure the survival of Serbs in Axis/Ustaše-controlled areas by violently "cleansing" these areas of Croats and Muslims.''<ref>Kaplan, Jan, and Krystyna Nosarzewska, ''Prague: The Turbulent Century'', Koenemann Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Koeln, (1997), pg. 241; ISBN 3-89508-528-6</ref> is somehow needed or appropriate but there is no such commentary regarding the Greater Croatia sought by the genocidal Ustaše in line with Croatian nationalist thinking dating back at least to Ante Starčević and the fact that this Greater Croatia would include Herzegovina, large parts of Bosnia and even swaths of Serbia and Slovenia?? May I ask, again, why, this is not included in the lede? Quis separabit? 22:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that the motives of the Chetniks is important, so inclusion of that information is relevant to this list. Instead of asking why it isn't there, why don't you find reliable sources for it and add it? I'm not opposed to it, in fact I'd support it on the basis of balance. I certainly wouldn't support removal of the information about the Chetniks because no-one could be bothered to add the corresponding info about the Ustase and Party(s) of Right etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we both know how strongly we both feel about this topic. I think I can rustle up some info. I just wanted to make sure I don't go to all the stressful trouble to do it to find that another editor objects and claims it is irrelevant or inappropriate or whatever in the lede. Yours. Quis separabit? 01:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't feel strongly about this topic, I just want to see it explained in a balanced way that reflects the reliable sources, and don't support removing material to achieve balance. So, go ahead, if I have any objections to what you add I'll raise them then. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wording of descriptions/grammar

The current descriptions use the formula "Serb massacre by Ustaše" or similar. This is confusing grammar, and should be changed to "massacre of Serbs by Ustaše" so that the subject and object of the sentence are clearer. I propose changing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Quis separabit? 15:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Out of scope

If the scope of this article is WWII, then five of the last six massacres are probably out of scope and should be listed separately elsewhere. WWII in Europe ended at midnight on 8 May. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

False massacres

There were no massacres of Croat civilians in Bjelovar spanning 8–25 April with 72 victims, as edited by Tamerlanahayav. In fact, 25 were killed in military operations during the Ustashe rally and rebellion of the 108th regiment. Also, the Večernji novosti-blog claim of massacre in Čapljina is false, so I've removed that ref (and Tamerlanahayav edits).--Zoupan 02:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

There were indeed killings of dozens of Croat civilians in and around Bjelovar. This did indeed concur with the Bjelovar uprising, however the killings mentioned were punitive killings led by the Royal Yugoslav Army against Croat civilians in retaliation.

As my source ( Bjelovarski zbornik, Gradski muzej Bjelovar, 1989.) states in Croatian: "Vijest se proširila, što dovodi do raspada jugoslavenske vojske na prostoru od Varaždina do Suhopolja. Srpski vojnici i četnici protive se tome i 9. travnja 1941. godine u Bjelovaru i okolici ubijaju 6 hrvatskih civila, među kojima je i maloljetni gimnazijalac Milan Bačani" (The news spread, leading to the collapse of the Yugoslav Army in the area from Varaždin to Suhopolje. Serbian soldiers and Chetniks opposed this, and on April 9, 1941, 6 Croatian civilians were killed in Bjelovar and the surrounding area, including a young gymnast Milan Bačani.)

"U Peterancu su ubili 5 Hrvata. Došli su u Donje Moste 10. travnja 1941. godine, koji je imao većinsko hrvatsko stanovništvo. U selu su bili nenaoružani seljaci. Mladi muškarci su već prije mobilizirani i otišli iz sela. Vojnici konjaničkog puka ubili su 11 hrvatskih seljaka u Donjim Mostima i u Kapeli, gdje su odveli dio zarobljenih." (In Peteranc, 5 Croats were killed. They arrived at Donje Moste on the 10th of April 1941, which had a Croat-majority population. In the village, none of the peasants were armed. Young men had already been mobilized and had left the village. Soldiers murdered 11 Croatian peasants in Donje Moste and Kapela, where they had been captured.)

"Do 25. travnja 1941. godine poginulo je 27 ljudi na područja grada Bjelovara (5 žena i 5 djece) i 72 ljudi na području kotara Bjelovar (14 žena i 12 djece). Gotovo svi su bili hrvatske nacionalnosti" (By the 25th of April 1941, 27 people had been killed in Bjelovar itself [5 women and 5 children] and 72 people had been killed in the areas around Bjelovar [14 women and 12 children]. Almost all were of Croatian nationality.)

Assuming the margin of error that combatants/ insurgents were among the 99 people killed in and around Bjelovar, we can still determine that several dozen Croatian non-combatants were also being deliberately killed in war crimes. The 6 Croatian civilians killed in Bjelovar on the 9th of April 1941, the 5 Croatian civilians killed in Peteranc, the 11 Croatian civilians killed in Donje Moste and Kapela, as well as the 19 women and 17 children killed in other areas that certainly were not combatants. This gives for a rough total of at least 58 Croat civilians murdered.

Thus, the events in Bjelovar do equate to a massacre, and will be re uploaded accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamerlanahayav (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of mass executions and massacres in Yugoslavia during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225130513/http://pravoslavlje.spc.rs/broj/912/tekst/nacisticki-gen-ocid-nad-srbima/print/lat to http://pravoslavlje.spc.rs/broj/912/tekst/nacisticki-gen-ocid-nad-srbima/print/lat
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Split-%C5%BEupanija/tabid/76/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/24512/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203224630/http://www.lankelot.eu/letteratura/foibe-le-stragi-negate-degli-italiani-della-venezia-giulia-e-dellistria-gianni-oliva.html to http://www.lankelot.eu/letteratura/foibe-le-stragi-negate-degli-italiani-della-venezia-giulia-e-dellistria-gianni-oliva.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120729011854/http://www.dubrovacki.hr/clanak/20349/dostojno-pokopani-nakon-66-godina-muckog-smaknuca to http://www.dubrovacki.hr/clanak/20349/dostojno-pokopani-nakon-66-godina-muckog-smaknuca

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Scope creep

There is a bit of scope creep going on here. WWII ended in early May 1945, and we have massacres being added as late as September. Either the scope of the article (and article title) need to be expanded, or a new article needs to be created for the post-war massacres. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wording

@Griboski: your edit diff “ The movement was initially at least, a response to the persecution of Serbs by Axis forces” was not what was in question. And the movement began in resistance to occupation of Yugoslavia not persecution. I think you mean Chetnik massacres were in part a response to axis massacres. The issue was the word “survival” implying all Serbs in the Yugoslav territories were going to be eliminated. I don’t recall Germany planning the extermination of all Serbs. The Ustashe planning to kill 1/3 of the population.

Regardless I am unable to locate the source for the sentence. Could you provide a link?OyMosby (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you're confusing between what the Chetniks claimed and what might have been the reality on the ground. The text only says that this was the justification they gave. It doesn't say they were correct. I don't have the source but this was how it was worded before you made the change, so we have to presume that this was correctly relayed by whoever added it.

This source and this one also speak of the Chetniks and their desire to ensure the "survival" of Serbs. It's also important to remember at the early stages of the war, no one could really predict exactly what was going to happen or what these forces intended. Of course we have hindsight now. --Griboski (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. These new sources you posted support the Chetnik claim for survival? If so we should add them to the article, as the original source is almost impossible to locate to verify the sentence. As for your last point I’m not sure what you mean. As these articles are written in hindsight with documentation that can confirm the intentions of some forces. OyMosby (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Only the BBC one supports the citation, the other one doesn't mention the cleansing of Croats and Muslims. I just meant that the average Serbian in 1941 could very well see what's happening and conclude that extermination is likely, even if the intent is not there and end result doesn't support that at least in the case of the Germans. Cheers. --Griboski (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I see your view of it about perceptions at the time. Though I don’t think the Germans made a declaration in 1941 for Serbs to be cleansed from Serbia the way Ustase did in NDH leading to resistance. There were massacres however of those that resisted, fighting for Partisans and such. Happened in my mother’s home town due to heavy Partisan support there. Anyway come to realize, there isn’t much difference between using safety or survival as both would intend potential demise. I’m going too dar into unrelated matters :/.

If the BBC citation supports the wording, then we can add it in. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)