From: stojanov@husc10.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.history
Subject: Re:Irony continues in our history
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:36:08 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


>>In article <1992Aug12.170142.9743@src.umd.edu> josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>>I said:
>>Excellent.   I have to say that the extent of Croatian participation 
>>was negligible in any resistance movement during first two years of 
>>WWII in Yugoslavia, except in the commanding structures of communist 
>>resistance.  There is a reason for that.  Croats felt NDH is their country,
>>and they were ready to live with "minor" incidents such as extermination
>>of Serbs and Jews.  
>
>I disagree with you completely, and you have not produced anything convincing.

Indeed? What about pres. Tudjmans own writings?  Anyway it would be 
pleasant for me to prove that you are even more extreme in rewriting the
history that Croatian president, who is very bad ( as I have shown 
recently on these groups). 

>
>Croats had complex feelings about NDH.  On one hand, they wanted to live
>in their own country; on the other hand, they did not want to be ruled
>by Ustashe (installed in power by Axis forces which created NDH).
>Croats supported the leading Croatian Peasant Party, but this party had
>refused to form a puppet government, so Croats got Ustashe instead.
>

Read appended article more carefully .  You would see that I did not 
question this. 

>Ustashe were an extremist group who turned to violence in response to
>Serbian dictatorship; they were outlawed in Yugoslavia and given support
>by Mussolini in Italy.  These were bitter, angry people, who would have
>made a pact with the Devil himself to get rid of the Serbian rule.  In fact,
>the bargain that the 300 or so of them who returned to rule NDH had made 
>with the Axis forces was not much better.
>

So, 300 of them came and slaughtered half a million people?  Nice claim.
25.000 Croats fought as avolunteers under Stalingrad.  I read in DANAS, which
is a opposition paper in Croatia, that app. 200.000 Croatian soldiers were
orderly retreating in 1945.  More than in partisans, according to 
your favourite, Yugoslav Encyclopedia, data for 1944. 

>Ordinary Croats, and even the Croatian elite, did not know immediately what
>Ustashe would become.  But their reign was brutal, and the first ones to
>experience it were local Serbs.  Under such pressure, local Serbs had
>no choice but to join resistance; while Croats joined out of principle.  
>

Read appended article with Tudjmans opinion, what kind of principle was 
that.

>There were two choices: Serbian Royalists led by Draza Mihajlovic (a Serb) 
>and the Partisans led by Josip Broz Tito (a Croat).  But, for non-Serbs, 
>Serbian Royalists were simply not an option, because their victory would 
>continue Serbian domination over non-Serbs.  
>
>This became even more clear when Mihajlovic's forces (known as Chetniks)
>turned to terror over non-Serbs and to collaboration with the Nazis.
>(Some Serbs dispute this, but the British were so displeased with 
>Mr. Mihajlovic that they shifted their support entirely to Tito, whose
>anti-fascist results were much more impressive.)
>
>My claim is that Tito's forces won precisely because they were the only
>option for non-Serbs who wanted to resist fascism.  Tito's Partisans
>recruited regionally among local people.  In Croatia, they were
>supported by Croats; in Slovenia, by Slovenes; in Serbia, by Serbs; etc.
>
>If Mr. Stojanovic wants to claim that only Serbs resisted, then he
>has to explain how come Draza Mihajlovic did not win.  The truth is 
>that Tito won precisely because he was effective in recruiting non-Serbs.
>Later, as the end of the war approached, Serbians who had supported
>Draza Mihajlovic started shaving off their beards and joining Tito's 
>forces.
>To conclude: Tito won because he had the support of everybody, including
>Croats, from early on.  

I have to explain?  Why should I, when someone did that before me?
Now, let us see what pres. Tudjman has to say to this one. 

"Wastelands of Historical Reality"
p. 434

"From the similar reasons, the reason of the military, and then 
political defeat of the Mihailovic Chetnick movement was the decision
of the majority of the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia and 
Hercegovina to join the revolutionary NOP ( partisans).   Their program
suited more the existential interests of the Serbs in those region,
for it had basis in the revival of Yugoslav state."

Note: Serbian population, no mention of Croats.  Why?  Simple, let me 
underline once again.  Tudjman was a director of Military-historical 
Institute, and was able to convince himself what position of those 
issues could be defended, and what could not.  In appended article 
you would find some more quotes. 

>Had Tito not been able to demonstrate that
>his forces were more effective than Mihajlovic's, the British might
>have not switched their support from Mihajlovic to Tito.  Maybe Tito
>would have won anyway because the foundation of Mihajlovic's program
>was rotten, but the point is that without massive support from everybody
>Tito could not have done it.  And this support was based primarily
>on Tito's anti-fascist message: he found early on that communist
>indoctrination repelled people, and ordered it suppressed until the end
>of the war.

There are many resons why Churchill pressed for Tito.  
The most important one is that he gave in to Stalin's pressure.

>
>Josip

So, Mr. Loncaric, I do not care whether you are convinced or not in
anything.  Knowing you, I am quite sure that you would never be able 
to admit that you realised that something is different from what you claim.
The most you would be able to do, would probably be to try to confuse 
issues.  So, please, try to stick to the point, and that is,
whether or not Croats started to massively participate in any resistance
movement in the parts of Croatia and Bosnia that were under NDH before
1943.  So, I hope that you will provide something that would dispute
Tudjmans writings.  For the end, something new from Tudjman:
p.435

" That in 1941 did not come to the massive rebellion, like in Serbia, 
was result of political circumstances..."

" Political circumstances"-Satisfaction with the state? Readiness to 
watch how neighbours are getting killed? Happiness that one was able to
get a new house from neighbour?

Regards, 


Milan N. Stojanovic

Appended article, somewhat cut down:

>
>
>>In article <1992Aug11.184018.322@src.umd.edu> josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug11.121711.14620@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc8.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>
>To remind everyone.  The discussion started with the Mr.Loncaric's
>statement that Croats did their fair share in anti-fascistic resistance 
>in WWII and my comment that that may be true, but only when they realised
>what would happen with their state - In the late 1943.  When defeated
>Croatian units brought back the stories about what happened under 
>Stalingrad.  Some Croats captured there, changed quickly sides and 
>went back to Yugoslavia under the command of col. Mesich to fight for
>partisans ( alternative was Gulag ). 
>
>I would ask now Mr. Loncaric to provide us with the relevant part from
>Vucinich'book where the ethnical composition of partisans is described, 
>so we can discus it further.  I would like to quote Croatian President,
>Franjo Tudjman, who is a historian and general, an ex-director of
>the army military-historical institute:
>
>"Because the position of the Croatian people after the declaration of
>NDH was essentially different from the one of the Serbian people, there were
>no existential reasons for rebellion." ( p.442, "Wastelands of Historical
>Reality",Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske, 1989 )
>
>and:
>
>"Spreading of the partisan movement in Croatia came depending upon the
>realisation of the broad masses of people that the Independent State of
>Croatia does not mean the solution of the Croatian national question,
>because this state would share the fate of fascism and Hitler's Europe
>order, and that program of NOP [my comment - partisan movement ] offers
>the secure future against the return on the even worsened pre-war state."
>(same as above, p.443)

>
>I assume that it is beyond doubt that the "broad realisation" did not 
>happen in 1941, even for Tudjman.  After those statements, Pres. Tudjman
>does not give any estimates of the ethnical composition of the 
>partisan movements up to end of 1944.  He knows, being  the military
>institute director for a while, that there are lists of partisans
>killed in major German offensives and that those lists clearly shows that 
>either only Serbs ( well, not only, 90% ) were dying, or that no Croats
>were participating.  1944 is year mentioned both by Tudjman and prof.
>Ivo Banac, a Croatian ( and American ?) teaching on Yale, as a year when
>Croats/Serbs ratio of  partisans in Croatia was 3:1.  When they mention 
>the ratio before 1944, they give number of units in Croatia in comparison with
>the overall number of units.  While saying this, pres. Tudjman forgets 
>that vast majority of those units were from Kordun, Lika, Banija, 
>where majority of Serbs lived, still live and are still fighting the
>new Independent State of Croatia.   
>
>Also, I would like to note here the great role of the Slovenian people in 
>the anti-fascistic fight.  They can only be proud of it. This role is often
>neglected in history books.  Especially the role of the non-communist 
>resistance.
>
>Regards,
>
>Milan N. Stojanovic
>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics