Wikipedia

Talk:The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia/Archive 1

< Talk:The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 2 June 2020

Modern states and ISC

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Indepenendent state of Croatia encompassed big part of the territory of modern-day Republic of Croatia, the whole of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and Eastern Syrmia now in modern-day Serbia.
Big part, not "most part" of Croatia, because ISC, compared to modern-day Croatia, did not have peninsula Istria, major part of Gorski kotar, Kvarner, no central littoral part of Adriatic coast and the belonging islands, Međimurje, Baranja, as well as small part of Konavle and southeasternmost part of modern-day Croatia.
With the fall of the Italy, that has changed a bit (central littoral part of the Adriatic coast and the belonging islands). Kubura (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. The NDH expanded after the Italian collapse in 1943 to include the areas annexed by Italy in 1941. The determiner "most" in this context means "a great majority of", in terms of the proportion of current Croatian territory. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification, here are maps of the NDH pre and post the Italian collapse to demonstrate what I am talking about. When compared to the current map it is clear that "most" is quite an accurate determiner. My apologies if you found my comment rude, it was not intentionally so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 
During Italian rule
 
after Italian collapse
 
current Croatia

Missing information about Serb Holocaust victims

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Information about Holocaust victims of Serb ethnicity is totally absent in this article. This is absurd.

I'm not sure if the POV tag is appropriate, since there are no apparent problems with the existing content. Therefore, I'm applying the Missing Information tag. - Anonimski (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the Roma aren't mentioned either, so I put them in the tag comment as well, since they also were a notable group in the 1941-45 persecutions. Anonimski (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please have a read of the discussion here and at Talk:The Holocaust. There isn't a clear consensus for inclusion of Serbs in The Holocaust. Yes, they were murdered in their hundreds of thousands, but that doesn't make them victims of "The Holocaust". Inclusion requires reliable sources and consensus. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is well-sourced information to be added then naturally I'm in favor of adding it. I oppose the use of the missing information template, though, until it's clear from talk page discussions that there's information which should be here that is not. I'd also note that there is plenty of scholarship on the nationalist use of a "holocaust template" to model discussions of past persecutions and genocides of their peoples in attempts to parallel the idea that the Jewish people got Israel as recompense for the holocaust and so they too should have nations. See for instance the preface to this book:
  • David Bruce Macdonald (2002). Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-6467-8..
This makes me think there won't be good information to be found, but perhaps I am wrong. The sources, as always, will tell.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The United States Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. includes extensive discussion of Serbs and Roma victims, as well as Jews in Craotia. See their article "Axis Invasion of Yugoslavia" and in particular the section for Croatia. Many Western historians also talk of genocide in reference to both Serb and Roma victims, among them Jozo Tomasevic, author of widely cited books on WW2 in Yugoslavia, Michael Phayer, the German historian Alexander Korb, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomislav101 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and so add material gradually and make it clear by the judicious use of sources that it's actually relevant to the Holocaust. It shouldn't be so hard if things are as you say. Genocide per se is not the same as the Holocaust.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Well it's either add it here, or start a new article on Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia, which also covers the genocide against Serbs and Roma, same as the United States Holocaust Museum covers it on their siteTomislav101 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yad Vashem also includes multiple ethnicities in the definition, and specifically talks about Serbs (although I didn't find mentions of Roma). Anyway, the whole idea of mentioning other ethnicities should not be discredited just because there's political discussions on how statistics are presented and used in other contexts. There is no reason to exclude other ethnicities from the definition, since it does not reflect the reality on how the word "Holocaust" is used. - Anonimski (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Tomislav101 etc, World War II persecution of Serbs already exists, and its specific scope is the genocide of Serbs by the NDH. I suggest you focus your attention there, it needs it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Excluding it here is still an incomplete presentation of facts, since many, for example The United States Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and Yad Vashem include multiple ethnicities' fates when describing the Holocaust. While I agree on that this article's focus should be on the Jewish victims, there should also be a segment with info about what happened to the Serbs and Roma, with "Main article: [...]" templates to World War II persecution of Serbs and Porajmos. As for the other article, I think I need to find a long unbroken period of free time in order to deal with the many issues there, especially when suggesting which sections to keep/move/trim in the parts tagged with "may stray from the topic"... - Anonimski (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
A much better treatment of this topic is presented on the Croatian language wiki page - here. Unlike this article, the Croatian laguage version doesn't get lost in trivial detail (like banned soccer clubs), and that article also presents much more information on the important facts - mass extermination, concentration, camps, itd. Other article also includes mentions and sections on Roma and Serbs, same as US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashim and other international sites
Second question - why did you revert my description of the establishment of first Ustasha concentration camps, and shipping of first Croatian Jews to same? You also reverted my quote of a leading Ustasha leader, Andrija Artukovic, on the extermination of Jews. How are those items not relevant to subject of Holocaust, but 2 banned soccer clubs are?71.135.46.58 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What I suggest is that this article be brought closer into line with the Croatian language article on the same subject - Holokaust u NDH, since as mentioned, that article has a lot better, a lot more relevant information on the subject. I will start bringing some of that information hereTomislav101 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding minor sections about the persecutions against the Serbs and the Roma now, per previous discussion. The disagreements between various Wikipedians in the linked discussion in the beginning will not override Yad Vashem and the United States Holocaust Museum. - Anonimski (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USHMM":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding claims only Zagreb Jewish community managed to survive Holocaust

Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

This citation from the otherwise very reliable Jozo Tomasevicih, is just wrong: "According to Jozo Tomasevich of the 115 Jewish religious communities from Yugoslavia which exist in 1939 and 1940 only Jewish communities managed to survive the war". Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library says on this in its article on Yugoslavia:

From the end of 1944, when Yugoslavia was liberated, about 14,000 Jews returned to the cities from their places of hiding, the partisan areas, and prison camps. The Federation of Jewish Communities officially reestablished its activities on Oct. 22, 1944, a few days after the liberation of Belgrade, when its surviving chairman, Friedrich Pops, reopened its office. Fifty-six Jewish communities were reconstructed, and the federation, with the aid of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) , engaged in a variety of welfare projects, including the reopening of the home for the aged in Zagreb, extending material aid to the needy who began to return to their daily lives, etc. It also reestablished its ties with the World Jewish Congress and other Jewish organizations.

I will check, but I believe Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein says up to 80% of Zagreb Jews were exterminated, and the Zagreb synagogue was destroyed by the Ustashe authorities, with not enough surviving members to reestablish it. By contrast, the main Belgrade synagogue was reopened immediately after liberation in 1944, and a second synagogue functioned in the Zemun area of Belgrade until the 1960s. Articles on Jews in Slovenia, state that the few surviving Slovene Jews sought assistance and advice from the main Jewish community in Belgrade. Also Israeli figures show that when Yugoslavia after 1948 allowed Jews to emigrate to Israel, considerably more Jews came from Serbia than Croatia, indicating that larger proportion of smaller Serb Jewish community was able to survive the Holocaust, than in Croatia. Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tomasevich is not contradicted by JVL, because, as you have quoted, JVL says "Fifty-six Jewish communities were reconstructed", not that they "survived the war". This was obviously after the liberation, as an American NGO was involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:On Zagreb Jewish Community data, I think THE reference book on the Holocaust in Croatia, by a well-recognized historian, is preferable to a website quoted on DW. I cite DW myself, but when there are better sources, I use thatThhhommmasss (talk)

@OyMosby: - then why mention in Background 100 plus Jewish communities in Yugoslavia and fact that Zagreb one is only one to survive, when these others have nothing to do with Croatia? Let's drop mention of other Jewish Yugoslav communities outside of Croatia. Fact is Tomasevich and others mention and compare Croatia and other Yugoslav Jewish communities. So does Israeli Aliyah data, which shows that in fact fewer Jews survived to emigrate from ISC, i.e. Croatia/Bosnia than from thoroughly Nazi-exterminated Serbia Thhhommmasss (talk)

Being that Zagreb was in the NDH, it makes sense. Focusing on that region. Comparing to Occupied Serbia doesn’t seem like the same. Why would it be relevant to state how many Jewish civilians survived in Occupied Serbia as apposed to Occupied Croatia? OyMosby (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Fine, let's be consistent and drop from Background section mention that of 100 plus Jewish communities in Yugoslavia, Zagreb Jewish community is only one to survive war, since Jewish communities outside Croatia have nothing to do with Croatia Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
How is saying “ Zagreb Jewish community is only one to survive war among Yugoslavia” the same as making specific number comparison between occupied Croatia and Occupied Serbia? That’s not consistent. In articles talking about Serbia becoming one of few Judenfrei in Europe, there is no lists of the number of survivors of each European nation compared to Serbia. Again, why the push to compare to Occupied Serbia specifically? If it were the opposite statistic in where Oc Croatia had more survivors than Oc Serbia per capita it still wouldn’t make sense to include a specific comparison like that, to me at least. OyMosby (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Did I miss some WP-specific rule that says only my mention of Jews outside of Croatia is not OK, but the mention of Jews outside of Croatia you approve of is perfectly OK? Could you please point it out to me. Btw in the NDH the main role of the “surviving Jewish Community in Zagreb”, as historians describe it, was to be forced to send food to vast majority of Jews that the Ustashe first disposed, then shipped off to concentration camps, with most of the sent food also stolen by the Ustashe, while 80% of NDH Jews were being exterminated, most of them in Ustashe camps. The attempt here is to somehow present this as a “big plus”, compared to what happened to Jews elsewhere in Yugoslavia, just as the extermination of “only” 78% (or “only” 74%) of Zagreb Jews, most of them by Ustashe, is supposed to be some “big plus”. If the Serb quisling government was keeping around a Jewish Community to feed the Jews they were directly exterminating in their own concentration camps, this too would no doubt be a "big plus". Just like someone killing “only” 74% of Croats could also be considered a “big plus” (“hey look on the bright side - fully 26% of Croats survived”) And to be consistent, in the article on the 90s War in Croatia, lets by all means also emphasize somewhere upfront the 3,720,000, or 99,7% of all Croats who managed to survive the war, instead of always being a downer and just talking about the dead Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
You missed my reply by a long shot. Bad counter argument. Answer my question about how my proposal is not consistent. Whether the content were a “big positive” or not my edit would be the same concerning what I perceived to be off topic comparison with another country. As for the rest of your reply, it has noting to do with me personally or what I said. The OC Croatia number who survived AND emigrated seems far lower than Goldstein’s claim of 9,000 surviving. Likely as it is comparing those who emigrated. Why is the number who emigrated a contrast to number of communities that survived in Yugoslavia? 14% Of prewar population who emigrated from Oc Serbia compared to 10% from NDH area? In your words is this some “big plus”? Only one community surviving as per Tomasevich’s words seems like a substantial statement. Yugoslavia A country which the territories constituting NDH were a part of. Oc Serbia is a separate entity. Why specifically compare to them in terms of number of survivors that emigrated and synagogues restored? Is that supposed to be a relevant counter to Tomasevich’s statement??? “ with the Belgrade community reopening its synagogue, while the Ustashe-destroyed Zagreb synagogue was never reestablished.” Belgrade was the capital of the new Yugoslavia you realize, correct? So what is the implication here? Again post war what was the relevance of this? There is no explanation of context. Again the Holocaust in Serbia article when mentioning Occupied Serbia being one of the first declared Judenfrei in 1942 doesn’t start comparing various other European states in terms of Jewish civilians murdered or survived. You still have not addressed my questions. This was my logic in this. My logic is no more a rule than your logic. So invalid argument there. Also YOU made the edit adding number of surving emigrations not me. So make up your mind if you are for it or against it. I didn’t add the number or percentage of survivors. But when the number of survivors is less than half of what the population was, it’s pretty notable to state. It’s done on numerous articles. Like when up to 250,000 Croats were expelled from Krajina a figures for the number that remained are stated. If you care to mention. So your overly dramatic replies seem unproductive in countering my point. Or we can follow your logic and state “All Jewish communities in Yugoslavia vanished except for in Zagreb”. So as to not sound too positive? @Peacemaker67: can weigh in here as this sort of ties in with your discussion above about the numbers. OyMosby (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t it fascinating how when people espouse general principles, like don’t mention what happened to Jews elsewhere in Yugoslavia, they always happen to find exceptions, and it's alway the exceptions they approve of, that happen to be the only ones that are OK. I said be consistent, ether take ALL mentions of Jews elsewhere out, or leave them in, and, then you invent stories to justify not being consistent, in order to promote views you approve of. Taking out of context and putting up front that of 100+ Jewish communities in Yugoslavia, only the Zagreb one survived the war, without mentioning that their main purpose was to bear the cost of feeding Jews, whom the Ustashe as the only native genocidal killers of Jews in that very same Yugoslavia were mass-exterminating, is an attempt to make Ustashe look better. Let’s put in the context of what the Ustashe used the Jewish community for and in and I’m fine with that. Otherwise it’s the same attempt to relativize Ustashe genocides as the “Judenfrei Serbia”, you mention, where minimizers of Ustashe genocide “forget” to mention that the Judenfrei Serbia claim was made by Nazis, who per Tomasevich exterminated all the Serb Jews, unlike in Croatia where the majority of Jews where exterminated by the Ustashe, according to Ustashe Racial Laws. Serb quislings were terrible criminals who supported the Nazis, even turned over a few hundred escaped Jews to the Nazis, but there is no evidence that Serb quislings killed a single Jew, whereas the aim of Croat minimizers of Ustashe genocides, who endlessly repeat “Judenfrei Serbia” without context, is to promote the totally false claim that Serb quislings were even worse, and thus relativize Ustashe genocides. Regardless, lets take all mentions of Jews in other parts of Yugoslavia out, including ones you personally approve of, or leave them in, without any nonsense rationalizations why your preferred mention is OK, and others are not. In fact if you think only quotes from Tomasevich are relevant, then in addition to his comparison of what happened to the Jewish communities elsewhere in Yugoslavia, lets add his other quotes which make it clear that the Ustashe were the only quislings in all of Yugoslavia who mass-exterminated Jews (on victim numbers he quotes Zerjavic who says that 73% of the NDH Jews were exterminated in Ustashe camps)Thhhommmasss (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:In “The Holocaust in Croatia”, Ivo Goldstein compares the inadequate actions of Stepinac with much more activist resistance to the Holocaust of Belgian and French Bishops, noting that this resulted in a much greater proportion of Jews being saved in those countries, compared to 80% of Jews being killed in the NDH. So I see no reason for you to invent your own rules that what happened to Jews outside of Croatia should not be mentioned, particularly when you chose to enforce it so selectively. Btw, I also see no reason why comparison with Croatia and other countries should not be made in the article on the Holocaust in Serbia, as long as they do not attempt to falsify history, as the relativizers of Usthashe genocides do, when they neglect to mention that all the Jews in "Judenfrei Serbia" were exterminated by the Nazis. Thus I will put back a few more comparisons in the article Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh the irony. You literally espoused your principals during this argument. But did not explain why yours are right and mine are wrong. Just more drama no content. Isn’t it funny when people cannot counter your argument so they instead they make revolting claims that you are “Croat minimizing Ustashe crimes” or “Trying to make Serbian Collaborators seem worse” and other baseless garbage? Is this some invisible war you feel you valiantly fight In Wikipedia. Oh lord. As if you aren’t deciding what is and isn’t ok? I am consistent. You still fail to explain how my logic was not consistent. You invented a whole lot in your replies about me and what I “said”. You addressed none of my points just unrelated pretend counter arguments. You claim I “invent stories” or “rules” to run away from having to disproving my points. Not gonna work. I brought up “Judenfrei” as an example of where it is relative to other countries in europe yet articles dont then start listing comparison for each country to Serbia in number of victims. You know very well what my point is. I was not trying to demonize or vilify Serbs or focus on the “Judenfrei” declaration itself. Way to completely misrepresent my argument. Nice attempt at straw manning. Never did I claim the Nedic’s regime to be “worse” or close to Pavlic’s. Never did I say that all the Jews exterminated in Oc Serbia was by Nedic’s regime. More drivel. More egg on your face.
” Serb quislings were terrible criminals who supported the Nazis, even turned over a few hundred escaped Jews to the Nazis, but there is no evidence that Serb quislings killed a single Jew” And I am the one making up stories and downplaying crimes???? One could mistake this as a claim by some Serb trying to downplay or distance Serbian collaboration and involvement in the Holocaust. By your own logic that is what you are doing with such a statement. Very misleading. The Banjica Concentration Camp was jointly run by the German Army and Nedic’s regime. Collaborationist armed formations forces were involved, either directly or indirectly, in the mass killings of Jews. Most of the killings at Banjica camp were carried out by the Gestapo. Those committed by the SP UGB and the SDS were carried out under the orders of Belgrade police commissioner Svetozar Vujković. (Antić, Ana (2012). "Police Force Under Occupation: Serbian State Guard and Volunteers' Corps in the Holocaust". In Horowitz, Sara R. (ed.). Back to the Sources: Re-examining Perpetrators, Victims and Bystanders. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-2862-0. PG. 31) So to say not a “single Jew” was killed by Serb quislings is an incredible display. Yes there are Croats who try to downplay Ustashe crimes and as there are Serbs who try to downplay Serb collaborator crimes. If you are so keen on comparisons, then don’t be so selective yourself and mention how Nedic’s government assisted in creating a Judenfrei Serbia which you are reluctant to talk about. If you really do give a toss about consistency m. Am I really the one with bias here? Seems you are really adamant about downplaying Serbian collaborators complicity and crimes even again, in a recent edit comparing NDH to GNS when convenient to pacify GNS. Even though it is incorrect to state that %100 of killing of Jews was done by Germans in Oc Serbia. Clearly you have been projecting tour motives onto me this whole time. You should provide counter sources refuting Tomasevich if he did in fact claim this. Once again, I am not the one selectively editing to custom form a narrative. And I don’t understand the point. The Ustashe were the most evil entity to exist in Balkan history. Why the need to play this game?
You still haven’t explain how the the Tomasovich sentence I think should be kept is the same sort of content you want to be kept. Your sentence was about total amount of Jews that emigrated from Serbia compared to NDH. Tomasevich’s is about the only remaining Jewish community in Yugoslavia being in Zagreb. How are they related or the same “discussion of events outside NDH”? Again you invented what I said. I never deemed Tomasevich as the only important source.
I am however totally fine with the inclusion of the fact that unlike the rest of occupied Yugoslavia,the Ustashe regime exterminated the overwhelming majority of Jews themselves In Ustashe run camps as apposed to German forces mainly handling extermination. This should be included if not already. However it goes against other sources to say that the Quisling Serbian Government and collaborators didn’t kill or execute Jews. They did. However majority of killing was by German army.
Stop looking for personal fights as I have no interest in such behavior. I did not initiate such. You keep changing the subject of conversation from what you initiated it about in the first place. You literally invented YOU OWN RULES in deciding what makes Ustashe “look to good” or not “evil enough”. You keep going on and on and on about some “rule” you claim I made yet never could explain why my point was wrong. Yet you have this “my way or the highway” mentality where your rules are supreme. There is a rule about using Wikipedia to settle some historical score or “right wrongs” or some kind of justice. This is an encyclopedia not a blog. I relativized nothing. You claimed to “put back” parts however everything you edited here since yesterday had nothing to donwith me and my edit. If you are going to compare some things with other countries then compare EVERYTHING, not just what is convenient. Now you should mention that Occupied Serbia became “Judenfrei”. I don’t care if you don’t like it or fear it makes Oc Serbia look worse than it should in your personal opinion. And follow it with the disclaimer that most of the killing was done by German army with assistance of capturing and delivering the victims by the Quisling government forces with some killed by them as well. Simple and factual. No one will mistake it. Demonized no one. Shall we compare the number of “righteous” citizens of both countries and how based on total population, more Croats were recognized than Serbs? Given your obsession with statistical comparison. Or would that be inconvenient? I mean really. I don’t have some agenda here. However yours seems to be just to spite these “Croats who downplay Ustashe”. You can put the part of the sentence I removed back if you think it is so incredibly relevant. Not worth all this back and forth. But really “not one Jew was killed by Serbian Collaboration forces”???? That’s a major downplay. However you seem no different than the Mikola guy below called out by another editor. Both of you driven to “accentuating” the crimes of Croats or Serbs while being selective in sources. So not the right mindset for going about editing Wikipedia articles. And it’s sad that this continues on Balkan articles. You think readers won’t pick up on this when reading the articles? Sad. All I have to say on these matters. I’m done with this conversation. I’m not going to entertain such talk. OyMosby (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my citations of Israeli sources on emigration from various parts of Yugoslavia, I did not revert yours. And you did it selectively by not reverting other comparisons of what happened to Jews in other parts of Yugoslavia, and then tried to change the subject to what happened in Serbia, or what should or should not be in other articles. You brought up the unrelated “Judenfrei Serbia”, and you’re welcome to add to Holocaust in Serbia any Reliable Sources that prove Serb quislings killed Jews (i.e. who, when and where). In fact I'd be interested in seeing any proof or specifics you have here, since I've not found them myself, and I do like proof. Tomasevich explicitly states that the extermination of the Jews in Serbia was pretty much an entirely Nazi production. I was also going by the Serb-Jewish author Filip David, a ceaseless critic of the complicity of the Nedic regime with the Nazis, whom I’ve not seen mention any specific killings of Jews by Serb quislings, while he does state that Serb quisling forces turned over a few hundred escaped Jews to the Nazis, which is indeed what I cited in addition to Tomasevich. Lets see your sources for accusing me of misrepresenting the Holocaust in Serbia Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
My edit was the emigration sentence for Serbia compared to Croatia which seemed pointless as it doesn't tell us what the number of survivors were and therefore why would we need to know how many emigrated from Serbia in an article not about Serbia let alone more emigrating from one country than the other doesn’t tell us anything really in terms of again, number of survivors. Unless I am missing some bigger picture analysis here. That was my only edit as you can see. So Oc Serbia was the topic from the beginning of the discussion. You went further about the regime there, Jews tasked with food distribution, you issues with stating survivors instead or in addition to victims killed, all these having nothing to do with me or my edit. Again I was not selective. I included the source for Nedic’s Regime participating in killings in the paragraph of my previous reply. Not to mention they jointly ran a Concentration camp. Hence my surprise to your claim. I brought up “Judenfrei Serbia” solely as an example of there not being countless countries compared to Serbia about death or survival or emigration statistics. Nowhere did I go on to use “Judenfrei” to prove a point about Serbia itself or attack them. Not at all my point. And why did you specifically state “Serbia and the territories in Yugoslavia” and not simply Yugoslavia when discussing Ustashe engagement in the Holocaust as apposed to Nazi German engagement mainly in the rest of Yugoslavia? Why not list off all the countries then Slovenia, Montenegro, etc. Again, how am I the selective one here? Not to mention again, Germans did not do %100 of the killings in territory outside NDH, as the source I provided shows as example. They did most but not completely. OyMosby (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Croat and Israeli sources consistently say 50-60% of surviving Croat and Yugoslav Jews emigrated to Israel, do not indicate any big differences in % across republics. It’s relevant since it’s hard data from neutral source, one objective data point, not whole answer. I cited separately Tomasevic on Nazi extermination of Serb Jews, since this is was 2nd greatest number of Jews, he spends much time on it, says nothing about 500+ Slovene Jews exterminated by Nazis, at probably highest rate (87%) in all Yugoslavia. I don’t have access to source you cited, can you provide quote with specifics (i.e. names, dates and places) where Serb quislings killed Jews, not just generalities about being collaborators. I view both Nedic and Ustase regimes as criminal Nazi collaborators (Tomasevich says 2-3,000 Nedic-ites were killed by Partisans at Bleiburg, probably got what they deserved), but only Ustase carried out their own policy of systematic genocide of Jews, Roma and Serbs, and that’s what historians I read state. Btw, as someone of Croat heritage, I’ve no interest in Serb vs. Croat disputes, but am particularly appalled by crimes perpetrated in name of Croathood, thus seek to write truth on same. I don’t know who thinks what, so as I said, I’ve only seen mention of Judenfrei Serbia from minimizers of Ustase genocides Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this recent edit to the article is merely part of a broader blitz conducted by Mikola22 designed to obfuscate the severity of the genocide/holocaust in the NDH, while at the same time accentuating or attempting to exaggerate the crimes in WWII Serbia. This is done through the cherry-picking of information and sources (some questionable), repetition of information already found in an article and then copying it to a bunch of other articles as well the addition of (occasionally misleading) text in malformed broken English. --Griboski (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Griboski, if you have evidence that Mikola22 is doing sth disruptive or has some kind of "agenda", you should present that at ANI/I or AE. The talk page of the article is not a place for accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It relates to this discussion as it is his edit. You are correct though, this isn't the place to get into it. Thanks for the tip. --Griboski (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Griboski: I'm waiting for you on ANI/I or AE to see what it is all about now and you call the editor Sadko to be as strong as possible in your arguments(I coming alone). It is interesting that you(all) have been waiting for me in 2020 in the article of Milan Nedić, Stjepan Filipović(where not even the year of his capture to this day has been accurate) Judenfrei article and this information which says nothing (German-occupied territory of Serbia / Belgrade – May 1942, reported in the SS-Standartenführer Emanuel Schäfer cable sent to the Reich Main Security Office in Berlin; Schäfer was the Der Befehlshaber der SIPO und des SD head at that time in Belgrade) etc....therefore, probably some team is working to get data from various RS outside of wikipedia ie not entering them. And now when I'm starting to change it in 2020, it's panic. Which edits you(all) have on such and similar articles? Mikola22 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews. And here you added Serbs and Roma. So then add Roma in the article.I can't because the site has semi protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Serbia here is the source https://balkaninsight.com/2018/12/17/serbia-s-forgotten-role-in-the-roma-holocaust-12-14-2018/ Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.68.199 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago82 comments27 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. This discussion has gone on long enough, and been involved enough, for it to be apparent that extending the time for discussion will not yield a clearer resolution. BD2412 T 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia → The Holocaust in Croatia – At the time of writing, this is the only country-related Holocaust article on the English Wikipedia that contains a qualifier, in this case "the Independent State of..." Why the title of this particular article was singled out for this kind of treatment remains a mystery. For example, we have The Holocaust in Germany, not The Holocaust in Nazi Germany; The Holocaust in Italy, not The Holocaust in the Kingdom of Italy; The Holocaust in Serbia, not the Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, and so on.

The Independent State of Croatia was the only entity called Croatia that took part in World War II, removing any room for confusion or doubt, and by extension, negating the purpose of the aforementioned qualifier. I do not agree with editors who argue that the NDH cannot otherwise be referred to simply as Croatia in some instances or that NDH citizens should not be referred to by the demonym Croatian. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Concentration camps in the Independent State of Croatia isn't as problematic for the sole reason that it delineates the time period during which those camps existed. It distinguishes those camps from the ones that existed in Croatia during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. On the other hand, there was only one historical event known as The Holocaust in the country of Croatia and that historical event happened to coincide with the Independent State of Croatia's existence. Hence, the qualifier "the Independent State of..." is simply not necessary. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not that familiar with Concentration Camps in Croatia in the 1990s during the Yugoslav Wars. Not sure if they were comparable or extermination camps as succh. In any case the reason for the difference in naming for both articles would be that there was also the The Federal State of Croatia (1943–1945) during WWII that overlapped NDH. NDH was a puppet state not deemed sovereign. Hence why the actual name is used. Not sure what it is obscuring or how it is dishonest of editors to be alright with the name being used. Perhaps other editors can input. OyMosby (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The fact that there was also a Federal State of Croatia which had its own separate claim to sovereignty on the territory of the NDH further reinforces my argument that this article should be renamed The Holocaust in Croatia. Moreover, one of the most in-depth works about the Holocaust in Croatia available in the English language is Slavko and Ivo Goldstein's aptly titled The Holocaust in Croatia. It covers the Holocaust in all the territories of the NDH, including Bosnia. Tellingly, it isn't titled The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia.
This shouldn't come as much of a surprise. The NDH wasn't comparable to the other satellite/puppet states in the Balkans. In contemporary documents Axis officials often simply referred to it as Kroatien or Croazia. The state also had its own embassies and consulates abroad. On somewhat of a side note, it even had an official football team, which wasn't referred to as the NDH national football team (on the contrary, it is recognized by FIFA as the predecessor to the current Croatian national football team). I could go on and on. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
How does Federal Croatia strengthen your point? That administration was not involved in the Holocaust of Jewish people. And would be a gross confusion of the two states. Being that there were two claimed forms of Croatia, it should be noted which one the Ustashe waged their genocides. It would basically cast Fed Croatia as not a legitimate entity during WWII but NDH only which would be very pov. I would argue the same for Holocaust in Serbia as the territory of Modern Serbia was Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Fed Serbia. Though I have seen “Serbia” marked on maps during WWII as well. Independent State of Croatia was the name of the German-Italian puppet state. It was a state that had to answer to German and partly Italy despite having some of the greatest autonomy among Axis puppet states. I think the difference between the two is important to make clear. Also The Ustashe liked to believe they were the “official” Croatians in Croatia with their own claimed Croatian team. They can claim whatever, it’s not a solid argument. The only point I see of yours is the reference of Holocaust in Croatia, however on Wikipedia it should be noted that there were two states Claiming to be the true Croatia. It was Axis powers that recognized NDH. I don’t see how using Independent State of Croatia is an issue or takes anything away from the article or what happened. Also speaking of predecessor, historians and the Nurnberg trails rules NDH as nor a legitimate independent state and not the predecessor to Croatia (Although Croatian ultranationalists there would like to believe NDH as some aorr of positive forefather). So via your football logic, Independent State of Croatia would be the proper wording. OyMosby (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Just because the Federal State of Croatia wasn't complicit in the Holocaust, doesn't mean the Holocaust was not still being committed on territories that it lay claim to. In any event, the NDH was the only country called Croatia that participated in WW2. The Federal State of Croatia was an arm of the National Liberation Movement and later a federal subject of socialist Yugoslavia, not a sovereign entity in and of itself. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The Nurnberg trials stated that the Independent State of Croatia was not a sovereign entity either. But an Occupied territory. Not a surprise being thats how the puppet state came to be installed.OyMosby (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a textbook non sequitur. What does the NDH's legal status have to do with the title of the article or the content thereof? If this was the standard metric we used across the board, articles like The Holocaust in Ukraine and The Holocaust in Slovakia would end up in the trash heap. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It was in argument to your argument that Federal State of Croatia not being a sovereign entity therefore not valid in this discussion. OyMosby (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, so what do you want us to do? Should we scrap this article because neither the NDH nor the NOP can be deemed "sovereign entities" in a narrowly defined legal sense. Are you insinuating that "Croatia didn't exist" during the war? Was the entire country on vacation between 1941 and 1945? What is your point? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I said that there were two entities claiming to be Croatia therefore ISC should remain as it was the entity responsible. You brouth up Federal State of Croatia’s sovereignty into the argument to I countered that same could be said about ISC. I was for keeping the name so where would I be fore removing it or the article?OyMosby (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No NDH is not only Croatia, it is and Bosnia and Herzegovina. A large part of Serbs are killed in or they are from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Does this mean that we should have another article concerning Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Anyway because it is official name of the German satellite which includes territories of another states including and part of Serbia I think that NDH name covers all that territories. For stated reasons my answer would be no.Mikola22 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not - this would change the scope of the article, and make sourcing it much harder. Holocaust articles should be based on the geopolitical entity of the time, not the current state; it is ahistorical. It would also be contrary to WP:ARTICLETITLE, especially recognisability and precision. And frankly, it is highly POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what to think on this. For example, there was no geopolitical entity called Serbia at the time. The official name of rump Serbia was ""Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien", i.e. the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia. So shouldn't there be an article called: The Holocaust in the German Military Territory in Serbia? The rest of Serbia did not exist at all, since it was carved up. Most Serb Jews were killed in Vojvodina, a main chunk of which was annexed by Hungary, so the Holocaust there should by the same logic be part of Holocaust in Hungary, and Jews killed in Bulgarian-annexed or Italian-Albanian annexed areas were part of those political entities, not anything called Serbia at the time Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't get distracted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. That article should probably be at The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia, but how is that relevant to this? This RM should stand or fall on its merits and how it stacks up against WP:ARTICLETITLE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
By referring to WP:ARTICLETITLE I assume you are alluding to the tenet of precision. But WP:ARTICLETITLE notes that conciseness is also something to consider. The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia is a horribly verbose title that isn't used by the two leading institutional authorities on the Holocaust. On the contrary, both Yad Vashem and the USHMM describe it as The Holocaust in Croatia and not the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia. See [3] [4]
For the record, I also oppose The Holocaust in Serbia being renamed The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia. Most countries where the Holocaust took place were occupied in one way or another. I see no reason for setting such a precedent for no valid reason. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Amanuensis Balkanicus: you replaced The Holocaust in Serbia to The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia without talking to others, referring to Yad Vashem and the USHMM and there it says Holocaust in Serbia. See [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.143.216 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That was not them, but a bold editor who changed it. Also The U.S Holocaust Museum also states “Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia” and “Holocaust in Serbia”. So it doesn’t really help in AB argument. Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia And Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia should be then titles. It is their actual territory titles after all. OyMosby (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No - the Independent State of Croatia is usually referred to as the Independent State of Croatia, and the holocaust happened in that entity. There was at the time still legally the Banovina of Croatia and later the Federal State of Croatia. Tezwoo (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I was leaning toward oppose, but the point above of the leading authorities of the U.S. Holocaust Museum and Yad Vashem both using the term The Holocaust in Croatia, and both meaning the entire ISC territory, has gotten me to reconsider. I believe there should be an extremely high hurdle in going with anything different than these 2 institutions, plus this does seem the only exception to WP's Holocaust titles for all other countries. As I noted, if it stays, then the Holocaust in Serbia article should be renamed, since there was no political-entity Serbia at the time. Don't know if there's a WP:Consistency, but there should be one Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per great comments and argumentst presented by Thomas and AB. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
How do you support when you did an edit today. Article "The Holocaust in Serbia" you renamed to "The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia" and now you would "The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia" renamed to "The Holocaust in Croatia"? Are you an editor with a consistent attitude or you just playing with wikipedia? Mikola22 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The two naming conventions are not completely contradicting one another. I do not plan to explain why, when asked liked this. If this article gets renamed we can then make a similar RfC for the other one, that would not be problematic the way I see it. Playing with Wikipedia is my major lifetime goal. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Nurnberg Trials were clear on this. According to the Tribunal, "Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country". So how can you honestly deem one German Occupied Serbia and the other just Croatia when both were occupied lands? Strange. Also an RfC should have been sought after for consensus before changing the Holocaust in Serbia page name. Not after your change. Surprising as you usually believe consensus should be obtained before making major edits. Should be reverted meantime. Regardless of the title of this page your edit would not be consistent. Both pages should name the territories by their actual names. Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia And Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. If consistency is the objective. Otherwise it is PoV pushing. The U.S Holocaust Museum also states “Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia” and “Holocaust in Serbia”. Being you agree with Thomas and AB, you would have to agree with this as well. AB states that “Holocaust in German-Occupied Serbia” would not be correct. The other editor should be more well mannered in how they approached you and not combative, but they are right to point out the inconsistencies in your logic here. OyMosby (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No Peacemaker67 and Tezwoo make pretty straight forward points. Nurnberg Trials were clear on this. According to the Tribunal, "Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country". So saying just Croatia while on the Holocaust of Serbia page changing it to German-Occupied Serbia is inconsistent and inaccurate as Croatian lands are deemed Occupied. The U.S Holocaust Museum also states “Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia” and “Holocaust in Serbia”. They even often use NDH in reference. Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia And Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia should be then titles. If consistency is the objective. I agree with AB that “Holocaust in German-Occupied Serbia” would not be the right route. The territory’s actual name should be used. An RfC should have been made there like here. OyMosby (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the main USHMM article on the Holocaust in the region, with main subheadings: (1)Croatia (as they state, meaning the entire ISC), (2)Serbia (meaning German-occupied Serbia), plus (3) a separate section on Hungarian-Annexed, Bulgarian-Occupied Yugoslavia and Kosovo-Metohija, which were other parts of dismembered Serbia. I see no USHMM article "Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia". Yad Vashem has "Holocaust in Croatia", meaning the ISC Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have linked to the example I meant. Here on this page it mentions the phrase “ Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia” meaning they see the Holocaust as occurring in NDH. Also they have cited sources which I am sure the vetted here that also uses the entity specific name. OyMosby (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It also includes a (sic) meaning the ISC is an odd or erroneous word. Plus here the USHMM similarly refers to “The German Military Government in Serbia”, as the controlling political entity. In any case I’m for the simple “Holocaust in Croatia” and “Holocaust in Serbia”, as per USHMM and Yad Vashem main articles, with mention of the political entities in each article – ISC, and German Military Government in Serbia, Hungarian-Annexed Serbia, German minority-governed Banat, ISC-annexed Serbia, etc Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
In your link it doesn’t mention Holocaust in the same sentence as German Military Government in Serbia. I thought we were looking the the phrase in its entirety. USHMM refers to the title “Independent State of Croatia” numerous times without a “sic” following it. They even referred to it as an Ustaše State in article. And the phrase ISC with the NDH equivalent initials are used with no sic denomination here. However I understand your point of trying to mirror how they label their main articles. But considering numerous books state Holocaust in ISC and use the title for that entity, I think it would make sense to specify that entity. Not Banovina Croatia or Federal Croatia but Independent State of Croatia. Same logic to me for using Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
One of the USHMM links you provided is a catalogue entry for a book by Lazo M. Kostich. This doesn't mean that it is the terminology used by the USHMM. The other, as Thhhommmasss pointed out, contains the syntactic qualifier sic. The other links don't use the terms Holocaust in Croatia or Holocaust in the NDH. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thhhommmasss’ example link for Serbia doesn’t have Holocaust in the same phrase either and if you look at the context of the conversation after that I therefor show that ICS is also a title floated around the website based on that condition. One of the links I show references ICS as an Ustahse State and collection of Jewish properties in favour of NDH. Seems USHMM uses various names for the entity. OyMosby (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit bemused by the idea advanced above that Yad Vashem and the USHMM are supposedly the pinnacle of sources for this specific part of the Holocaust or even for the title of this article. Their coverage of this aspect of the Holocaust is brief and cursory (amounting to a few pages), and Yad Vashem still claims 500,000 Serbs were killed in the NDH (BTW, NDH is far more common in sources than ISC, which seems to have crept in here, even the German initialisation USK is more common than ISC), which is clearly a very fringe view. Sources that have examined this aspect of the Holocaust in far greater detail (amounting to thousands of pages) are what we should be relying on, not generalist sources like Yad Vashem that contain at least one fringe view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Was there a consensus on the Holocaust in Serbia page being changed to Holocaust in German-Occupied Serbia? There was no RfC as there is on this page. OyMosby (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
University of Zagreb Prof. Ivo Goldstein, who wrote the leading book on the subject is no fringe source, and his book, published in association wit the USHMM by the University of Pittsburgh is titled "The Holocaust in Croatia" meaning the entire ISC. I do not see any reason for this being the only exception title. There is no "The Holocaust in the French State (nor the very common 'Vichy France')", nor "The Holocaust in the First Slovak Republic", perhaps the closest analogy of a semi-independent-quisling-state, clumsy-mouthful, meaningless-to-all-but-the-initiated title. As I said, a less-preferred back-up would be to rename Holocaust in Serbia article Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss: Another reputable source that refers to it as The Holocaust in Croatia is The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, published by Indiana University Press. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I also think that the reason some of these other guys are arguing against the name change is the typical Balkan hair-splitting to avoid responsibility for crimes of “one’s own side” (it wasn’t us, it was some non-existent ISC, therefore these genocides don’t really count), while laying collective blame on the other side (i.e. although there was no Serb state, and in Vojvodina where the majority of Jews were killed, Serbs played zero-role, they’re nonetheless collectively responsible). It’s just like the argument that the “Za dom spremni”, i.e. the Ustashe “Sieg Heil” of the black-shirted Ustashe-named 1990s and present-day HOS veteran units, who hung pictures of Ante Pavelic in their offices, and named their units after Ustashe war criminals, is “entirely different” from the exact same original “Za dom spremni” salute of the Ustashe Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You realize PeaceMaker67 is in agreement with keeping it Independent State of Croatia right? Not to mention I am for changing the Holocaust in Serbia to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. So I hope you aren’t talking about me in this insulting conspiracy. By your reasoning is everyone for the change part of a balkan “hair-splitting” hate conspiracy to demonize Croats? I don’t think so. Saying Independent State of Croatia in the title which has been the title for years is “avoiding responsibility”? How does it absolve Croat history of any crimes? Did I or anyone voting no claim Ustashe to be paid actors? Who said ISC didn’t exist? AB brought up the sovereignty argument about Federal Croatia and misrepresented my comment as if I claimed ISC didn’t exist so seems you are directing this reply at me. I was arguing that if FS Croatia is irrelevant to the conversation than by his rational so would ISC be. Obviously I don’t agree with such rational. I never claimed it didn’t exist or cary out a genocide in the name of Croats. Don’t see where anyone has. It’s in the title. No one denied Croats carried out these crimes. PeaceMaker was more strongly against using USHMM as a sole criteria were as I said I see your point on it. Funny you don’t accuse him of sinister motives. Give me a break. OyMosby (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Per my point, someone else wrote as part of this argument “there was no Holocaust in Croatia, only in the ISC”. Of course, he had no complaints about “The Holocaust in Serbia”. I hold neither Croats nor Serbs collectively responsible for the Holocaust. For Ustashe crimes I only use the term Ustashe, never Croats, I hope you are as scrupulous in only using Nedic-ites for Serb quisling crimes. That being said, one of the reasons I'm for using simply Croatia and Serbia is that it makes it more difficult to say it was just the ISC (rightists in Croatia love to say “there are no more Ustashe”, while defending their present-day Ustashe-saluting blackshirts), or just the occupiers of Serbia, since in both cases there was complicity from local quislings/rightists/nationalists, even if to different degrees. That is the personal reason, but the actual formal reason is that there should be consistency, not exceptions Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Page search didn’t turn up who said that but it would be hypocritical to be for ISC and not changing Holocaust in Serbia to the proper title of the territory. I never hold an ethnic group responsible for what some in the group do. Unfortunately there have been some who try to paint all if not the majority of Croats as being in pure bliss over a genocide being carried out. Nedic-ites isn’t a real term. When I speak of the Holocaust during Nedic’s regime, I say either Nedic’s Regime or collaborators not “Serbs”. If I ever shorthand Serbs I would say Croats too. I try to be consistent. I agree with you that right wingers in Croatia are problematic. The HDZ still maintains part of Tudjman’s legacy of turning a blind eye to the Ustashe genocide though there have been presidents that acknowledge the genocide. Still much downplaying of said crimes. Thompson is still somehow allowed to play his concerts and be signed to Croatia Records. Nationalists complaining about war crimes of others without taking a hard look of their own side. Ivo Josipović made a good point of the “Ustase Snake” still slithering about today in Croatian society.OyMosby (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi.It is not the same, at that time it was called the "Slovak Republic" that is why the name The Holocaust in Slovakia, this one was called at the time "Independent State of Croatia" that is why the name is Holocaust Independent State of Croatia. If only the name Croatia is used, then we can think of today's Croatia, because in the Second World War Independent State of Croatia was large and had the whole of Bosnia and parts of Serbia, while for example Slovakia and Italy were within almost the same borders as during the Second World War. Then there must be the Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because in the only name Croatia, Croatia has never been so great in borders. While the Independent State of Croatia is the name as it was called in the Second World War and it is immediately known that it means the Second World War. In addition, Croatia had a war in 1990-1995, while Slovakia did not or Italy after WW2, so it would have to be constantly explained with the name that it was a Second World War, not a war of 1990-1995, while it is known that the Independent State of Croatia was in World War II because that's what it was called. User Peacemaker67 explained very well: Holocaust articles should be based on the geopolitical entity of the time, not the current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.118.33 (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
WWII Hungary also occupied and annexed large parts of Romania, Yugoslavia, Slovakia and the Ukraine, nearly doubling its territory, which are no longer part of Hungary, yet the “Holocaust in Hungary” covers all these areas. The article is also not named “Holocaust in the Kingdom of Hungary”, the official name of the WW2 Hungarian entity. There was no Holocaust in the 1990s, so there can be no confusion Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Explain to me the reason why he changed something as it was called into something as it was not called ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.118.33 (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned, the WW2 geopolitical entity was “Kingdom of Hungary”, yet the article is not “Holocaust in the Kingdom of Hungary”. You explain to me why this should be the only exception article title that departs from using common country names for the Holocaust, when all the “exceptions” apply to many other countries as well (e.g. radically different geographic WW2 borders - see Hungary again, while Poland was not even a country during WW2, yet the Holocaust in Poland article applies to large areas which today are in Byelorussia, Ukraine and the Baltic states, etc.) Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It cannot be called the Holocaust in the Kingdom of Hungary because it would refer to the period of the Austrian Empire or the Habsburg Monarchy etc. Hungary did not have a war afterwards WW2 , so it is known which period is meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.118.33 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss:,
parts of Romania were not annexed, but exchanged by a bilateral agreement, from the Slovak state a little part have been taken, Yugoslavia broke up already, Ukraine did not exist at the time (if you did not intend to refer to the proclaimed but unrecognized Carpatho-Ukraine). On that we agree Hungary shortly may be used for any Hungarian state and my point about Croatia case has been already expressed in the Tripartite Pact RFC, and obviously the article's scope of Holocaust of Hungary covers what has been Hungary then.
@93.142.118.33:, you are wrong, Kingdom of Hungary refer to 1000-1918, 1920-1946 period, but again no need to rename.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC))
The point is the Holocaust in Hungary and Poland articles cover vastly different territories than the present-day nations. Btw, Yugoslavia "fell apart" when Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and their Hungarian and Bulgarian allies invaded Yugoslavia, with all of them carving up and annexing large portions of Yugoslav territory. The largest number of Serb Jews were killed from the territory of Hungarian-annexed Serbia, i.e. in the Kingdom of HungaryThhhommmasss (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, ,oppose. The proposal is misleading and confusing. There is no Holocaust in Croatia. There was only the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia, a satellite state controlled by the Axis powers during the World War II. The same as The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia. --Silverije 22:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
How is it "misleading and confusing"? Sure, the same as, a classic move. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Silverije: What do you mean by “the same as”? The page naming convention or are you implying they are both puppet states??OyMosby (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that the words "there is no Holocaust in Croatia" can be construed by some as outright Holocaust denial. The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia was renamed by another user as a knee-jerk response to this article being renamed. I oppose the renaming of that article and think it should be titled The Holocaust in Serbia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia was recently renamed that from The Holocaust in Serbia without an RfC like on this page. Not sure how that happened. If you wish to be consistent. It should be named The Holocaust in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The actual name of the territory. Current version implies only Serbian territory was occupied which is wildly PoV pushing. OyMosby (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - seems like the ISC and modern Croatia aren't the same entity, and this article talks about the Holocaust in every part of the ISC, not just the parts now in modern Croatia. The proposed title would then be anachronistic and imprecise. Red Slash 05:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak argument. Germany and Nazi Germany aren't the same entity either. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No it isn't. Current-day Germany and Nazi Germany are very similar in size, but the NDH was actually twice the size of current-day Croatia, because it included current-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Hungary, the WWII political entity, was nearly twice the size of current Hungary, included parts of present day Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. Yet the article "Holocaust in Hungary" covers all these parts, plus does not carry the name of the WWII political entity, the Kingdom of Hungary. The article on the Holocaust in Poland is about the Holocaust in 1939-borders Poland, which included large parts of present-day Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania, but misses about one-third of post-WII Poland, which was then Germany, so overlap with current Poland is less than 50%, plus there was no political entity at all called Poland in WWII, etc Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is difficult to count how many Wiki rules would the proposed name break. The ISC and Croatia were not the same, and if some of the sources that cover the topic misuse the term "Croatia", we should stick with those that do not. The proposal is not achieving consensus, but if were to do so, the article then would probably have to be trimmed. The argument that this article should follow the naming practices of some similar articles does not stand. On the contrary, it does point out to the need to start an evaluation of those articles' names. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Asserting that the NDH was not called Croatia by contemporaries (and isn't often referred to as such by modern scholars) is just that...an assertion. I've seen it repeated often and always by the same users. The NDH can certainly be called by its full name, but it doesn't have to be. When one points out that multiple reputable sources refer to this period in history as The Holocaust in Croatia, the reliability of those sources is questioned, instead of a valid counter-argument being presented. As for the other Holocaust articles I doubt the wider community would be persuaded much by a cabal of Balkan editors with Axis to grind. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
“with Axis to grind.” That’s a typo right? Hehe... Not sure why there would be axes to grind as it would be a critique. Should we assume anyone for changing this article’s name has axes to grind? And it isn’t only “Balkan editors” in disagreement on the title. Let’s remain on track. I don’t think they are saying all articles need changing but the comparison isn’t always 1:1 for the articles and that some other articles should be looked at to see if the naming is fine as is. Also the USHMM refers to the entity as “Ustashe State” and “Independent State of Croatia” so the naming convention varies. However I don’t know what the majority of Historians and books go by, the ISC is a very specific name and makes sense as it was occupied Yugoslavia where the puppet state was installed. Same view Inhave for Serbia. It was occupied Yugoslavia with a territory called “Territory of the Military commander in Serbia “. Not comparable to Hungary or Italy. It’s seems to be why those specific terms are used. Another example is the Genocide of Serbs or Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia. These are my reasonings on the matter. And why “Hungary” may make sense for one article using the simplistic name but not for other articles such as this one. I don’t think blanket comparisons make sense. OyMosby (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Amanuensis Balkanicus: What do you mean with "cabal of Balkan editiors with Axis to grind"? Who are those editors? I hope this is a misunderstanding, but the way you wrote the sentence makes it look like you are linking me with "Axis" or, in other words, Fascists. This article actually is focused on crimes committed by Fascists. In any case, even if you mean "axe to grind", it is a personal attack, and as such it makes your stance in this discussion appear weak and not serious. Weird way of organizing a community discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think they meant “Axis” I think it was a typo. I just found it funny in a dark humour sort of way. Axis and axes are incredibly similar and auto correct can mistake the two. All in all I hope we all just stay civil on this page. Even if one feels frustrated and feels their point is not getting across. OyMosby (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It is an issue of conceptualization and methodology. Any genocidal campaign is a state-run affair which happens within the territory controlled by a particular State and is organized by those who lead that State. The Holocaust happened in the State entity known as "Independent State of Croatia". To conceptualize it with a focus in "Croatia", a geographical region means to strip it of its historicity and place it in an apolitical, geographical space. Bibliography strongly disagrees with the depoliticization of the Holocaust.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't think there's any real basis for confusion. "Independent State of Croatia" and "Croatia" are synonymous and there is no implication that it refers to the modern Croat state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Modern day Croatia is not the successor state of the so called "Independent State of Croatia". That is in the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. Foundations of modern day Croatia are in the antifascist struggle of peoples of Croatia against the fascist and genocidal "Independent State of Croatia". So no, the "Independent State of Croatia" and "Croatia" are not synonymous. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No the suggested change would be confusing, especially regarding the scope. Maleschreiber's argument is maybe even more powerful. Notrium (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Either we'd have to split a part of the content into The Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is obviously not what is being proposed here and would not be a good idea), or we're saying that pretty much the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina is or was Croatia in a meaningful sense independent from the World War II context of the Independent State of Croatia. The latter doesn't seem right: you won't ever hear of anyone born, say, in Sarajevo in 1943 being described as "born in Croatia". (Actually, that would be the viewpoint of the Croatian far right.) "The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia" is a good title because it describes both the agent of the Holocaust and its territorial extent in a way which is both neutral and unambiguous. GregorB (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. More concise, more recognisable. The lead should make it clear exactly what the scope of the article is, and does, and would need only minor changes to reflect this move. This proposal obviously raises some strong national feelings, but we don't go by those. We go by the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The scope isn't clear if it is just Croatia, as the borders of current-day Croatia are nothing like those of the Independent State of Croatia (which included all of current-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recognisability is also better with Independent State of Croatia, as the casual reader would think the scope of this article was the Holocaust in the territory of current-day Croatia, but it isn't. Precision in this case is more important. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The two names are not synonyms; the ISC had a much bigger territory than contemporary Croatia, so the renaming would either mean a big change in scope or create ambiguity about scope. I don't know enough about the topic to know which scope is the more appropriate framework for examining the topic ... but I have no hesitation in opposing this proposal to change scope purely because some editors prefer the less specific title. That treats scope as a secondary consideration, whereas it should be the first and overriding consideration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Quite, BHG. The best scope for Holocaust articles is the contemporary geopolitical one, not the modern one. The contemporary geopolitical scope for this article is the Independent State of Croatia, not the current country of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl and Peacemaker67: The boundaries of pre- and post-war Poland are as different as those of wartime and post-1991 Croatia, yet we have the very ambiguous The Holocaust in Poland. The first line spells is out, as would the first line of this article. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Srnec: The fact that a scope problem exists elsewhere is not a reason to intentionally create one here. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, it makes sense to use the pre-war entities if the country was annexed/occupied in their entirety by the one power throughout the Holocaust (which is the case with Poland, even though it was split up internally into annexed territories and the General Government). But this approach isn't suitable for Yugoslavia, because it involves one Axis puppet state, annexations by multiple Axis powers, and civil and military administrations. The NDH was the puppet state, and largely created and carried out the Holocaust itself, with some German pressure and some Italian resistance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, NDH was a a puppet state installed by Axis powers (Germany and Italy) and run largely by the Ustashe and answered to the Germans, following Nazi racial law. Western portion was annexed by the Italians who set up concentration camps such as the one on the island of Rab where Jews, Croats and Slovenes were imprisoned. Not sure as to Italian resistance as they collaborated. Being a state established during the time of the Holocaust it makes sense to state the name of the entity. The entity was installed on what was Yugoslavia territory. Not to mention Croatia would imply to the reader that this was an official form of Croatia, a predecessor, which seems to be an agenda by some.OyMosby (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As others have already stated, this is nominally fine because there's certainly plenty of secondary sources that will describe the Holocaust in Croatia in the conventional meaning of the word and such an article could well be worthwhile; however, to move this one would imply necessarily creating another article about the Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then we're presented with a conundrum as to how to actually compose those articles, as opposed to just having a procedural move. A discussion on whether the sources best warrant an article of the current scope, of the scope of conventional (and modern-day) countries, or the scope of Yugoslavia, or indeed some other constellation, could be worthwhile, but that seems more appropriate for an RFC than for an RM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The NDH was a state with clearly defined borders and a well-known name. In that case, for example, the lack of an article on the Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be evident and unclear.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

There are two related issues here:

  • What should be the scope of the article?
  • What should it be called?

Both are discussed above. My support for the proposal is based on the assumption that the scope of the article should be broader than the Independent State of Croatia and should include Croatia in its broadest sense. I think that is how someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area (wp:NAMINGCRITERIA) will think of it in this context.

Other views? Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You are being really unclear. What do you mean by "broader than the Independent State of Croatia" and what by "Croatia in its broadest sense"? Notrium (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are you aware that the Independent State of Croatia existed all through the end of WW2 and had a nominal territory much larger than that of today's Republic of Croatia? Notrium (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro sentence needs to be changed

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've not seen evidence that 90% of Jews were killed in Ustashe camps, as in the intro sentence: "... 90% of Croatian Jews were exterminated in Ustaše-run concentration camps like Jasenovac and others[citation needed], while a considerable number of Jews were rounded up by the Ustaše and turned over to the Germans for extermination in Nazi Germany"

I think what can be written is the following: "approximately 80% of ISC Jews were exterminated, of these, according to Vladimir Zerjavic, the vast majority in Ustaše-run concentration camps like Jasenovac and others, while a considerable number of Jews were rounded up by the Ustaše and turned over to the Germans for extermination in Nazi Germany". Given that Goldstein and Tomasevich both write that altogether 6,200 Jews were shipped to Germany (with the rest, according to most sources among a total of 30,000 Jewish victims, being killed in the ISC), this is very reasonable, while 90% is improbable Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Tomasevich, Goldstein and Zerjavic are all reliable, but I think, rather than percentages, we should use reliably sourced numbers of Jews before the war and the numbers killed and where according to the reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
And it is NDH, not ISC. The former is far more common in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia/Archive_1&oldid=1073893165"