From: josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Irony continues in our history
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:11:05 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

This is not about the Jewish culture.  Followup to soc.culture.yugoslavia.

In article <1992Aug13.063118.8948@cco.caltech.edu> simic@pollux.ccsf.caltech.edu (Petar Simic) writes:
> 	Mr. Josip Loncaric writes:
>
>>>  There is no doubt that WWII was a tragedy for all peoples of the
>    former Yugoslavia.  For example, the best available estimates say
>    that Serbs lost about 500,000 people from all causes in WWII...
><<
>
>	This may be the best estimate *you* (as well as todays official
> Croatia) are willing to accept. But, I reject to play this bargain game
> (because I feel sick whenever I have to). Instead, I will let French
> historian, Edmund Paris speak (from his book, "Genocide In Satellite
> Croatia"), not about the total Serbian loss in the WWII, but only about
> part of it - massacres of Serbs in part of the former Yugoslavia (Croatia,
> which with Hitlers help included also most of the Bosnia and Hercegovina).
>
>	Here is the relevant paragraph:
>	-------------------------------
>
>	" ...There (in Croatia), in years 1941-1945, some 750,000 Serbs,
> 60,000 Jews, and 26,000 Gypsies - men, women and children - perished in
> a gigantic holocaust. These are the figures used by most foreign authors,
> especially the Germans, who were in the best position to know. Herman
> Neubacher, perhaps the most important of Hitler's troubleshooters in the
> Balkans, reports that althought some of the perpetrators of the crime 
> estimated number of Serbs killed at one million, the more accurate figure
> is 750,000 [*]. One of Hitler's generals, Lothar Rendulic, who was in the
> area where the crimes were committed, estimates that in the first year
> of the existence of the puppet state of Croatia at last a half million
> Orthodox Serbs were massacred, and that many others were killed in 
> subsequent years [**]...."
>
> 	[*]  "Sonder-Auftrag Suedost 1940-1945: Bericht eines fliegenden
>	      Diplomaten" (Goettingen-Berlin-Frankfurt, 1956), pp. 31-32;
>
>      [**] "Gekaempft Gesigt Geschagen", (Heidelberg, 1952), pp. 161-162.  
>
>	-------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never heard of this historian.  Is he reputable?  Why does he think
that a single source's estimate is THE correct one?  I doubt that a
serious historian would consider this kind of hearsay definitive: the
problem was much bigger than a single person could guesstimate simply
by visiting the area.

My claims are based on the few useful studies which were done on this
matter, where both Serbian and Croatian historians compared a wide
variety of available information, such as name lists, demographic
studies, official government documents, etc., and came up with 
essentially the same conclusions.  I've reported those conclusions
from a reference by a Serbian historian, but I could quote Croatian
sources which are essentially similar.

Here are is the reference I've used:

Bogoljub Kocovic: "Zrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji" (in Serbian),
                  London: Nase delo, 1985.

Given the political and ideological conflict between Serbs and Croats,
this is a highly politicized issue.  Some progress could be made
by removing it from politics, allowing that an academic debate take
place based on facts and not politics, and then accepting conclusions.
This debate would examine the total results of the WWII carnage in
former Yugoslavia and causes of deaths.  

Would you consent to this kind of arbitration?  Could we then consider
this issue settled?  Or do you have a problem with this idea?

>>>... Mr. Simic's claim that Tito's partisans were "overwhelmingly Serbian" 
>  until the end of the war is NONSENSE.
><<
>
>	The fact that Serbs joined in huge numbers both of the anti-fascists
> movements in Yugoslavia - partisans and royalists - is well known and well
> documented. Partisan units in Croatia were overwhelmingly made of Serbs,
> because Serbs had to flee the terror of Croatian fascists in these areas.
> Some Croats did also join the partisan movement, but the number was really
> negligible. Even the Croats who privatelly disapproved the mass-extermination
> of Jews and Serbs, mostly stayed home untill the war was practically ower.

True, Serbs were DRIVEN into resistance by Ustashe terror, but Croats 
joined resistance OUT OF PRINCIPLE.  Even so, Partisan movement was 
organized by a Croat (Tito), Croatians led the resistance movement in
Croatia, and joined the anti-fascist movement in all capacities.  If you
wish to clam that the number of Croats in the Partisans was "really
negligible" you have to provide references for this preposterous claim.

My point is this:  Tito won.  He could not have won if the Partisans
had been "overwhelmingly Serbian" without support of significant numbers
of Croats.  Your claim makes no sense.

Here is why: Partisans and Serbian royalists were rivals.  You claim that
Partisans were "overwhelmingly Serbian".  You want us to believe that Serbs
preferred to join Tito (a Croat) over Mihajlovic (a Serb)?  Do you suggest
that Serbs overlooked his Croatian origin because they loved his Communism
so much?  NONSENSE.  Tito's Partisans won precisely because they had the 
support of local population, including Croats.

In fact, Tito's support was the weakest in Serbia, because Serbians as a
group saw no advantage in Tito's revolutionary federalism.

Josip
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish