From: josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Irony of our history
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:50:49 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <1992Aug14.160640.24664@cco.caltech.edu> simic@pollux.ccsf.caltech.edu (Petar Simic) writes:
>
>	Josip Loncaric writes:
>>>
>True, Serbs were DRIVEN into resistance by Ustashe terror, but Croats 
>joined resistance OUT OF PRINCIPLE.  ...
><<
>
>	This is very naive, isn't it? Or is it a joke? 

There is nothing funny about my statement.  Nor is it naive: unlike
Serbs, Croats had joined the resistance primarily because they wanted
freedom from occupation and fascism.  Serbs did not have luxury of such
a choice: Ustashe terror simply forced them into resistance.

>	-----------------------------------------------
>
>	Josip Loncaric further writes:
>>>>
>
>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.  
>
><<<
> 	Serbs did not care for his "Croatian origin" (I have feeling that you
> find this deeply puzzling, but it is natural to me) nor for his Communisam.
> He lead one anti-fascist and anti-nationalistic movement to liberate
> Yugoslavia, but many of the people in the high command arround him were
> Serbs, so the image of the movement was Yugoslav. Serbs, unlike Croats,
> always felt that Yugoslavia is their country and that their patriotic duty
> is to defend it. So, in the areas where partisans where present, Serbs
> would join them in large numbers; many where simple people and they did
> not care nor understand Communist ideology, but joined as the way to fight
> domestic and foreign fascists who violated their land and their lives. 

But Serbs did find Tito's revolutionary federalism less attractive than
Mihajlovic's Serbian royalism.  You forget a main feature of Tito's
appeal: anti-fascist struggle was also a struggle for NATIONAL LIBERATION
which is why he was able to attract the support of non-Serbs.  So, you
cannot quite claim Tito was "anti-nationalistic": he used national feelings
in a creative way.  This is why Tito had more support than Mihajlovic,
and why he won.

>	By the way, here are some relevant excerts from historic documents
> which illustrate the attitudes of Serbs and Croats toward Yugoslavia, and
> towards Hitler at the wery begining of the war. The sorce:
>
>	 Edmond Paris, "Genocide in Satellite Croatia", Chicago, 1961.
>
>	First a glimse on the attitude of Serbs at the begining of the war.
>	-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>	"Desparate to avoid a war they had no chance of winning, the
> Yugoslavians sought a compromise with the Germans. In March 1941, the
> two countries secretly negotiated a treaty which ostensibly guaranteed
> Yugoslavia's neutrality...
>
>	The treaty took many by surprise and pleased very few. The Serbians
> felt especially humiliated. Their frustration and anger exploded into
> mass protest. Demonstrators demanded abrogation of the treaty, crying,
> "Better war than the pact", "Better death than slavery".
>
>	Ridning on the crest of popular sentiment, a group of Serbian
> officers in the Yugoslav army, led by gen. Dusan Simovich, staged a 
> bloodless coup. A new government was formed and Petar, the young son
> of King Alexander, was proclaimed its king.
>
>	"Yugoslavia has found its soul!" announced a jubilant Cherchill.

And in fact, Great Britain had helped engineer this coup.  For a couple
of weeks, British newspapers were very pleased.  But then...

>	...Hitler took it as a personal insult and flew into rage. He decided
> to inflict heavy punishment on the Serbians.
>
>	The coup and Hitler's reaction to it ultimately proved catastrophic
> to both the Serbians and the Nazies. Hitler was forced to postpone his
> invasion of the Soviet Union for six weeks, a fatal delay accordint to 
> military experts, because ...The Nazies never regained their momentum. 
> More than million Serbian lives were lost in the war...

Now, what is this claim based upon?  Guessing of counting?  How does
this claim square with the demographic studies which claim 500,000 Serbian
lives lost from all causes?

>	...German army attacked Yugoslavia from several directions, while
> the German air force bombed Belgrade and other Serbian cities mercilessly."
>
>	---------------------- end of citation --------------------
>
>
> *	Now a glimse on the attitude of Croats at the begining of the war, and
> the contribution of Croatian part of the Yugoslav army in defending contry
> against the invading Germans:
>  
>
>	"...Many members of minority groups sided with the enemy. The army's
> Croatian contingent refused to fight...

This claim does not apply to all Croatian troops, and is highly
dependant on the specific unit's leadership.  Serb-run Yugoslav army
was notoriously corrupt and faced with a well-organized opponent, collapsed
in days, including in Serbia, where presumably excuses of alleged Croat
disloyalty do not apply.

>	Yugoslavia was partitioned, and the largest partition, roughly one
> half of the country was proclaimed an independent state by the Croatians...

Proclaimed by the Axis forces would be closer to the mark.  The leader
of Croatians, Vladko Macek, had refused to collaborate, so the Axis forces
installed Ante Pavelic and his Ustashe in power.  Ustashe were brought
from Italy, where Mussolini had sheltered them.  At that moment, they
numbered about 300 members.  Under pressure, Macek reluctantly had to tell
his followers to cooperate and was then put under house arrest for the
duration of the war (except for his brief interment at Jasenovac).

> The newly-created Croatian state was made up of nearly half non-Croatians,
> Serbians, Jews, Gypsoes, who were declared extra-legal citizens. Within
> four years, Croatian Fascists had exterminated some one million of these
> "citizens"...."

Again, what is this number based on?  Counting or guessing?  Official
1964 Yugoslav Government study as well as demographic studies and
lists of victims all lead to the conclusion that the total number of all
Yugoslavs who have died in WWII from all causes is some one million.
How does this square with the claim above?

>	---------------------------------------------------------
>
>	Sincerely,
>	Petar.

Petar, you have not explained why researchers who did the counting are
less correct than your sources who quote estimates by various
supposedly qualified individuals.  
This reckless touting of the data promoted by Mr. Vojislav Seselj, a Serbian
neo-fascist, is inflamatory and serves only his warmongering aims.
Please ask yourself: is what you have been told true?  How do you
reconcile your claims with the results of demographic studies, victim lists,
and official government survey?

Josip
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish