Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article

The aim of this article is allegedly to present the bloodletting at the end of World War II. Instead it already questions the FACT that it was commited by the Yugoslav Partisan Movement in the intraductory sentence! It's ridiculous that the chapter "Killings" is constituted from two lines, as well as the lack of a description of the crimes committed. This is purely denial and relativisation of a historical crime. Ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, should be stated in the first paraghraph, "killings" is preposterous. "Killings were killings" is childish and not really a decent English sentence, but the main goal of some here seems to be the denial. Disappointing. Transylvanus 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The point is that we should have here an article that will correctly describe these events. We should not use this article as modern irredentist propaganda which have goal to propagate for territorial autonomy of Hungarians in northern Vojvodina. History is one thing, politics another... PANONIAN (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

How come the German and Hungarian ethnic cleansing is referred to as "crimes of the occupiers", whereas the Yugoslavs´ murders of Hungarians are simply "killings"??

Because crimes of the fascists in WW2 are well known and undisputed historical facts, while these killings after the war are very controversial issue, hence the "killings" is best word that can describe it. PANONIAN (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

So the massacres of Serbs are "undisputed, historical facts" but the massacres of Hungarians are "a very controversial issue"? Christ, what double standards. As far as I can tell from these articles, both events can and should be labelled as "killings" or "massacres".

No, you missed the terms - the crimes of the Axis side in the war are undisputed historical facts, while crimes of Allies are controversial issue, no matter of the ethnic origin of the victims. And furthermore, counting victims by ethnic origin here might not be the best solution because we know that fascist Hungarian state in World War II killed many ethnic Hungarians. Of course, the modern Hungarian nationalists do not care for those killed Hungarians because they were not killed by "evil neighbours". That are double standards, my friend. PANONIAN (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The aritcle has being attacked by the Serb nationalist (User:PANNONIAN). I wanted to make a memorial artcile for the victims, but he can't stand that we should talk about the innocent civilian victims of the partisans. HunTheGoaT 18:31, 29 September 2006 (CEST)

Please refrain from personal attacks, ok? And better do not ask me to say what you "wanted" here, mister "No Trianon" guy. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
And by the way, if I am nationalist, how you explain the fact that when you created this article, an user from Italy taged your article as non-neutral: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1944-1945_Killings_in_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=78500862&oldid=78500585 Is he a Serbian nationalist too? PANONIAN (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

For User:Öcsi

Do you please have some reasonable explanation for this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1944-1945_Killings_in_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=78874310&oldid=78791238 You changed numbers, but you left here a sources that present different numbers to show that they in fact present "your" numbers. There is one word for it - a falsification!!!

Now here is list of sources, and a quotation what they claim:

  • 1. Dimitrije Boarov, PolitiÄka istorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 2001. Quotation: "estimations about number of killed Hungarians range from 4,000 to 40,000 with 20,000 being most probable number"
  • 2. Dragomir Jankov, Vojvodina - propadanje jednog regiona, Novi Sad, 2004. Quotation: "There were 20,000 killed Hungarians and this number included both, those that commited war crimes and innocent civilians".
  • 3. http://www.krater.hu/pprint.php?print=102&PHPSESSID=086c47ea596fafd2ed0f5f10ca1a0262 This is article in Hungarian. I cannot read this, but User:Laslovarga told me that article claim that most probable number of killed Hungarians is 20-25,000. I assume it is this sentence: "A bácska-bánáti 20-25 000 magyarnak azért is pusztulnia kellett"
  • 4. http://www.huncor.com/delvidek4445/delvidekindex2.htm According to User:HunTheGoaT this site claim that the highest estimation about number of killed Hungarians is about 50,000.

So, let write this article in accordance with Wikipedia policy:

  • 1. Our job is not to declare which source is right and which is wrong, but to present data from ALL sources that we have.
  • 2. we have to write two things here: 1. the lowest and highest possible estimation of this number and 2. the number that is most probable. So, if we compare all these sources, we will see that lowest and highest estimations are 4,000 and 50,000 and most likely numbers are 20-25,000. If somebody have opposite opinion, it would be good to discuss it here instead to simply change numbers with no explanation. PANONIAN (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The number of killed Hungarians is much higher than 20000, and 4000 is only ridiculous. My source is the Hungarian Wikipedia, the Duna TV and hungarian people living in the Bácska. But the fact is that nobody knows exactly how many people died in these killings. I could also mention the ten thousands of Hungarians who died in the prisoner-camps. Öcsi 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"The number of killed Hungarians is much higher than 20000, and 4000 is only ridiculous"

I am sorry, but it is your personal opinion and nothing else. I simply presented here what my sources say and it is in accordance with verifiability policy of Wikipedia. Whether you personally like or dislike this data is only your own problem. Regarding your sources, you use Hungarian Wikipedia as a source? Is this a joke or something? I hope that you know that anybody could edit that article on Hungarian Wikipedia and could write anything there. As for Duna TV, I can watch that TV on my cable television, and I just can say that they too much times showed a map of Greater Hungary in their TV program. The only correct thing that you said is "that nobody knows exactly how many people died in these killings", so our job is not to present only those numbers that we personally like more, but numbers from ALL sources. PANONIAN (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

reason for totallydisputed tag?

Nothing, except PANONIAN's own researches. Nationalism rules. But not on Wikipedia. Tag removed, and will be considered as vandalism, untill a valuable reason won't be shown here for 1. what facts are not correct 2. wich part is POV, and why, and what text would be good instead of it. -- 195.56.80.183 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Reason for tag is data that come from unreliable sources in this section of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944-1945_Killings_in_BaÄka#Killings Unreliable sources are Hungarian Wikipedia and web site named "Hungarian holocaust in Yugoslavia 1944-1992". PANONIAN (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Read the books mentoned in the notes section dude. Some of them are in serbian. I put some more in, and changed those refs to those wich are in the hungarian one. (books) -- 195.56.80.183 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The page, you disputed has a BIBLIOGRAPHY part, wich means, they put the text seen there, from these:

  • Márton Matuska: Days of the revenge. Forum Publisher Novisad, 1991.
  • Tibor Cseres: Blood feud in Bácska. Magvetö Publisher Budapest, 1991 Selections from articles:Weekly Hungary: Mihály András Beke Weekly Hungary: György B. Walkó
  • Hungarian Word: Article of the editor, 4 August 1992 Hungarian Forum: Márton Matuska
  • Gate: Ajtony Bese
  • Sunday of the Hungarian Catholics: Attila Balázs
  • Selections from the reports of Ferenc Szaniszló, made for the program of Hungarian Television, Panorama. ,
  • Documents of the National Library "Széchenyi' were selected by István Bálint, librarian
  • The Report was edited by Ferenc Kubinyi, historiographer

No more notes needed. Yours sincerely. -- 195.56.80.183 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but it is not enough to list your books here. If you want to remove the tag, you should find a proper quotes in these books to support disputed section of the article. In another words, you should quote the exact book that claim this and not to quote article from Hungarian Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, you changed some of the quotes, but there are still those from web site named "Hungarian holocaust in Yugoslavia 1944-1992", which are still disputed because this site speak about non-existing "holocaust". I mean, killings in 1944-1945 did happened, but they certainly did not happened in 1945-1992 period. PANONIAN (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cleanup

I've done a bit of cleanup, still needs a lot more. - Francis Tyers · 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The source that was added is far from impartial or academic "hungarian-history.hu", come on, the site is called "Serbian Vendetta in Bacska" hah. - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If your study of site is deeper, you would see that this is an e-book version of the book published in Budapest in 1991. I recommend you to read chapters from "Cover" to "Vendetta. Retaliation Multiplied", because of discernment. Enough academic? Bendeguz 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No. Basing the whole thing on one book published by Hungarians (the alleged victims) is NO DEAL. Find some impartial, non-partisan, reliable sources. Books, journal articles etc. written by non-Yugoslav, non-Hungarians. - Francis Tyers · 08:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

One of the main principles of collective amnesia is: "If we don't talk about events, the events didn't happen." You modified this principle to: "If we don't have reliable (English) sources, the events didn't happen." (alleged is your word). The tragedy of losers and small nations is that, there is nobody to write their history, except themselves.

From interview with author:

I: Were your hopes fulfilled in the form of Serbian writers making the same symbolic act of collective regret, if not a confession for their crimes like the one you had made in Cold Days .

A: None of my hopes were fulfilled. A few Serbian writers voiced their opinion that in World War II almost two million people lost their lives in their country, so these few tens of thousands of Hungarians should not be of interest to them, especially not as writers.(COLD DAYS - A NOVEL AND A FILM, Page 18)

Collective amnesia and denial , instead of regret. This is - {{ Fact}}, Serbia even now.

To do (warm up your cleaning-machine Francis)

  • Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina, 1941-1944 "alleged victims" mainly Serbs, completely Serb sources.
  • Foibe massacres, "alleged victims" Italians, completely Italian sources.

(to be continued) Bendeguz 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Neither of these should exist unless there are sources as I specified above. - Francis Tyers · 11:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PS. I don't insist on English, if you can find reliable sources in French or Romanian -- or any other language -- written by non-Yugoslav, non-Hungarians then that would probably be ok. - Francis Tyers · 11:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merged

I've merged this into Occupation of Vojvodina, where it looks much more at home. - Francis Tyers · 12:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If we ever get enough non-partisan, reliable sources to write an article on this, we can demerge it. - Francis Tyers · 12:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Merging is not a good idea because we have here two different events with different motives. Besides this, the Yugoslav/Serbian sources do speak about killed Hungarians in 1944-1945 as well as Hungarian sources speak about killed Serbs in 1941-1944, so both events are not "alleged", but well known in literature published in both countries. Of course, I speak about events in general, although the certain parts of the article like number of killed people is indeed controversial issue and should be indeed confirmed by reliable sources. PANONIAN (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Serious concerns

1. This article is below any acceptable standard, in its present form seems more like a stub. 2. This article is seriously biased.


1. The article does not fulfil the promise of the title, the Chapter entitled Killings contains TWO LINES of low quality "explanation".

The English of the intraductory sentence is extremely poor.

There aren't any sites mentioned, in contrast with the "Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944" article: "include Novi Sad, BeÄej, Vilovo, Gardinovci, GospoÄ‘inci, ÄurÄ‘evo, Žabalj, Lok, MoÅ¡orin, Srbobran, Temerin, Titel, ÄŒurug, and Å ajkaÅ¡."

The pictures aren't very relevant.


2. The title in itself is strange enough. Killings as the most appropriate term for the events? As a comparison articles dealing with Yugoslavia of the same era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_massacres, or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Vojvodina%2C_1941-1944 (the author, Panonius? speaks about "war crime" and "the mass murder of the civilians" in connection with the 1942 raid. I agree with those terms, but why did he restore "killings instead of my "ethnic cleansing"? The lowest estimate given by the present (shameful) page is 4000, compare this with 3800 after the 1942 raid. How is this not a massacre, war crime or ethnic cleansing???

In the same sentence "allegedly"! Come on! Were there any other armed men capable of committing a crime on this scale? What are you suggesting? That not all of them were officially members? Some of them lost their Partisan ID?

"This was due to the fact that members of these two ethnic groups showed the largest level of collaboration with the Axis authorities and committed most of the war crimes against the citizens of Vojvodina." This is not a fact only an accusation, or an excuse for the perpetrators or war criminals. As far as I know War Crimes are War Crimes regardless from their origin.

"many citizens of Vojvodina belonging to all ethnic groups joined the partisan resistance movement to fight against occupation" is this a factual sentence or something taken from a communist internationalist fairy tale?

"Some Hungarian houses were sacked and one number of Hungarian civilians was executed and tortured. [10] Some women and children were raped. [11] Some men who were able to work were deported to Siberia." This is the most disgraceful sentence, "some" as a cover for 4000 to 50000 murders plus rapes and all the others, this is the clearest example of downplaying of a Second World War tragedy I have ever seen on Wikipedia.


I am afraid that the moderators of the page aren't really experts in the field. Thus, please consider the mistakes made and do not restore the original version when I make a correction. Transylvanus 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, you don't own this article (and neither of us does). As far as I can tell, no serious source apart from Hungarian partisan sources describes the events as "ethnic cleansing" and I don't see any proof of "attempt at expelling the entire ethnic group", which is the definition of ethnic cleansing. As with any inter-ethnic massacre, we're witnessing both downplaying the numbers on one side and overblowing them on the other. Yes, this article is bad. But your edits didn't improve it either. Duja â–º 10:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, yes, there is a problem. The problem is of inadequate sourcing. As I have requested above, please find sources that are reliable, written by non-partisan scholars. We can't just base the whole article on unreliable Hungarian sources. I admit I have tried to find references to these killings in reputable publications (via a search on Google Scholar) but was unable to find anything. Perhaps you will have more luck? - Francis Tyers · 11:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem with the event described in the article is that Greater Hungarian irredentist propaganda often twist historical facts regarding the event with goal to advocate the creation of territorial autonomy for Hungarians in northern Vojvodina. Therefore, we should first see the difference between political propaganda and historical facts. Part of that propaganda is claim that the intention of partisans was to ethnically cleanse Hungarians and that is simply not truth because partisans were internationalists and their goal was to "cleanse" unloyal population no matter of the ethnic origin of that population. Therefore, partisans also killed many ethnic Serbs who were members of the chetnik forces or members of the forces loyal to Milan Nedić. Besides this, the Hungarians that were loyal to new Yugoslav regime gained very large amount of rights in Vojvodina including official usage of their language, preservation of their culture, their participation in the Vojvodinian government, etc. Since we know all these facts, it is simply ridiculous that somebody claim that goal of partisans in 1944-1945 was to ethnically cleanse Hungarians. Regarding terms, it was already discussed, the term "massacre" usually refer to one specific event, while this article speak about various events in various places, hence the term "killings" is most appropriate (some of these killings were individual when only one person was killed, so we cannot use term "massacre" if only one person was killed). On the contrary, the 1942 raid is a clear example of massacre because it was a mass murder of civilians in specific time at specific place. Regarding reasons for killings, the members of Hungarian and German ethnic groups indeed showed the largest level of collaboration with the Axis authorities and that was reason why they were target of these killings after the war. The goal of partisans was to "cleanse politically incorrect population", and in Vojvodina most of such population was among Hungarians and Germans. Regarding participation of citizens of Vojvodina in anti-fascist struggle duting the war, it is correct that many Hungarians were members of the partisan movement and fought against fascism. Therefore, such Hungarians were not persecuted by the new Yugoslav authorities, which again disapprove theory about ethnic cleansing after the war. And regarding sentence that "some Hungarian houses were sacked", the usage of word "some" is most correct here or you would say that "all" Hungarian houses were sacked? Regarding "expertism" about this page, Duja and Francis might not be experts for Serb-Hungarian relations in Vojvodina and Hungarian irredentist propaganda, but same cannot be said for me, so I very well know the difference between historical facts and propaganda here. PANONIAN (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Right. I'm glad for receiving some explanations, I will try to adress each of them during the week.

1. I have nothing to do with "Great Hungarian propaganda". 2.This is still a terribly unbalanced article. As a historian my concerns are connected to terminology, and the usage of language and that of the sources.

"unreliable Hungarian sources" Of course one could argue against every book and article. My problem here is that the only "reliable" sources according to the present form of the articles are Yugoslav ones. Now that is ridiculous. My suggestion is to present two narratives. 1. The official Yugoslav or serb version (preferably not simply based on the postwar idea of collective guilt as the present version does) 2. A Hungarian version (or a non extremist Hungarian one). Cseres Tibor for instance can not be interpreted as "irredentist". I can elaborate on his views if there is request for it.

But the whole problem here is that this is not a question of Serbian versus Hungarian version of the event, but the question of accuracy. If we want to find the truth what were motives of the partisans here, then we also should to raise a question of accuracy of sources that speak about such motives. We also cannot disregard modern political aspirations of some sources that mention this event. Therefore, the claim that motive of the partisans was ethnic cleansing is simply not supported by the two facts: 1. the fact that partisans killed thousands of Serbs that were members of chetnik army, and 2. the fact that partisans did not killed or expelled other Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Francis Tyers requested more reliable (non Yugoslav, non Hungarian) sources. I have two problems with this. Firstly, avoiding local sources is not accepted as a scholarly approach. (You can't study ancient history without the Greek or Latin etc. sources.) Sources from at least the two most affected nations have to be included. Or get rid of the serb sources? No, you have to use Cseres at least. Secondly, aricles published in the English speaking world were also mainly written by authors of Hungarian or South Slavic origin. The most respected of them was probably Jozo Tomasevich at Stanford University. However, I'm not sure how much of their research was based on primary sources. Their conclusions were reached in the 80's, when for example the shocking results of the Slovenian exhumations were not known (296 mass graves with 180000 (!) corpses, see Bleiburg massacre), which is four times more than Tomasevich's estimate!


Hi, thanks for getting back to me on that. Our articles on Greek and Roman events are largely not based on Greek or Latin sources. They are based on Western sources. PS. You should read: Dulic, T. (2004) "Tito's Slaughterhouse: A critical analysis of Rummel's work on democide". Journal of Peace Research. 41:1 pp. 85-102 . It isn't directly related to this particular set of incidents, but covers some of the issues with using selective, biased local sources. - Francis Tyers · 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Note, that while this is obviously written by a Slav, the paper has been published in a reputable international journal. I welcome sources written by Hungarians and Slavs that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable international journals, or published by reputable academic western publishers, e.g. Cambridge University Press etc. - Francis Tyers · 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I will get the Tomasevich, and some other publications as well (Barbara Jelavich). I will try to balance the article by including their results.

For the short term. 1.While no one disputes the internationalist character of the Parisan Army it still had a nationalist(South Slavic) layer in the same way as the Stalinist Soviet Union did; ethnic cleansings happened here and there as well.

The fact that partisans persecuted only smaller part of the Hungarian population and provided large amount of rights to the larger part simply do not support claim that ethnic cleansing was a motive here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. The term "Killings" is in no way acceptable, it is simply not in line with the standard of other Wikipedia or any scholarly war crime related article. Individual killigs occured during the 1942 raid or around Bleiburg as well. Those Wikipedia articles use the right terms: massacres, mass murder, war crimes. My suggestion is "Massacres in BaÄka".

Massacres would be POV term, because we do not have clear example of one massacre here (read massacre article for description: individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing). So, we do not have individual event, but many events of which not all were mass killings. Besides this, since you compared it with 1942 raid, which is much closer to definition of massacre, even article about that raid do not say "1942 massacre", but "1942 raid". PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

3. The "Killings" chapter and "some houses". I very much doubt that you can describe at least 4000 deaths by saying "some". If you(?) don't want to reveal the numbers you should at least say somethig like "hundreds", "dozens" "several thousands" or "some hundreds". Neither can I imagine that a serious publication described the number of those affected in such terms, so the problem is with our interpreter.

Please at least change "killings", and specify the numbers.

Bests, Transylvanus 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the person that originally posted this sentence did not specified exact numbers, so until numbers are specified, we cannot use better description than "some". PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The wording is bad indeed; from my (admittedly very limited) knowledge on the subject, the most common methods were deaths by firing squad, with or without a short trial, or simple bullet-in-the-head. More cruel ways of execution were likely encountered as well, but their numbers certainly can't be specified. However, the section is referenced to Kasaš's and Karapandžić's books, presumably added by Panonian? Are they misreferenced, or just misquoted? Duja ► 10:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
No, these two books were not added by me. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Massacres or killings

Thanks for drawing my attention to the Wikipedias own massacre article PANONIAN, but I don't see there anything weakening my argument. You've quoted individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing. Yes at least 4000 (possibly ten times more) as agreed in the article is definitely "mass" and deliberate that is again supported by the article (pre-planning, orders). The massacre aricle also says: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." That's spot on. I am convinced that you as a local historian (localpatriot,researcher?) must be aware of at least a dozen sites which correspond to this description. I have no doubt about the meaning of massacre and killing in the English speaking world, but I also checked their relevance in Wikipedia, the result is obvious "killings" only appears in this article to describe an atrocity. Massacre on the other hand is widely used. The Boston Massacre is used to describe the killing of 5 civilians on one day, while the Bleiburg massacre was committed during a longer term, involving tens of thousends. Still the English grammar allows the usage of the singular form massacre.

Mind you none of them is marked as POV only for using this term.

My reason for recommending the term massacre(or massacres) is to show our condemnation. It covers the "never again" message. I have no objection to use it when Hungarian are crimes are described.

Due to my profession I know that those times had different standards and I understand their emotions,["Massacres are the fruit of bitterness, and of the calculations of leaders." concluded Milovan Djilas in his "Wartime" after describing the massacre of some Italian prisoners (translated by Michael B. Petrovich, 1977. edition, London page 338.)] but I'm convinced that in the 21. century our norm ought to be different. Bests, Transylvanus 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you simply want to make partisans to "look more evil" with your name change proposal. But I will give you one example why all these events cannot be desctibed as massacres: I read on some irredentist Hungarian web site (do not remember which one) detailed description of some of these events and there for example was described a event like this: partisans came to the village and killed local Hungarian priest, i.e. they killed only one person (do not remember which village that was), but the killing of one person certainly cannot be described as massacre. The numbers of killed people presented in this article certainly include people that were individual victims and not part of mass killings, thus change of the name of the article would also ask from us to change number of killed people as well, i.e, to include only those that were killed as part of mass killings, but not those that were killed individually. PANONIAN (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't get into personal attacks. That only shows your lack of arguments. 1. You can not bend a language as you wish. Terminology is important in history. 2. The war was brutal enough in the whole area, there is no need to denigrate the partisans. The Foibe massacres and the Bleiburg massacre proves this perfectly, Djilas is not denying it either. I'm not saying that one side was better or worse than the other! Individual killings occured in each of the quoted cases but they all happened "as part of the same operation" Again: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." Transylvanus 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What personal attacks? I do not remember that I attacked you personally. However, your own political goals that stand behind your proposal are not so irrelevant issue at all. As I already said before, these killings are very controversial issue, thus naming article "massacres" would not help it to be NPOV. I really have no intentions to discuss names of "Bleiburg massacre" or "Foibe massacres" articles because I have no any knowledge about these events. I am well aware of irredentist attempts to rewrite history and to make WWII Allies look more evil than Nazis. Let just keep this article in the line with generally accepted World history. This article is alredy POV to certain level and its further POV-ization is the last thing that we need here. PANONIAN (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
At least, you realized, that this page is POV, wich is good. Nevertheless, you moved this page illegally, without a survey [5], so in fact this page sould be moved back to that name, then you should write out a RM survey, for moving this page to it's recent name. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I do not think that you understand what is really POV here. I moved name of the page simply to make it less POV than it was, but the POV nature of the article is that it speak about controversial events and much of its content could be found only in Hungarian irredentist sources and nowhere else. PANONIAN (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm gettig bored by these "irredentist" and "Nazi" charges. Do I have to assume that every massacre article in Wikipedia, describing Allied war crimes is motivated by some form of fascism??? This must be a joke.

Instead of accusations we should work together to improve these articles. I can find the relevant English and Hungarian articles, while you and Duja might check articles, books published in Yugoslavia.

Maybe we could write a new article in paralel with the Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944. Let's call it "The liberation of Vojvodina in 1944-45". This could include a "War cimes committed during the liberation" with chapters about massacres and individual killings. The crimes and rapes commited around Belgrade by the Red Army leading to a confrontation between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union could be mentioned as well. The Aftermath should deal for instance with the post-war trial of war criminals. I'm sure that if we trust each other and cooperate a consensus can be reached. Bests, Transylvanus 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

We do not discuss here other articles, but only this one. I told you that I do not know much about other similar events (i.e. if these events are really similar to this one), but what I know is that we should not use irredentist sources to write this article. These events did happened, but let try to write an NPOV article and not to turn it into political propaganda. If one Greater Hungarian irredentist web site say that those were massacres that does mean that it is a proper word that should be used used in one non-Hungarian and non-political encyclopaedia such is Wikipedia. Regarding usage of word "liberation", it is exactly Greater Hungarian irredentists who objected that this word should be used within articles describing this event, so I do not think that usage of this word would be good choice. PANONIAN (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Transylvanius. Write out a RM survey, and report personal attacks here: Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Since discussing with PANONIAN unfortunately leads to nothing in recent times, whatever you do, he'll revert, and starts a endless polemia on the talk page(s), to prevent NPOVing of the article(s).-- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. But yes, I'm not against the NPOV tag; too many things are there to be straighten out. Duja â–º 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Tu quoque. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Vince, you was already blocked because of this behaviour, so I kindly ask you to stop this false accusations and personal crusade against me on Wikipedia or I will report this to some administrator that could deal with such things. PANONIAN (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a massacre, genocide, and/or ethnic cleansing, since it occured on the winter of 44-45, within 2 month.

There's no mention of the internal camps of Gakovo, Jarek, Kruševlje, Molidorf, Knićanin, and Sremska Mitrovica where between 1945-1948 another 70,000 german and hungarian civilians died, so in fact this page is only abt those massacres, wich are made by the Yugoslav armies, and does not mention the german fatalities, so also one sided. The full number of dead ppl is around 80-100 000 (!). This WAS a mass genocide, not "killings". -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Claim that it was ethnic cleansing is wrong because if the intention of the partisans was to perform ethnic cleansing, then why other Hungarians were not ethnically cleansed too? Regarding name of the article, if you want, you can ask for arbitration about this from the third neutral party, but I remind you that in this case some really neutral sources about these events should be provided to support your claims about usage of the name massacre. PANONIAN (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a pity that no one seems ready to do more work to improve the article. Accepting minor changes would already make a difference. Available English publications on ethnic cleansing alone: Fires of hatred : ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe / Norman M. Naimark., Redrawing nations : ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 / edited by Philipp Ther and Ana Siljak., Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe / editors, Steven Béla Várdy and T. Hunt Tooley, German scholars and ethnic cleansing, 1919-1945 / edited by Ingo Haar and Michael Fahlbusch ; foreword by Georg G. Iggers., The dark side of democracy : explaining ethnic cleansing / Michael Mann. etc.

Transylvanus 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Then please, go ahead with editing if you do have those sources. The dispute so far revolved about VinceB's attempts to use partisan Hungarian sources and portray the events as pure ethnic cleansing and genocide, and Panonian's (and mine) opposition to it, and the unsuccessful attempts to describe the motives for those killings rather than to describe the killings themselves. But the article certainly lacks the facts: who was killed? how many? by whom? at which site? in retaliation or in pure hatred? Who says it's a genocide? Who says not? But, as we explained on the talk page, your attempts were met with resistance from our side because they didn't add to solution, but to the problem. Duja â–º 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks Duja. Due to my other duties I need a few weeks to locate and read the available English sources, but ideally we should also include the Yugoslav version. Could you possibly have a look at the sources published in Serbian language? We could than present the claims of each side, hopefully reaching some kind of consensus. Bests, Transylvanus 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I could probably get in touch with dr. Aleksandar Kasaš, who works at my university; his Ph.D. thesis "Mađari u Vojvodini 1941-1946." seems to be fairly widely cited all around; I could probably get a copy at the faculty library, although I don't think I can take it out for deeper reading; I'll ask him for an electronic copy. Here's an overview of the wider Hungaria-related history, with a passing mention of Cseres and Matuska works (page 13). Office for Hungarian Minorities Abroad's document is also an interesting reading (pp. 10-11); while they say that "This genocide had a three-fold purpose...", they also acknowledge that "One tenth of this distributed land was given to 18,000 landless Hungarians. With the exception of the Germans, no large scale deportations or population exchange took place. Yet, about 30,000 Hungarians – mostly those who had served in the Hungarian army and members of their families – moved to Hungary". Here's a news article (Serbian) about the establishment of Assembly of Vojvodina's commitee for investigation of all WWII crimes in 2000. I can't seem to find its findings, though. Duja ► 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The article in the current form is severely biased, it presents the mass murder of Hungarians as a "justifiable collective revenge" for the atrocities committed by the occupants between 1941-44 (which undeniably happened, also out of revenge for Partisan violence against regular forces and the local population). It also fails to mention the sadistic cruelty by which most of the murders were carried out (impaling, mutilation, torture). See the book of Tibor Cseres as a reference. Ãrpád 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Requested move

1944-1945 Killings in BaÄka → 1944-1945 massacre in BaÄka (or 1944-1945 ethnic cleansing in BaÄka, however most popular name of the event (in hungarian) is "1944-1945 blood feud in BaÄka") – the page was illegally moved [6] to recent name, wich does not describe the action properly, and Serbian POV. The death of 35,000 ppl within three month can not be describet as "killings". It was a massacre, and an ethnic cleansing. It was a feud for the 1941 annexation of Northern Vojvodina by Hungary. (see refs, and discussion above) Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

    • The Massacre article claim that term massacre "refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing". We do not have here an article that describe individual event, but article that describe many different events. It also was not an ethnic cleansing because partisans were internationalists who killed people because of the political affiliation, not because of ethnic origin. Finally, the article itself is very controversial and based on controversial sources, so the proposed name change would make it even more controversial than it is now. Also, name "blood feud in BaÄka" is certainly not popular name in Hungarian, but only among certain irredentist Hungarian historians - I am sure that reliable Hungarian historians do not use this term. Also, the page was not moved "illegally", it was just moved to NPOV title - the article with old title was originally created by Hungarian nationalist who had "No Trianon" sign on his user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:HunTheGoaT&oldid=78704643 That can say all. Also, the real number of killed people was never exactly established and the lowest estimation is 4,000 and much of those were individual executions, not mass killings. Anyway, if current title of the article is not best solution, I can support move of the name to any better title, but I do not support the move to POV and wrong titles such are "massacres", "ethnic cleansing", etc, because those are just unproved accusations. PANONIAN (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way, I believe it is against Wiki voting practice to call users to vote like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Request_for_move PANONIAN (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Of course, just read this to see why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning PANONIAN (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, VinceB, please read Wikipedia policy about voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Discuss%2C_don't_vote PANONIAN (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is ongoing since Nov 23, 2006. 6 month is more than enough to decide something. No compromise reached, so survey is the next step. Lots of wiki policies/guidelines are on enwiki, such as „ Don't be a dickâ€, PANONIAN. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but false voting (you called other Hungarian users to vote in favor of your proposal and that is clearly against Wikipedia voting policy) canmot resolve this problem. Also, please refrain from personal insults. PANONIAN (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • support per above. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - obviously Panonian thinks it's much better to simply kill people of other nationalities than do a thorough ethnic cleansing. It's true that the partisans would have been able to eliminate the whole Hungarian minority in 1944-45 if they had this intention. For me it seems that they intended to kill only the Hungarians in the Titel District. Zello 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I do not think what is better, but what happened and what did not happened - it is fact that partisans had intention to kill people who were of "wrong political affiliation" and that (if we look Yugoslavia as a whole) they killed much more Serbs (those who were chetniks) than Hungarians. What that can tell about motives? PANONIAN (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Discussion

There's a section, called "Discussion" below (here). How about adding your comments here, instead of other parts in the survey? I put them here. You know what? I never brought not really known WP policies, but now on, I'll. I'm just avoiding instruction creep, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so I kindly ask you to stop wikilawyering. Thanks. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

PS: I'm intrested, what did you consider a personal attack here? I just attracted your attention to a WP policy, named Don't be a dick. Or from now on bringing policies will be pa-s also? -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I will post my comments where I consider appropriate (not you), so please do not play with my comments, you have your own... And you (indirectly) called me a dick, which is a personal insult. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
No, I am wrong, you directly called me a dick. Here are your words: "Lots of wiki policies/guidelines are on enwiki, such as „Don't be a dickâ€, PANONIAN". So, since you mentioned my nickname in the sentence it is direct implication that I am a dick. PANONIAN (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
:-))) Ok, I won't argue with you about this, if you're that sure about it. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

PS: All right, don't stick to rules, if you're the one, who has to keep them. :)) and turn the survey into a mess. I like ppl with double standards. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Preface section

There was already a dispute which numbers should be mentioned in the preface part and dispute was solved by moving all numbers to separate section. The exact number of killed people was never exactly established and estimations range between 4,000 and 50,000, with claims that between 20,000 and 35,000 is most probable number. So, if we mention any of those numbers without other numbers, that would be POV because we have no proof that any of the numbers is correct one - there are only different estimations, and since this is the case, all estimations have to be mentioned together. In fact, we can even move all numbers from the separate section to preface part, but my point is that all numbers should be together, no matter if that is in the preface or in separate section. PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

{{ POV}}

Can someone give an update on the neutrality issues here? The tag had been around a year, where does the article stand now?-- BirgitteSB 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

PANONIAN you dirty nazionalist, who are you backing?? "Claim that it was ethnic cleansing is wrong because if the intention of the partisans was to perform ethnic cleansing, then why other Hungarians were not ethnically cleansed too?" ARE___ YOU___ NUTS?:?????? :O why others were not cleansed???? YOU ARE IN NO WAY A HISTORIAN JUST A WILD SERB PROPAGANDA PRODUCT, YOU ARE DEFENDING WAR CRIMINALS AND GENOCIDE, YOU D BE THE FIRST TO DO THAT TOO, YES I M GOING PERSONAL! ABOUT NUMBERS: 10.000 JUST IN CSUROG! COMPLETELY UNPOPULATED! SURVIVORS COMMEMORATE IT EVERY YEAR WHERE 3000 INNOCENT WERE BURIED, THEY BRING FLOWERS JUST TO HAVE THEM TRASHED BY THE DAY AFTER! BY PEOPLE NOT AS SOPHISTICATED AS YOU! ABOUT OBJECTIVES: THERE ARE DEATH LISTS AND OFFICIAL ORDERS CLEARLY ON ETHNIC CLEANSING! VICTIMS ARE NO WAY "COLLABORATORS" JUST EVERYDAY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME! EXCEPT FOR YOU BACKING WAR CRIMES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.154.159 ( talk) 10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

If I was not in a good mood, there would be a lot of words in this place, that your mother would not like. The fact that Serbian government during '90s had bad international propaganda is not enough for you to SHOUT HERE WITH CAPITAL LETTERS. Numbers you mention here can also be classified as Hungarian propaganda, and killings that Hungarian fascist did in Vojvodina can be named as ethnic cleansing. Could this be true? Jdjerich ( talk) 12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

CAPSLOCK went to dear PANONIAN, he seems to like it. head responsibles of killings in vojvodina were condemned to death in hungary right away! while those killings went all the winter long, systematically and with state support! not to mention the aftermath where memorials (oh well...speaking) were forbidden, mass graves are built upon in the next years, or even exhumated for industrial use of remnants! making glue. but can we all just cite horribilities? past is past. but mr P and his likes destroy truth today. and facing the facts would already be a step towards tomorrow! some destroy the memorials, some destroy the facts. one day P will say it was a tea party! :( i'm taking the numbers from black lists. the juridiction and guiltiness in ethnic cleansing from military orders. known documents today! not to mention the survivors and executors still alive in numbers! the witnesses! but there comes a "historian" who plays with numbers and adjectives to relativise events. with brilliant phrases like "should ve it been an ethnic cleansing, why didn't they cleanse other hungarians?" he also adds proper contributions at science... pisses me off, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.19.203 ( talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not insult other users. Thank you. (and have a nice day in Trianon Hungary) :) Btw, everything that I said still stands and, furthermore, seems that we now have new data which say that partisans killed more than 20,000 Serbs in Vojvodina as well. This is clear evidence that "ethnic cleansing of Hungarians" was not their goal. "Political cleansing" would be most accurate description for both, Serbs killed by partisans and Hungarians killed by partisans. PANONIAN 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Outesticide

Ok, now you deleted sourced data with explanation "not important". It is clear now that your goal here is exactly propaganda against Serbia and an attempt to present Serbia as country where "minorities are persecuted" and where "monuments of minorities are destroyed". this source clearly states that damaging of monument was performed by two young non-adult boys, who were arrested by the Serbian police. If we mention that something was damaged then it is important to mention who damaged that. Seems that you purposely trying to write this sentence in a way that state of Serbia looks guilty for minority monument damaging and that Serbia, because of this, should no longer govern territories where "persecuted minorities" are living. I am sorry, but we have a source that say who damaged monument and there is no reason why this should not be mentioned. I do not insist that statement of Šandor Egereši is mentioned, but fact that boys who damaged monument were arrested by Serbian police is very important. PANONIAN 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Outesticide, you now reverting this article without discussion. Please try to use talk page to explain your edits. The whole question about damaged monument is unrelated to subject of this article, which are events in 1944-1945. So, if you want to mention that monument is damaged in our days then info that boys who damaged it are arrested cannot be excluded. If you continue to revert this I will crop central part of your picture and I will upload it as new file in which only central (undamaged) part of monument would be visible. I will replace your original image with this one and then we would not have problem to explain why monument in the picture looks damaged. You please decide which of the two possible solutions we should implement. PANONIAN 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
One more thing: despite your obvious intention to hide info, you using "ref" tag in wrong way. "Ref" tags are used to mention references, not to hide parts of the text.I hope that you understand this simple thing. PANONIAN 19:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Each year should be change the text to exactly who destroyed it therefore unnecessary. maybe we should write all incident from 1994. Outesticide ( talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Well, as I said, this is not article about destroyed monument. It would be best that we have picture of undamaged monument instead of this one. However, since you took this picture of damaged monument in 2009, events relevant to this picture are only those after 2009, i.e. the events that we should describe in relation to this picture are that monument was damaged and that boys who damaged it are arrested. Why else would somebody speak about damaged monument if not with a goal that police find and arrest those who done this? So, they are arrested and what seems to be the problem if that is mentioned? Of course, in that way, Wikipedia readers would see that Serbian state and police are actually protecting Hungarian minority and their monuments, which contradicts to Greater Hungarian nationalistic propaganda that human rights of Hungarians in Serbia, Slovakia and Romania are violated. The goal of such propaganda is certainly not this action of Serbian state and police that arrested those who are responsible for minority monument damaging. The true goal of that propaganda would be much larger event in which borders would be changed and these lands would be transfered from Serbian to Hungarian state, and then, Hungarian police would "rightfully punish" those boys responsible for monument damaging, not only by arresting them, but by executing them, since "no such enemies of Hungarian state should walk alive" (of course, such fate could reach all non-Hungarians in "future Greater Hungary", no matter if they are damaging Hungarian monuments or not - by the view of Hungarian nationalism, they are just "minor races" that should be ruled by "noble Hungarians"). This is the true nature of this problem. PANONIAN 08:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Als I can write pages of Serbian nationalism and Greater Serbia but not is the question. Outesticide ( talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Okay, this discussion is indeed getting further and further from the original topic. But I also have to mention that the monument getting damaged yearly is not irrelevant here, since the vandalism itself is the direct aftermath of the ethnic hatred which was so widespread during the 20th century conflicts. It's also true that for the sake of objectivity we have to mention that the perpetrators were arrested. Let's cool down here, and not accuse each other with nationalist propaganda. If an average English-speaking Wikipedia reader would read this article, and the fact that the vandals were arrested was left out, they could might as well think that the police simply failed to find them. Also, I would avoid this kind of speculations about the nationalist propaganda which wants those boys to be executed by the Hungarian police in the hellish nightmare of the Greater Hungary (if you detect a hint of sarcasm here, that's not a coincidence) because the mainstream Hungarian far-right always attacks the police for being to "liberal" to the current minorities so it's not very clever to think that they would hope that the police will "handle" them in that situation. Of course there are morons who are dreaming about such scenario sleeping under their Greater Hungary poster, but they are not a majority, even in the midst of otherwise colourful Hungarian right-wing extremist movements. It's also a convenient position to refuse the disliked text as mere nationalist propaganda. The current text which states that the memorial is being regularly vandalised with the mention of the police arrest seems fairly objective.
yossarian44 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply
yossarian44, is this an article about the monument? no, it is not. how the story about monument damaged in 1994 or in 2008 could be relevant for the article about events in 1944-1945? This is an historical article that describe events in 1944-1945 and modern issues are completely unrelated to this. And so what if "vandalism itself is the direct aftermath of the ethnic hatred"? This is not article about ethnic hatred, but about ideological war crimes of communist regime. Anyway, since user Outesticide removed part of description that say that police arrested those who damaged this monument, there is no reason that we keep description that monument was damaged in 1994. Picture of the monument was taken in 2008, so the only relevant description could be the one that monument was damaged in that year. But, as soon as somebody took new picture of undamaged monument, this one already in the article should be replaced. PANONIAN 07:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
ok but we should replace the text every year. who is going to do? Outesticide ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Why you think that monument will be damaged in next years? Police arrested those responsible, so this probably will not happen any more. Serbian state is able to protect its minorities. PANONIAN 07:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Suggested changes

Also, I have to mention some other stuff:

1. The part about the massacre in Bezdan is very poorly written, and contains a number of false information, and the English there isn't very great. Cseres' work here: http://mek.oszk.hu/03300/03393/03393.htm#16 does not mention that the Russians have stopped the bloodshed, only that as soon as the Russians forces arrived, the partisans left. Also, the 118 victims weren't shot into the Danube, but they were forced to march to a forest near Isterbác, where they were made to dig their own graves and in which they were shot into in groups of twelve, according to all the witnesses. This whole part should be re-written, because it's not backed up by any sources.

2. For the accuracy's sake we should mention the reason of the significant difference in numbers provided by the various sources. For most of the readers it might not be clear that the post-war communist regimes both in Yugoslavia and Hungary didn't really tolerate the research of this event, so the estimates are relying on the post-communist researches.

3. The ethnic cleansing aspect: the definition of ethnic cleansing also means the mass deportation of people. It is true that the massacre of Serbians was a political act, to punish the collaborators, but the German part of the whole event seems to be a true ethnic cleansing. Of course, it's not true that the whole cleansing was against the Hungarians, it was against the Germans. According to Niall Ferguson (book War of the World page 584.) 13 million Germans were relocated from Eastern Europe to Germany, those from Vojvodina were part of them. Checking the records of the census in Vojvodina ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_vojvodina) the 90% of Germans disappeared from the area by 1948 - of course it's true that most of them left as the Nazi withdrawal. The others were forced to leave, or were killed. Knowing these data in seems that the ethnic cleansing of Germans was going on here, since the whole mass deportation of Germans is often described us such. The Hungarians were much more likely the victims of simple ethnic hatred rather than an organised act of ethnic cleansing, because in 1948 there's "only" 10% loss of Hungarian population since 1941. I think we should include these facts. We could leave this part in: "Some Hungarian historians are introducing idea that such killings were an ethnic cleansing of Hungarians" but we should put the data here, which shows that since the Hungarian population loss is much less than the German, so it's quite unlikely that it was a direct cleansing action against the Hungarians. We might even put a whole section which is describing these facts.

Actually communist authorities gave a political reason for their actions against Germans as well: the given explanation was that Germans are collectively politically "incorrect" because they did not participated in anti-fascist struggle in large number (like other citizens of Yugoslavia) and because 95% of them were members of Kulturbund organization. Other reasons were economical, i.e. houses and property of Germans were used for refugees and for restoration of regional economy. Those authors who wrote about communist actions against Germans did not offered a conclusion that these actions were conducted because of "simple ethnic hate" (in fact, historically, there was never such hate between Serbs and Germans in Vojvodina). Similar problem we have with Hungarians: if aim of communist authorities was an ethnic cleansing of Hungarians then why all of them or at least large majority of them were not "ethnically cleansed"? Examples of ethnic cleansing in Balkans or eastern Europe are showing to us that victims of such ethnic cleansing are either entire populations either "critical majority" of these populations. If we speak about Vojvodina Hungarians, their entire population or "critical majority" was certainly not a target of any ethnic cleansing (and if we compare results of 1931 and 1948 census, we can see that number of Hungarians increased from 376,176 to 428,554). I do not see here evidences that ethnic cleansing was an aim of communist authorities. Further more, by some estimations, communist killed as much as 300,000 Serbs in whole of Yugoslavia. Events in Vojvodina are only one part of events in whole of Yugoslavia, and even if largest estimations about number of killed Hungarians are correct, they could not compete with estimated number of killed Serbs. So, if Hungarians were victims of ethnic cleansing we perhaps should conclude that communists also aimed to ethnically cleanse Serbs. You also mentioned "10% Hungarian loss since 1941". Please have in mind that some of Hungarians who were listed in 1941 census were in fact Csango colonists who were brought to Vojvodina by occupational authorities. They were not part of local Hungarian population that was recorded by 1931 census. So, the "loss" of Hungarians could be only seen by comparison of 1931 and 1948 data and such comparison show us that there was no "loss", but increase of Hungarian population in Vojvodina. PANONIAN 08:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

4. I read the argument about the killings/massacre term, and I think that both should be mentioned. The "killings" argument is true, because it wasn't a fully organized act, but a longer chain of events with multiple locations. But we also can't overlook the fact that in some cases (e.g.: Brezdán) clearly an organised massacre is what happened. I think we should put edit the first sentence this way: "The 1944–1945 killings in Vojvodina (or Vojvodina massacre) were executions of several...", so in this way we respect both POV's, and the objectivity doesn't really get damaged, since in Hungary we still call these events a massacre. yossarian44 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

By definition, massacre is an localized event (localized by specific time and place) and therefore an article that describe a group of events that occurred in relatively longer time period cannot be titled as "massacre". Furthermore, there are no academic English language sources that are using term "Vojvodina massacre", so it is not up to us to invent such titles. Also, events in Vojvodina were not separate from events in whole of Yugoslavia from that time and perhaps this whole article should be merged into newly created article with name Communist killings in Yugoslavia in 1944-1945. This whole article that is focused on part of Yugoslavia only is example of original research. PANONIAN 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Just go ahead and be bold. No such user ( talk) 07:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Purge, Religion and the Serbian mindset of 1944-45

After reading the arguments regarding the use of the words 'killing' and 'massacre', a more appropriate term would be purge for these reasons:

1. More than one ethnic groups were killed, including Rus - Russyns (which wasn't mentioned in the article).

2. Similar models can be found, for example Stalinist and Maoist purges.

3. Partisans who committed these purges were in the most part, politically motivated by Tito.

4. The killing of the intelligentsia.

What is missing from the article is the sense of retribution, which has been identified by Hungarian and Serb sources as well as taking from models in the past:

1. Hatred by the Orthodox Church factions against the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Ethnicity based on previous migration and settlement from Austro-Hungary, Croatia, Germany, Slovenia. There is a 450 year history of this.

3. Serbian Partisan levels of hatred, precluded the idea of resettlement or expulsion.

4. Following point 3, partisan hatred and the moral and ethically debased forms of torture they used against some of their victims.

5. Most contentiously, Partisans' inability for judgement or trial. Accusations by local Serbs against those of higher socio-economic status or of those who were in competition, those who owned land and houses.

6. Lack of education of the partisan Serbs. Xenophobic and Fascist motivations evident by some groups, replicating the Nazi fascism they were trying to purge.

7. Lack of time and therefore opportunity. As soon as the Russian liberation forces came through (some Bulgar forces as well), the partisans either stopped or went away then returned after they passed through.

8. Inconsistency. On many occasions, partisan attitudes varied from place to place and over time.


None of this is in the article.


As for Nationalism, it should be stated within the article that Nationalistic tendencies bias the current information available and that all viewpoints should be aired.

The comment about 'peer reviewed sources' is interesting in that very little is available, not just on this topic but generally over the whole of Eastern European history. Empirical sources do exist and have been used in arguably nationalistic histories. All historians argue and there is no reason not to include these sources in an explanatory manner. Htcs ( talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have any source which use word "purge" or it is your original research? PANONIAN 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
For your information, The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: an abrupt or violent removal of a group of people: In usage: the savagery of government’s political purges
Here is the link for you - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/purge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htcs ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I meant: do you have any source that use word "purge" in relation to this event? PANONIAN 07:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Rusyns, Orthodox Church and Partisan motivation

I added a small section on Rusyns. Unfortunately, the English of Tibor Cseres work is not very clear. I think he was trying to say that the 1944 partisans were also motivated by the fact that the Rus were not attacked by the Hungarian forces in 1941, therefore they deserved punishment? Hopefully others may be able to clarify this point.

His main thesis is that the partisan actions were based on revenge against the Hungarian forces that were putting down rebellions in 1941. I have stayed away from this, although he states that revenge, particularly on the local level was common-place. Some community leaders, like Serbian Orthodox priests, defended RC priests and targetted ethnics and the partisans generally left them alone. In other localities, the Orthodox priest outright accused the RC priest and congregation because they preached that they worshipped God as the God of Hungary (Magyar Isten). So I am personally interested if there were any factionalism between Greek Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran (Evangelical) and other denominations from other sources.

In any case, a section on Partisan Motivation should be added, perhaps including religious factions and socio-economic factions. Htcs ( talk) 06:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, Cseres does not look like reliable source. His book speaks with hate about Serbs and therefore it is hard to say what were his motives: investigation of one historical event or propaganda against Serbia and Yugoslavia. Anyway, statements of Cseres should be at least confirmed by some other authors who are not expressing so strong nationalistic tendency. PANONIAN 08:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. There is history that he is reporting like numbers, places, names, events. But then there is his argument. I think it is his argument that is flawed, which makes the reader think that his history is also flawed. It is a valuable source as he uses first hand empirical accounts so it shouldn't be discounted. Confirmation of numbers would be good, but that would mean looking at RC church registrations (Matrica) and civil registration books for every town he mentions. Then there is the 100 year law. It will take another 38 years before those records are public domain. Then the same has to be done for Serbs, Germans, Rus etc. University research with co-operative governments. The subject matter is too hot anyway. Htcs ( talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I have his book (I downloaded it from the Internet) and I can say that it contains: 1. speech of hate against Serbs, 2. wrong or nationalistic interpretations of certain general historical events. Due to that, we cannot take info presented by Cseres without criticism, especially because we have other sources that provided different estimations about number of killed people and because we have other sources that speaking about Serbs and Germans who were also killed by the Yugoslav communists. That fact alone deny some interpretations provided by Cseres about motives and reasons that triggered these events. PANONIAN 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Title change: Killings>warcrimes>purges

Before anyone starts making objections, the title change was discussed at length with PANNONIA on the talk page. Readability and accuracy have improved. The article has a lot more NPOV and it has expanded to include Central Serbia. The principal reason for the change was that the actions committed by the partisans were directed by the Serbian military governance at the time. This by definition is a purge and not 'killing' or 'massacre'; terms that denotes nationalistic POV which must be avoided. Htcs ( talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply


Neutrality

This article is not neutral at all. It looks like the biggest problem is the user Pannonian and his nationalist point of view. HE would like to prove that this area is serb, and there are no place for another view and nationalities. However, the fact is: 

Most of Vojvodina became part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century and remained in Hungary until about 900 years later (1918/1920), except for the period of the Ottoman conquest (see below).

Its demographic balance started changing at the end of the 14th century, as it welcomed Serbian refugees fleeing from territories conquered by the Ottoman army. The first Turkish census, of 1557-58, described the northern parts of the territory having a Hungarian majority. Large numbers of Serbs were settled as a conscious policy on the part of the Habsburg emperor at the end of the 17th century. They were granted widespread exceptions and communal rights, in exchange for providing a border militia that could be mobilised against invaders from the south, as well as in case of civil unrest in Hungary.

Regarding killings, even serbian minds are changing, and Pannonian views and nationalism is minority now. Previously unknown fact are emerging, and this article should be updated: I will cite only serbian sources, as everything what is not serbian is unacceptable for user Pannonian. http://www.autonomija.info/sacinjen-spisak-s-imenima-85000-civila-pobijenih-u-vojvodini-u-drugom-svetskom-ratu.html

http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/2599/HEC04-01.pdf;jsessionid=B9BA0BA0BDE5F0F742A6FFBB1967E1AF?sequence=1 page 57

further:

MeÄ‘u pomenutih 84.000 žrtava, koje je pobrojao istraživaÄki tim profesora Živkovića, daleko najveći broj, taÄnije preko 47.000, Äine Srbi, dok je izmeÄ‘u 1944. i 1948. stradalo oko 17.000 Nemaca, a naroÄito u tom posleratnom periodu, pobijeno je i oko 6.000 MaÄ‘ara.

Medjutim ovde sam Zivkovic kaze sledece:

Novinar: E. Marjanov http://www.slobodnavojvodina.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3880 Živkoviæ navodi da je u Vojvodini u tom periodu stradalo ukupno 97.000 civila raznih nacionalnosti. Dr Dragoljub Živkoviæ kaže da je za vreme Drugog svetskog rata u Vojvodini bilo 72 logora. Toliko su držali i partizani posle rata. Živkoviæ takoðe kaže da je od 97.000 žrtava koje su stradale posle rata bilo 20.000 dece starosti izmeðu jedne i sedam godina. On istièe da su meðu žrtvama pronašli i 9.800 ljudi bez nacionalnosti.

Prema podacima koje smo mi sakupili u Vojvodini, stradalo je 20.000 vojvoðanskih Nemaca. Taj broj æe biti veæi pošto struèna ekipa Vojvoðanske akademije nauka, koja je od Anketnog odbora Skupštine Vojvodine svojevremeno preuzela projekat, još nije obradila podatke iz Baèkog Jarka i Molindorfa. Za taj posao nedostaje nam oko 2.000 evra. Prema našim procenama, u tim mestima stradalo je oko 7.000 nemaèkih civila, tako da raèunamo da je posle Drugog svetskog rata pobijeno oko 30.000 nemaèkih civila

ISto dalje, sledeci clanak: http://www.bulkeser.de/srpskiwebsait-3.html Dr Dragoljub Živkovic kaze: Do sada smo došli do broja od 110000 stradalih Vojvodana i Vojvodanki. Sva dosadašnja istraživanja su išla do brojke od 70000 stradalih. Utvrdili smo i veoma velike razlike u pogledu tvrdenja koliko je ljudi stradalo iz koje nacionalne skupine. Važno je da kažem da ovo istraživanje pod stradalnicima (žrtvama) podrazumeva ljude koji nisu nosili pušku, dakle nisu pripadali vojnim formacijama. Rec je pre svega o deci, ženama, starcima, mladim ljudima koji nisu hteli da nose pušku. Nažalost, najveci broj stradalnika su sasvim nevini ljudi.

It means, the number is at least 110000 people, and this number is growing.

This article from 2009 confirms the number of 110000, and says "komisija je utvrdila oko 6.500 imena mađarskih žrtava, a pretpostavlja se da ih je bilo još oko 1.000. " http://www.slobodnavojvodina.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:pokrajinski-anketni-odbor-dao-dobre-temelje-meudravnoj-komisiji&catid=4:fokus&Itemid=17 Ssh in use ( talk) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ssh_in_use Ssh in use ( talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Ssh in use, Wikipedia is not a Forum. Talk pages are here so that article content could be discussed (in civilized manner, of course) - this is no place where you should comment other users or present your (dubious) political views about regional history. Your personal insults addressed to me are far from civilized way of discussion. I do not see that your comment contains anything that could be discussed in relation to this article. Your claim that "article is not neutral because user PANONIAN is an nationalist" is really funny and I am kindly asking you to remove this insult addressed to me. If you continue to insult me like this, I will report your behavior to administrators. Finally, estimations presented by professor Živković are already used in this article, so I do not see a point of your quotations. PANONIAN 10:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Pannonian, there is nothing personal here. We are just talking about same facts. So, let it be so kind and answer: Are you nationalist? and: Would a nationalist create a NEUTRAL acticle ? Ssh in use ( talk) 23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Did I ever declared myself as nationalist or did I ever said anything nationalistic? No, I did not. So, please stop with this personal crap. And by the way, I did not created this article, I only made some changes to make it more NPOV. PANONIAN 05:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Youtube movie

Regarding link to youtube movie that I removed, problem is not the ethnic origin of author of that movie but obvious fact that movie is a forgery. Here is evidence for that which could be examined in two easy steps:

  • 2. Now please see original movie which shows that these hangings were in fact hangings of Serb civilians in PanÄevo in 1941 performed by German fascists (exactly same image on 1:41 in that movie): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj24C962oX8

So, Ssh in use, tell me, which Wikipedia policy supports propagation of obvious forgeries on this web site? PANONIAN 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Removal of content

The lead section of this article has had sourced content removed three times. This will be reported as 3R violation. I was in the process of editing the lead to improve its grammar and re-insert the fact that the victims were also Serbs (in fact probably mostly Serbs), when the third reversion occurred. This is my proposed lead:

The Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–1945 were purges committed by members of the Yugoslav Partisan Movement and post-war communist authorities after they gained control over Serbia in 1944. Most of these purges were committed between October 1944 and May 1945. During this time, several tens of thousands of people were executed. The victims were of different ethnic backgrounds, but were mostly Serbs, Hungarians, Germans and Croats. Different sources provide different estimates regarding the number of victims. According to one source, at least 80,000 people were executed in the whole of Serbia, [1] while other source states that the number of victims was more than 100,000. [2] Some 40,000 Hungarian civilians were tortured or summarily executed, [3] and tens of thousands of fleeing Croatian soldiers and civilians were slaughtered. [3] dubious – discuss The names of about 4,000 individual Germans who were killed by the Partisans are known, but it is likely that many more ethnic Germans were murdered. [4] These events during the fall of 1944 are often referred to as "bloody autumn". [5] [4] [6]

  1. ^ "Press Green".
  2. ^ "Press Green".
  3. ^ a b Erin K. Jenne: Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment, Cornell University Press, USA, 2007 [1]
  4. ^ a b Ulrich Merten: Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe After World War II, Transactions Publisher, New Jersey, USA, 2012 [2]
  5. ^ Kathryn Schaeffer Pabst, Douglas Schaeffer Pabst: Taken: A Lament for a Lost Ethnicity, iUniverse Books, 2006 [3]
  6. ^ Georg Wildmann, Hans Sonnleitner, Karl Weber: Genocide of the ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia, 1944-1948, Danube Swabian Association of the USA, 2001 [4]

Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you and, of course, the lead should also talk about the Serb victims, but citations should be provided. Furthermore, I would like to ask the IP editor to identify his/her issues with the statement about the Croatian victims. Also (s)he should not violate the 3RR and provide reliable and verifiable sources in case of changing the numerical data. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Sure, no prob. I was actually the one who tagged the Croatians. What was the story there? I wasn't aware any NDH forces crossed the Drina. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I have rm the Croats, those killings are not part of these purges. I have also tagged a few unreliable sources such as a map from a blog and a statement by a parliamentary deputy. In what appears to be a contested article, reliable sources are critical and all claims that could reasonably be expected to be challenged should have inline citations. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 12:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Peacemaker67, your work is appreciated. I agree that the killing of the Croats that the source talk about does not fit to the current article. However, I think that the title and the scope of the article is quite strange. First, it is not evident whether all partisans can be simply classified as "communists", second, the country was then called Yugoslavia, so why should we restrict the scope of the article to the current borders of Serbia? In my opinion, the article should be renamed to "Partisan purges in Yugoslavia in 1944–1945". What do you think about that? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Its limited scope makes it a potential vehicle for POV-pushing, but I think any decision about expanding its scope needs to take into account the incredible complexity of what went on in 1944-1950. Just look at the contested nature and POV-pushing that has gone on at Bleiburg repatriations. This article probably needs to be expanded as far as possible using WP:RS, then we can decide if we believe a "Yugoslavia-wide" scope article is warranted. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Another issue is the question of sources introduced by the IP editor. Most of them are questionable in my opinion, i.e., they are just websites "floating around" on the web. This is a very sensitive topic and hence, it is especially important to have proper sources for the claims. Pointing to a website, e.g., of a tabloid magazine ( Blic [7]), in order to support historical data is quite questionable. If possible, we should only use scholarly sources, for example, academic and peer-reviewed documents published by reputable publishers. Consequently, I would like to ask the IP editor to either argue that the provided sources should be considered reliable or replace them by reliable ones, otherwise the claims should be deleted. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
In respect of this issue we are in agreement, WP:RS required. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Since the IP editor did not provide reliable sources (most of them are dubious), the new additions should be removed. However, in this case, we will need a good source about the Serb victims. We should look for some reliable references for them, too. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Disputed

This article inflates number of people who lost their lives in aftermath of WWW. Only relevant sources is Serbian state commission. So far the commission has found only 54,000 men (this article claim that 56,000 died alone). Many of them weren't "purged", but died in combat and in concentration camps (Germans) due to poor conditions. Many who lost lives were notorious quislings and war criminals. --  Bojan   Talk  04:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't agree that Serbian state commission is the "only relevant" source because it is not neutral.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 06:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Why is it not neutral? What possible bias would a 2011 commission have to investigate 1944 events? I disagree with Bokica that it's the "only relevant source", but surely it ought to be given a very high prominence. No such user ( talk) 07:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Serbian state commission has indeed anti-partisan bias, but they didn't find more then 54,000 people killed during combat, executed for treason and died in concentration camps. Read this --  Bojan   Talk  07:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry. when you wrote Serbian state commission I thought you refer to Commission established by Communists during WWII. Anyway, my objection regarding "only relevant source" still stands.
If communists imprisoned people and took them to concentration camps or force labor camps where they died, then those people are victims of Communist purges. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
They died due to imprisonment, yes. New authorities gathered Germans in concentration camps in order to expel them to Germany and they died due to poor conditions. But, they were not executed. --  Bojan   Talk  08:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I did not say they were executed. Just because they were not directly executed by the communists does not make them less victims of communists.
  • The link you provided says there were 55,973 people killed by the communists (not men, like you wrote) who were victims of communist purges. You stated it is 54,000 and complained because this article presents figure of 56,000.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
www.kontrapress.com/ is a reliable source? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 07:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Kontrapress host a paper from a history student. By now he graduated, i think. But this is certainly better source than Press and Vecernje novosti. --  Bojan   Talk  08:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
It doesn't sound reliable to me. Find a university press published academic book (and read WP:RS). Please. And Ad's opinion about what makes someone a victim of communist purges is OR, unless of course he has a reliable source for that. Peacemaker67 ( send... over)
I gave my honest opinion based on common sense which is, I believe, "sky is blue" assertion. If communists/fascists/.... imprisoned some people and they died because of bad conditions, gas, heavy labor... then it is safe to say that imprisoned people are victims of fascist/communists/.... -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Must be a lot of blue sky where you are, because article with subjects like this one need reliable sources, not someone's university paper or your opinion. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Please read the text of this discussion. The commission prepared a list of victims which has 55,973 people in it. It is another editor (BokicaK) who disputed the presented referenced data claiming that it should be reduced because people who were not executed but taken to camps where they died due to bad conditions are not victims and should be exempt from the list of victims. I am opposed to this kind of minimalization of number of communist victims, contrary to the presented sources. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 09:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
(Edit conflict) He cite other works. He analyzed names in database created by commission. He counted names and found 1500 twice or more times counted names and many odd facts. Among them are
  • 20,576 Germans (with some 500 doubled entries)
  • 14,567 Serbs (some 500 doubled entries)
  • 6,112 Hungarians (some 300 doubled entries)
  • 1,360 Albanians
  • 953 Croats

Among those those names are people who certainly weren't purged (but counted in death toll) are Dragoljub Mihailović [8], Milan Nedić [9], Aćif Hadžiahmetović [10], NeÅ¡ko Nedić (KIA) [11], Nikola Kalabić [12], Svetozar Vujković [13], Dragi Jovanović [14], Tanasije Dinić [15], Velibor Jonić [16], Dragoslav RaÄić (KIA) [17], DragiÅ¡a Vasić (most probably killed by ustashas( [18], Dragutin Keserović [19], Vojislav LukaÄević [20], Milorad Mojić (killed by ustashas) [21], Kosta MuÅ¡icki [22], Milan Aćimović (KIA) [23]

Regarding Hungarisans, the author of Kontrapress article read Tibor Cseres's book and found that his estimates are groundless. He reported than Cseres claims that were more Hungarian casualties in some towns than they had Hungarian residents. Also, the author concluded that many Hungarian were killed in towns that were affected by Novi Sad raid such as Čurug and Žabalj. So, the commision has strong anticommunist bias, but they haven't find 56,000 Germans, 40,000 Hungarians and 24,000 Serbs. --  Bojan   Talk  09:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You directly contradict to yourself here.
  • You first stated that "Only relevant sources is Serbian state commission".
  • Then you stated "So far the commission has found only 54,000 men" (using word "only 54,000" when it comes to 55.973 killed people is ...........).
  • Then you disputed reliability of the figure presented by the same source which you yourself proclaimed as "only relevant".-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 13:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You should read carefully Sem 1.372 dupliranih imena i oko 1.000 -1.100 stranih državljana iz registra treba izostaviti i žrtve faÅ¡istiÄkog terora koje su proizvoljno uvrÅ¡tene u registar. Utvrdili smo ukupno 41 ovakav upis u registru. 55.973-1.372≈54.000 --  Bojan   Talk  13:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You should read carefully WP:RS. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Why this article/paper with references and sources is not a reliable source, and yellow press like Novosti and Press are RS? --  Bojan   Talk  14:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
That argument is classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. You need to explain why your source meets the WP:RS criteria if you want to use it. I'm not defending the tabloids, I'm telling you the policy for your source. Just read the policy please. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
It is a scientific work by a man who is a educated historian whose field of interests in WW2. His papers were included in few peer-reviewed journals. This article is a pile of rubbish. --  Bojan   Talk  15:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Facts and claims in article

This is probbably the worst article I've seen on English wikipedia. Not a single fact, not a single reliable source, and lots of inflammatory propaganda introduced via references to articles in notorious tadbloid newspapers.

From my point of view, apart from formal disadvantages, this article has more serious issues. Namely, it offers lots of malicious fabrications, with no counterweight in factuality whatsoever.

For example, this vivid character, professor Dragoljub Živković, states that "about half of the Serb victims were killed by occupational forces and the other half of them were executed by post-war communist authorities". And the source? Some mail archive!?

Cure? I can't see why this article is not deleted in the first place. But, an article on the subject is necessary. The work of the 2009 State Commission can shed some light on the subject. Although criticized, the commission did some serious and significant work. It had access to all available sources, including OZNA registries, birth registries, bot state and church, and compiled a comprehensive list. The list includes all dead, regardless of whether they were killed in fighting, sentenced to death, or just missing. It was criticised for a number of duplicate entries (there is even a number of people entered for times), und other issues, but it finaly provided us with numbers with a margine of error probably less than 10%. This list is more or less stable on the two last years, and it can shed some light. For example, number Serbs from Vojvodina on the list is 917, and not some 23-24.000, (or 47.000) as implied by professor Dragoljub Živković. And all work of professor Dragoljub Živković in Commission for Vojvodina is completelly included in the list.

In short, I don’t think wikipedia should allow itself to present claims of victims more then 20 or 40 times larger than the stated facts. It is even worse than famous Jasenovac issue.

In short, the list for the whole territory of Serbia contains 27.367 Germans, 14.567 Serbs, 6.112 Hungarians, 1.360 Albanians and 953 Croats. It is incomplete – some records should be deleted, some more added, but I think we could say with confidence that true number of all dead not included in earlier census is somewhere in the range of +-20% of these numbers.-- Gorran ( talk) 13:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

G'day Gorran, I agree it needs a clean-up, big-time. I suggest you be WP:BOLD and hack out the dubious stuff, use reliable sources only. If someone objects, they'll surely revert you, then discussion can ensue. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Revert war with Jozefsu

@ Jozefsu: how do you now that majority are innocent? I don't claim that majority are not. I claim that there were many a) soldiers who died in battles, b) true collaborationist, fascists and war criminals. Chetniks and formations of Ljotić and Nedić fought against partisans until the end of war during retreat of Army Group E, such as Milan Aćimović, Miroslav Trifunović, Dragoslav RaÄić, Vuk Kalaitović, NeÅ¡ko Nedić... Or people who were tried and sentenced to death such as Dragoljub Mihailović, Kosta MuÅ¡icki, Dragoljub Jovanović, Vojislav LukaÄević, Dragutin Keserović, Tanasije Dinić or politicians like Velibor Jonić. Or Milan Nedić who killed himself before his trial. Some 2000-3000 chetniks from Serbia were killed in battles of Tuzla and Zelengora. Many died from tifus in Bosnia because they didn't want to surender.

Among people executed by partisans were members of Arrow Cross Party or Gyula Gömbös's Turan Hunters or resposible for or participants of of Novi Sad raid (and persecutions of Serbs during April 1941) such as László Deák and Ferenc Szombathelyi

Among Croats among these 55-60,000 are members of Ustasa movement --  Bojan   Talk  03:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK: The names you list here have nothing to do with this article. We both know it. We know each other. You're a notorous liar and mischief-maker. I will not let you play your game here as you are playing on Wikipeidia in Serbian language, where you prevented all my edits, and everybody elses edits. Pretty obvious why this subject is so important to you. Not for the sake of honesty, not for good! I ask the Community: How can a religiously devoted communist be NPOV in this page? Just HOW?– Jozefsu ( talk) 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

It DOES have. They are among those 55-60,000 died. I'll repeat again: Among those those names are people who certainly weren't purged (but counted in death toll) are Dragoljub Mihailović [24], Milan Nedić [25], Aćif Hadžiahmetović [26], NeÅ¡ko Nedić (KIA) [27], Nikola Kalabić [28], Svetozar Vujković [29], Dragi Jovanović [30], Tanasije Dinić [31], Velibor Jonić [32], Dragoslav RaÄić (KIA) [33], DragiÅ¡a Vasić (most probably killed by ustashas( [34], Dragutin Keserović [35], Vojislav LukaÄević [36], Milorad Mojić (killed by ustashas) [37], Kosta MuÅ¡icki [38], Milan Aćimović (KIA) [39]

Member of Turan Hunters Tibor Kisz [40]

@ Peacemaker67:, what is policy here on calling someone 'liar' --  Bojan   Talk  04:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I just saw this. Jozefsu be aware that calling someone a notorious liar is a personal attack, which can get you blocked. Moderate your comments. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

What we gonna do with his reverts? Did I prove that many who died aren't just innocent civilians? Of course, there could be or were people who were indeed innocent (that means who weren't war criminals, fascist or members of fascist or collaborationist forces or organizations, petty thiefs...) --  Bojan   Talk  04:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

If you happened to be in a band of killers, and you did not participate but remain silent about it – you are considered party to the crime. Well, it started wrong, but straighforward injustice causes straighforward naming it. I accept the warning but will not apologize. Not to a man who made my life on the Serbian Wikipedia nightmare. He repelled me from editing this subject alltogether. And now he transferred "his" material here. Let me warn that the man who just finished extensive editing of this article is a devout communist ideologist–purist, who is fanatically convinced that the idea of organised purge that has been commited after the WW2 in Yugoslavia is a modern-day forgery made up by the revisonist, right-wing movement. He simply cannot accept that the communists commited crimes against humanity, which is hard to believe either, because we were thought in school all our lives that the communists never did anything wrong in the name of their ideology. But some horrible facts started coming out, right from the hidden communist archives. Serbia has serious problems clearing this history of events, those events the surrounding nations already dealth with long ago. If Serbia was not questioned on this in the porocess of joinig EU, the procedure would probably never happen. Nobody is interested in this. It is forgotten, as a dark age. Maybe it is easy to forget to those whose family member was not murdered. Like Bojan, who never shows empathy. To him those – even the children – are anticommunists, whose fate was sealed, so why wonder they suffered horrific death? He never talks about children, as if they not existed. Instead, using arguments that regular war criminals were placed in mass graves together with innocent to "smuggle them" is his logic. Is this true at all? Bojan fails to answer as just who did that – their communist hangmen? He does all to relativize the matter. What morals is demonstrated when someone protects an ideology, even in spite of obvious crimes?
E. g. if Bojan's claim was true, that the killing of innocents was accidental only – why those same authorities hid the killings, instead of punishing individual partisans who did it abusing their freshly gained power? And why were the murderers always cleared of guilt? Why the double-standards here? It's like "We kill innocents, because their ones killed our innocents. They are murderers, but we're not because we did it rightfully. They did it first" and so on... Is this "view" that Bokica represents? Let me remind all here, that Budapest has a museum of both terrors – black and red. Everyone should see that museum. It's not a story about bad guys and good guys, it's a dirty story about killers on both sides. Are we to protect any deliberate murderers?
In Serbia it was impossible to rise the whole theme out of silence for some decades after the death of supreme leader Tito, the regime of Milošević, during the wartime of the 90's and even after the October 5th 2000 revolution. What this fact proves by itself?
The war was over, the war criminals fled, so killing and torture of unarmed civilians was an unnecessary vendetta perpetrated by the winners. Because this is exactly what happened, the game with the names Bojan is presenting doesn't nullify that. And do I have to prove name by name that those mentioned have nothing to do with the subject of purge? Look after their biographies. Nedić commited suicide in his cell. Deák and Szombathelyi were armed officers who were condemned in a trial. Mihailović also had a regular trial. Both him and Kalabić are now officially proclaimed innocent. I could care less about that. But I do care about 20.000 children that went "missing" in 1944/45 purges, and that's just the tip of th iceberg. It was an ideological purge against anybody unfit to the system. And after it was over, the justification began and is going on to this day. Following this justification agenda, Bojan will soon demonstrate that his intention is to dim the facts, beutify the picture of partisan movement, with ultimate goal to destroy the article, by turning it to useless text, which by the end of his editing says nothing. The article will become even worse than it was, when it was already criticised by many editors as a mess. I wish I am wrong. At least, this is what happened to the article in the Serbian Wikipedia.
Right now I am very ill, but as soon as I get better I will try some editing. Let's see if anybody can edit an article which user Bojan declares as "official" truth. But by the way I did 2 reverts, and Bojan starts this discussion when he did his 3rd. I will use my right to revert once more. Because that sentence is outrageous, formulated in a subtle way to dim the main subject of the article. I will not revert anymore, I will edit with examinable references. Let's see if this man will let me place just anything in from the point he entered his well formulated chunks of text.– Jozefsu ( talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I expanded part on Hungarians (I wrote on camps, retaliation and expulsion in Šajkaška), and yet you dare to say that I'm downplaying events? No, you are here to twist facts by implying that all 55-60,000 men listed by Serbian state commission a) were innocent b) were executed. --  Bojan   Talk  00:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Partisan DID NOT use gas chambers or locked men and burned house like Nazis. Partisans DID NOT throw men under ice, like Hungarians soldiers in Novi Sad/Šajkaška raid in 1942. Partisan DID NOT cut throats as chetniks and ustasahs used to do. --  Bojan   Talk  01:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jozefsu: Did Mihailović, Vujković, Jonić, Jovanović, LukaÄević, GaÅ¡parović, Keserović, VranjeÅ¡ević, Rade Radić were brought to tribunals? Yes or no? Would You like to translate this article from Kontrapres: U merama koje je sprovodila pobedniÄka strana u BaÄkoj bilo je elemenata revanÅ¡izma i retorzije i „ostvarivanja politike ’oko za oko zub za zub’“. Nema sumnje da je jedan broj ubistava, Äak ako uzmemo u obzir želju za osvetom, bio nacionalno motivisan, kao i da je u osvetniÄkom naletu ubijen veći broj lica koja nisu imala ozbiljnu krivicu ili nisu imali realnu krivicu. MeÄ‘utim, pojedini preživeli savremenici Racije 1942, naroÄito oni koji su izgubili Älanove porodice, smatrali su da odgovornosti podleže svaka vrsta podrÅ¡ke i okupacionom poretku. Kako istiÄe istoriÄar Aleksandar KasaÅ¡, na podruÄju ÄŒuruga, Žablja i MoÅ¡orina „prilikom ovih kažnjavanja bila je primetna želja nove vlasti da se ovim merama da izvesno zadovoljenje srpskim porodicama i izvrÅ¡i osveta, ali se nastojalo da se ipak zadovolji normalna sudska forma.“ (source Milan Radanović/Aleksandar KasaÅ¡) --  Bojan   Talk  01:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK:Kontrapres article is used in this article multiple times, as it is your main hobby-horse. I respect that, but it is 4, almost 5 years old. I think it has some good points, but it is not the Bible. Many more proofs came out in meanwhile, and even more will come out by time. The large amount of killings – we are talking about tens of thousands – were without any trial. You give names of 9-10 criminals that were "smuggled in" – I talk about 1000 innocents for any one name you write. Besides that, I don't understand your point: the data we see in the database is only raw data. It is not processed yet. Only the researchers were allowed to see – in the secret archives – who died under what circumstances. You and I must rely on the study of that material. We are not in a position to compare data. So what you are doing here is original research. On the contrary so far it is more than clear that it was a mass-reprisal. The question is, how long you will deny it? How CAN you still deny it?
Please, I am amazingly calm now. I know you cannot win. I started here acting and looking like a bad guy, but I say openly: there is no reason for edit war. I am open for cooperation. But just if your intention is to make the article better, unbiased, and undegraded. I know all these arguments you use. I heard them many many times. It is a manipulation. Repeated over and over again just to relativise the truth. I am not interested in this, I am fed up with your circular reasoning. I again tell you what I told you on Serbian Wikipedia: I just want to edit the article. Please, let me do that in peace. And if you don't let me – consider I will not back down and play dead. I don't write my own opinion, only referenced statements. My time and work will not go vain! You have no right to and there is no reason to delete properly referenced statements.
I see exactly what is your problem, which part bothers you the most, it's about the plain proper naming of it – that you deleted already. But what's the opinion of others? Where is the consensus? Just go on, delete all you can. I saved my work. And by your well-known custom you will continue to disintegrate ALL that I put in. But you are not untouchable. For now I leave, and let you do whatever you wish. Have fun if you take it as fun, but I will come back later, I have the page on the watch list. I repeat: you have no right to delete properly referenced material. I don't write my personal opinion, but referenced sentences taken from verifiable sources. And how I know most victims were innocent? Because the references says so and the research more and more shows it.– Jozefsu ( talk) 02:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Jozefsu: You wrote much, but you evaded to answer: Did new regime bring, for example, Mihailović on trial and did provide many, many evidences that he was both traitor and war criminal? Article by Miroslav Radanović is not old, because almost nothing big has changed since 2014.
Can You understand that ALL those who are listed among those 55-60,000 dead are not murdered? In fact, I would say that about half of them who died due to harsh conditions, illness, and age, but they weren't murdered. Partisan military administration advised release of those who could not be considered as war criminals a month or two after they were brought in camps (I speak on Hungarians only) How do You that there are certainly 1000 innocent per war criminal (nobody wants to admit that someone was murderer, plunderer, it looks bad)? I gave example of Tibor Kisz. His granddaughter (a right wing politician in Viktor Orban government) says he was innocent, yet somebody found proof that her grandfather was a Turaninan hunter (racist/colaborationist organisation) and claims that he was killed by another fellow Turaanian hunter a week before partisans liberated Vrbas? Did You live 80 years ago and were eyewitness, maybe? It is outrageous to say that there were only 55-60 war criminals? Who killed Serbian colonists in Sirig on April 13, 1941? Who killed some 3000 men in 1941 and expelled Serbian colonists (source Kasas 1996)? Who trowed men under ice in 1942 raid? According to You 50-60 men - minus Mihailović, Jovanović, Kalabić? No, it was Royal Hungarian Army aided by local Hungarians!!! I don't deny that there were indeed innocent men or men who, by, today standards, did't standards, by you say, without any evidence that you know can list 1000 innocent for one know war criminal. And what is your opinion on Arrow Cross Party that has branches in Hungarian towns along river Tisa? Do you want to say that there were only 50 members/followers of that party in BaÄka? No, there were hundreds, even maybe thousands. Are they innocent, too?
My opinion: yes, there were bad treatment of Volksdeutche, Hungarians and anti-communist Serbs (shooting or beating POWs, rape, looting), but it wasn't official policy, aside from expulsion of Germans (and all Eastern European countries did that). --  Bojan   Talk  03:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK:I wanted not to continue, but you're such a blatant manipulator, eh. Yes shurely I write much, but I do it in hope you read it and think about it. I always assume you do. Otherwise its not a discussion.

But let it be, whatever is going on here in the talk still doesn't gratify you right to delete well referenced sentences in the article! You can't just leave a note here about Turan hunters (we all know they existed) and go and delete some random sentence there.

You cannot just come here and tell us the nazis were bad guys, and go back to the article to deliberatley dispute that communists killed innocents.

Shurely nice pick about Draža who "I evade". And what about the government of Serbia (High Court) rehabiliting him as innocent? And stating that his war crimes were a communist forgery, and his trial a politically staged trial? Please I am not sharing my opinion here. These are facts. I am just curious if you think you are smarter than your country? Of course we all know that there was a trial of his, so what is your point anyway? It is not clear to me how is all that connected to the subject of this article?

Everyne can see clearly that all your arguments on the subject criminals/innocents are a pure psychological manipulation. You even use that morbid argument "They killed innocents first, they were as much cruel, so why is the problem if we killed innocents by 'more humane' ways". Everyone here can see that you are defending an ideology, whereas I defend the victims of that ideology.

By the way, you never say anything about the government of Serbia recognizing the fact that bloody purge of innocents did happen, and that monuments and memorials should be erected above the mass graves. Nobody - besides you - say that those mass graves, especially in Vojvodina are graves of war criminals! Show me one mass grave of the purges after september 1944 in Vojvodina - with references - that is a mass grave of war criminals. Please!

To the recent days - the article presents it - these monuments, the crosses, the stones etc. were regularly destroyed, burned, removed. Who else than by the relatives and ideological supporters of the mass-killers (who else would destroy graveyards than those indoctrinated and blinded by an ideology). Please, prove that you're not a liar, and declare openly if you support the removal of monuments from the mass graves of communist purges. Because you claim that there are war-criminals in those graves. The memorial table above most graves have a list of names. Please start your own investigation and form a commission for removal of all names and exhumation of all "suspects" from those graves that you consider "inappropriate". And in meantime explain, why those people were all shot in head without charges and trial. You cannot go away with your notion without explaining why the government hid the supposed reasons of the mass killings and forbid the public to talk about it for more than 60 years. Why the fear if they were war criminals anyway? The killers should have been proud of the killings but instead they sealed with seven seals, destroyed and camouflaged the scene of the crime. Where is the logic here? I don't know much about criminal investigation, but this has all the elements of a criminal act. The communist government should have been proud of purging out war criminals, instead cover up happaned on all levels, and the circumstances of killings were classified as state secret. Come on man, you don't have to be Colombo to see that all this point to mass crime here, and the government was responsible! Because it with all its power defended the perpetrators, and no partisan was ever charged for deliberate act. Be careful, who do you defend here!

And please do not delete referenced material from the article, because you are deliberately degrading what the article is trying to say.– Jozefsu ( talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Known Chetnik leader (ÄorÄ‘ije LaÅ¡ić) with a Geman envoy. But according to you and Serbian court this didn't happen?
It is good to know that you think followers of Nazissm aren't bad guys. Regarding Mihilović's, it was legal process with only plaintiff, and without other side who will fought against rehabilitation. Details of process Tomislav Dulić: SENTENCED “FOR IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL REASONS� THE REHABILITATION OF DRAGOLJUB “DRAŽA†MIHAILOVIĆ IN SERBIA doi: 10.2298/SOC1204625D Article is from 2012, he was rehabilitated thanks to influence of Oliver Antić, aid of Chetnik duke Tomislav Nikolić, then president of Serbia.
I didn't get answer on my question: who killed 3,000 civilians in 1941? Who trowed men under the ice in 1942? 50-60 men (those who are true war criminals)? No, there were many more. And sorry, whoever was member of Arrow Cross Party (there were hundreds or even more thousands among Hungarians in BaÄka, Turanian Hunters (there were hundreds or even more thousands among Hungarians in BaÄka), Béla Imrédy's Party of Hungarian Renewal, nemzeters. And many members of Arrow Cross Party, Turanian Hunters are among killed. Aleksandar KasaÅ¡ in his book (pages 176-177) gives examples for Bogojevo and Sombor. For Bogojevo he gives names of 17 Hungarians killed by OZNA on November 6: 5 njilaÅ¡s (members/followers of Arrow Cross Party), 2 Turanian hunters, 4 followers of Béla Imrédy. For Sombor he gives a list of 73 Hungarians. I counted 23 members of ACP, 16 Turans, 3 imredists and rest are listed as murderers, informers, spies, voluntaries in occupying army, etc --  Bojan   Talk  16:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Dear Bojan, first – where and when I said nazis aren't bad guys?! This is not the first time (but I hope the last) that you accuse me of that. Not nice!

Second – If I answer your question about the Novi Sad raid, will you let me alone? And not delete my referenced sentences? I don't want edit war, I just want to edit. In the true spirit of Wikipedia. Here like in the rest of the articles. You know, to look up references, read them, formulate them and place them in, peace by peace building a nice text here. I am not here to modify this article to be in line with my wish or ideology. Just to add original content, as I do everywhere elese in Wikipedia for 4 years now. So let's play your immature game then: Yes, 3000 innocent civilians were killed in Novi Sad 1941 by hungarian soldiers, my nationals, and I am ashamed of those hungarians. Happy now? But in 1944/45 my nationals – many of them innocent civilians too – were killed by partisans, your nationals. Will you accept that fact? Are you ashamed of them too? Or you are happy for the reprisal? Be honest with us! At least try to be, and not go around of the question, by starting another talk, about Turans, this and that.... please!

Thrid – again, you list Turan hunters here and mention the Novi Sad raid, and for you it's all settled? Anybody innocent that was killed by partisans from then on are justified? You list nazi conc. camps, place pictures of chetniks. You think everyone here is a fool, right? If we are interested in that we will look up those – this is a talk page of communist purges, of victims of a communist terror. Are you trying to distract attention from the subject here? The things you list here are for another article. (This is the exact reprise of your "argumentation" from Serbian Wikipedia and I don't want to do it here again. Nije ti dosadno?) There are thousands of pages about Yugoslav partisan's bravery and battles on Wikipedia, but only this one talks about their misconduct. Why not edit this one with the same pure heart and devout attention, for the sake of truth and for the sake of Wikipedia? Remember that no partiality is welcomed. ( Double standard, Bias, Favoritism).

I know about freedom fight of partisans, I know about the nazis, I know about the Holocaust. But please, here, this is different subject, different article. And you are, in my opinion, manipulating. No need for it.– Jozefsu ( talk) 23:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

No, I remove claim that 55-600 were killed without trial, because simply it is not true. According to Radanović's estimates, 55-60% died in camps from nonviolent deaths (mostly Volksdeutshe), then many Chetniks were killed in battles (although amnesty was offered. Twice, by the end of war). Then some did have very public trial (Mihailović, etc). And finally, among those are people not killed by partisans (explaind bellow) --  Bojan   Talk  02:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Tibor Cseres and Srđan Cvetković

are band sources. For example Hungarian historian EnikÅ‘ A. Sajti says: U danaÅ¡njoj maÄ‘arskoj javnosti putem rada Tibora ÄŒereÅ¡a (Vérbosszú a Bácskában) fiksirala se brojka od 40 hiljada, uprkos tome Å¡to sam posle objavljivanja knjige, u svojoj studiji koju je objavio list Saveza pisaca (Magyar Napló), već ukazala na netaÄnost i nesigurnost objavljenih podataka. PoÅ¡to je ÄŒereÅ¡ova knjiga prevedena na viÅ¡e jezika, meÄ‘u kojima na engleski i hrvatski, tako se i na meÄ‘unarodnom planu fiksirala ova brojka. Uprkos tome Å¡to i vojvoÄ‘anska literatura na maÄ‘arskom jeziku drži ovu brojku preteranom, jer kako ukazuje Marton MatuÅ¡ka u jednoj sumirajućoj studiji u vezi odmazdi, „prema podacima koje knjiga objavljuje u ÄŒurugu je palo 3000, a Zabiju 2000 žrtava. Ni jedno selo nije imalo toliko maÄ‘arskih stanovnika." Ne govoreći o tome, dodaje, da knjiga iskljuÄivo „razmatra dogaÄ‘aje u BaÄkoj", odmazde u Banatu, Baranji ne spominje. (in Aleksandar KasaÅ¡'s book). Translation: In modern Hungarian public, thanks to work by Tibor Cseres (Vérbosszú a Bácskában), number of 40,000 [dead] is fixed, despite fact after publication of [his] book, in my study published by paper of Authors union (Magyar Napló), I already pointed inaccuracy and uncertainity of published data. Thanks to fact that Czeres's book is translated on several language, including English and Croatian, in international public this number is also fixed. Despite fact that even literature from Vojvodina on Hungarian language consider this number exaggerated, since, as Marton Matuszka points in a study regarding retalitations, "acording to data that the [Cseres's] book reveals in ÄŒurug there were 3000 slain, and in Žabalj 2000 victims. Not one [of those two] village had so many Hungarian inhabitants". While not talking about that, he [Matuszka] says that the book exclusively "consider events in BaÄka", retaliations in Banat [and] Baranja doesn't mention.

SrÄ‘an Cvetković, although he genuinely has Phd in field of history, and he is spiritus movens behind Serbian State Commission, is bad/unreliable researcher. Milan Radanović points that his master/PHd thesis, Between hummer and sickle has manny inacuraices. E.g. Cvetković is cited here in article/feuilleton from VeÄenje Novisti "Broz na belom konju". In very first sentence he says: Trijumfalni ulazak J. B. Tita na belom konju 20. oktobra 1944. preko PanÄevaÄkog mosta uneo je zebnju u srca mnogih BeograÄ‘ana. (triumphal entry of J. B. Tito [in Belgrade] on white horse on 20th October 1944 via PanÄevo bridge brought aching in heart of many residents of Belgrade). Fact #1. Tito arived in Belgrade on 26th October, on 20th October he was in VrÅ¡ac, awaiting arrival of Ivan Å ubaÅ¡ić, Fact #2 PanÄevo bridge was destroyed several days earlier by retreating Wehrmacht (or by Allied planes), so Fact #3 Broz only could get in Belgrade via Soviet patrol boat.

@ Peacemaker67:, what do you say? --  Bojan   Talk  04:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK: And well, here are the good old arguments from the Serbian Wikipedia. You are in second gear in your quest to refuse the purges – by cheap tries to discriminate the sources and the researchers.
I cannot tell you are a liar because I get punished but I will tell shurely you are a manipulator. Let's see: (1) Tibor Cseres was among the first to write about the purges. As a starter, he of course has mistakes. In any research on any dim subject the pioneers make the most excess. Consider 50 years of silence on the subject, and then you start to go around to look for witnesses. He just wrote down what witnesses said. What Sajti Eneko says here (and you failed to understand) is not that Cseres was bad alltogether, but because he was the first and was not fully unbiased, the whole research suffered from misconception of exaggerated numbers. But nothing was nullyfied, Sajti Enike herself wrote excessively on the subject and proved that purges of innocent hungarians very much happened. If there was no Cseres, maybe there would be no Sajti either. Maybe we would not even write an article here, and you would not have what to argue about (that is why you dislike Cseres, not his mistakes, but because he boldly attacked your purist communist ideology). So Cseres is still a source that should be mentioned in connection to this subject, right or wrong, with proper explanation. By the way is he mentioned in the article or you deleted it already? You are known to delete whataver you dislike. So what do you want then? Come on, he openly published a book, not blogged on some website, and he was not writing about comics, he was writing about mass killings of his nationals. Will you forgive him? (2) Srđan Cvetković did not do any notable research, he was involved and in charge of collecting raw data from the field. Someone has to do that too, right? And everyone says he did a good job, no matter what he said earlier about Tito (if he said it). So what we have here – collecting data as the first step in any investigation. He was doing a groundwork only, but since he has seen all the data, he made some public statements about it. But as far as I know he has not done research personally – please show any published paper which analises the data, and is signed by Cvetković. Or: show us anybody who researched and published about the purges and state that the data from the database is wrong because of Cvetković. This is pure nonsense, pure manipulation.
And by the way tell us if you pelase, who are the reserchers of the communist purges you the great Bojan approve? Are there any?– Jozefsu ( talk) 12:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
So, I am manipulator and he who says that more people were killed than lived in those towns is a serious source? Cvetković reguralry counts Jews and Serbs killed in Auschwitz, Mauthsausen, Jasenovac and Bergen-Belѕen as victim of partisans (examples
  • Auschwitz: Kata GerÅ¡tl (Novi Sad, RKTG-63067); Jovanka Jojkić (Žabalj, RKTG-71257); Andrija Najman (Sombor, RKTG-85242); Josip Najman (Sombor, RKTG-85243); Sara Najman (Sombor, RKTG-85244); NemeÅ¡ (Sombor, RKTG-85245); Ilona Volhajmer (Sombor, RKTG-100942); Leopold Balint (Ada, RKTG-44361); Roži Balint (Ada, RKTG-44362); Tibor Balint (Ada, RKTG-44363); Salamon Bakran (Sombor, RKTG-44419); Jovan Barna (Kula, RKTG-44420); Jovanka Narna (Kula, RKTG-44421); Petar Gavrilović (Zemun, RKTG-66972);
  • Mauthausen: Zoran PurigraÄki (Nova Crnja, RKTG-54739); Vujica DaÅ¡ić (ÄŒaÄak, RKTG-6380);
  • Jasenovac: Jakob Zorić (Subotica, RKTG-57086);
  • Bergen-Belsen: Å arlota Galc (Novi Sad, RKTG-62998).
His commission counted men who survived war as men executed by partisans (examples Božidar Purić, Dragutin Gavrilović, sr:Dragoslav Stranjaković, and many more]. OK, in the meantime Purić, Stranjaković were removed from the list. So, Cvetković and his commission inflated number of victims, counted people who died in German camps yet he was unable to prove his estimation of 80-100,000 men killed by partisans.
@ Peacemaker67: is calling someone manipulator (and trolling) allowed on Wikipedia? --  Bojan   Talk  16:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Should I defend myself? The person who is manipulating is called a manipulator. It's not an insult, it's an assessment based on observation. Bojane, why I cannot find the second list of yours in the database? Dragutin Gavrilović, Božidar Purić, Dragoslav Stranjaković, Salamon Bakran. Are you really telling us truth here? What secondary source you are using for these?

"His commission" – again you are slightly slanting here. It is not his but of the government of Serbia, and of the two academies of Serbia and Hungary. There is just too many academics involved here for you to accuse them for unreliability. I don't even understand how dare you, with your limited knowledge, do it. Are you really accusing the National Academias of not one but two countries for forgery?! Or you have access to the secret classified files from the UDB, OZNA, SDB and VOS-liquidator unit?– Jozefsu ( talk) 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

And I'm sorry, but I need to stress this too: Bojan knows I am of hungarian etnicity, so he emhasizes the Novi Sad raid and the 'Turans' – to intimidate me. That is an obvious manipulation. He's trying to chase me away, that's all he does.

Just some forgotten facts here: all the perpetrators of the Novi Sad crime were prosecuted. But no partisan was prosecuted for 1944/45. Some of them were even awarded a medal, others were at high position, lived respected lives. Some guards who robbed prisoners in retention camps where demobilized, that's all reported. Bojan knows this. But the world also needs to know this side of things, for the sake of righteousness.

Bojane, how come you forget that many more serbs killed serbs, based on ideology, during and after WW2? Just this one man, Ratko Dražević UDBA leader claims he killed with his own hand 2000 prisoners in ÄŒaÄak. Killer is killer, murder is murder. I don't care what sign he wears, what language he speaks... The executioners names should be known, the line of command behind the purges need to come to light, and the victims deserve to be named and buried with humane dignity. Eh, these strange, alien words to you? ...even communists purged other communists after the war, in battle for power. Hebrang, Slobodan Penezić Krcun, Ranković, names sound familiar to you?– Jozefsu ( talk) 00:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Read what I wrote: OK, in the meantime Purić, Stranjaković were removed from the list.. Yes, I said that that people were in the list in 2014. Thanks to (in)competence of Srđan Cvetković's commision. People who died in Auswitz, Mauthsausen, Jasenovac ARE still in the list and people count them as victims of partisans, not Germans. And Milorad Mojić was killed in Zagreb by Ustashas in event described in this article, yet he is still he is counted as sustenanced to death

Fact that are You of hugarian ethnicity doesn't meant anything to me. I'm against revisionist of all eccentricities who speak bullshit. As I demontrated by pointing that many Serbian collaborators and war criminals are in the list. Many of ~15,000 Serbs weren't executed, the died in battled against Partisans or were killed by American/British bombers, because they were retreating together with Army Gropu E. Yes, some perpetuateros of Novi Sad raid were tried as Hungary wanted to show that it was trully democratic society in the when Miklos Kalay soughted to make deal with United Kingdom and pull Hungary out of war. Let see what KasaÅ¡ says (pages 143-144) : Od 14. do 23.decembra 1943.godine održano je i suÄ‘enje glavnim vinovnicima racije. Ono je koincidiralo sa promenom stava prema Srbima. Tada je suÄ‘eno: Ferencu Feketehalmi Cajdneru, Jožefu GraÅ¡iu, Laslu Deaku, Martonu Zeldiu i dragima. Namenjeno demokratskoj javnosti Zapada, i na odreÄ‘eni naÄin Srbima (zadovoljenje za raciju), suÄ‘enje je okonÄano kao farsa, budući da je svim osuÄ‘enim omogućeno da u januara 1944.godine pobegnu avionom na nemaÄku teritoriju. Translation: From December 14th till 23rd December 1943 trial of main perpetuates of Novi Sad raid'was held. It coincided wiht change of policy toward Serbs. Among defendants were Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner, József Grassy, Laslo Deak, Márton Zöldy and others. It is intended for the democratic public of the West, and in a certain way to the Serbs (satisfaction for raid), the trial was concluded as a farce since all prisoners were allowed to flee by plan on German hold territory in January 1944. I doubt that Dražević ever said that he himself killed 2,000 men, especially since that the commission found only 756 dead from ÄŒaÄak and 1,711 from wider area (municipalites ÄŒaÄak, Gornji Milanovac, Ivanjica and LuÄani. For exampe this man from ÄŒaÄak died somewhere in Bosnia, perhaps from typhoid or killed in Tuzla or Zelenegora).

I'll report this on Administrator noticeboard. I'm tired of you personal attack, trolling and using this page as forum. --  Bojan   Talk  03:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

You are making a scene now, because you are out of valid arguments, right? Look, both conversations were started by you, the first one by pinging my name. I came to this talk page because you deleted properly referenced material (I have the right to defend myself). Besides, this was an appropriate discussion not using the page as forum (another false accusation). In meantime everyone can see that your arguments are disgusting. Also, you already used a nazi card on me, while you are not ashamed for openly trying to justify proven war crimes (the 1944/45 purges). Also you openly reject the work of two national academy's on the subject, by stating they falsify data. Answer directly please: do you refute the government-based official investigation? After that we can continue to edit the article, like any other article. No need for fuss and tension here.– Jozefsu ( talk) 21:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply
And other peoples' arguments that are not in line with your thinking you can call bullshit, right?
@ BokicaK:I will try one more time, maybe I can make you understand (because this directly pertains to the title question of Cvetković). Look, I stressed already that the data the comission collects is raw data out of the post-war communist archives. It is not data made-up by the collectors. But stating that the Serbian government is now allowing forgery of its own classified documents – that is a real bullshit my man! All this data we/you are talking about that is in the database originates from the post-war period. Are you really ignorant of this, or you are trying to distract us from that fact? (Manipulating us, maybe?) Please, if some data is messy it is not Cvetković's or anybody else's fault but fault of those state officials that made the papers in 1940's and 1950's and placed them in the national archives. Do you really failed to notice that on the bottom of each card it say which document the data is quoted from??
And you fail to see one more important thing. While you openly accuse the Serbian Academy of Science of falsifying a legal procedure, you "forget" that many "legal" procedures that stated a person is shot as a "spy" or "enemy" was placed in the archives long after the person was already murdered. Besides that, the archived "court decree" of this kind do not present any proof. Just states fact of death and assumes the person was shot "rightfully". No hangmans name on the document, no court's address. You see, my man, this is not just a real bullshit but is also a war crime. These kind of papers are right there in the communist archives – thousands of them – that besides all that were classified for over 60 years. Why they were not open for the public if war criminals were eliminated anyway? Do you actually see the fault of the logic of sentences that the executed died "in battles" earlier or later? Even if they did, why it was a national secret? The communists were very proud of all their achievements. Why was this different? What they were all of a sudden ashamed of? I know all communist regimes were secretive, but in this concrete case, what was hidden from the public and why? Besides all that, who knows how many papers are destroyed by the executioners later, and how many people were shot even without a paper. What are we talking about? Are we (I mean you) talking bullshit?– Jozefsu ( talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply
No, I'm full of arguments, but you don't read. I said in Revision as of 17:00, 29 April 2019 that OK, in the meantime Purić, Stranjaković were removed from the list. Then you did query and of course you didn't find their names, and then you dare to insult me. I didn't call You Nazi, I said It is good to know that you think followers of Nazissm aren't bad guys. Regarding two national academies, from Radanović: Imenik stradalih stanovnika AP Vojvodine 1941-1948.“ Anketnog odbora SkupÅ¡tine AP Vojvodine (formiran 2003. sa zadatkom da utvrdi približan broj i saÄini poimeniÄnu bazu podataka stradalih stanovnika Vojvodine 1941-1948) demantuje visoke procene Å andora MesaroÅ¡a i drugih autora koji su iznosili predimenzionirane brojke.[17] Prema nepotpunim podacima Anketnog odbora, publikovanim 2008, poimenice je poznato 4.424 lica maÄ‘arske nacionalnosti koja su stradala na podruÄju Vojvodine 1941-1948. Od ovog broja, njih 394 stradali su tokom 1941-1943.[18] Podatke Anketnog odbora dopunili su saradnici Državne komisije za tajne grobnice tako da je prema podacima evidentiranim do 6. decembra 2012. nakon osloboÄ‘enja stradalo najmanje 5.521 lice maÄ‘arske nacionalnosti na podruÄju Vojvodine i Beograda.[19] Saradnici Državne komisije su, za razliku od saradnika Anketnog odbora, dobili na uvid matiÄne knjige mesne zajednice BaÄki Jarak i opÅ¡tine Temerin, Å¡to im je omogućilo da, na osnovu ovih i nekih drugih izvora, dopune podatke Anketnog odbora.
So, two academies could only make list of 5521 (as of 2012), and Czeres claimed, basing on hearsay, 40,000. Get it? --  Bojan   Talk  02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't miss anything you say, unfortunately. But we are talking on two levels, each of us talk about a completely different thing. All you do is playing with the numbers of victims, tryng to lessen (as if that was possible!) the extent of the crime (reread your last sentence). On other instances you try to relativize the subject and try justify the killings, so indirectly you are defending the perpetrators. Please don't deny it, everybody sees what you are doing. Even in the article itself. By the way as for the article, in the serbian Wikipedia you directly demonstrated this by incredibly violent attitude against everyone and deleteing every edit that was not in line with your agenda. Whereas I – in line with the current official investigation – talk about things like how many innocents were killed, where they are buried, what was their name and how to bury them as human beings (I believe the government should exhume them and even pay their proper burial). Come on, what difference it makes if "only" 1000 was innocent out of 2000 executed? What about the 1000 then? What is your answer, solution? Leave them in the unsigned graves tigether with the criminals? (following your logic) You see, that is why the process of rehabilitation (independent investigation, without revisonism) is important. Do you see yourself and can you rethink your used arguments? The war was over before 74 years so today only the extent of war crime is important, because up to this day nobody was charged, and this was a top level national secret sealed in archives. So if you still don't understand why this is more important than the numbers the answer is because war is over, we are not engaging in war anymore (it looks like you still do in your head and heart) and the countries want to ensure peaceful future coegzistence, not to be forever stuck in the hatred game! Only rightful dealing with the past can settle this, and putting away with it but not to swipe it under the carpet, but putting ALL cards on the table (illuminating BOTH sides of the picture). I can write much much more, but you already lost your cool, and this is exactly what was on the Serbian Wikipedia – don't lead anywhere.

And you report as much as you can. So I can point to what you have done with me on the Serbian Wikipedia, how much bitterness I suffered because you and your idelogy friends persecuted me, frightening me with a power of administrator. You were problematic even as a sysop, and you have a record of misbehavior there that you cannot deny. And as for this here, if your intensions to settle the so-called "dispute" are honest, why didn't you notified me as is the Wikipedia procedure? You were a sysop for long time, you cannot say you don't know the rules.

P. S. As for who insults who. If you are really not interested in my nationality, why did you stress not once but twice the Turan hunters? Even to the extent of almost writing an article here about them – doing this just because you think among the victims of purges was a Turan? According to this, who of us used this talk page for a forum? And what else was that if not manipulation aimed to my nationality? And sentences in bold like "local hungarians helped the nazis"?? What were you trying to prove with those if not that hungarians cannot be trusted? (By the way this exact phrase was used by the communists to start the purges in Vojvodina.)

For Turan hunters let me share this story: my dad was 14 years old and played near the camp of hungarian Turan hunters. [a] My dad was also hungarian, but these criminals cought him and beated him anyway. My dad says they were bored so they "played" a little with him by giving him slaps. He managed to escape. Only for the second try, because they caught him again. He was a skinny boy, these were strong men. My dad hated Hungary all his life because of this. Besides, my two uncles were partisans, fought in the battle of Batina..... And dear "friend" what do you think why I didn't share this true story here? Because there is no reason for it! It doesn't have to do anything with the title of this article, as much as your chetnik pictures don't! You place pictures of chetniks and nazis in the talk page about the victims of red terror, and then you are complaining about somebody trolling you? You canvass using the talk page as a pasteboard, so what makes you nervous is basically double-standard. You can do this, but others' arguments make you pissed off.– Jozefsu ( talk) 14:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ I made a mistake here. Based on the similarity of words I confused Turan hunters (Turáni vadászok) with the regular army unit Border hunters ( Határvadászok) – here's how they looked like – but the point remains the same.
    According to what I was able to look up the Hunters were national civil sportist organisation, where people joined voluntarily (similar to Sokolski Savez in Serbia). They were not part of the military, although some active or retired soldiers were also members. It was active in Hungary until 1949, when the goverment declared it was with Anti-Soviet and anti communist sentiment. The reason of official ban was that it was illegally active in period 1945-1949 without the permit from the government.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Communist_purges_in_Serbia_in_1944–1945&oldid=1205903106"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article

The aim of this article is allegedly to present the bloodletting at the end of World War II. Instead it already questions the FACT that it was commited by the Yugoslav Partisan Movement in the intraductory sentence! It's ridiculous that the chapter "Killings" is constituted from two lines, as well as the lack of a description of the crimes committed. This is purely denial and relativisation of a historical crime. Ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, should be stated in the first paraghraph, "killings" is preposterous. "Killings were killings" is childish and not really a decent English sentence, but the main goal of some here seems to be the denial. Disappointing. Transylvanus 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The point is that we should have here an article that will correctly describe these events. We should not use this article as modern irredentist propaganda which have goal to propagate for territorial autonomy of Hungarians in northern Vojvodina. History is one thing, politics another... PANONIAN (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

How come the German and Hungarian ethnic cleansing is referred to as "crimes of the occupiers", whereas the Yugoslavs´ murders of Hungarians are simply "killings"??

Because crimes of the fascists in WW2 are well known and undisputed historical facts, while these killings after the war are very controversial issue, hence the "killings" is best word that can describe it. PANONIAN (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

So the massacres of Serbs are "undisputed, historical facts" but the massacres of Hungarians are "a very controversial issue"? Christ, what double standards. As far as I can tell from these articles, both events can and should be labelled as "killings" or "massacres".

No, you missed the terms - the crimes of the Axis side in the war are undisputed historical facts, while crimes of Allies are controversial issue, no matter of the ethnic origin of the victims. And furthermore, counting victims by ethnic origin here might not be the best solution because we know that fascist Hungarian state in World War II killed many ethnic Hungarians. Of course, the modern Hungarian nationalists do not care for those killed Hungarians because they were not killed by "evil neighbours". That are double standards, my friend. PANONIAN (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The aritcle has being attacked by the Serb nationalist (User:PANNONIAN). I wanted to make a memorial artcile for the victims, but he can't stand that we should talk about the innocent civilian victims of the partisans. HunTheGoaT 18:31, 29 September 2006 (CEST)

Please refrain from personal attacks, ok? And better do not ask me to say what you "wanted" here, mister "No Trianon" guy. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
And by the way, if I am nationalist, how you explain the fact that when you created this article, an user from Italy taged your article as non-neutral: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1944-1945_Killings_in_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=78500862&oldid=78500585 Is he a Serbian nationalist too? PANONIAN (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

For User:Öcsi

Do you please have some reasonable explanation for this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1944-1945_Killings_in_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=78874310&oldid=78791238 You changed numbers, but you left here a sources that present different numbers to show that they in fact present "your" numbers. There is one word for it - a falsification!!!

Now here is list of sources, and a quotation what they claim:

  • 1. Dimitrije Boarov, PolitiÄka istorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 2001. Quotation: "estimations about number of killed Hungarians range from 4,000 to 40,000 with 20,000 being most probable number"
  • 2. Dragomir Jankov, Vojvodina - propadanje jednog regiona, Novi Sad, 2004. Quotation: "There were 20,000 killed Hungarians and this number included both, those that commited war crimes and innocent civilians".
  • 3. http://www.krater.hu/pprint.php?print=102&PHPSESSID=086c47ea596fafd2ed0f5f10ca1a0262 This is article in Hungarian. I cannot read this, but User:Laslovarga told me that article claim that most probable number of killed Hungarians is 20-25,000. I assume it is this sentence: "A bácska-bánáti 20-25 000 magyarnak azért is pusztulnia kellett"
  • 4. http://www.huncor.com/delvidek4445/delvidekindex2.htm According to User:HunTheGoaT this site claim that the highest estimation about number of killed Hungarians is about 50,000.

So, let write this article in accordance with Wikipedia policy:

  • 1. Our job is not to declare which source is right and which is wrong, but to present data from ALL sources that we have.
  • 2. we have to write two things here: 1. the lowest and highest possible estimation of this number and 2. the number that is most probable. So, if we compare all these sources, we will see that lowest and highest estimations are 4,000 and 50,000 and most likely numbers are 20-25,000. If somebody have opposite opinion, it would be good to discuss it here instead to simply change numbers with no explanation. PANONIAN (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The number of killed Hungarians is much higher than 20000, and 4000 is only ridiculous. My source is the Hungarian Wikipedia, the Duna TV and hungarian people living in the Bácska. But the fact is that nobody knows exactly how many people died in these killings. I could also mention the ten thousands of Hungarians who died in the prisoner-camps. Öcsi 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"The number of killed Hungarians is much higher than 20000, and 4000 is only ridiculous"

I am sorry, but it is your personal opinion and nothing else. I simply presented here what my sources say and it is in accordance with verifiability policy of Wikipedia. Whether you personally like or dislike this data is only your own problem. Regarding your sources, you use Hungarian Wikipedia as a source? Is this a joke or something? I hope that you know that anybody could edit that article on Hungarian Wikipedia and could write anything there. As for Duna TV, I can watch that TV on my cable television, and I just can say that they too much times showed a map of Greater Hungary in their TV program. The only correct thing that you said is "that nobody knows exactly how many people died in these killings", so our job is not to present only those numbers that we personally like more, but numbers from ALL sources. PANONIAN (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

reason for totallydisputed tag?

Nothing, except PANONIAN's own researches. Nationalism rules. But not on Wikipedia. Tag removed, and will be considered as vandalism, untill a valuable reason won't be shown here for 1. what facts are not correct 2. wich part is POV, and why, and what text would be good instead of it. -- 195.56.80.183 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Reason for tag is data that come from unreliable sources in this section of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944-1945_Killings_in_BaÄka#Killings Unreliable sources are Hungarian Wikipedia and web site named "Hungarian holocaust in Yugoslavia 1944-1992". PANONIAN (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Read the books mentoned in the notes section dude. Some of them are in serbian. I put some more in, and changed those refs to those wich are in the hungarian one. (books) -- 195.56.80.183 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The page, you disputed has a BIBLIOGRAPHY part, wich means, they put the text seen there, from these:

  • Márton Matuska: Days of the revenge. Forum Publisher Novisad, 1991.
  • Tibor Cseres: Blood feud in Bácska. Magvetö Publisher Budapest, 1991 Selections from articles:Weekly Hungary: Mihály András Beke Weekly Hungary: György B. Walkó
  • Hungarian Word: Article of the editor, 4 August 1992 Hungarian Forum: Márton Matuska
  • Gate: Ajtony Bese
  • Sunday of the Hungarian Catholics: Attila Balázs
  • Selections from the reports of Ferenc Szaniszló, made for the program of Hungarian Television, Panorama. ,
  • Documents of the National Library "Széchenyi' were selected by István Bálint, librarian
  • The Report was edited by Ferenc Kubinyi, historiographer

No more notes needed. Yours sincerely. -- 195.56.80.183 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but it is not enough to list your books here. If you want to remove the tag, you should find a proper quotes in these books to support disputed section of the article. In another words, you should quote the exact book that claim this and not to quote article from Hungarian Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, you changed some of the quotes, but there are still those from web site named "Hungarian holocaust in Yugoslavia 1944-1992", which are still disputed because this site speak about non-existing "holocaust". I mean, killings in 1944-1945 did happened, but they certainly did not happened in 1945-1992 period. PANONIAN (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cleanup

I've done a bit of cleanup, still needs a lot more. - Francis Tyers · 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The source that was added is far from impartial or academic "hungarian-history.hu", come on, the site is called "Serbian Vendetta in Bacska" hah. - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If your study of site is deeper, you would see that this is an e-book version of the book published in Budapest in 1991. I recommend you to read chapters from "Cover" to "Vendetta. Retaliation Multiplied", because of discernment. Enough academic? Bendeguz 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No. Basing the whole thing on one book published by Hungarians (the alleged victims) is NO DEAL. Find some impartial, non-partisan, reliable sources. Books, journal articles etc. written by non-Yugoslav, non-Hungarians. - Francis Tyers · 08:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

One of the main principles of collective amnesia is: "If we don't talk about events, the events didn't happen." You modified this principle to: "If we don't have reliable (English) sources, the events didn't happen." (alleged is your word). The tragedy of losers and small nations is that, there is nobody to write their history, except themselves.

From interview with author:

I: Were your hopes fulfilled in the form of Serbian writers making the same symbolic act of collective regret, if not a confession for their crimes like the one you had made in Cold Days .

A: None of my hopes were fulfilled. A few Serbian writers voiced their opinion that in World War II almost two million people lost their lives in their country, so these few tens of thousands of Hungarians should not be of interest to them, especially not as writers.(COLD DAYS - A NOVEL AND A FILM, Page 18)

Collective amnesia and denial , instead of regret. This is - {{ Fact}}, Serbia even now.

To do (warm up your cleaning-machine Francis)

  • Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina, 1941-1944 "alleged victims" mainly Serbs, completely Serb sources.
  • Foibe massacres, "alleged victims" Italians, completely Italian sources.

(to be continued) Bendeguz 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Neither of these should exist unless there are sources as I specified above. - Francis Tyers · 11:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PS. I don't insist on English, if you can find reliable sources in French or Romanian -- or any other language -- written by non-Yugoslav, non-Hungarians then that would probably be ok. - Francis Tyers · 11:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merged

I've merged this into Occupation of Vojvodina, where it looks much more at home. - Francis Tyers · 12:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If we ever get enough non-partisan, reliable sources to write an article on this, we can demerge it. - Francis Tyers · 12:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Merging is not a good idea because we have here two different events with different motives. Besides this, the Yugoslav/Serbian sources do speak about killed Hungarians in 1944-1945 as well as Hungarian sources speak about killed Serbs in 1941-1944, so both events are not "alleged", but well known in literature published in both countries. Of course, I speak about events in general, although the certain parts of the article like number of killed people is indeed controversial issue and should be indeed confirmed by reliable sources. PANONIAN (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Serious concerns

1. This article is below any acceptable standard, in its present form seems more like a stub. 2. This article is seriously biased.


1. The article does not fulfil the promise of the title, the Chapter entitled Killings contains TWO LINES of low quality "explanation".

The English of the intraductory sentence is extremely poor.

There aren't any sites mentioned, in contrast with the "Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944" article: "include Novi Sad, BeÄej, Vilovo, Gardinovci, GospoÄ‘inci, ÄurÄ‘evo, Žabalj, Lok, MoÅ¡orin, Srbobran, Temerin, Titel, ÄŒurug, and Å ajkaÅ¡."

The pictures aren't very relevant.


2. The title in itself is strange enough. Killings as the most appropriate term for the events? As a comparison articles dealing with Yugoslavia of the same era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_massacres, or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Vojvodina%2C_1941-1944 (the author, Panonius? speaks about "war crime" and "the mass murder of the civilians" in connection with the 1942 raid. I agree with those terms, but why did he restore "killings instead of my "ethnic cleansing"? The lowest estimate given by the present (shameful) page is 4000, compare this with 3800 after the 1942 raid. How is this not a massacre, war crime or ethnic cleansing???

In the same sentence "allegedly"! Come on! Were there any other armed men capable of committing a crime on this scale? What are you suggesting? That not all of them were officially members? Some of them lost their Partisan ID?

"This was due to the fact that members of these two ethnic groups showed the largest level of collaboration with the Axis authorities and committed most of the war crimes against the citizens of Vojvodina." This is not a fact only an accusation, or an excuse for the perpetrators or war criminals. As far as I know War Crimes are War Crimes regardless from their origin.

"many citizens of Vojvodina belonging to all ethnic groups joined the partisan resistance movement to fight against occupation" is this a factual sentence or something taken from a communist internationalist fairy tale?

"Some Hungarian houses were sacked and one number of Hungarian civilians was executed and tortured. [10] Some women and children were raped. [11] Some men who were able to work were deported to Siberia." This is the most disgraceful sentence, "some" as a cover for 4000 to 50000 murders plus rapes and all the others, this is the clearest example of downplaying of a Second World War tragedy I have ever seen on Wikipedia.


I am afraid that the moderators of the page aren't really experts in the field. Thus, please consider the mistakes made and do not restore the original version when I make a correction. Transylvanus 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, you don't own this article (and neither of us does). As far as I can tell, no serious source apart from Hungarian partisan sources describes the events as "ethnic cleansing" and I don't see any proof of "attempt at expelling the entire ethnic group", which is the definition of ethnic cleansing. As with any inter-ethnic massacre, we're witnessing both downplaying the numbers on one side and overblowing them on the other. Yes, this article is bad. But your edits didn't improve it either. Duja â–º 10:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, yes, there is a problem. The problem is of inadequate sourcing. As I have requested above, please find sources that are reliable, written by non-partisan scholars. We can't just base the whole article on unreliable Hungarian sources. I admit I have tried to find references to these killings in reputable publications (via a search on Google Scholar) but was unable to find anything. Perhaps you will have more luck? - Francis Tyers · 11:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem with the event described in the article is that Greater Hungarian irredentist propaganda often twist historical facts regarding the event with goal to advocate the creation of territorial autonomy for Hungarians in northern Vojvodina. Therefore, we should first see the difference between political propaganda and historical facts. Part of that propaganda is claim that the intention of partisans was to ethnically cleanse Hungarians and that is simply not truth because partisans were internationalists and their goal was to "cleanse" unloyal population no matter of the ethnic origin of that population. Therefore, partisans also killed many ethnic Serbs who were members of the chetnik forces or members of the forces loyal to Milan Nedić. Besides this, the Hungarians that were loyal to new Yugoslav regime gained very large amount of rights in Vojvodina including official usage of their language, preservation of their culture, their participation in the Vojvodinian government, etc. Since we know all these facts, it is simply ridiculous that somebody claim that goal of partisans in 1944-1945 was to ethnically cleanse Hungarians. Regarding terms, it was already discussed, the term "massacre" usually refer to one specific event, while this article speak about various events in various places, hence the term "killings" is most appropriate (some of these killings were individual when only one person was killed, so we cannot use term "massacre" if only one person was killed). On the contrary, the 1942 raid is a clear example of massacre because it was a mass murder of civilians in specific time at specific place. Regarding reasons for killings, the members of Hungarian and German ethnic groups indeed showed the largest level of collaboration with the Axis authorities and that was reason why they were target of these killings after the war. The goal of partisans was to "cleanse politically incorrect population", and in Vojvodina most of such population was among Hungarians and Germans. Regarding participation of citizens of Vojvodina in anti-fascist struggle duting the war, it is correct that many Hungarians were members of the partisan movement and fought against fascism. Therefore, such Hungarians were not persecuted by the new Yugoslav authorities, which again disapprove theory about ethnic cleansing after the war. And regarding sentence that "some Hungarian houses were sacked", the usage of word "some" is most correct here or you would say that "all" Hungarian houses were sacked? Regarding "expertism" about this page, Duja and Francis might not be experts for Serb-Hungarian relations in Vojvodina and Hungarian irredentist propaganda, but same cannot be said for me, so I very well know the difference between historical facts and propaganda here. PANONIAN (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Right. I'm glad for receiving some explanations, I will try to adress each of them during the week.

1. I have nothing to do with "Great Hungarian propaganda". 2.This is still a terribly unbalanced article. As a historian my concerns are connected to terminology, and the usage of language and that of the sources.

"unreliable Hungarian sources" Of course one could argue against every book and article. My problem here is that the only "reliable" sources according to the present form of the articles are Yugoslav ones. Now that is ridiculous. My suggestion is to present two narratives. 1. The official Yugoslav or serb version (preferably not simply based on the postwar idea of collective guilt as the present version does) 2. A Hungarian version (or a non extremist Hungarian one). Cseres Tibor for instance can not be interpreted as "irredentist". I can elaborate on his views if there is request for it.

But the whole problem here is that this is not a question of Serbian versus Hungarian version of the event, but the question of accuracy. If we want to find the truth what were motives of the partisans here, then we also should to raise a question of accuracy of sources that speak about such motives. We also cannot disregard modern political aspirations of some sources that mention this event. Therefore, the claim that motive of the partisans was ethnic cleansing is simply not supported by the two facts: 1. the fact that partisans killed thousands of Serbs that were members of chetnik army, and 2. the fact that partisans did not killed or expelled other Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Francis Tyers requested more reliable (non Yugoslav, non Hungarian) sources. I have two problems with this. Firstly, avoiding local sources is not accepted as a scholarly approach. (You can't study ancient history without the Greek or Latin etc. sources.) Sources from at least the two most affected nations have to be included. Or get rid of the serb sources? No, you have to use Cseres at least. Secondly, aricles published in the English speaking world were also mainly written by authors of Hungarian or South Slavic origin. The most respected of them was probably Jozo Tomasevich at Stanford University. However, I'm not sure how much of their research was based on primary sources. Their conclusions were reached in the 80's, when for example the shocking results of the Slovenian exhumations were not known (296 mass graves with 180000 (!) corpses, see Bleiburg massacre), which is four times more than Tomasevich's estimate!


Hi, thanks for getting back to me on that. Our articles on Greek and Roman events are largely not based on Greek or Latin sources. They are based on Western sources. PS. You should read: Dulic, T. (2004) "Tito's Slaughterhouse: A critical analysis of Rummel's work on democide". Journal of Peace Research. 41:1 pp. 85-102 . It isn't directly related to this particular set of incidents, but covers some of the issues with using selective, biased local sources. - Francis Tyers · 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Note, that while this is obviously written by a Slav, the paper has been published in a reputable international journal. I welcome sources written by Hungarians and Slavs that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable international journals, or published by reputable academic western publishers, e.g. Cambridge University Press etc. - Francis Tyers · 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I will get the Tomasevich, and some other publications as well (Barbara Jelavich). I will try to balance the article by including their results.

For the short term. 1.While no one disputes the internationalist character of the Parisan Army it still had a nationalist(South Slavic) layer in the same way as the Stalinist Soviet Union did; ethnic cleansings happened here and there as well.

The fact that partisans persecuted only smaller part of the Hungarian population and provided large amount of rights to the larger part simply do not support claim that ethnic cleansing was a motive here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. The term "Killings" is in no way acceptable, it is simply not in line with the standard of other Wikipedia or any scholarly war crime related article. Individual killigs occured during the 1942 raid or around Bleiburg as well. Those Wikipedia articles use the right terms: massacres, mass murder, war crimes. My suggestion is "Massacres in BaÄka".

Massacres would be POV term, because we do not have clear example of one massacre here (read massacre article for description: individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing). So, we do not have individual event, but many events of which not all were mass killings. Besides this, since you compared it with 1942 raid, which is much closer to definition of massacre, even article about that raid do not say "1942 massacre", but "1942 raid". PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

3. The "Killings" chapter and "some houses". I very much doubt that you can describe at least 4000 deaths by saying "some". If you(?) don't want to reveal the numbers you should at least say somethig like "hundreds", "dozens" "several thousands" or "some hundreds". Neither can I imagine that a serious publication described the number of those affected in such terms, so the problem is with our interpreter.

Please at least change "killings", and specify the numbers.

Bests, Transylvanus 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the person that originally posted this sentence did not specified exact numbers, so until numbers are specified, we cannot use better description than "some". PANONIAN (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The wording is bad indeed; from my (admittedly very limited) knowledge on the subject, the most common methods were deaths by firing squad, with or without a short trial, or simple bullet-in-the-head. More cruel ways of execution were likely encountered as well, but their numbers certainly can't be specified. However, the section is referenced to Kasaš's and Karapandžić's books, presumably added by Panonian? Are they misreferenced, or just misquoted? Duja ► 10:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
No, these two books were not added by me. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Massacres or killings

Thanks for drawing my attention to the Wikipedias own massacre article PANONIAN, but I don't see there anything weakening my argument. You've quoted individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing. Yes at least 4000 (possibly ten times more) as agreed in the article is definitely "mass" and deliberate that is again supported by the article (pre-planning, orders). The massacre aricle also says: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." That's spot on. I am convinced that you as a local historian (localpatriot,researcher?) must be aware of at least a dozen sites which correspond to this description. I have no doubt about the meaning of massacre and killing in the English speaking world, but I also checked their relevance in Wikipedia, the result is obvious "killings" only appears in this article to describe an atrocity. Massacre on the other hand is widely used. The Boston Massacre is used to describe the killing of 5 civilians on one day, while the Bleiburg massacre was committed during a longer term, involving tens of thousends. Still the English grammar allows the usage of the singular form massacre.

Mind you none of them is marked as POV only for using this term.

My reason for recommending the term massacre(or massacres) is to show our condemnation. It covers the "never again" message. I have no objection to use it when Hungarian are crimes are described.

Due to my profession I know that those times had different standards and I understand their emotions,["Massacres are the fruit of bitterness, and of the calculations of leaders." concluded Milovan Djilas in his "Wartime" after describing the massacre of some Italian prisoners (translated by Michael B. Petrovich, 1977. edition, London page 338.)] but I'm convinced that in the 21. century our norm ought to be different. Bests, Transylvanus 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you simply want to make partisans to "look more evil" with your name change proposal. But I will give you one example why all these events cannot be desctibed as massacres: I read on some irredentist Hungarian web site (do not remember which one) detailed description of some of these events and there for example was described a event like this: partisans came to the village and killed local Hungarian priest, i.e. they killed only one person (do not remember which village that was), but the killing of one person certainly cannot be described as massacre. The numbers of killed people presented in this article certainly include people that were individual victims and not part of mass killings, thus change of the name of the article would also ask from us to change number of killed people as well, i.e, to include only those that were killed as part of mass killings, but not those that were killed individually. PANONIAN (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't get into personal attacks. That only shows your lack of arguments. 1. You can not bend a language as you wish. Terminology is important in history. 2. The war was brutal enough in the whole area, there is no need to denigrate the partisans. The Foibe massacres and the Bleiburg massacre proves this perfectly, Djilas is not denying it either. I'm not saying that one side was better or worse than the other! Individual killings occured in each of the quoted cases but they all happened "as part of the same operation" Again: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." Transylvanus 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What personal attacks? I do not remember that I attacked you personally. However, your own political goals that stand behind your proposal are not so irrelevant issue at all. As I already said before, these killings are very controversial issue, thus naming article "massacres" would not help it to be NPOV. I really have no intentions to discuss names of "Bleiburg massacre" or "Foibe massacres" articles because I have no any knowledge about these events. I am well aware of irredentist attempts to rewrite history and to make WWII Allies look more evil than Nazis. Let just keep this article in the line with generally accepted World history. This article is alredy POV to certain level and its further POV-ization is the last thing that we need here. PANONIAN (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
At least, you realized, that this page is POV, wich is good. Nevertheless, you moved this page illegally, without a survey [5], so in fact this page sould be moved back to that name, then you should write out a RM survey, for moving this page to it's recent name. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I do not think that you understand what is really POV here. I moved name of the page simply to make it less POV than it was, but the POV nature of the article is that it speak about controversial events and much of its content could be found only in Hungarian irredentist sources and nowhere else. PANONIAN (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm gettig bored by these "irredentist" and "Nazi" charges. Do I have to assume that every massacre article in Wikipedia, describing Allied war crimes is motivated by some form of fascism??? This must be a joke.

Instead of accusations we should work together to improve these articles. I can find the relevant English and Hungarian articles, while you and Duja might check articles, books published in Yugoslavia.

Maybe we could write a new article in paralel with the Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944. Let's call it "The liberation of Vojvodina in 1944-45". This could include a "War cimes committed during the liberation" with chapters about massacres and individual killings. The crimes and rapes commited around Belgrade by the Red Army leading to a confrontation between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union could be mentioned as well. The Aftermath should deal for instance with the post-war trial of war criminals. I'm sure that if we trust each other and cooperate a consensus can be reached. Bests, Transylvanus 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

We do not discuss here other articles, but only this one. I told you that I do not know much about other similar events (i.e. if these events are really similar to this one), but what I know is that we should not use irredentist sources to write this article. These events did happened, but let try to write an NPOV article and not to turn it into political propaganda. If one Greater Hungarian irredentist web site say that those were massacres that does mean that it is a proper word that should be used used in one non-Hungarian and non-political encyclopaedia such is Wikipedia. Regarding usage of word "liberation", it is exactly Greater Hungarian irredentists who objected that this word should be used within articles describing this event, so I do not think that usage of this word would be good choice. PANONIAN (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Transylvanius. Write out a RM survey, and report personal attacks here: Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Since discussing with PANONIAN unfortunately leads to nothing in recent times, whatever you do, he'll revert, and starts a endless polemia on the talk page(s), to prevent NPOVing of the article(s).-- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. But yes, I'm not against the NPOV tag; too many things are there to be straighten out. Duja â–º 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Tu quoque. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Vince, you was already blocked because of this behaviour, so I kindly ask you to stop this false accusations and personal crusade against me on Wikipedia or I will report this to some administrator that could deal with such things. PANONIAN (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a massacre, genocide, and/or ethnic cleansing, since it occured on the winter of 44-45, within 2 month.

There's no mention of the internal camps of Gakovo, Jarek, Kruševlje, Molidorf, Knićanin, and Sremska Mitrovica where between 1945-1948 another 70,000 german and hungarian civilians died, so in fact this page is only abt those massacres, wich are made by the Yugoslav armies, and does not mention the german fatalities, so also one sided. The full number of dead ppl is around 80-100 000 (!). This WAS a mass genocide, not "killings". -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Claim that it was ethnic cleansing is wrong because if the intention of the partisans was to perform ethnic cleansing, then why other Hungarians were not ethnically cleansed too? Regarding name of the article, if you want, you can ask for arbitration about this from the third neutral party, but I remind you that in this case some really neutral sources about these events should be provided to support your claims about usage of the name massacre. PANONIAN (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a pity that no one seems ready to do more work to improve the article. Accepting minor changes would already make a difference. Available English publications on ethnic cleansing alone: Fires of hatred : ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe / Norman M. Naimark., Redrawing nations : ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 / edited by Philipp Ther and Ana Siljak., Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe / editors, Steven Béla Várdy and T. Hunt Tooley, German scholars and ethnic cleansing, 1919-1945 / edited by Ingo Haar and Michael Fahlbusch ; foreword by Georg G. Iggers., The dark side of democracy : explaining ethnic cleansing / Michael Mann. etc.

Transylvanus 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Then please, go ahead with editing if you do have those sources. The dispute so far revolved about VinceB's attempts to use partisan Hungarian sources and portray the events as pure ethnic cleansing and genocide, and Panonian's (and mine) opposition to it, and the unsuccessful attempts to describe the motives for those killings rather than to describe the killings themselves. But the article certainly lacks the facts: who was killed? how many? by whom? at which site? in retaliation or in pure hatred? Who says it's a genocide? Who says not? But, as we explained on the talk page, your attempts were met with resistance from our side because they didn't add to solution, but to the problem. Duja â–º 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks Duja. Due to my other duties I need a few weeks to locate and read the available English sources, but ideally we should also include the Yugoslav version. Could you possibly have a look at the sources published in Serbian language? We could than present the claims of each side, hopefully reaching some kind of consensus. Bests, Transylvanus 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I could probably get in touch with dr. Aleksandar Kasaš, who works at my university; his Ph.D. thesis "Mađari u Vojvodini 1941-1946." seems to be fairly widely cited all around; I could probably get a copy at the faculty library, although I don't think I can take it out for deeper reading; I'll ask him for an electronic copy. Here's an overview of the wider Hungaria-related history, with a passing mention of Cseres and Matuska works (page 13). Office for Hungarian Minorities Abroad's document is also an interesting reading (pp. 10-11); while they say that "This genocide had a three-fold purpose...", they also acknowledge that "One tenth of this distributed land was given to 18,000 landless Hungarians. With the exception of the Germans, no large scale deportations or population exchange took place. Yet, about 30,000 Hungarians – mostly those who had served in the Hungarian army and members of their families – moved to Hungary". Here's a news article (Serbian) about the establishment of Assembly of Vojvodina's commitee for investigation of all WWII crimes in 2000. I can't seem to find its findings, though. Duja ► 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The article in the current form is severely biased, it presents the mass murder of Hungarians as a "justifiable collective revenge" for the atrocities committed by the occupants between 1941-44 (which undeniably happened, also out of revenge for Partisan violence against regular forces and the local population). It also fails to mention the sadistic cruelty by which most of the murders were carried out (impaling, mutilation, torture). See the book of Tibor Cseres as a reference. Ãrpád 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Requested move

1944-1945 Killings in BaÄka → 1944-1945 massacre in BaÄka (or 1944-1945 ethnic cleansing in BaÄka, however most popular name of the event (in hungarian) is "1944-1945 blood feud in BaÄka") – the page was illegally moved [6] to recent name, wich does not describe the action properly, and Serbian POV. The death of 35,000 ppl within three month can not be describet as "killings". It was a massacre, and an ethnic cleansing. It was a feud for the 1941 annexation of Northern Vojvodina by Hungary. (see refs, and discussion above) Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

    • The Massacre article claim that term massacre "refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing". We do not have here an article that describe individual event, but article that describe many different events. It also was not an ethnic cleansing because partisans were internationalists who killed people because of the political affiliation, not because of ethnic origin. Finally, the article itself is very controversial and based on controversial sources, so the proposed name change would make it even more controversial than it is now. Also, name "blood feud in BaÄka" is certainly not popular name in Hungarian, but only among certain irredentist Hungarian historians - I am sure that reliable Hungarian historians do not use this term. Also, the page was not moved "illegally", it was just moved to NPOV title - the article with old title was originally created by Hungarian nationalist who had "No Trianon" sign on his user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:HunTheGoaT&oldid=78704643 That can say all. Also, the real number of killed people was never exactly established and the lowest estimation is 4,000 and much of those were individual executions, not mass killings. Anyway, if current title of the article is not best solution, I can support move of the name to any better title, but I do not support the move to POV and wrong titles such are "massacres", "ethnic cleansing", etc, because those are just unproved accusations. PANONIAN (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way, I believe it is against Wiki voting practice to call users to vote like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Request_for_move PANONIAN (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Of course, just read this to see why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning PANONIAN (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, VinceB, please read Wikipedia policy about voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Discuss%2C_don't_vote PANONIAN (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is ongoing since Nov 23, 2006. 6 month is more than enough to decide something. No compromise reached, so survey is the next step. Lots of wiki policies/guidelines are on enwiki, such as „ Don't be a dickâ€, PANONIAN. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but false voting (you called other Hungarian users to vote in favor of your proposal and that is clearly against Wikipedia voting policy) canmot resolve this problem. Also, please refrain from personal insults. PANONIAN (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • support per above. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - obviously Panonian thinks it's much better to simply kill people of other nationalities than do a thorough ethnic cleansing. It's true that the partisans would have been able to eliminate the whole Hungarian minority in 1944-45 if they had this intention. For me it seems that they intended to kill only the Hungarians in the Titel District. Zello 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I do not think what is better, but what happened and what did not happened - it is fact that partisans had intention to kill people who were of "wrong political affiliation" and that (if we look Yugoslavia as a whole) they killed much more Serbs (those who were chetniks) than Hungarians. What that can tell about motives? PANONIAN (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Discussion

There's a section, called "Discussion" below (here). How about adding your comments here, instead of other parts in the survey? I put them here. You know what? I never brought not really known WP policies, but now on, I'll. I'm just avoiding instruction creep, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so I kindly ask you to stop wikilawyering. Thanks. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

PS: I'm intrested, what did you consider a personal attack here? I just attracted your attention to a WP policy, named Don't be a dick. Or from now on bringing policies will be pa-s also? -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I will post my comments where I consider appropriate (not you), so please do not play with my comments, you have your own... And you (indirectly) called me a dick, which is a personal insult. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
No, I am wrong, you directly called me a dick. Here are your words: "Lots of wiki policies/guidelines are on enwiki, such as „Don't be a dickâ€, PANONIAN". So, since you mentioned my nickname in the sentence it is direct implication that I am a dick. PANONIAN (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
:-))) Ok, I won't argue with you about this, if you're that sure about it. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

PS: All right, don't stick to rules, if you're the one, who has to keep them. :)) and turn the survey into a mess. I like ppl with double standards. -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Preface section

There was already a dispute which numbers should be mentioned in the preface part and dispute was solved by moving all numbers to separate section. The exact number of killed people was never exactly established and estimations range between 4,000 and 50,000, with claims that between 20,000 and 35,000 is most probable number. So, if we mention any of those numbers without other numbers, that would be POV because we have no proof that any of the numbers is correct one - there are only different estimations, and since this is the case, all estimations have to be mentioned together. In fact, we can even move all numbers from the separate section to preface part, but my point is that all numbers should be together, no matter if that is in the preface or in separate section. PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

{{ POV}}

Can someone give an update on the neutrality issues here? The tag had been around a year, where does the article stand now?-- BirgitteSB 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

PANONIAN you dirty nazionalist, who are you backing?? "Claim that it was ethnic cleansing is wrong because if the intention of the partisans was to perform ethnic cleansing, then why other Hungarians were not ethnically cleansed too?" ARE___ YOU___ NUTS?:?????? :O why others were not cleansed???? YOU ARE IN NO WAY A HISTORIAN JUST A WILD SERB PROPAGANDA PRODUCT, YOU ARE DEFENDING WAR CRIMINALS AND GENOCIDE, YOU D BE THE FIRST TO DO THAT TOO, YES I M GOING PERSONAL! ABOUT NUMBERS: 10.000 JUST IN CSUROG! COMPLETELY UNPOPULATED! SURVIVORS COMMEMORATE IT EVERY YEAR WHERE 3000 INNOCENT WERE BURIED, THEY BRING FLOWERS JUST TO HAVE THEM TRASHED BY THE DAY AFTER! BY PEOPLE NOT AS SOPHISTICATED AS YOU! ABOUT OBJECTIVES: THERE ARE DEATH LISTS AND OFFICIAL ORDERS CLEARLY ON ETHNIC CLEANSING! VICTIMS ARE NO WAY "COLLABORATORS" JUST EVERYDAY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME! EXCEPT FOR YOU BACKING WAR CRIMES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.154.159 ( talk) 10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

If I was not in a good mood, there would be a lot of words in this place, that your mother would not like. The fact that Serbian government during '90s had bad international propaganda is not enough for you to SHOUT HERE WITH CAPITAL LETTERS. Numbers you mention here can also be classified as Hungarian propaganda, and killings that Hungarian fascist did in Vojvodina can be named as ethnic cleansing. Could this be true? Jdjerich ( talk) 12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

CAPSLOCK went to dear PANONIAN, he seems to like it. head responsibles of killings in vojvodina were condemned to death in hungary right away! while those killings went all the winter long, systematically and with state support! not to mention the aftermath where memorials (oh well...speaking) were forbidden, mass graves are built upon in the next years, or even exhumated for industrial use of remnants! making glue. but can we all just cite horribilities? past is past. but mr P and his likes destroy truth today. and facing the facts would already be a step towards tomorrow! some destroy the memorials, some destroy the facts. one day P will say it was a tea party! :( i'm taking the numbers from black lists. the juridiction and guiltiness in ethnic cleansing from military orders. known documents today! not to mention the survivors and executors still alive in numbers! the witnesses! but there comes a "historian" who plays with numbers and adjectives to relativise events. with brilliant phrases like "should ve it been an ethnic cleansing, why didn't they cleanse other hungarians?" he also adds proper contributions at science... pisses me off, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.19.203 ( talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not insult other users. Thank you. (and have a nice day in Trianon Hungary) :) Btw, everything that I said still stands and, furthermore, seems that we now have new data which say that partisans killed more than 20,000 Serbs in Vojvodina as well. This is clear evidence that "ethnic cleansing of Hungarians" was not their goal. "Political cleansing" would be most accurate description for both, Serbs killed by partisans and Hungarians killed by partisans. PANONIAN 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Outesticide

Ok, now you deleted sourced data with explanation "not important". It is clear now that your goal here is exactly propaganda against Serbia and an attempt to present Serbia as country where "minorities are persecuted" and where "monuments of minorities are destroyed". this source clearly states that damaging of monument was performed by two young non-adult boys, who were arrested by the Serbian police. If we mention that something was damaged then it is important to mention who damaged that. Seems that you purposely trying to write this sentence in a way that state of Serbia looks guilty for minority monument damaging and that Serbia, because of this, should no longer govern territories where "persecuted minorities" are living. I am sorry, but we have a source that say who damaged monument and there is no reason why this should not be mentioned. I do not insist that statement of Šandor Egereši is mentioned, but fact that boys who damaged monument were arrested by Serbian police is very important. PANONIAN 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Outesticide, you now reverting this article without discussion. Please try to use talk page to explain your edits. The whole question about damaged monument is unrelated to subject of this article, which are events in 1944-1945. So, if you want to mention that monument is damaged in our days then info that boys who damaged it are arrested cannot be excluded. If you continue to revert this I will crop central part of your picture and I will upload it as new file in which only central (undamaged) part of monument would be visible. I will replace your original image with this one and then we would not have problem to explain why monument in the picture looks damaged. You please decide which of the two possible solutions we should implement. PANONIAN 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
One more thing: despite your obvious intention to hide info, you using "ref" tag in wrong way. "Ref" tags are used to mention references, not to hide parts of the text.I hope that you understand this simple thing. PANONIAN 19:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Each year should be change the text to exactly who destroyed it therefore unnecessary. maybe we should write all incident from 1994. Outesticide ( talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Well, as I said, this is not article about destroyed monument. It would be best that we have picture of undamaged monument instead of this one. However, since you took this picture of damaged monument in 2009, events relevant to this picture are only those after 2009, i.e. the events that we should describe in relation to this picture are that monument was damaged and that boys who damaged it are arrested. Why else would somebody speak about damaged monument if not with a goal that police find and arrest those who done this? So, they are arrested and what seems to be the problem if that is mentioned? Of course, in that way, Wikipedia readers would see that Serbian state and police are actually protecting Hungarian minority and their monuments, which contradicts to Greater Hungarian nationalistic propaganda that human rights of Hungarians in Serbia, Slovakia and Romania are violated. The goal of such propaganda is certainly not this action of Serbian state and police that arrested those who are responsible for minority monument damaging. The true goal of that propaganda would be much larger event in which borders would be changed and these lands would be transfered from Serbian to Hungarian state, and then, Hungarian police would "rightfully punish" those boys responsible for monument damaging, not only by arresting them, but by executing them, since "no such enemies of Hungarian state should walk alive" (of course, such fate could reach all non-Hungarians in "future Greater Hungary", no matter if they are damaging Hungarian monuments or not - by the view of Hungarian nationalism, they are just "minor races" that should be ruled by "noble Hungarians"). This is the true nature of this problem. PANONIAN 08:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Als I can write pages of Serbian nationalism and Greater Serbia but not is the question. Outesticide ( talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Okay, this discussion is indeed getting further and further from the original topic. But I also have to mention that the monument getting damaged yearly is not irrelevant here, since the vandalism itself is the direct aftermath of the ethnic hatred which was so widespread during the 20th century conflicts. It's also true that for the sake of objectivity we have to mention that the perpetrators were arrested. Let's cool down here, and not accuse each other with nationalist propaganda. If an average English-speaking Wikipedia reader would read this article, and the fact that the vandals were arrested was left out, they could might as well think that the police simply failed to find them. Also, I would avoid this kind of speculations about the nationalist propaganda which wants those boys to be executed by the Hungarian police in the hellish nightmare of the Greater Hungary (if you detect a hint of sarcasm here, that's not a coincidence) because the mainstream Hungarian far-right always attacks the police for being to "liberal" to the current minorities so it's not very clever to think that they would hope that the police will "handle" them in that situation. Of course there are morons who are dreaming about such scenario sleeping under their Greater Hungary poster, but they are not a majority, even in the midst of otherwise colourful Hungarian right-wing extremist movements. It's also a convenient position to refuse the disliked text as mere nationalist propaganda. The current text which states that the memorial is being regularly vandalised with the mention of the police arrest seems fairly objective.
yossarian44 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply
yossarian44, is this an article about the monument? no, it is not. how the story about monument damaged in 1994 or in 2008 could be relevant for the article about events in 1944-1945? This is an historical article that describe events in 1944-1945 and modern issues are completely unrelated to this. And so what if "vandalism itself is the direct aftermath of the ethnic hatred"? This is not article about ethnic hatred, but about ideological war crimes of communist regime. Anyway, since user Outesticide removed part of description that say that police arrested those who damaged this monument, there is no reason that we keep description that monument was damaged in 1994. Picture of the monument was taken in 2008, so the only relevant description could be the one that monument was damaged in that year. But, as soon as somebody took new picture of undamaged monument, this one already in the article should be replaced. PANONIAN 07:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
ok but we should replace the text every year. who is going to do? Outesticide ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Why you think that monument will be damaged in next years? Police arrested those responsible, so this probably will not happen any more. Serbian state is able to protect its minorities. PANONIAN 07:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Suggested changes

Also, I have to mention some other stuff:

1. The part about the massacre in Bezdan is very poorly written, and contains a number of false information, and the English there isn't very great. Cseres' work here: http://mek.oszk.hu/03300/03393/03393.htm#16 does not mention that the Russians have stopped the bloodshed, only that as soon as the Russians forces arrived, the partisans left. Also, the 118 victims weren't shot into the Danube, but they were forced to march to a forest near Isterbác, where they were made to dig their own graves and in which they were shot into in groups of twelve, according to all the witnesses. This whole part should be re-written, because it's not backed up by any sources.

2. For the accuracy's sake we should mention the reason of the significant difference in numbers provided by the various sources. For most of the readers it might not be clear that the post-war communist regimes both in Yugoslavia and Hungary didn't really tolerate the research of this event, so the estimates are relying on the post-communist researches.

3. The ethnic cleansing aspect: the definition of ethnic cleansing also means the mass deportation of people. It is true that the massacre of Serbians was a political act, to punish the collaborators, but the German part of the whole event seems to be a true ethnic cleansing. Of course, it's not true that the whole cleansing was against the Hungarians, it was against the Germans. According to Niall Ferguson (book War of the World page 584.) 13 million Germans were relocated from Eastern Europe to Germany, those from Vojvodina were part of them. Checking the records of the census in Vojvodina ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_vojvodina) the 90% of Germans disappeared from the area by 1948 - of course it's true that most of them left as the Nazi withdrawal. The others were forced to leave, or were killed. Knowing these data in seems that the ethnic cleansing of Germans was going on here, since the whole mass deportation of Germans is often described us such. The Hungarians were much more likely the victims of simple ethnic hatred rather than an organised act of ethnic cleansing, because in 1948 there's "only" 10% loss of Hungarian population since 1941. I think we should include these facts. We could leave this part in: "Some Hungarian historians are introducing idea that such killings were an ethnic cleansing of Hungarians" but we should put the data here, which shows that since the Hungarian population loss is much less than the German, so it's quite unlikely that it was a direct cleansing action against the Hungarians. We might even put a whole section which is describing these facts.

Actually communist authorities gave a political reason for their actions against Germans as well: the given explanation was that Germans are collectively politically "incorrect" because they did not participated in anti-fascist struggle in large number (like other citizens of Yugoslavia) and because 95% of them were members of Kulturbund organization. Other reasons were economical, i.e. houses and property of Germans were used for refugees and for restoration of regional economy. Those authors who wrote about communist actions against Germans did not offered a conclusion that these actions were conducted because of "simple ethnic hate" (in fact, historically, there was never such hate between Serbs and Germans in Vojvodina). Similar problem we have with Hungarians: if aim of communist authorities was an ethnic cleansing of Hungarians then why all of them or at least large majority of them were not "ethnically cleansed"? Examples of ethnic cleansing in Balkans or eastern Europe are showing to us that victims of such ethnic cleansing are either entire populations either "critical majority" of these populations. If we speak about Vojvodina Hungarians, their entire population or "critical majority" was certainly not a target of any ethnic cleansing (and if we compare results of 1931 and 1948 census, we can see that number of Hungarians increased from 376,176 to 428,554). I do not see here evidences that ethnic cleansing was an aim of communist authorities. Further more, by some estimations, communist killed as much as 300,000 Serbs in whole of Yugoslavia. Events in Vojvodina are only one part of events in whole of Yugoslavia, and even if largest estimations about number of killed Hungarians are correct, they could not compete with estimated number of killed Serbs. So, if Hungarians were victims of ethnic cleansing we perhaps should conclude that communists also aimed to ethnically cleanse Serbs. You also mentioned "10% Hungarian loss since 1941". Please have in mind that some of Hungarians who were listed in 1941 census were in fact Csango colonists who were brought to Vojvodina by occupational authorities. They were not part of local Hungarian population that was recorded by 1931 census. So, the "loss" of Hungarians could be only seen by comparison of 1931 and 1948 data and such comparison show us that there was no "loss", but increase of Hungarian population in Vojvodina. PANONIAN 08:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

4. I read the argument about the killings/massacre term, and I think that both should be mentioned. The "killings" argument is true, because it wasn't a fully organized act, but a longer chain of events with multiple locations. But we also can't overlook the fact that in some cases (e.g.: Brezdán) clearly an organised massacre is what happened. I think we should put edit the first sentence this way: "The 1944–1945 killings in Vojvodina (or Vojvodina massacre) were executions of several...", so in this way we respect both POV's, and the objectivity doesn't really get damaged, since in Hungary we still call these events a massacre. yossarian44 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

By definition, massacre is an localized event (localized by specific time and place) and therefore an article that describe a group of events that occurred in relatively longer time period cannot be titled as "massacre". Furthermore, there are no academic English language sources that are using term "Vojvodina massacre", so it is not up to us to invent such titles. Also, events in Vojvodina were not separate from events in whole of Yugoslavia from that time and perhaps this whole article should be merged into newly created article with name Communist killings in Yugoslavia in 1944-1945. This whole article that is focused on part of Yugoslavia only is example of original research. PANONIAN 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Just go ahead and be bold. No such user ( talk) 07:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Purge, Religion and the Serbian mindset of 1944-45

After reading the arguments regarding the use of the words 'killing' and 'massacre', a more appropriate term would be purge for these reasons:

1. More than one ethnic groups were killed, including Rus - Russyns (which wasn't mentioned in the article).

2. Similar models can be found, for example Stalinist and Maoist purges.

3. Partisans who committed these purges were in the most part, politically motivated by Tito.

4. The killing of the intelligentsia.

What is missing from the article is the sense of retribution, which has been identified by Hungarian and Serb sources as well as taking from models in the past:

1. Hatred by the Orthodox Church factions against the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Ethnicity based on previous migration and settlement from Austro-Hungary, Croatia, Germany, Slovenia. There is a 450 year history of this.

3. Serbian Partisan levels of hatred, precluded the idea of resettlement or expulsion.

4. Following point 3, partisan hatred and the moral and ethically debased forms of torture they used against some of their victims.

5. Most contentiously, Partisans' inability for judgement or trial. Accusations by local Serbs against those of higher socio-economic status or of those who were in competition, those who owned land and houses.

6. Lack of education of the partisan Serbs. Xenophobic and Fascist motivations evident by some groups, replicating the Nazi fascism they were trying to purge.

7. Lack of time and therefore opportunity. As soon as the Russian liberation forces came through (some Bulgar forces as well), the partisans either stopped or went away then returned after they passed through.

8. Inconsistency. On many occasions, partisan attitudes varied from place to place and over time.


None of this is in the article.


As for Nationalism, it should be stated within the article that Nationalistic tendencies bias the current information available and that all viewpoints should be aired.

The comment about 'peer reviewed sources' is interesting in that very little is available, not just on this topic but generally over the whole of Eastern European history. Empirical sources do exist and have been used in arguably nationalistic histories. All historians argue and there is no reason not to include these sources in an explanatory manner. Htcs ( talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have any source which use word "purge" or it is your original research? PANONIAN 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
For your information, The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: an abrupt or violent removal of a group of people: In usage: the savagery of government’s political purges
Here is the link for you - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/purge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htcs ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I meant: do you have any source that use word "purge" in relation to this event? PANONIAN 07:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Rusyns, Orthodox Church and Partisan motivation

I added a small section on Rusyns. Unfortunately, the English of Tibor Cseres work is not very clear. I think he was trying to say that the 1944 partisans were also motivated by the fact that the Rus were not attacked by the Hungarian forces in 1941, therefore they deserved punishment? Hopefully others may be able to clarify this point.

His main thesis is that the partisan actions were based on revenge against the Hungarian forces that were putting down rebellions in 1941. I have stayed away from this, although he states that revenge, particularly on the local level was common-place. Some community leaders, like Serbian Orthodox priests, defended RC priests and targetted ethnics and the partisans generally left them alone. In other localities, the Orthodox priest outright accused the RC priest and congregation because they preached that they worshipped God as the God of Hungary (Magyar Isten). So I am personally interested if there were any factionalism between Greek Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran (Evangelical) and other denominations from other sources.

In any case, a section on Partisan Motivation should be added, perhaps including religious factions and socio-economic factions. Htcs ( talk) 06:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, Cseres does not look like reliable source. His book speaks with hate about Serbs and therefore it is hard to say what were his motives: investigation of one historical event or propaganda against Serbia and Yugoslavia. Anyway, statements of Cseres should be at least confirmed by some other authors who are not expressing so strong nationalistic tendency. PANONIAN 08:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. There is history that he is reporting like numbers, places, names, events. But then there is his argument. I think it is his argument that is flawed, which makes the reader think that his history is also flawed. It is a valuable source as he uses first hand empirical accounts so it shouldn't be discounted. Confirmation of numbers would be good, but that would mean looking at RC church registrations (Matrica) and civil registration books for every town he mentions. Then there is the 100 year law. It will take another 38 years before those records are public domain. Then the same has to be done for Serbs, Germans, Rus etc. University research with co-operative governments. The subject matter is too hot anyway. Htcs ( talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I have his book (I downloaded it from the Internet) and I can say that it contains: 1. speech of hate against Serbs, 2. wrong or nationalistic interpretations of certain general historical events. Due to that, we cannot take info presented by Cseres without criticism, especially because we have other sources that provided different estimations about number of killed people and because we have other sources that speaking about Serbs and Germans who were also killed by the Yugoslav communists. That fact alone deny some interpretations provided by Cseres about motives and reasons that triggered these events. PANONIAN 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Title change: Killings>warcrimes>purges

Before anyone starts making objections, the title change was discussed at length with PANNONIA on the talk page. Readability and accuracy have improved. The article has a lot more NPOV and it has expanded to include Central Serbia. The principal reason for the change was that the actions committed by the partisans were directed by the Serbian military governance at the time. This by definition is a purge and not 'killing' or 'massacre'; terms that denotes nationalistic POV which must be avoided. Htcs ( talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply


Neutrality

This article is not neutral at all. It looks like the biggest problem is the user Pannonian and his nationalist point of view. HE would like to prove that this area is serb, and there are no place for another view and nationalities. However, the fact is: 

Most of Vojvodina became part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century and remained in Hungary until about 900 years later (1918/1920), except for the period of the Ottoman conquest (see below).

Its demographic balance started changing at the end of the 14th century, as it welcomed Serbian refugees fleeing from territories conquered by the Ottoman army. The first Turkish census, of 1557-58, described the northern parts of the territory having a Hungarian majority. Large numbers of Serbs were settled as a conscious policy on the part of the Habsburg emperor at the end of the 17th century. They were granted widespread exceptions and communal rights, in exchange for providing a border militia that could be mobilised against invaders from the south, as well as in case of civil unrest in Hungary.

Regarding killings, even serbian minds are changing, and Pannonian views and nationalism is minority now. Previously unknown fact are emerging, and this article should be updated: I will cite only serbian sources, as everything what is not serbian is unacceptable for user Pannonian. http://www.autonomija.info/sacinjen-spisak-s-imenima-85000-civila-pobijenih-u-vojvodini-u-drugom-svetskom-ratu.html

http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/2599/HEC04-01.pdf;jsessionid=B9BA0BA0BDE5F0F742A6FFBB1967E1AF?sequence=1 page 57

further:

MeÄ‘u pomenutih 84.000 žrtava, koje je pobrojao istraživaÄki tim profesora Živkovića, daleko najveći broj, taÄnije preko 47.000, Äine Srbi, dok je izmeÄ‘u 1944. i 1948. stradalo oko 17.000 Nemaca, a naroÄito u tom posleratnom periodu, pobijeno je i oko 6.000 MaÄ‘ara.

Medjutim ovde sam Zivkovic kaze sledece:

Novinar: E. Marjanov http://www.slobodnavojvodina.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3880 Živkoviæ navodi da je u Vojvodini u tom periodu stradalo ukupno 97.000 civila raznih nacionalnosti. Dr Dragoljub Živkoviæ kaže da je za vreme Drugog svetskog rata u Vojvodini bilo 72 logora. Toliko su držali i partizani posle rata. Živkoviæ takoðe kaže da je od 97.000 žrtava koje su stradale posle rata bilo 20.000 dece starosti izmeðu jedne i sedam godina. On istièe da su meðu žrtvama pronašli i 9.800 ljudi bez nacionalnosti.

Prema podacima koje smo mi sakupili u Vojvodini, stradalo je 20.000 vojvoðanskih Nemaca. Taj broj æe biti veæi pošto struèna ekipa Vojvoðanske akademije nauka, koja je od Anketnog odbora Skupštine Vojvodine svojevremeno preuzela projekat, još nije obradila podatke iz Baèkog Jarka i Molindorfa. Za taj posao nedostaje nam oko 2.000 evra. Prema našim procenama, u tim mestima stradalo je oko 7.000 nemaèkih civila, tako da raèunamo da je posle Drugog svetskog rata pobijeno oko 30.000 nemaèkih civila

ISto dalje, sledeci clanak: http://www.bulkeser.de/srpskiwebsait-3.html Dr Dragoljub Živkovic kaze: Do sada smo došli do broja od 110000 stradalih Vojvodana i Vojvodanki. Sva dosadašnja istraživanja su išla do brojke od 70000 stradalih. Utvrdili smo i veoma velike razlike u pogledu tvrdenja koliko je ljudi stradalo iz koje nacionalne skupine. Važno je da kažem da ovo istraživanje pod stradalnicima (žrtvama) podrazumeva ljude koji nisu nosili pušku, dakle nisu pripadali vojnim formacijama. Rec je pre svega o deci, ženama, starcima, mladim ljudima koji nisu hteli da nose pušku. Nažalost, najveci broj stradalnika su sasvim nevini ljudi.

It means, the number is at least 110000 people, and this number is growing.

This article from 2009 confirms the number of 110000, and says "komisija je utvrdila oko 6.500 imena mađarskih žrtava, a pretpostavlja se da ih je bilo još oko 1.000. " http://www.slobodnavojvodina.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:pokrajinski-anketni-odbor-dao-dobre-temelje-meudravnoj-komisiji&catid=4:fokus&Itemid=17 Ssh in use ( talk) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ssh_in_use Ssh in use ( talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Ssh in use, Wikipedia is not a Forum. Talk pages are here so that article content could be discussed (in civilized manner, of course) - this is no place where you should comment other users or present your (dubious) political views about regional history. Your personal insults addressed to me are far from civilized way of discussion. I do not see that your comment contains anything that could be discussed in relation to this article. Your claim that "article is not neutral because user PANONIAN is an nationalist" is really funny and I am kindly asking you to remove this insult addressed to me. If you continue to insult me like this, I will report your behavior to administrators. Finally, estimations presented by professor Živković are already used in this article, so I do not see a point of your quotations. PANONIAN 10:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Pannonian, there is nothing personal here. We are just talking about same facts. So, let it be so kind and answer: Are you nationalist? and: Would a nationalist create a NEUTRAL acticle ? Ssh in use ( talk) 23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Did I ever declared myself as nationalist or did I ever said anything nationalistic? No, I did not. So, please stop with this personal crap. And by the way, I did not created this article, I only made some changes to make it more NPOV. PANONIAN 05:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Youtube movie

Regarding link to youtube movie that I removed, problem is not the ethnic origin of author of that movie but obvious fact that movie is a forgery. Here is evidence for that which could be examined in two easy steps:

  • 2. Now please see original movie which shows that these hangings were in fact hangings of Serb civilians in PanÄevo in 1941 performed by German fascists (exactly same image on 1:41 in that movie): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj24C962oX8

So, Ssh in use, tell me, which Wikipedia policy supports propagation of obvious forgeries on this web site? PANONIAN 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Removal of content

The lead section of this article has had sourced content removed three times. This will be reported as 3R violation. I was in the process of editing the lead to improve its grammar and re-insert the fact that the victims were also Serbs (in fact probably mostly Serbs), when the third reversion occurred. This is my proposed lead:

The Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–1945 were purges committed by members of the Yugoslav Partisan Movement and post-war communist authorities after they gained control over Serbia in 1944. Most of these purges were committed between October 1944 and May 1945. During this time, several tens of thousands of people were executed. The victims were of different ethnic backgrounds, but were mostly Serbs, Hungarians, Germans and Croats. Different sources provide different estimates regarding the number of victims. According to one source, at least 80,000 people were executed in the whole of Serbia, [1] while other source states that the number of victims was more than 100,000. [2] Some 40,000 Hungarian civilians were tortured or summarily executed, [3] and tens of thousands of fleeing Croatian soldiers and civilians were slaughtered. [3] dubious – discuss The names of about 4,000 individual Germans who were killed by the Partisans are known, but it is likely that many more ethnic Germans were murdered. [4] These events during the fall of 1944 are often referred to as "bloody autumn". [5] [4] [6]

  1. ^ "Press Green".
  2. ^ "Press Green".
  3. ^ a b Erin K. Jenne: Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment, Cornell University Press, USA, 2007 [1]
  4. ^ a b Ulrich Merten: Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe After World War II, Transactions Publisher, New Jersey, USA, 2012 [2]
  5. ^ Kathryn Schaeffer Pabst, Douglas Schaeffer Pabst: Taken: A Lament for a Lost Ethnicity, iUniverse Books, 2006 [3]
  6. ^ Georg Wildmann, Hans Sonnleitner, Karl Weber: Genocide of the ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia, 1944-1948, Danube Swabian Association of the USA, 2001 [4]

Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you and, of course, the lead should also talk about the Serb victims, but citations should be provided. Furthermore, I would like to ask the IP editor to identify his/her issues with the statement about the Croatian victims. Also (s)he should not violate the 3RR and provide reliable and verifiable sources in case of changing the numerical data. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Sure, no prob. I was actually the one who tagged the Croatians. What was the story there? I wasn't aware any NDH forces crossed the Drina. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I have rm the Croats, those killings are not part of these purges. I have also tagged a few unreliable sources such as a map from a blog and a statement by a parliamentary deputy. In what appears to be a contested article, reliable sources are critical and all claims that could reasonably be expected to be challenged should have inline citations. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 12:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Peacemaker67, your work is appreciated. I agree that the killing of the Croats that the source talk about does not fit to the current article. However, I think that the title and the scope of the article is quite strange. First, it is not evident whether all partisans can be simply classified as "communists", second, the country was then called Yugoslavia, so why should we restrict the scope of the article to the current borders of Serbia? In my opinion, the article should be renamed to "Partisan purges in Yugoslavia in 1944–1945". What do you think about that? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Its limited scope makes it a potential vehicle for POV-pushing, but I think any decision about expanding its scope needs to take into account the incredible complexity of what went on in 1944-1950. Just look at the contested nature and POV-pushing that has gone on at Bleiburg repatriations. This article probably needs to be expanded as far as possible using WP:RS, then we can decide if we believe a "Yugoslavia-wide" scope article is warranted. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Another issue is the question of sources introduced by the IP editor. Most of them are questionable in my opinion, i.e., they are just websites "floating around" on the web. This is a very sensitive topic and hence, it is especially important to have proper sources for the claims. Pointing to a website, e.g., of a tabloid magazine ( Blic [7]), in order to support historical data is quite questionable. If possible, we should only use scholarly sources, for example, academic and peer-reviewed documents published by reputable publishers. Consequently, I would like to ask the IP editor to either argue that the provided sources should be considered reliable or replace them by reliable ones, otherwise the claims should be deleted. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
In respect of this issue we are in agreement, WP:RS required. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Since the IP editor did not provide reliable sources (most of them are dubious), the new additions should be removed. However, in this case, we will need a good source about the Serb victims. We should look for some reliable references for them, too. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Disputed

This article inflates number of people who lost their lives in aftermath of WWW. Only relevant sources is Serbian state commission. So far the commission has found only 54,000 men (this article claim that 56,000 died alone). Many of them weren't "purged", but died in combat and in concentration camps (Germans) due to poor conditions. Many who lost lives were notorious quislings and war criminals. --  Bojan   Talk  04:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't agree that Serbian state commission is the "only relevant" source because it is not neutral.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 06:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Why is it not neutral? What possible bias would a 2011 commission have to investigate 1944 events? I disagree with Bokica that it's the "only relevant source", but surely it ought to be given a very high prominence. No such user ( talk) 07:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Serbian state commission has indeed anti-partisan bias, but they didn't find more then 54,000 people killed during combat, executed for treason and died in concentration camps. Read this --  Bojan   Talk  07:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry. when you wrote Serbian state commission I thought you refer to Commission established by Communists during WWII. Anyway, my objection regarding "only relevant source" still stands.
If communists imprisoned people and took them to concentration camps or force labor camps where they died, then those people are victims of Communist purges. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
They died due to imprisonment, yes. New authorities gathered Germans in concentration camps in order to expel them to Germany and they died due to poor conditions. But, they were not executed. --  Bojan   Talk  08:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I did not say they were executed. Just because they were not directly executed by the communists does not make them less victims of communists.
  • The link you provided says there were 55,973 people killed by the communists (not men, like you wrote) who were victims of communist purges. You stated it is 54,000 and complained because this article presents figure of 56,000.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
www.kontrapress.com/ is a reliable source? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 07:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Kontrapress host a paper from a history student. By now he graduated, i think. But this is certainly better source than Press and Vecernje novosti. --  Bojan   Talk  08:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
It doesn't sound reliable to me. Find a university press published academic book (and read WP:RS). Please. And Ad's opinion about what makes someone a victim of communist purges is OR, unless of course he has a reliable source for that. Peacemaker67 ( send... over)
I gave my honest opinion based on common sense which is, I believe, "sky is blue" assertion. If communists/fascists/.... imprisoned some people and they died because of bad conditions, gas, heavy labor... then it is safe to say that imprisoned people are victims of fascist/communists/.... -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Must be a lot of blue sky where you are, because article with subjects like this one need reliable sources, not someone's university paper or your opinion. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Please read the text of this discussion. The commission prepared a list of victims which has 55,973 people in it. It is another editor (BokicaK) who disputed the presented referenced data claiming that it should be reduced because people who were not executed but taken to camps where they died due to bad conditions are not victims and should be exempt from the list of victims. I am opposed to this kind of minimalization of number of communist victims, contrary to the presented sources. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 09:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
(Edit conflict) He cite other works. He analyzed names in database created by commission. He counted names and found 1500 twice or more times counted names and many odd facts. Among them are
  • 20,576 Germans (with some 500 doubled entries)
  • 14,567 Serbs (some 500 doubled entries)
  • 6,112 Hungarians (some 300 doubled entries)
  • 1,360 Albanians
  • 953 Croats

Among those those names are people who certainly weren't purged (but counted in death toll) are Dragoljub Mihailović [8], Milan Nedić [9], Aćif Hadžiahmetović [10], NeÅ¡ko Nedić (KIA) [11], Nikola Kalabić [12], Svetozar Vujković [13], Dragi Jovanović [14], Tanasije Dinić [15], Velibor Jonić [16], Dragoslav RaÄić (KIA) [17], DragiÅ¡a Vasić (most probably killed by ustashas( [18], Dragutin Keserović [19], Vojislav LukaÄević [20], Milorad Mojić (killed by ustashas) [21], Kosta MuÅ¡icki [22], Milan Aćimović (KIA) [23]

Regarding Hungarisans, the author of Kontrapress article read Tibor Cseres's book and found that his estimates are groundless. He reported than Cseres claims that were more Hungarian casualties in some towns than they had Hungarian residents. Also, the author concluded that many Hungarian were killed in towns that were affected by Novi Sad raid such as Čurug and Žabalj. So, the commision has strong anticommunist bias, but they haven't find 56,000 Germans, 40,000 Hungarians and 24,000 Serbs. --  Bojan   Talk  09:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You directly contradict to yourself here.
  • You first stated that "Only relevant sources is Serbian state commission".
  • Then you stated "So far the commission has found only 54,000 men" (using word "only 54,000" when it comes to 55.973 killed people is ...........).
  • Then you disputed reliability of the figure presented by the same source which you yourself proclaimed as "only relevant".-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 13:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You should read carefully Sem 1.372 dupliranih imena i oko 1.000 -1.100 stranih državljana iz registra treba izostaviti i žrtve faÅ¡istiÄkog terora koje su proizvoljno uvrÅ¡tene u registar. Utvrdili smo ukupno 41 ovakav upis u registru. 55.973-1.372≈54.000 --  Bojan   Talk  13:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You should read carefully WP:RS. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Why this article/paper with references and sources is not a reliable source, and yellow press like Novosti and Press are RS? --  Bojan   Talk  14:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
That argument is classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. You need to explain why your source meets the WP:RS criteria if you want to use it. I'm not defending the tabloids, I'm telling you the policy for your source. Just read the policy please. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
It is a scientific work by a man who is a educated historian whose field of interests in WW2. His papers were included in few peer-reviewed journals. This article is a pile of rubbish. --  Bojan   Talk  15:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Facts and claims in article

This is probbably the worst article I've seen on English wikipedia. Not a single fact, not a single reliable source, and lots of inflammatory propaganda introduced via references to articles in notorious tadbloid newspapers.

From my point of view, apart from formal disadvantages, this article has more serious issues. Namely, it offers lots of malicious fabrications, with no counterweight in factuality whatsoever.

For example, this vivid character, professor Dragoljub Živković, states that "about half of the Serb victims were killed by occupational forces and the other half of them were executed by post-war communist authorities". And the source? Some mail archive!?

Cure? I can't see why this article is not deleted in the first place. But, an article on the subject is necessary. The work of the 2009 State Commission can shed some light on the subject. Although criticized, the commission did some serious and significant work. It had access to all available sources, including OZNA registries, birth registries, bot state and church, and compiled a comprehensive list. The list includes all dead, regardless of whether they were killed in fighting, sentenced to death, or just missing. It was criticised for a number of duplicate entries (there is even a number of people entered for times), und other issues, but it finaly provided us with numbers with a margine of error probably less than 10%. This list is more or less stable on the two last years, and it can shed some light. For example, number Serbs from Vojvodina on the list is 917, and not some 23-24.000, (or 47.000) as implied by professor Dragoljub Živković. And all work of professor Dragoljub Živković in Commission for Vojvodina is completelly included in the list.

In short, I don’t think wikipedia should allow itself to present claims of victims more then 20 or 40 times larger than the stated facts. It is even worse than famous Jasenovac issue.

In short, the list for the whole territory of Serbia contains 27.367 Germans, 14.567 Serbs, 6.112 Hungarians, 1.360 Albanians and 953 Croats. It is incomplete – some records should be deleted, some more added, but I think we could say with confidence that true number of all dead not included in earlier census is somewhere in the range of +-20% of these numbers.-- Gorran ( talk) 13:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

G'day Gorran, I agree it needs a clean-up, big-time. I suggest you be WP:BOLD and hack out the dubious stuff, use reliable sources only. If someone objects, they'll surely revert you, then discussion can ensue. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Revert war with Jozefsu

@ Jozefsu: how do you now that majority are innocent? I don't claim that majority are not. I claim that there were many a) soldiers who died in battles, b) true collaborationist, fascists and war criminals. Chetniks and formations of Ljotić and Nedić fought against partisans until the end of war during retreat of Army Group E, such as Milan Aćimović, Miroslav Trifunović, Dragoslav RaÄić, Vuk Kalaitović, NeÅ¡ko Nedić... Or people who were tried and sentenced to death such as Dragoljub Mihailović, Kosta MuÅ¡icki, Dragoljub Jovanović, Vojislav LukaÄević, Dragutin Keserović, Tanasije Dinić or politicians like Velibor Jonić. Or Milan Nedić who killed himself before his trial. Some 2000-3000 chetniks from Serbia were killed in battles of Tuzla and Zelengora. Many died from tifus in Bosnia because they didn't want to surender.

Among people executed by partisans were members of Arrow Cross Party or Gyula Gömbös's Turan Hunters or resposible for or participants of of Novi Sad raid (and persecutions of Serbs during April 1941) such as László Deák and Ferenc Szombathelyi

Among Croats among these 55-60,000 are members of Ustasa movement --  Bojan   Talk  03:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK: The names you list here have nothing to do with this article. We both know it. We know each other. You're a notorous liar and mischief-maker. I will not let you play your game here as you are playing on Wikipeidia in Serbian language, where you prevented all my edits, and everybody elses edits. Pretty obvious why this subject is so important to you. Not for the sake of honesty, not for good! I ask the Community: How can a religiously devoted communist be NPOV in this page? Just HOW?– Jozefsu ( talk) 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

It DOES have. They are among those 55-60,000 died. I'll repeat again: Among those those names are people who certainly weren't purged (but counted in death toll) are Dragoljub Mihailović [24], Milan Nedić [25], Aćif Hadžiahmetović [26], NeÅ¡ko Nedić (KIA) [27], Nikola Kalabić [28], Svetozar Vujković [29], Dragi Jovanović [30], Tanasije Dinić [31], Velibor Jonić [32], Dragoslav RaÄić (KIA) [33], DragiÅ¡a Vasić (most probably killed by ustashas( [34], Dragutin Keserović [35], Vojislav LukaÄević [36], Milorad Mojić (killed by ustashas) [37], Kosta MuÅ¡icki [38], Milan Aćimović (KIA) [39]

Member of Turan Hunters Tibor Kisz [40]

@ Peacemaker67:, what is policy here on calling someone 'liar' --  Bojan   Talk  04:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I just saw this. Jozefsu be aware that calling someone a notorious liar is a personal attack, which can get you blocked. Moderate your comments. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

What we gonna do with his reverts? Did I prove that many who died aren't just innocent civilians? Of course, there could be or were people who were indeed innocent (that means who weren't war criminals, fascist or members of fascist or collaborationist forces or organizations, petty thiefs...) --  Bojan   Talk  04:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

If you happened to be in a band of killers, and you did not participate but remain silent about it – you are considered party to the crime. Well, it started wrong, but straighforward injustice causes straighforward naming it. I accept the warning but will not apologize. Not to a man who made my life on the Serbian Wikipedia nightmare. He repelled me from editing this subject alltogether. And now he transferred "his" material here. Let me warn that the man who just finished extensive editing of this article is a devout communist ideologist–purist, who is fanatically convinced that the idea of organised purge that has been commited after the WW2 in Yugoslavia is a modern-day forgery made up by the revisonist, right-wing movement. He simply cannot accept that the communists commited crimes against humanity, which is hard to believe either, because we were thought in school all our lives that the communists never did anything wrong in the name of their ideology. But some horrible facts started coming out, right from the hidden communist archives. Serbia has serious problems clearing this history of events, those events the surrounding nations already dealth with long ago. If Serbia was not questioned on this in the porocess of joinig EU, the procedure would probably never happen. Nobody is interested in this. It is forgotten, as a dark age. Maybe it is easy to forget to those whose family member was not murdered. Like Bojan, who never shows empathy. To him those – even the children – are anticommunists, whose fate was sealed, so why wonder they suffered horrific death? He never talks about children, as if they not existed. Instead, using arguments that regular war criminals were placed in mass graves together with innocent to "smuggle them" is his logic. Is this true at all? Bojan fails to answer as just who did that – their communist hangmen? He does all to relativize the matter. What morals is demonstrated when someone protects an ideology, even in spite of obvious crimes?
E. g. if Bojan's claim was true, that the killing of innocents was accidental only – why those same authorities hid the killings, instead of punishing individual partisans who did it abusing their freshly gained power? And why were the murderers always cleared of guilt? Why the double-standards here? It's like "We kill innocents, because their ones killed our innocents. They are murderers, but we're not because we did it rightfully. They did it first" and so on... Is this "view" that Bokica represents? Let me remind all here, that Budapest has a museum of both terrors – black and red. Everyone should see that museum. It's not a story about bad guys and good guys, it's a dirty story about killers on both sides. Are we to protect any deliberate murderers?
In Serbia it was impossible to rise the whole theme out of silence for some decades after the death of supreme leader Tito, the regime of Milošević, during the wartime of the 90's and even after the October 5th 2000 revolution. What this fact proves by itself?
The war was over, the war criminals fled, so killing and torture of unarmed civilians was an unnecessary vendetta perpetrated by the winners. Because this is exactly what happened, the game with the names Bojan is presenting doesn't nullify that. And do I have to prove name by name that those mentioned have nothing to do with the subject of purge? Look after their biographies. Nedić commited suicide in his cell. Deák and Szombathelyi were armed officers who were condemned in a trial. Mihailović also had a regular trial. Both him and Kalabić are now officially proclaimed innocent. I could care less about that. But I do care about 20.000 children that went "missing" in 1944/45 purges, and that's just the tip of th iceberg. It was an ideological purge against anybody unfit to the system. And after it was over, the justification began and is going on to this day. Following this justification agenda, Bojan will soon demonstrate that his intention is to dim the facts, beutify the picture of partisan movement, with ultimate goal to destroy the article, by turning it to useless text, which by the end of his editing says nothing. The article will become even worse than it was, when it was already criticised by many editors as a mess. I wish I am wrong. At least, this is what happened to the article in the Serbian Wikipedia.
Right now I am very ill, but as soon as I get better I will try some editing. Let's see if anybody can edit an article which user Bojan declares as "official" truth. But by the way I did 2 reverts, and Bojan starts this discussion when he did his 3rd. I will use my right to revert once more. Because that sentence is outrageous, formulated in a subtle way to dim the main subject of the article. I will not revert anymore, I will edit with examinable references. Let's see if this man will let me place just anything in from the point he entered his well formulated chunks of text.– Jozefsu ( talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I expanded part on Hungarians (I wrote on camps, retaliation and expulsion in Šajkaška), and yet you dare to say that I'm downplaying events? No, you are here to twist facts by implying that all 55-60,000 men listed by Serbian state commission a) were innocent b) were executed. --  Bojan   Talk  00:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Partisan DID NOT use gas chambers or locked men and burned house like Nazis. Partisans DID NOT throw men under ice, like Hungarians soldiers in Novi Sad/Šajkaška raid in 1942. Partisan DID NOT cut throats as chetniks and ustasahs used to do. --  Bojan   Talk  01:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jozefsu: Did Mihailović, Vujković, Jonić, Jovanović, LukaÄević, GaÅ¡parović, Keserović, VranjeÅ¡ević, Rade Radić were brought to tribunals? Yes or no? Would You like to translate this article from Kontrapres: U merama koje je sprovodila pobedniÄka strana u BaÄkoj bilo je elemenata revanÅ¡izma i retorzije i „ostvarivanja politike ’oko za oko zub za zub’“. Nema sumnje da je jedan broj ubistava, Äak ako uzmemo u obzir želju za osvetom, bio nacionalno motivisan, kao i da je u osvetniÄkom naletu ubijen veći broj lica koja nisu imala ozbiljnu krivicu ili nisu imali realnu krivicu. MeÄ‘utim, pojedini preživeli savremenici Racije 1942, naroÄito oni koji su izgubili Älanove porodice, smatrali su da odgovornosti podleže svaka vrsta podrÅ¡ke i okupacionom poretku. Kako istiÄe istoriÄar Aleksandar KasaÅ¡, na podruÄju ÄŒuruga, Žablja i MoÅ¡orina „prilikom ovih kažnjavanja bila je primetna želja nove vlasti da se ovim merama da izvesno zadovoljenje srpskim porodicama i izvrÅ¡i osveta, ali se nastojalo da se ipak zadovolji normalna sudska forma.“ (source Milan Radanović/Aleksandar KasaÅ¡) --  Bojan   Talk  01:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK:Kontrapres article is used in this article multiple times, as it is your main hobby-horse. I respect that, but it is 4, almost 5 years old. I think it has some good points, but it is not the Bible. Many more proofs came out in meanwhile, and even more will come out by time. The large amount of killings – we are talking about tens of thousands – were without any trial. You give names of 9-10 criminals that were "smuggled in" – I talk about 1000 innocents for any one name you write. Besides that, I don't understand your point: the data we see in the database is only raw data. It is not processed yet. Only the researchers were allowed to see – in the secret archives – who died under what circumstances. You and I must rely on the study of that material. We are not in a position to compare data. So what you are doing here is original research. On the contrary so far it is more than clear that it was a mass-reprisal. The question is, how long you will deny it? How CAN you still deny it?
Please, I am amazingly calm now. I know you cannot win. I started here acting and looking like a bad guy, but I say openly: there is no reason for edit war. I am open for cooperation. But just if your intention is to make the article better, unbiased, and undegraded. I know all these arguments you use. I heard them many many times. It is a manipulation. Repeated over and over again just to relativise the truth. I am not interested in this, I am fed up with your circular reasoning. I again tell you what I told you on Serbian Wikipedia: I just want to edit the article. Please, let me do that in peace. And if you don't let me – consider I will not back down and play dead. I don't write my own opinion, only referenced statements. My time and work will not go vain! You have no right to and there is no reason to delete properly referenced statements.
I see exactly what is your problem, which part bothers you the most, it's about the plain proper naming of it – that you deleted already. But what's the opinion of others? Where is the consensus? Just go on, delete all you can. I saved my work. And by your well-known custom you will continue to disintegrate ALL that I put in. But you are not untouchable. For now I leave, and let you do whatever you wish. Have fun if you take it as fun, but I will come back later, I have the page on the watch list. I repeat: you have no right to delete properly referenced material. I don't write my personal opinion, but referenced sentences taken from verifiable sources. And how I know most victims were innocent? Because the references says so and the research more and more shows it.– Jozefsu ( talk) 02:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Jozefsu: You wrote much, but you evaded to answer: Did new regime bring, for example, Mihailović on trial and did provide many, many evidences that he was both traitor and war criminal? Article by Miroslav Radanović is not old, because almost nothing big has changed since 2014.
Can You understand that ALL those who are listed among those 55-60,000 dead are not murdered? In fact, I would say that about half of them who died due to harsh conditions, illness, and age, but they weren't murdered. Partisan military administration advised release of those who could not be considered as war criminals a month or two after they were brought in camps (I speak on Hungarians only) How do You that there are certainly 1000 innocent per war criminal (nobody wants to admit that someone was murderer, plunderer, it looks bad)? I gave example of Tibor Kisz. His granddaughter (a right wing politician in Viktor Orban government) says he was innocent, yet somebody found proof that her grandfather was a Turaninan hunter (racist/colaborationist organisation) and claims that he was killed by another fellow Turaanian hunter a week before partisans liberated Vrbas? Did You live 80 years ago and were eyewitness, maybe? It is outrageous to say that there were only 55-60 war criminals? Who killed Serbian colonists in Sirig on April 13, 1941? Who killed some 3000 men in 1941 and expelled Serbian colonists (source Kasas 1996)? Who trowed men under ice in 1942 raid? According to You 50-60 men - minus Mihailović, Jovanović, Kalabić? No, it was Royal Hungarian Army aided by local Hungarians!!! I don't deny that there were indeed innocent men or men who, by, today standards, did't standards, by you say, without any evidence that you know can list 1000 innocent for one know war criminal. And what is your opinion on Arrow Cross Party that has branches in Hungarian towns along river Tisa? Do you want to say that there were only 50 members/followers of that party in BaÄka? No, there were hundreds, even maybe thousands. Are they innocent, too?
My opinion: yes, there were bad treatment of Volksdeutche, Hungarians and anti-communist Serbs (shooting or beating POWs, rape, looting), but it wasn't official policy, aside from expulsion of Germans (and all Eastern European countries did that). --  Bojan   Talk  03:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK:I wanted not to continue, but you're such a blatant manipulator, eh. Yes shurely I write much, but I do it in hope you read it and think about it. I always assume you do. Otherwise its not a discussion.

But let it be, whatever is going on here in the talk still doesn't gratify you right to delete well referenced sentences in the article! You can't just leave a note here about Turan hunters (we all know they existed) and go and delete some random sentence there.

You cannot just come here and tell us the nazis were bad guys, and go back to the article to deliberatley dispute that communists killed innocents.

Shurely nice pick about Draža who "I evade". And what about the government of Serbia (High Court) rehabiliting him as innocent? And stating that his war crimes were a communist forgery, and his trial a politically staged trial? Please I am not sharing my opinion here. These are facts. I am just curious if you think you are smarter than your country? Of course we all know that there was a trial of his, so what is your point anyway? It is not clear to me how is all that connected to the subject of this article?

Everyne can see clearly that all your arguments on the subject criminals/innocents are a pure psychological manipulation. You even use that morbid argument "They killed innocents first, they were as much cruel, so why is the problem if we killed innocents by 'more humane' ways". Everyone here can see that you are defending an ideology, whereas I defend the victims of that ideology.

By the way, you never say anything about the government of Serbia recognizing the fact that bloody purge of innocents did happen, and that monuments and memorials should be erected above the mass graves. Nobody - besides you - say that those mass graves, especially in Vojvodina are graves of war criminals! Show me one mass grave of the purges after september 1944 in Vojvodina - with references - that is a mass grave of war criminals. Please!

To the recent days - the article presents it - these monuments, the crosses, the stones etc. were regularly destroyed, burned, removed. Who else than by the relatives and ideological supporters of the mass-killers (who else would destroy graveyards than those indoctrinated and blinded by an ideology). Please, prove that you're not a liar, and declare openly if you support the removal of monuments from the mass graves of communist purges. Because you claim that there are war-criminals in those graves. The memorial table above most graves have a list of names. Please start your own investigation and form a commission for removal of all names and exhumation of all "suspects" from those graves that you consider "inappropriate". And in meantime explain, why those people were all shot in head without charges and trial. You cannot go away with your notion without explaining why the government hid the supposed reasons of the mass killings and forbid the public to talk about it for more than 60 years. Why the fear if they were war criminals anyway? The killers should have been proud of the killings but instead they sealed with seven seals, destroyed and camouflaged the scene of the crime. Where is the logic here? I don't know much about criminal investigation, but this has all the elements of a criminal act. The communist government should have been proud of purging out war criminals, instead cover up happaned on all levels, and the circumstances of killings were classified as state secret. Come on man, you don't have to be Colombo to see that all this point to mass crime here, and the government was responsible! Because it with all its power defended the perpetrators, and no partisan was ever charged for deliberate act. Be careful, who do you defend here!

And please do not delete referenced material from the article, because you are deliberately degrading what the article is trying to say.– Jozefsu ( talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Known Chetnik leader (ÄorÄ‘ije LaÅ¡ić) with a Geman envoy. But according to you and Serbian court this didn't happen?
It is good to know that you think followers of Nazissm aren't bad guys. Regarding Mihilović's, it was legal process with only plaintiff, and without other side who will fought against rehabilitation. Details of process Tomislav Dulić: SENTENCED “FOR IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL REASONS� THE REHABILITATION OF DRAGOLJUB “DRAŽA†MIHAILOVIĆ IN SERBIA doi: 10.2298/SOC1204625D Article is from 2012, he was rehabilitated thanks to influence of Oliver Antić, aid of Chetnik duke Tomislav Nikolić, then president of Serbia.
I didn't get answer on my question: who killed 3,000 civilians in 1941? Who trowed men under the ice in 1942? 50-60 men (those who are true war criminals)? No, there were many more. And sorry, whoever was member of Arrow Cross Party (there were hundreds or even more thousands among Hungarians in BaÄka, Turanian Hunters (there were hundreds or even more thousands among Hungarians in BaÄka), Béla Imrédy's Party of Hungarian Renewal, nemzeters. And many members of Arrow Cross Party, Turanian Hunters are among killed. Aleksandar KasaÅ¡ in his book (pages 176-177) gives examples for Bogojevo and Sombor. For Bogojevo he gives names of 17 Hungarians killed by OZNA on November 6: 5 njilaÅ¡s (members/followers of Arrow Cross Party), 2 Turanian hunters, 4 followers of Béla Imrédy. For Sombor he gives a list of 73 Hungarians. I counted 23 members of ACP, 16 Turans, 3 imredists and rest are listed as murderers, informers, spies, voluntaries in occupying army, etc --  Bojan   Talk  16:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Dear Bojan, first – where and when I said nazis aren't bad guys?! This is not the first time (but I hope the last) that you accuse me of that. Not nice!

Second – If I answer your question about the Novi Sad raid, will you let me alone? And not delete my referenced sentences? I don't want edit war, I just want to edit. In the true spirit of Wikipedia. Here like in the rest of the articles. You know, to look up references, read them, formulate them and place them in, peace by peace building a nice text here. I am not here to modify this article to be in line with my wish or ideology. Just to add original content, as I do everywhere elese in Wikipedia for 4 years now. So let's play your immature game then: Yes, 3000 innocent civilians were killed in Novi Sad 1941 by hungarian soldiers, my nationals, and I am ashamed of those hungarians. Happy now? But in 1944/45 my nationals – many of them innocent civilians too – were killed by partisans, your nationals. Will you accept that fact? Are you ashamed of them too? Or you are happy for the reprisal? Be honest with us! At least try to be, and not go around of the question, by starting another talk, about Turans, this and that.... please!

Thrid – again, you list Turan hunters here and mention the Novi Sad raid, and for you it's all settled? Anybody innocent that was killed by partisans from then on are justified? You list nazi conc. camps, place pictures of chetniks. You think everyone here is a fool, right? If we are interested in that we will look up those – this is a talk page of communist purges, of victims of a communist terror. Are you trying to distract attention from the subject here? The things you list here are for another article. (This is the exact reprise of your "argumentation" from Serbian Wikipedia and I don't want to do it here again. Nije ti dosadno?) There are thousands of pages about Yugoslav partisan's bravery and battles on Wikipedia, but only this one talks about their misconduct. Why not edit this one with the same pure heart and devout attention, for the sake of truth and for the sake of Wikipedia? Remember that no partiality is welcomed. ( Double standard, Bias, Favoritism).

I know about freedom fight of partisans, I know about the nazis, I know about the Holocaust. But please, here, this is different subject, different article. And you are, in my opinion, manipulating. No need for it.– Jozefsu ( talk) 23:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

No, I remove claim that 55-600 were killed without trial, because simply it is not true. According to Radanović's estimates, 55-60% died in camps from nonviolent deaths (mostly Volksdeutshe), then many Chetniks were killed in battles (although amnesty was offered. Twice, by the end of war). Then some did have very public trial (Mihailović, etc). And finally, among those are people not killed by partisans (explaind bellow) --  Bojan   Talk  02:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Tibor Cseres and Srđan Cvetković

are band sources. For example Hungarian historian EnikÅ‘ A. Sajti says: U danaÅ¡njoj maÄ‘arskoj javnosti putem rada Tibora ÄŒereÅ¡a (Vérbosszú a Bácskában) fiksirala se brojka od 40 hiljada, uprkos tome Å¡to sam posle objavljivanja knjige, u svojoj studiji koju je objavio list Saveza pisaca (Magyar Napló), već ukazala na netaÄnost i nesigurnost objavljenih podataka. PoÅ¡to je ÄŒereÅ¡ova knjiga prevedena na viÅ¡e jezika, meÄ‘u kojima na engleski i hrvatski, tako se i na meÄ‘unarodnom planu fiksirala ova brojka. Uprkos tome Å¡to i vojvoÄ‘anska literatura na maÄ‘arskom jeziku drži ovu brojku preteranom, jer kako ukazuje Marton MatuÅ¡ka u jednoj sumirajućoj studiji u vezi odmazdi, „prema podacima koje knjiga objavljuje u ÄŒurugu je palo 3000, a Zabiju 2000 žrtava. Ni jedno selo nije imalo toliko maÄ‘arskih stanovnika." Ne govoreći o tome, dodaje, da knjiga iskljuÄivo „razmatra dogaÄ‘aje u BaÄkoj", odmazde u Banatu, Baranji ne spominje. (in Aleksandar KasaÅ¡'s book). Translation: In modern Hungarian public, thanks to work by Tibor Cseres (Vérbosszú a Bácskában), number of 40,000 [dead] is fixed, despite fact after publication of [his] book, in my study published by paper of Authors union (Magyar Napló), I already pointed inaccuracy and uncertainity of published data. Thanks to fact that Czeres's book is translated on several language, including English and Croatian, in international public this number is also fixed. Despite fact that even literature from Vojvodina on Hungarian language consider this number exaggerated, since, as Marton Matuszka points in a study regarding retalitations, "acording to data that the [Cseres's] book reveals in ÄŒurug there were 3000 slain, and in Žabalj 2000 victims. Not one [of those two] village had so many Hungarian inhabitants". While not talking about that, he [Matuszka] says that the book exclusively "consider events in BaÄka", retaliations in Banat [and] Baranja doesn't mention.

SrÄ‘an Cvetković, although he genuinely has Phd in field of history, and he is spiritus movens behind Serbian State Commission, is bad/unreliable researcher. Milan Radanović points that his master/PHd thesis, Between hummer and sickle has manny inacuraices. E.g. Cvetković is cited here in article/feuilleton from VeÄenje Novisti "Broz na belom konju". In very first sentence he says: Trijumfalni ulazak J. B. Tita na belom konju 20. oktobra 1944. preko PanÄevaÄkog mosta uneo je zebnju u srca mnogih BeograÄ‘ana. (triumphal entry of J. B. Tito [in Belgrade] on white horse on 20th October 1944 via PanÄevo bridge brought aching in heart of many residents of Belgrade). Fact #1. Tito arived in Belgrade on 26th October, on 20th October he was in VrÅ¡ac, awaiting arrival of Ivan Å ubaÅ¡ić, Fact #2 PanÄevo bridge was destroyed several days earlier by retreating Wehrmacht (or by Allied planes), so Fact #3 Broz only could get in Belgrade via Soviet patrol boat.

@ Peacemaker67:, what do you say? --  Bojan   Talk  04:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BokicaK: And well, here are the good old arguments from the Serbian Wikipedia. You are in second gear in your quest to refuse the purges – by cheap tries to discriminate the sources and the researchers.
I cannot tell you are a liar because I get punished but I will tell shurely you are a manipulator. Let's see: (1) Tibor Cseres was among the first to write about the purges. As a starter, he of course has mistakes. In any research on any dim subject the pioneers make the most excess. Consider 50 years of silence on the subject, and then you start to go around to look for witnesses. He just wrote down what witnesses said. What Sajti Eneko says here (and you failed to understand) is not that Cseres was bad alltogether, but because he was the first and was not fully unbiased, the whole research suffered from misconception of exaggerated numbers. But nothing was nullyfied, Sajti Enike herself wrote excessively on the subject and proved that purges of innocent hungarians very much happened. If there was no Cseres, maybe there would be no Sajti either. Maybe we would not even write an article here, and you would not have what to argue about (that is why you dislike Cseres, not his mistakes, but because he boldly attacked your purist communist ideology). So Cseres is still a source that should be mentioned in connection to this subject, right or wrong, with proper explanation. By the way is he mentioned in the article or you deleted it already? You are known to delete whataver you dislike. So what do you want then? Come on, he openly published a book, not blogged on some website, and he was not writing about comics, he was writing about mass killings of his nationals. Will you forgive him? (2) Srđan Cvetković did not do any notable research, he was involved and in charge of collecting raw data from the field. Someone has to do that too, right? And everyone says he did a good job, no matter what he said earlier about Tito (if he said it). So what we have here – collecting data as the first step in any investigation. He was doing a groundwork only, but since he has seen all the data, he made some public statements about it. But as far as I know he has not done research personally – please show any published paper which analises the data, and is signed by Cvetković. Or: show us anybody who researched and published about the purges and state that the data from the database is wrong because of Cvetković. This is pure nonsense, pure manipulation.
And by the way tell us if you pelase, who are the reserchers of the communist purges you the great Bojan approve? Are there any?– Jozefsu ( talk) 12:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
So, I am manipulator and he who says that more people were killed than lived in those towns is a serious source? Cvetković reguralry counts Jews and Serbs killed in Auschwitz, Mauthsausen, Jasenovac and Bergen-Belѕen as victim of partisans (examples
  • Auschwitz: Kata GerÅ¡tl (Novi Sad, RKTG-63067); Jovanka Jojkić (Žabalj, RKTG-71257); Andrija Najman (Sombor, RKTG-85242); Josip Najman (Sombor, RKTG-85243); Sara Najman (Sombor, RKTG-85244); NemeÅ¡ (Sombor, RKTG-85245); Ilona Volhajmer (Sombor, RKTG-100942); Leopold Balint (Ada, RKTG-44361); Roži Balint (Ada, RKTG-44362); Tibor Balint (Ada, RKTG-44363); Salamon Bakran (Sombor, RKTG-44419); Jovan Barna (Kula, RKTG-44420); Jovanka Narna (Kula, RKTG-44421); Petar Gavrilović (Zemun, RKTG-66972);
  • Mauthausen: Zoran PurigraÄki (Nova Crnja, RKTG-54739); Vujica DaÅ¡ić (ÄŒaÄak, RKTG-6380);
  • Jasenovac: Jakob Zorić (Subotica, RKTG-57086);
  • Bergen-Belsen: Å arlota Galc (Novi Sad, RKTG-62998).
His commission counted men who survived war as men executed by partisans (examples Božidar Purić, Dragutin Gavrilović, sr:Dragoslav Stranjaković, and many more]. OK, in the meantime Purić, Stranjaković were removed from the list. So, Cvetković and his commission inflated number of victims, counted people who died in German camps yet he was unable to prove his estimation of 80-100,000 men killed by partisans.
@ Peacemaker67: is calling someone manipulator (and trolling) allowed on Wikipedia? --  Bojan   Talk  16:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Should I defend myself? The person who is manipulating is called a manipulator. It's not an insult, it's an assessment based on observation. Bojane, why I cannot find the second list of yours in the database? Dragutin Gavrilović, Božidar Purić, Dragoslav Stranjaković, Salamon Bakran. Are you really telling us truth here? What secondary source you are using for these?

"His commission" – again you are slightly slanting here. It is not his but of the government of Serbia, and of the two academies of Serbia and Hungary. There is just too many academics involved here for you to accuse them for unreliability. I don't even understand how dare you, with your limited knowledge, do it. Are you really accusing the National Academias of not one but two countries for forgery?! Or you have access to the secret classified files from the UDB, OZNA, SDB and VOS-liquidator unit?– Jozefsu ( talk) 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

And I'm sorry, but I need to stress this too: Bojan knows I am of hungarian etnicity, so he emhasizes the Novi Sad raid and the 'Turans' – to intimidate me. That is an obvious manipulation. He's trying to chase me away, that's all he does.

Just some forgotten facts here: all the perpetrators of the Novi Sad crime were prosecuted. But no partisan was prosecuted for 1944/45. Some of them were even awarded a medal, others were at high position, lived respected lives. Some guards who robbed prisoners in retention camps where demobilized, that's all reported. Bojan knows this. But the world also needs to know this side of things, for the sake of righteousness.

Bojane, how come you forget that many more serbs killed serbs, based on ideology, during and after WW2? Just this one man, Ratko Dražević UDBA leader claims he killed with his own hand 2000 prisoners in ÄŒaÄak. Killer is killer, murder is murder. I don't care what sign he wears, what language he speaks... The executioners names should be known, the line of command behind the purges need to come to light, and the victims deserve to be named and buried with humane dignity. Eh, these strange, alien words to you? ...even communists purged other communists after the war, in battle for power. Hebrang, Slobodan Penezić Krcun, Ranković, names sound familiar to you?– Jozefsu ( talk) 00:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Read what I wrote: OK, in the meantime Purić, Stranjaković were removed from the list.. Yes, I said that that people were in the list in 2014. Thanks to (in)competence of Srđan Cvetković's commision. People who died in Auswitz, Mauthsausen, Jasenovac ARE still in the list and people count them as victims of partisans, not Germans. And Milorad Mojić was killed in Zagreb by Ustashas in event described in this article, yet he is still he is counted as sustenanced to death

Fact that are You of hugarian ethnicity doesn't meant anything to me. I'm against revisionist of all eccentricities who speak bullshit. As I demontrated by pointing that many Serbian collaborators and war criminals are in the list. Many of ~15,000 Serbs weren't executed, the died in battled against Partisans or were killed by American/British bombers, because they were retreating together with Army Gropu E. Yes, some perpetuateros of Novi Sad raid were tried as Hungary wanted to show that it was trully democratic society in the when Miklos Kalay soughted to make deal with United Kingdom and pull Hungary out of war. Let see what KasaÅ¡ says (pages 143-144) : Od 14. do 23.decembra 1943.godine održano je i suÄ‘enje glavnim vinovnicima racije. Ono je koincidiralo sa promenom stava prema Srbima. Tada je suÄ‘eno: Ferencu Feketehalmi Cajdneru, Jožefu GraÅ¡iu, Laslu Deaku, Martonu Zeldiu i dragima. Namenjeno demokratskoj javnosti Zapada, i na odreÄ‘eni naÄin Srbima (zadovoljenje za raciju), suÄ‘enje je okonÄano kao farsa, budući da je svim osuÄ‘enim omogućeno da u januara 1944.godine pobegnu avionom na nemaÄku teritoriju. Translation: From December 14th till 23rd December 1943 trial of main perpetuates of Novi Sad raid'was held. It coincided wiht change of policy toward Serbs. Among defendants were Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner, József Grassy, Laslo Deak, Márton Zöldy and others. It is intended for the democratic public of the West, and in a certain way to the Serbs (satisfaction for raid), the trial was concluded as a farce since all prisoners were allowed to flee by plan on German hold territory in January 1944. I doubt that Dražević ever said that he himself killed 2,000 men, especially since that the commission found only 756 dead from ÄŒaÄak and 1,711 from wider area (municipalites ÄŒaÄak, Gornji Milanovac, Ivanjica and LuÄani. For exampe this man from ÄŒaÄak died somewhere in Bosnia, perhaps from typhoid or killed in Tuzla or Zelenegora).

I'll report this on Administrator noticeboard. I'm tired of you personal attack, trolling and using this page as forum. --  Bojan   Talk  03:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

You are making a scene now, because you are out of valid arguments, right? Look, both conversations were started by you, the first one by pinging my name. I came to this talk page because you deleted properly referenced material (I have the right to defend myself). Besides, this was an appropriate discussion not using the page as forum (another false accusation). In meantime everyone can see that your arguments are disgusting. Also, you already used a nazi card on me, while you are not ashamed for openly trying to justify proven war crimes (the 1944/45 purges). Also you openly reject the work of two national academy's on the subject, by stating they falsify data. Answer directly please: do you refute the government-based official investigation? After that we can continue to edit the article, like any other article. No need for fuss and tension here.– Jozefsu ( talk) 21:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply
And other peoples' arguments that are not in line with your thinking you can call bullshit, right?
@ BokicaK:I will try one more time, maybe I can make you understand (because this directly pertains to the title question of Cvetković). Look, I stressed already that the data the comission collects is raw data out of the post-war communist archives. It is not data made-up by the collectors. But stating that the Serbian government is now allowing forgery of its own classified documents – that is a real bullshit my man! All this data we/you are talking about that is in the database originates from the post-war period. Are you really ignorant of this, or you are trying to distract us from that fact? (Manipulating us, maybe?) Please, if some data is messy it is not Cvetković's or anybody else's fault but fault of those state officials that made the papers in 1940's and 1950's and placed them in the national archives. Do you really failed to notice that on the bottom of each card it say which document the data is quoted from??
And you fail to see one more important thing. While you openly accuse the Serbian Academy of Science of falsifying a legal procedure, you "forget" that many "legal" procedures that stated a person is shot as a "spy" or "enemy" was placed in the archives long after the person was already murdered. Besides that, the archived "court decree" of this kind do not present any proof. Just states fact of death and assumes the person was shot "rightfully". No hangmans name on the document, no court's address. You see, my man, this is not just a real bullshit but is also a war crime. These kind of papers are right there in the communist archives – thousands of them – that besides all that were classified for over 60 years. Why they were not open for the public if war criminals were eliminated anyway? Do you actually see the fault of the logic of sentences that the executed died "in battles" earlier or later? Even if they did, why it was a national secret? The communists were very proud of all their achievements. Why was this different? What they were all of a sudden ashamed of? I know all communist regimes were secretive, but in this concrete case, what was hidden from the public and why? Besides all that, who knows how many papers are destroyed by the executioners later, and how many people were shot even without a paper. What are we talking about? Are we (I mean you) talking bullshit?– Jozefsu ( talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply
No, I'm full of arguments, but you don't read. I said in Revision as of 17:00, 29 April 2019 that OK, in the meantime Purić, Stranjaković were removed from the list. Then you did query and of course you didn't find their names, and then you dare to insult me. I didn't call You Nazi, I said It is good to know that you think followers of Nazissm aren't bad guys. Regarding two national academies, from Radanović: Imenik stradalih stanovnika AP Vojvodine 1941-1948.“ Anketnog odbora SkupÅ¡tine AP Vojvodine (formiran 2003. sa zadatkom da utvrdi približan broj i saÄini poimeniÄnu bazu podataka stradalih stanovnika Vojvodine 1941-1948) demantuje visoke procene Å andora MesaroÅ¡a i drugih autora koji su iznosili predimenzionirane brojke.[17] Prema nepotpunim podacima Anketnog odbora, publikovanim 2008, poimenice je poznato 4.424 lica maÄ‘arske nacionalnosti koja su stradala na podruÄju Vojvodine 1941-1948. Od ovog broja, njih 394 stradali su tokom 1941-1943.[18] Podatke Anketnog odbora dopunili su saradnici Državne komisije za tajne grobnice tako da je prema podacima evidentiranim do 6. decembra 2012. nakon osloboÄ‘enja stradalo najmanje 5.521 lice maÄ‘arske nacionalnosti na podruÄju Vojvodine i Beograda.[19] Saradnici Državne komisije su, za razliku od saradnika Anketnog odbora, dobili na uvid matiÄne knjige mesne zajednice BaÄki Jarak i opÅ¡tine Temerin, Å¡to im je omogućilo da, na osnovu ovih i nekih drugih izvora, dopune podatke Anketnog odbora.
So, two academies could only make list of 5521 (as of 2012), and Czeres claimed, basing on hearsay, 40,000. Get it? --  Bojan   Talk  02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't miss anything you say, unfortunately. But we are talking on two levels, each of us talk about a completely different thing. All you do is playing with the numbers of victims, tryng to lessen (as if that was possible!) the extent of the crime (reread your last sentence). On other instances you try to relativize the subject and try justify the killings, so indirectly you are defending the perpetrators. Please don't deny it, everybody sees what you are doing. Even in the article itself. By the way as for the article, in the serbian Wikipedia you directly demonstrated this by incredibly violent attitude against everyone and deleteing every edit that was not in line with your agenda. Whereas I – in line with the current official investigation – talk about things like how many innocents were killed, where they are buried, what was their name and how to bury them as human beings (I believe the government should exhume them and even pay their proper burial). Come on, what difference it makes if "only" 1000 was innocent out of 2000 executed? What about the 1000 then? What is your answer, solution? Leave them in the unsigned graves tigether with the criminals? (following your logic) You see, that is why the process of rehabilitation (independent investigation, without revisonism) is important. Do you see yourself and can you rethink your used arguments? The war was over before 74 years so today only the extent of war crime is important, because up to this day nobody was charged, and this was a top level national secret sealed in archives. So if you still don't understand why this is more important than the numbers the answer is because war is over, we are not engaging in war anymore (it looks like you still do in your head and heart) and the countries want to ensure peaceful future coegzistence, not to be forever stuck in the hatred game! Only rightful dealing with the past can settle this, and putting away with it but not to swipe it under the carpet, but putting ALL cards on the table (illuminating BOTH sides of the picture). I can write much much more, but you already lost your cool, and this is exactly what was on the Serbian Wikipedia – don't lead anywhere.

And you report as much as you can. So I can point to what you have done with me on the Serbian Wikipedia, how much bitterness I suffered because you and your idelogy friends persecuted me, frightening me with a power of administrator. You were problematic even as a sysop, and you have a record of misbehavior there that you cannot deny. And as for this here, if your intensions to settle the so-called "dispute" are honest, why didn't you notified me as is the Wikipedia procedure? You were a sysop for long time, you cannot say you don't know the rules.

P. S. As for who insults who. If you are really not interested in my nationality, why did you stress not once but twice the Turan hunters? Even to the extent of almost writing an article here about them – doing this just because you think among the victims of purges was a Turan? According to this, who of us used this talk page for a forum? And what else was that if not manipulation aimed to my nationality? And sentences in bold like "local hungarians helped the nazis"?? What were you trying to prove with those if not that hungarians cannot be trusted? (By the way this exact phrase was used by the communists to start the purges in Vojvodina.)

For Turan hunters let me share this story: my dad was 14 years old and played near the camp of hungarian Turan hunters. [a] My dad was also hungarian, but these criminals cought him and beated him anyway. My dad says they were bored so they "played" a little with him by giving him slaps. He managed to escape. Only for the second try, because they caught him again. He was a skinny boy, these were strong men. My dad hated Hungary all his life because of this. Besides, my two uncles were partisans, fought in the battle of Batina..... And dear "friend" what do you think why I didn't share this true story here? Because there is no reason for it! It doesn't have to do anything with the title of this article, as much as your chetnik pictures don't! You place pictures of chetniks and nazis in the talk page about the victims of red terror, and then you are complaining about somebody trolling you? You canvass using the talk page as a pasteboard, so what makes you nervous is basically double-standard. You can do this, but others' arguments make you pissed off.– Jozefsu ( talk) 14:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ I made a mistake here. Based on the similarity of words I confused Turan hunters (Turáni vadászok) with the regular army unit Border hunters ( Határvadászok) – here's how they looked like – but the point remains the same.
    According to what I was able to look up the Hunters were national civil sportist organisation, where people joined voluntarily (similar to Sokolski Savez in Serbia). They were not part of the military, although some active or retired soldiers were also members. It was active in Hungary until 1949, when the goverment declared it was with Anti-Soviet and anti communist sentiment. The reason of official ban was that it was illegally active in period 1945-1949 without the permit from the government.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Communist_purges_in_Serbia_in_1944–1945&oldid=1205903106"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE