Talk:Vladimir Zerjavic

Contents

1 on allegations of Holocaust denial and downplaying the scope of the Ustashis 2 I feel an irresistible urge to deny 3 Back to Zerjavic basics 4 A request and a suggestion 5 Let's keep it neutral and avoid the propoganda. 6 pavelicpapers 7 67.68.77.222's comments

on allegations of Holocaust denial and downplaying the scope of the Ustashis

Okay, so please explain:

• how he's a holocaust denier
• how he's downplaying the scope of the Ustashis in WWII

From what I've seen, and I admit I didn't see a lot, his WWII-related articles concentrate on calculating the number of victims, and when it comes to the point of making estimates, which all of the people who calculated those victims had to do, he makes his own estimates that differ from people like Milan Bulajić, and gets lower results.

A case that has been mentioned on some talk pages is how Bulajić compiled a list of over 70,000 people killed by the Ustaše. Has this data point been verified and has this list been analyzed by anyone? If we're going to call one guy a "Holocaust denier" and accuse him of "downplaying" because he's assumed to be biased towards the aggressor, why don't we check whether the other guy isn't some sort of Holocaust profiteer who could be overstating because of an analogous assumption that he's biased towards the victim?

Don't get me wrong. For all I know, Žerjavić could be the devil incarnate. But blunt assertions make up for a propaganda piece, not for an encyclopedia article. --Shallot 00:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, to answer the point about this person being influential in the Croatian politics of the `90s: perhaps. :) The issue of how many people the Ustase killed was, like many other nationalism-related things, deprecated in Yugoslavia, but I don't believe that it affected the Croats in any major way in the Yugoslav wars.

I guess I could fathom how a deranged person could think something along the lines of "My grandfather didn't kill enough of them, so I should to do that instead", but other than such pathological cases, I don't believe that the issue could have direct manifestations.

Conversely, I can imagine the influence of past oppression on the side of the Ustase to cause the past victims to be more susceptible to believe that the same thing is going to happen again if someone told them it will. (And indeed that was pretty much the underlying theme of Milošević's wartime propaganda.)

It occurs to me also that denying the Ustase atrocities could have an effect of making people believe "we never harmed them, they only harmed us", however, nobody in their right mind is saying that the said events never happened, and in particular nobody in their right mind would believe such a claim even if it was made. The issue may have been less discussed to avoid tensions, but make no mistake, everyone knew that it happened, it was standard history book material. --Shallot

User:Bcorr, you've added the "purport" and "his supporters claim" language to the added claims, but you've not added the same to the previously existing claims. The new text, while rude in the manner that it replaced several sentences without a log message saying so, was much more detailed than the original, had a similar amount of bias (but, somewhat surprisingly to me, wasn't actually nationalist), and wasn't committed by a logged in user. Surely we shouldn't apply such a double standard just because the new stuff is new and the old stuff is old? --Shallot 01:19, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, was he not "an Economist and United Nations Specialist"? What is the rationale for removing that? (I'm not claiming he was, I just noticed that this addition was not integrated.) --Shallot

Shallot is correct. Vladimir Zerjavic was a retiree of the United Nations and was never a professor of any kind. He was an economic advisor and specialist for the United Nations and spent much of his life working on the economic commission for Africa. I also strongly disagree with the term "Holocaust Denier" as it is an opinion not based on fact. His argument that figures were exaggerated, as figures often are when dealing with reparations claims, does not imply that these horrific events did not take place, as does a denier. His expertise in statistics is what gained him recognition amongst scholars. He was not a nationalist by any means, as many Croat nationalists did not support his figures either. It would be interesting to read what other nations have researched regarding these figures.

Ok, sorry I didn't log in, I am new here and did not realize the proper approach.

I appreciate the changes you have made, and understand that an agreement must be made unanimously.

I'm ok with what is up there now, although he was not a Professor, not sure where that information comes from.

I also think any reference to Holocaust Denier is wrong, because it instantly marks him with a stigma that is unfounded. The very fact that his book documents that genocide did occur and that hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav Serbs (in fact mostly Serbs), Jews, Gypsies, and Croats were killed by Nazis, Ustashe, and Chetniks certainly goes against any classification of "Holocaust denier", at least as described when clicking on the link for "Holocaust denier".

---

Hello Shallot -- I didn't review the entire page history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Vladimir_Zerjavic&action=history) -- what I saw was an anonymous user deleted all the infomation there and replaced it with an unwikified statement that was about his wonderful work and how it had gone to waste. I can't find out what a "United Nations Specialist" is -- so I didn't give it much credence -- unless it's a description and not a title: the only thing I found was the web page of Zerjavic's grandson and the only thing I found on the web that said he was an economist was the info below -- which seems (to me) highly POV -- at this Croatian site: [1] (http://www.hic.hr/hrvatski/vijesti/arhiv/latest/DAILY_BULLETIN_170_2001)

• ZAGREB, September 7 (FPB) - Engineer Vladimir Zerjavic (90) passed away in Zagreb on Thursday. Zerjavic was a respected economist, demographer, and historian. He wrote, among other works, the book 'Obsession and Megalomania Surrounding Jasenovac and Bleiburg', in which he proved the inaccuracy of information according to which the Serbs based their propaganda about Croats being 'genocidal'. Vladimir Zerjavic was decorated by the late Croatian president, Franjo Tudjman, with the Order of the Croatian Morning Star and was presented with a Croatian Medal of Gratitude. Funeral services will be held on Monday, September 10, at 2 p.m. at the Zagreb Mirogoj Cemetery.

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:04, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, he sounds like quite a character. Our own article on Holocaust denial says: "Holocaust denial ... is the rejection of some or all of the conventional history of the Holocaust."

Well, doesn't denying the scale of the atrocities of Jasenovac and elsewhere qualify, then? That's some of the conventional history of the Holocaust, isn't it?

But "denying the scale" is a very slippery slope when you're dealing with statistical estimates. From what I've read, he took all the same statistics available to the commission whose findings he was trying to disprove and made his own calculations and estimates. I haven't seen anyone spot a flaw in his calculation procedure, error in his data, non sequitur conclusion, anything, only the fact that his final numbers differ from those stated by others. Surely it's not the very virtue of dissension that makes him wrong?

It doesn't sound to me like he denied any essential characteristic of the holocaust caused by the Ustase, he only disputed the official claim which wasn't based on history but also on statistics like his. To say that he's a "Holocaust denier" with all that this designation entails just because of that seems draconic. --Shallot 02:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note also the title of his book, which includes the words Obsession and Megalomania. Now, I'm no expert on this guy, but does that sound like the language of a dispassionate scholar or someone on a politically motivated rant? Everyking 01:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Definitely sounds biased, but note that the Yugoslav commission report said 500,000-600,000 (quoting from our Jasenovac article, didn't verify that). A hundred thousand people margin of error? That just doesn't sound right either. If someone proved that such a claim was wrong and replaced it with a few times smaller correct number (and indeed note the US Holocaust museum quote on our Ustase article), then I guess the general impression would indeed be that the first number was megalomaniac. --Shallot 02:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, note that he was decorated by Franco Tudjman. Evidentally, his work was serving someone's political agenda, huh? Is this someone we need to go out of our way defending/misrepresenting? Everyking 01:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Is that a Freudian slip or what? Tuđman wasn't general Franco :)

That's still no reason not to stick to the facts. We can simply state that implication in the article, though I'm not sure how it affects the denier stuff. Tuđman had positive things to say about the notion of Croatian statehood that he said was achieved by the Ustase (something I pretty much disagree with), but he fought on the partizan side as well and did not deny their crimes. --Shallot 02:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BCorr, Well done reasearch.

Now you know why I know so much about him.

I'm willing to answer any questions you might have about my grandfather, but please consider removing the text about being a holocaust denier. My grandfather fought with Partisans in the war and was captured by Nazis, and sent to be executed. The reason my own mother bears the name Vladimira is because his death certificate was prematurely sent by the Nazis to my grandmother. He barely escaped alive. He spoke fluent German and managed to get civilian clothes and escape the prison where he was being detained. In additon one of his best friends, a Slovenian (who I believe is still alive today) survied the concentration camps in Dachau and told me about the horrors first hand. I saw the number tatooed on his arm and heard about thousands of innocent men, women, and children that were left for dead working in an the mines. The Nazis planned to blow up the exit to the mines, trapping all inside, including my grandfather's friend, but the allied forces came in time to prevent this disaster.

In addition you should consider referecing the book itself, which on the inside jacket reads "Italic textThe author was a United Nations expert engaged in the economic Commission for Afric for many years. He was also a counselor with several governments in Africa, Central America, and Asia. Since his retirement in 1982, he has been living in Zagreb engaging in demographic research of South Slavic territories."

In addition, his absolute intention for his reasearch was to prevent further conflict between the two ethnic groups. He was hoping to prove to reasonable Serbian people that there is no intention by the Modern (1990) Croatian people to commit genocide against Serbs and that Serbs and Croats have and should continue to live together in harmony and prosper together economically. This is clearly stated in his own words in the "conclusion" section of his book. The propoganda in the Krajina region was fueling anti-Croatian sentiment and was largely based on fears and claims from Serbian nationalists regarding the "1 million Serbian Lives" lost in WWII. He never argued that it did not occur, only that the figures suggest that the bloodshed was relatively close on both sides and should not be used to justify further bloodshed. "Enough is enough" to put it briefly.

Unfortunately this idiotic hatred between these two slavic cultures must continue due to the recent wars. I can only hope and pray that future generations can see through this idoicy and perhaps build a bridge to a more promising future. One of cooperation and forgiveness. Something that these two predominately "Christian" nations should take seriously.

Yassou, Christos -- I appreciate you reply. To be honest, I don't really know much about your grandfather, and I truly don't mean to sully his reputation unfairly. Others added the information about the denial of the Holocaust. I will leave it to other to balance the content -- my main concern was that the original info had been completely replaced with something with the opposite point of view. We have a "Neutral Point of View" policy, and I'm sure that those of you who know more than I can work this out. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

With regard to his being decorated by Franjo Tudman, it should be noted that the two of them disagreed constantly. Vladimir Zerjavic refused a cabinet position because of his anti-political stance and his political differences. He only wanted what was best for Croatia and all Croatians (including Croatian Serbs, Slovenes, Albanians,and Muslims). He did not have any political ambitions.

His figures should be left for historians and scholars to evaluate and verify, not nationalists and politicians. It seems to me that if there is so much controversy than it is worth an unbiased review.

My argument is strictly that he is not a holocaust denier, as that is a misleading and slanderous remark. Let others come to their own conclusions about this. To claim he is a holocaust denier is to completely lose sight of his inent (As he outlined clearly in his book on pg. 33 of his book.) to claim that Serbs and Croats have and can live together peacefully and that the Croatian State as a whole is not "Genocidal" as was being claimed by Serbian Nationlists at the time, largely based on the 1 million figure. That's all.

Please consider this.

Responding to the various friendly remarks posted here: look up what it means to deny something. Then read the definition of Holocaust denial I quoted. Then note that the article doesn't even call him a Holocaust denier anymore, even though he plainly was one: it merely says some people call him that. Then ask yourself, what is the point of this debate? Oh yeah: the article doesn't make him out to be some sort of hero anymore, and of course that's the way you intend it to be. Everyking 02:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I reread the definitions in that article and they're a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Jovan Rašković's "two million Serbs killed by the Ustaše" warmongering would qualify him as a "Holocaust denier"! Surely you have to pay some attention to the spirit of the term's meaning before assigning it to someone, especially because we're not talking about calling someone "aggressive" or "incoherent" or anything reasonably superficial like that, we're saying that they side with some of the worst scum that has soiled this planet in quite some time.

Also, this "some people call him that" was begun by a person who has proven on dozens of occasions that he's all but rational when it comes to anything even remotely relevant to his jingoist view of history... --Shallot

---

I agree. It is a slippery slope, as this definition doesn't serve anyone, be you in support of higher or lower figures, simply in disagreement with "conventional wisdom" qualifies you as a "denier", a stigma which would cause any well meaning scholar to think twice before commiting to any research. This also serves to dilute the power and meaning of this word.

Dear Everyking,

Not sure why you hold such a strong opinion about my granfather, I'm hoping you at least read his books. There is no need to make unfair assumptions about my intent on correcting the slanderous remarks that were made. I am not the only one here who thought that the original entry was politically motivated and slanderous. I think you know very well what a "Holocaust Denier" implies. It implies to the casual reader a denial that the Holocaust existed. He does not do this with his statistics at all. You can find another way to word his controversial findings, rather than denial. If anything it was simply a neutral statistical refutation. The fact that he is Croatian is what laid claim to the belief that his figures were politically motivated. Of course, I can understand why some would think this and it's just inevitable.

In the case of the Yugoslavian WWII claims of lives lost, this miscalculation gave both Croatian and Serbian nationalist groups fodder for vengeance and futher genocide against one another. His intent to spend years of his time researching the facts was to put an end to the propoganda on all sides, not deny that atrocities didn't occur.

BCorr properly and politely explained that this site should be devoid of opinion and only state fact. The initial entry was not only incorrect, but hurtful and slanderous and missing lots of factual information. While "hero" is a strong word, I do see his efforts to prevent conflict between Serbs and Croats as courageous, but of course that is opinion and should be left out. But, making a statement that others view him as a "Holocaust Denier" is just as opinionated and hurtful. It is the job of a good historian to research and often refute facts. While facts on World War II are a sensitive subject, that should not prevent any scholar from investigating the truth and bringing about healthy debate. In many cases this type of analysis proves that more losses had occured than reported. His figures should be just that, figures. Let the statisticians evaluate their accuracy and leave politics out of it.

In the end, if you decide to leave it there then you are pre-biasing the reader. That is my main concern.

With regard to the fact that these horrific events ever took place is a burden that all society must bear and we must do whatever we can to prevent it from ever happening again. And it is because I know that this was the ultimate intent of my grandfather as these were his very words to me, I feel I must defend him.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Ok,

Everyking, the latest rendition is much better. I didn't catch it when I wrote the last reply. My apologies. Of course, I'd prefer it was left out, but at least it's got both sides.

If its any comfort to anyone, I can assure you that his intentions were good. I can now see firsthand how authors and historians can be misread. If he were alive today I would urge him to clarify this further.

p.s. thanks for the debate.

I also want to thank Shallot for his intelligent insight and research.

I am trying my best to be fair and reasonable, even though I know with devout certainty that my Grandfather was a great man who worked hard to uncover the truth and bring peace to an otherwise troubled region. While my grandfather was by no means a world figure, he did work hard to make a positive difference.

I think a lot is misunderstood about Croatia. The overwhelming vast majority of Croatians were not Ustashe and many Croatian Partisans were in fact killed by Ustashe. Far too often western media outlets failed to recognize this and grouped all Croats with the radical Ustashe, which was a puppet goverment put into power and controlled by Hitler and the Nazis. It was a very complex and ugly time. I believe history will one day defend his research and clear up this confusion.

He was a compassionate man and lost many friends in WWII, many in concentration camps. He also fought bravely against fascism in Tito's Partisan army. His pursuit for the truth is fueled by a passion for justice and peace, not politics.

-Christos

Christos: I am glad we can agree that the article is neutral in its current form. Both views regarding Zerjavic are clearly and fairly represented. Shallot: surely you don't still support deletion, now that this article has been so thoroughly reworked and expanded? Everyking 04:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll go clean out the VfD stuff, but I still contend that the HD accusation is unsubstantiated and will place a NPOV dispute notice on the page, hopefully a temporary one. --Shallot 10:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, while it is certainly better than before, could you consider somehow adding that the intent of his book, in his own words (and you can verify this in the book) was that Serbs and Croats could live and prosper together in an Independant Croatia, and in peace. To quote him word for word in his own conclusion section of his book entitled "Yugoslavia-Manipulations with the number of Second World War Victims" c. 1993

"After the artificially created euphoria is over, and once peace is established, all reasonable and objective Serbians will, I strongly believe, realize that their common life with Croatians, in a state with a prosperous economic future, is the most acceptable solution for them." - Vladimir Zerjavic, Zagreb, April 27 1992.

The propoganda spouted by Milosevic was that an "newly created, independant Croatia" would surely commit genocide against Krajina Serbs (which is in Croatia proper) based on the "1 million" figure from WWII. Zerjavic's only intention was to refute this argument, and he used facts and figures to do so. Primarly to evidence that Croatia as a Nation was not genocidal and that the figures were initially exaggerated on all sides by federal officials for the goal of receiving war reparations. Unfortunately, these figures were used by Milosevic and other Serbian Nationalists to incite (out of fear) Serbian minority populations in Croatia with the intent of creating a greater Serbia. In addition he stressed that these crimes were committed by an extremist puppet government put in power by Hitler and not supported by the majority of Croats (who fought side by side with Serbs against the Nazis)

Today, it seems as if there is much peace in Croatia, as many of the Krajina Serbs have returned, as have many of the Vukovar Croats that were displaced by Serbs. There is still much needed healing in Croatia, but the economy and tourism sectors are improving greatly, especially Dubrovnik and the Dalmation Coast. Cruise ships are back. Croatia is such a breathtakingly beautiful country, that much I think can not be argued. I pray for lasting peace.

This is an excellent discussion and I hope will not be deleted.

I think that view is already accounted for by this part of the article: "His supporters say that the primary intent of his findings was to demonstrate that there should be no argument for further bloodshed between Croats and Serbs based on these exaggerated figures and that much of the revenge had already occurred between Serbs and Croats during the war. He also stated that the majority of Serbs and Croats fought side by side against the Nazis, as did he, in Tito's partisan army." However, if you'd like to add more to it or reword it, feel free; just don't state it as absolute truth. Everyking 05:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the ok, Everyking,

I made a few minor changes, adding a few important hyperlinks that were missing, and included the "1990's" because he continued his writings well through the 90's. This should do it, although it is unfortunate that his work was viewed by anyone as being a "denial" of any kind, when he worked so hard to document the truth. His facts and figures should be reviewed and researched honestly and open mindedly by scholars around the world, as his findings could and should prove valuable for historical purposes with the intent to provide the most accurate data available. In fact, it appears as if the US Holocaust Museum is using his data:

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says:

"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac." [2]

So this excerpt above may well serve as evidence that Vladimir Zerjavic is simply a brilliant statistician, and not a politician.

It's unfortunate, but understandable, that others would read into his statistical findings and see them as politically motivated rather than being scientific or mathematic. If only everyone knew how stubbornly honest he was, how precise and pragmatic, they would realize that he was indeed seeking the truth. His brute honesty and political incorectness lost him favor with many Croatian politicians (not to mention, family members), but regardless he spoke his mind for the betterment of his beloved Croatia, regardless of how unpopular his views may have been. (something like a Croatian "Ralph Nader") He only wanted the best for Croatia, and would often refute false claims on all sides. History has shown that he was right on many accounts. His countless articles in the Croatian newspapers can attest to this.

-Christos

He also testitifed in the trial of Dinko Sakic: http://public.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9905/hina-31-o.html

Having read that, it seems like his claims do indeed match those used abroad (probably meaning that the others used his numbers...), and while I still feel uneasy with a 25-30 percent margin of error, it does seem like he was making a valid point and that his analysis doesn't contradict the list by Milan Bulajić at all. --Shallot

I feel an irresistible urge to deny

Sorry for bursting in, but: looks like some of the participants have a problem with the concepts like "truth" and "objectivity". As for "obsessions and megalomanias" title-this is a perfectly correct description since multiplying and remultiplying the number of victims in the NDH regime served only one purpose: to incite hatred and thirst for revenge in another Serb expansionist drive for Greater Serbia. Would you call "obsessive" someone who considers "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" true ? Well-I would. And, since Jews are here mentioned- let us not forget that prior to the collapse of Communism, the toll of victims in Auschwitz (vastly Jewish) was, officially, 4.2 M people murdered there. Now, after 1990., when the truth could be told be told without being commie-muzzled, the number has dropped to 1.1 M people. Where are those 3.1 M gone ? Hell, I'm pretty fed up with PC holocaust denial lingo. According to another people stats, number of Jews who died of unnatural causes during WW2 is estimated from 4.2 M to 6 M (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm ): Hitler:

• Extermination of the Jews:
• Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
• Brzezinski: 5,000,000
• Chirot: 5,100,000
• 3,000,000 in death camps.
• 1,300,000 massacred.
• 800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
• Rummel: 5,291,000
• Grenville: 5-6M
• Davies, Europe A History (1998): 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
• MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
• Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
• Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
• P. Johnson: 5,800,000
• Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
• Urlanis: 6M

- So- how can one avoid being labelled a Holocaust denier (Zerjavic and Serbs aside), since official numbers fluctate so wildly, cca. 1.8 M ? Any rational person must be a sort of denier when confronted with such an irresponsible numbers-meddling.Mir Harven 11:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Back to Zerjavic basics

Now, let's just dot all is and cross all ts

• the number of losses in Yugoslavia during WW2 was calculated, hastily (but correctly), by Serbian mathematician Vladeta Vučković (one of Yu bosses, Edvard Kardelj, had to have some figures for Paris peace conference in order to have rough stats of asessment of war casualties and damage. Vučković calculated the number of demographic losses, and it turned out to be ca. 1.7 M. He did not calculate the number of actual losses, or those who died of unnatural causes, and he expressed this many times after he emigrated (he was later a University professor of statistics and numerical methods at one US university- I forgot where: just type "Vladeta Vuckovic" or "Vladeta Vučković" into google search window)

• there is not much space for numbers-meddling in stats when done lege artis: both Croat Zerjavic and Serb Kocovic ended up with virtually the same figures, independently: the demographic loss in Yu was ca. 1.7 M, and the number of actual loss or casualties/victims ca. 1 M. So, Vučković was right and only mis/abused for very mundane purposes: first by Yu Communist leadership in order to get as many reparations money as possible; and then by Greater Serbian ideologues for incitement of hysteria much needed as the psycho motivation for aggression in recent wars (1991-1999)

• as for as actual tallying of ex-Yu losses (1941-1945)- it well below 1 M. The Yugoslav authorities ended up with the figure ca. 300 k for Croatia +Bosnia (which was, ironically, a bad news since they morbidly bragged with mega numbers. The story is told on a Zerjavic page-http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/index.htm (particularly at http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p03.htm

• and, as for Mr. Bulajić: he's not only "expert" in nothing (save Goebbels-type agitprop), nor researcher of any credibility, but a proponent of Greater Serbian expansion and genocide. His 4-volume book (I've read this crap) on Serbian martirology in Croatia +Bosnia and Herzegovina + parts of Vojvodina (NDH) is just a filthy pamphlet with nothing new or illuminating. Bulajic/Bule was one of potent instrumentals in Serbian aggression in Croatia and Bosnia, fervent supporter of Milosevic and Karadzic, paid by them (both) and financed by other shadowy figures that crawl in the darkness of Serbian megalomanias. The real issue here is not that anyone should prove that Zerjavic was right. The issue is how, faced with such formidable arguments like those presented by Zerjavic and Kocovic (and Vuckovic)- how could one have the temerity to stick to Bule's outright fabrications ? How is it possible that completely irrational and unsubstantiated malign Serbian political agenda could be given any credence at all ?Mir Harven 12:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mir Haven,

In my view, you defended his choice of titling the book "Megalomania and Obsessions...". History has now shown the true intentions of Milosevic and Karadzic and how they used these exaggerated figures as propoganda, something that my grandfather (Zerjavic) was warning of in his arguments. It was these kinds of "Manipulations" that were used to incite Serbs and justify the intent of Serbian nationalists to carve out a "Greater Serbia", in an effort to gain the support of moderate Serbs living in Croatia. Nothing incites more than fear.

While I can not personally verify his numbers or methods as it is out of the scope of my expertise, I would find value in having them proven by scholars and future demographers as it may put this debate to rest indefinitely.

I came to this site to correct an unfair accusation that my Grandfather was a "Holocaust Denier", which unfortunately is a claim that serves to negate all his findings and make a sweeping and slanderous generalization without any evidence. In the same manner, I do believe that it is important to be fair minded and respectful of varying opinions, as I know my grandfather would want me to be sensitive and courteous, yet persistent, and to always seek the truth. It is important to steer clear of "propoganda" even when the facts are indeed true, as that is what got us here in the first place. (I am concerned, as now the "Neutrality" of this article is being disputed, even though I know what you added in the article is indeed the truth. Perhaps it will come out as fact during the Milosevic trials, we'll see.)

He (Zerjavic) was a great man, and loved his country. I pray now (in spite of the recent conflict) that his assertion that Croats and Serbs can live and prosper together in a democratic and independent Croatia holds true. It is an essential ingredient for lasting peace in the Balkans.

-Christos

Mir Haven, could you rework your additions to make them sound NPOV? The article can't stay like this. Everyking 21:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, please do it for me, or let Shallot soften some expressions. BUT-political dimension shouldnt be left out, because, essentially, it's the core of the Serbian inflationary victimology.NPOV does not mean omission of crucial info, just adding that it's one point of view. N means"neutral"-but it cant be watered down to "no"-as in "no point of view".Mir Harven 23:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking,

I disagree with including the last paragraph that reads:

"they argue that Zerjavic's work was politically motivated to whitewash the history of the Ustashi and provide justification for the renewed Croatian nationalism of the early 1990s. According to Zerjavic, only about a tenth of the number conventionally believed to have died at Jasenovac actually perished there."

I also believe that the phrase "downplay Ustashe atrocities" should be changed, as that skews the NPOV. No reasonable Croat would defend the horrific actions of the Ustashe, and neither does he, as the terms "downplay" and "whitewash" suggest. I also don't see the connection to a justification of renewed nationalism. Is that reference necessary? These ideas are not related and sound like propoganda. The way in which others choose to use his calculations are out of his control.

I think it is important to include the following information in this article:

 a.  Zerjavic's figures reduced the number of both Croatian and Serbian victims, not just Serbian. (as there was a miscalculation on both sides).
 b.  State who accepts his figures as reliable: such as the US Holocaust Museum
 c.  State who does not accept his figures as reliable

A more scholarly and scientific view is needed to make this article neutral and undisputed. - Christos

They are very closely related. And I added nothing that was not stated objectively, because you cannot deny that a great number of people believe his work was Holocaust denial for the sake of nationalism. You can add whatever you want as well, if stated objectively. This article is shamefully biased without my additions, and I won't let it stay that way. Everyking 23:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The content Mir Harven added definitely looks slanted and needs a fair bit of editing to be encyclopedic (which I intend to correct when I have some time), but he has elaborated his changes at length and has only ranted generally against people who are in ICTY detention, whereas Igor and yourself have added several defamatory statements with practically no real backing, only prejudice. --Shallot 00:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I want you to explain to me how adding the indisputable FACT that some people think Zerjavic was a Holocaust denier is defamatory and prejudiced. I am very tired of dealing with this article. Everyking 00:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh-this can be done very easily. Say- "some people think that VZ was a Holocaust denier since his investigations have given numbers that looked vastly deflated in comparison to the commonly accepted figures (not open to discussion) during Communist era in Yugoslavia. Dont worry. You'll ger your Holocaust denier. But- not the unsubstantiated, slandery way you expected.Mir Harven 08:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is just fine with me, Mir. What did you think I expected? Everyking 14:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that there is so much controversy over my grandfather's writings. It saddens me to think that anyone could view his work as anything but scientific, but I realize that not everyone had the priviledge to know him as I did. I have to also accept that he knew what he was getting into when he decided to take on this difficult and arduous task.

I would argue that his critics should only refute his findings based on his methods and not on propoganda or suspicion of intent. Therefore, I kindly request that the term Holocaust Denial be changed to a less defamatory term of Historical Revisionism and that all propogandist remarks in this article be removed, both pro and con leaving only the facts and figures, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions. If it is a fact that someone accepts or rejects his findings, that is permissible. I also think it is acceptable to include a reference from the author's own written intent based on the conclusion of his book [[2] (http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p08.htm)].

I think the link that was there to his book should also be included, as it IS the issue we are talking about and not a biased review.

I will attempt to make some edits, please review them and let me know if you can accept this and remove the neutrality of the article.

I think it is much more neutral, based on fact, and includes actual references from the author, so one can make their own conclusion. I also think those 2 links at the bottom are necessary, especially the one that has his actual writings. Others can come to their own conclusions on accuracy and intent simply by reading his book.

This edit seems far less defamatory as well. I also removed a lot of propoganda on both sides.

Any comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

I highly recommend that Shallot review this last edit I made and make the final changes, if any, as he seems to be the most unbiased. Then I would kindly request that the neutrality dispute be removed.

Thank you all.

-Christos

Very well. I am not going to fight over this. I do not agree with this at all, however; I think this is absolutely shameful, biased, and frankly, rather disgusting. So that is my statement of protest, and I'll leave it at that. Everyking 14:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also: Although I suppose I won't get my way on this either, since neutrality has been forsaken on this little corner of Wikipedia, I strongly suggest that the reference to "Serbian authorities" be changed at the end of the article. It is a very obvious attempt at painting this as a "Milosevic against the world and common sense" issue. Everyking 14:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking,

How is this shameful, biased, and disgusting? I am offended.

With your suggestion, I will remove a reference to the Serbian authorities. I did not put that there initially, and actually thought that was important to note the view of the critics, but no problem.

I already removed all the "propoganda" type comments about Greater Serbia, so this article should now indeed be neutral as it only quotes DIRECT excerpts from the author's writings, a quote from the Holocaust Museum, and links to the writings themselves. It does not have opionion all over it as it did before.

If you are going to make such strong criticisms, please support them. If you would like to add other quotes, please suggest them.

There are other forums to argue the validity or accuracy of his findings. If you are so certain of this, then I highly recommend that you take up the task of researching the demographics yourself and refute them scientifically.

It is a thankless task, I can assure you.

I DID also fairly and kindly request feedback after I made my changes, so your negative attitude is not understood. I am trying to be fair, did you read my request for feedback?

Shallot? Bcorr? What do you think? I am open to suggestion.

I think we can now agree that it is ok? I made the change that Everyking suggested.

Can we remove the dispute of neutrality now? If not, what in particular is wrong or missing? Please explain and make helpful suggestions. This is very important as I do want to be fair and open minded, and do not want to have to keep checking back on this article every week.

I thank you for removing the propaganda about Greater Serbia and the Serbian authorities. If I had tried to make those changes myself, of course, I would have been quickly reverted.

However, I do think it is shameful and disgusting to attempt to rewrite history to exclude Jasenovac, and I think we at Wikipedia have a responsibility to call that what it is: Holocaust denial. Nobody disputes that his figures reduce the scale of the Holocaust, and that falls under the definition of Holocaust denial. It is for others to decide for themselves whether it is a good or a bad thing to be a Holocaust denier, but we have a responsibility to say who is and who isn't one. At the very least, the article should say that many people consider him a Holocaust denier, but it doesn't even say that anymore. I certainly don't support removing the NPOV marker as long as the article is in this condition. Everyking 20:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Umm, exactly who "rewrote history to exclude Jasenovac"? Certainly not Zerjavic. So, basically my next question has to be, what the hell are you talking about? --Shallot

I believe I am done discussing this issue. There is not much point in arguing with blind nationalism of this sort.

What "blind nationalism of this sort"?! It seems like you've already made up your mind and don't want to be confused with facts. Very convincing reasoning. :> --Shallot 22:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nor is there any use in attempting to improve an article when one's changes will simply be reverted. So I am done here. When one attempts to shovel dirt over the truth, remember that it remains there buried and waiting to be found again. Everyking 21:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking,

I have no problem making changes that have hidden undertones, like the one regarding the Serbian Authorities. After you pointed it out, I understood your view, so I removed it. However, no one is attempting to rewrite history to exclude "Jasenovac", on the contrary, this article supports and documents its existence. Is it not fact that the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has a tribute to the Jasenovac victims on their site? I just viewed it recently. Not only does that site honor all those victims, but it also (and I quote) "Honors those Croatian Political Opponents that were persecuted by the regime.", like my grandfather, who fought against these evil Ustashe and Nazis in Tito's Partisan Army to eradicate the evil Ustashe and Hitler. Remember, Jasenovac was liberated by the Partisans, of which many were Croats. You have to believe that there were and still are good people in the world who know right from wrong.

I think you are missing the point about this author, he isn't saying that it didn't happen, he simply conducted what has been regarded by most scholars as the most reliable research available. Remember, he also concluded that the number of Croatian casualties, also previously exaggerated, were significantly less than initialy reported. He did not have many "fans" on either side after writing this book, as any outcome would be destined to disappoint. He also didn't take one penny from the sale of his books (all profits went to charity). His research was not at all to excuse or to whitewash or to eliminate, only accurately document. He is a demographer not a magician. He is also stubbornly precise.

I would agree to change the word "historical revisionism" to say "holocaust denier" if you can show me a website or quote from a reliable critic who is claiming this. It seems hard for me to believe that the US Holocaust Museum would use figures close to those of a Holocaust Denier! In fact, Zerjavic's figures are actually somewhat higher than those considered "reliable" by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Site. check it out here, scroll to the very last frame: [[3] (http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac/)]

Does this change your view of neutrality? I think we need to get an expert opinion. If you honestly can point me to a credible unbiased source that claims he is a holocaust denier, I will agree to change it. I will also agree to change it if BCorr and Shallot also agree. I think that would be fair.

In addition, please do not try to make this argument about taking sides, no one in this entire argument believes that this subject is to be taken lightly and no one believes that it should be excluded or forgotten. All of us agree that what happenend to all victims in Jasenovac was horrendous. To even consider that a number such as 55 or 65,000 could serve to "whitewash" a crime is ludicrous. That is a horrific number, no question. It may not be the mind numbing figure of 700,000 or 1 million, but it is horrific nonetheless. I don't quite understand why this isn't obvious. I also believe that if the Simon Weisenthal Museum knew that this figure of 1 million was being used by radical Serbs to incite moderate Serbs to take arms and commit genocide against Croats, they would rethink their position. I wouldn't be surprised if they have since, as now the world can see what the true intentions of Milosevic and Karadzic, (et all) were.

The argument in this article is how to accurately portray Mr. Zerjavic, and without prejudice. It seems hypocritical to me that you would oppose what is written here, yet support the Jasenovac page that also uses the same quote from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Site. Isn't this enough logic?

Please be fair.

Really? Or is it perhaps that the Simon Wiesenthal Center is not willing to compromise on the truth for the sake of some political ambitions?

Everyking, I would argue that any organization that supports inflated, or unsubstantiated figures of any kind is indeed supporting the political ambitions of some group or cause, so this statement of yours is probably the most hypocritical one here. -Christos

Where exactly has the Simon Wiesenthal Center done anything to contradict Zerjavic's findings? The page linked from our Ustase article seems to have very round numbers (500,000, 250,000, 250,000), so it's fair to say that they were rounding it, and it is nearly in accord with the ideology described at our page (the stuff about thirds). It's also similar to Zerjavic's findings -- 194,000 total war casualties, with 30% positive error margin that's 252,200. So, again, what the hell are you talking about? --Shallot 22:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shallot, I don't know why you have to resort to insults in dealing with me. I've been quite passive in my approach to this issue, and I have already plainly stated that I do not intend to contribute to this article again, because I have no interest in getting into a petty fight. Besides, if it wasn't for me, I don't know if this article would even exist now, because you were set on deleting it.

I have not once insulted you. It is odd that you one that has insulted the article topic is so sensitive to being asked WTH they are talking about... --Shallot 11:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As for your various numbers, I don't consider them to be worth very much. In America we have a saying: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. In my time on this earth, I've seen plenty of numbers tossed around that argue the impossibility of Auschwitz and purport to explain how the numbers of the Jewish population did not actually suffer, that all that business about extermination was made up by the communists. Everybody sounds convincing when they deal in numbers. So I'm wiser than to believe something just because one of its proponents can rattle off some figures.

Okay, now I think it's fair to say that you've no idea what you're talking about. Where has Zerjavic "argued the impossibility of [Jasenovac]", "explained how the numbers of the [Serb] population did not actually suffer", or that "all that business about extermination was made up by the communists"? You're ranting about something here that's entirely impertinent to the topic of this article. --Shallot 11:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that he did, Shallot. I was making a logical comparison between the arguments of Shallot and other Holocaust deniers. Everyking 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you really believe the things you say, or if you just say them out of some political conviction or to advance some agenda you have. On the other hand, you might be right: I don't have in my hand a divine book of truth to flip through and cast judgment on facts and lies. But I can, as a person, make an educated determination of what is probably true, and I consider it very likely that Zerjavic was nothing more than a Croatian version of David Irving, or worse -- most Holocaust deniers don't have influence in countries at war, where their ideas can indirectly contribute to killing.

Okay, so you admit that you are prejudiced. That's okay. It merely has no bearing on what should go into an encyclopedia. --Shallot 11:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again with the insults. No, I don't admit that, Shallot. The whole point of that was that I am not prejudiced, so I don't jump the gun on claiming things to be true or false. Everyking 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I note that someone has taken down the NPOV marker on the grounds that I don't want it there. Which is strange to me, because I plainly said I would insist on keeping it.

I also note that you have a way of denying obviously rational points I make with an insult. I think you shouldn't do this. If pushing Holocaust denial doesn't look bad enough, how bad does it look when you reply to honest criticism with an insult? Everyking 01:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where are these rational points that you've made that I've responded to with an insult? I've agreed with you on several points above, but then you went off and made non sequitur conclusions. --Shallot 11:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you have an ambition to engage in a discussion about a topic in history, it's reasonable to expect you have an ability to absorb info, analyze it and to consider it true or false. As I've seen-you dont. You just dogmatically pontificate about "Holocaust denial" and similar stuff without even trying to prove your contentions. Where are your arguments ? Is this something you consider an argument: As for your various numbers, I don't consider them to be worth very much. In America we have a saying: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. In my time on this earth, I've seen plenty of numbers tossed around that argue the impossibility of Auschwitz and purport to explain how the numbers of the Jewish population did not actually suffer, that all that business about extermination was made up by the communists. Everybody sounds convincing when they deal in numbers. So I'm wiser than to believe something just because one of its proponents can rattle off some figures. I must admit-this is incredible display of prejudice and ignorantism. So-you do not accept Zerjavic's (Kocovic's Vuckovic's) figures, but do accept figures that are clearly Communist and Greater Serbian fabrications (the origin of these fabrications is revealed many times since).They are politicallly inspired lie. You openly, shamelessly and, I'd say, detestably, stick to something that is proven to be a lie. Your kind of people, I suppose, dont have a problem with figures- only if the figures are to their liking. Sorry, although I respect Cristos' wish to peacefully honor his grandfather's memory, the true root of this malign mythology based on inflatio numeri has to be exposed. The real progenitors of mega-numbers, Greater Serbian ideologists and their buddies (who conceal themeselves as apolytical ignorants-interesting cover, to say the least) will be exposed as they deserve. Greater Serbia part moves in.Mir Harven 10:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mir, I have not presented such arguments here because I do not consider myself to be a participant in some grand debate regarding the numbers of people killed by the Ustashi. Apparently you do, but Wikipedia isn't the place for your political screeds. I am just interested in a balanced portrayal of this person, and I have encountered great difficulties in this because some people, like you, are here to play politics.

Furthermore, you are all arguing in numbers, and as you should know, nothing is more easily manipulated than statistics. That is why I do not consider your arguments to be very convincing. Often times people are taken in by arguments of this sort, as I presume you have, because they are presented in what sound like precise mathematical terms, and they purport to prove something one already badly wants to believe.

I don't know much about Vladimir Zerjavic. I did a little research on Google, and it did not leave me with a favorable impression of him. For instance:

"While Zerjavic's "calculations" can be debated at great length, other examples can easily show the mockery his calculations really are. Zerjavic "calculated" the number of Jews killed in Jasenovac to 13,000, while Yad Vashem sent a list of 25,000 names to Tudjman. By his demographic statistical method, Zerjavic managed to erase 12,000 human lives.

The number of Roma victims especially doesn't fit in Zerjavic's account. While he calculated that 10,000 Roma were killed in Jasenovac, he admitted that only in Croatia there were 14,000 Roma registered in 1931. However, in this Jasenovac report, it is mentioned in several places, quite specifically, that all Roma from the territory of the Independent State of Croatia were gathered and killed in Jasenovac, numbering about 40,000 (which includes the territory of modern Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Srem, and even Backa and Banat, under Hungarian and German control). To support his claim, Zerjavic mentioned that in 1931 only one Roma was registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which to a person unfamiliar with Bosnian history would imply that there were no Roma in Bosnia ever. The truth is that Roma represented an integral part of Bosnia for several centuries and there were many more Roma in Bosnia than in Croatia. The fact that only one was registered in 1931 can only mean that nobody bothered to register them. But, even if we would assume that Zerjavic is right and that there were no Roma in Bosnia, his calculation is still incorrect because if all Roma weren't killed in Jasenovac, that would mean that according to Zerjavic's calculations, 4,000 of them survived.

The 1948 census in Yugoslavia is very revealing in this regard. Namely, in that year there were 72,651 Roma in the whole of Yugoslavia. Out of that number, 98.57% of Roma lived in Serbia (52,115) and Macedonia (19,500), and the remaining just over 1% lived in Montenegro and about 200 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 1948 census proves that all 40,000 Roma from NDH were indeed exterminated in Jasenovac, and that Zerjavic's "calculations" are false and a mockery of victims." Everyking, YOU say he is making a mockery out of victims. I don't follow your logic above, nor is it certain that your information is any more accurate than his. I highly doubt that you could disprove him by spending 15 minutes on Google. But, that isn't even the point. He is a demographer, and these are estimates. The primary issue involves a claim of 1 million victims versus 65, 000 - 85,000. You are way off base here, and if we are to buy into your theory of Holocaust Denial, it means that no one in their right mind should EVER sign up to do any of this research, because heaven forbid their numbers aren't satisfactory, they are sure to be "Defamed" by people like you. One thing I think we can all agree on is that this is a thankless pursuit, only destined for criticism. - C

However, since his work was obviously contentious, it is great that we have people who can explain in depth the arguments supporting his work. The problem is that you have all been entirely too eager to erase or mitigate the wording of the small part of the article dealing with criticisms of Zerjavic. Everyking 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead, put it in. I know it will make you so happy. You will probably do it anyway, so what do I care. You are already set in your belief about Zerjavic, no matter what evidence we show you, so any research you do will only support your already conceived outcome, so I believe you too are a denier and equally guilty of the claims you are making against him. You are definitely not unbiased or neutral. Is anyone? Perhaps this whole article should be removed because it is destined to be poisoned.

I'm glad that you've come to your senses and actually pasted some information (as far as Google tells me, that's by Sinisa Djuric at [4] (http://www.pavelicpapers.com/features/jasenovac/introduction.html)). Something like that can be an actual argument, unproven accusations cannot. --Shallot 17:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did not post that because I had any intention of arguing the death toll of Jasenovac with you on a Wikipedia talk page, Shallot. Everyking 17:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you did not post it, because it comes from an extremely biased, Serbian source. Try to find a more neutral source of documentation to make your case.

Well, that isn't very good logic, because I've been saying all along that Zerjavic is an extremely biased Croatian source, and you all have been insisting that I have to take his numbers for what they are and forget everything else. But obviously that doesn't apply to Serbs, does it? Everyking 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Note also difference between casualties in Croatia (the 194K number) and in the rest of NDH (couldn't find it). If both numbers are comparable, and they should be, then the data matches. Sorry for not explicating this originally. --Shallot)

Everyking, I took the NPOV dispute marker down after I honored your request to replace "Hitorical Revisionism" with "Holocaust Denial", and I included it in my notes. I think you are not paying attention. Now, why is it back up? There doesn't seem to be any way to satisfy you unless YOUR point of view comes across. I removed so much opinion and left only facts and real quotes, along with a link to the Jasenovac site at the USHMM and even included what critics are thinking. I think you are doing a great dis-service to whatever cause you are supporting, as bashing good people who are only seeking the truth will not propel your cause. You have proven to me that you are indeed an extremist, while I have made MANY compromises to placate you. If you can not display sensitivity and rational dialogue, then you do not belong on a site like this. I do not sense that you have the ability to display a fair, open minded, and rational stand. I know very well what a real "Holocaust Denier" is, someone who is either evil or stuiped enough to deny that these crimes ever occurred, which is the most accepted understanding of this term, and exactly why I came to my grandfather's defense. If you blanket every scholar or demographer with this term, you will weaken the impact and validity of its meaning. It is very important to do this kind of demographic research, and on the USHMM they are seeking such volunteer scholars to conduct this important research. They seem to have a healthy and intelligent approach to this subject, but you do not. This seems odd. You are also unfairly assigning all of us with a viewpoint that we do not have. It is sick and deplorable. That is called defamation and it has no place here. I suggest you take your agenda elsewhere. If you have an intelligent argument about a specific word or term or paragraph in this article that you wish to dispute, then you should politely explain it, but so far you have just ranted. Even so, I honored both of your previous requests, and you have yet to show me any courtesy. -Christos

No, I'd be an extremist if I tried to remove all the pro-Zerjavic arguments from the article. I'd be sane if I tried to balance those arguments with a mention of some criticisms of Zerjavic. And besides, who are you to be calling someone an extremist? I suppose in Croatia this sort of thing is entirely moderate, but in America we think of Holocaust deniers as being on the political fringe.

The article does have criticisms of his writings, if you have more, you should have suggested them, so long as they are based in fact and can be supported. All the information that is up there now is based either on fact or on Zerjavic's own words. So it is permissible. If you wish to argue against it, argue with evidence and facts. I am also an American. And secondly, I am half Greek, and Orthodox, so you are wrong there. Thirdly, you are not a pleasant or considerate person and I am done conversing with you.

"Sick and deplorable"? Nowhere have I said anything nearly as hostile as that, Christos, yet you accuse me of "defamation". Bizarre. Everyking 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, You have been sarcastic from Day 1, with your comment "Then ask yourself, what is the point of this debate? Oh yeah: the article doesn't make him out to be some sort of hero anymore, and of course that's the way you intend it to be. Everyking 02:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) What was that if not a direct attack on me and an insult?

Sarcastic remarks aren't direct attacks, they are indirect and rather mild insults. Compare that with "What the hell are you talking about?", "prejudiced", and "sick and deplorable". Everyking 22:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you owe me and many others here an apology, but I won't expect it. It is so sad. You are so brainwashed and there is no getting through.

Oh yeah, and "brainwashed". Everyking

---Shallot, in that case, my apologies for the mistake, I guess that means that he has more backing than was previously believed. I only went by Mir Haven's post earlier. Thanks for doing the research. I will check out the Wiesenthal Site as well. I am pleased to hear this.

Look what you have said here: "I also believe that if the Simon Weisenthal Museum knew that this figure of 1 million was being used by radical Serbs to incite moderate Serbs to take arms and commit genocide against Croats, they would rethink their position. I wouldn't be surprised if they have since, as now the world can see what the true intentions of Milosevic and Karadzic, (et all) were."

And I am supposed to think that you are not shamefully biased? For the discerning observer, politeness does not conceal the worst ideas and intentions. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for you to push this kind of thing. Everyking 21:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, and this statement from you above is not an unfair attack on me? What you said is horrifying and defamation. How dare you claim to know what my intentions are. You are shameless.

You can think what you want to think, because you will anyway.

To be honest, I do not know for sure what the Wiesenthal Museum does or does not support, they may support his figures for all I know, I was basing this on past posts. To be fair, I can't really argue this point. It was just speculation. Now, it sounds as if you are doubting that Milosevic and Karadzic had concentration camps in Bosnia and as if there werent mass graves in Croatia? Do you deny that there was a holocaust against Croats and Muslims in the 1990's? I'm curious to see how you regard the Genocide that occurred to Croatians and Bosnians that was committed by Serbs in this past Balkan War. I will be sure to read the "Wikipaedia" article on Vukovar to make sure you are just as concerned about that.

In addition, to satisfy your "request", I changed the "Historical Revisionism" to "Holocaust Denier". So, please stop accusing me of being shamefully biased and unfair. I changed it.

In fairness to me, every time I made a change, I politely requested that BCorr or Shallot review it, as they have proven to be the most unbiased every time, always quoting facts and not just opinion. I also did ask for your feedback as well as everyone else's, so please try not to attack me every time I write something. I am trying my best to be fair, and I think I have proven that by making the changes you suggested, twice.

I came here to correct a horribly biased and unfair article about my grandfather, Vladimir Zerjavic. A man who faught so bravely in WWII against the Nazis, against the Fascists in Croatia and Yugoslavia, and on the same side as the US and Britain. The Partisans that he fought bravely with came to the aid of the Jews, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Romas, and all those being persecuted. His demographic research in no way supported anything but to honor the victims by pursuing the truth, as it is very critical to have reliable figures and demographics to document for history. He also evidenced a desire to heal the wounds and growing rift that was occurring between Serbs and Croats in the late 1980's and early 1990's that was clearly leading to war. He knew that the euphoria and flagrant propoganda being spouted by nationalists would only lead to more suffering, and he understood suffering as he himself was in the war and caputured by Nazis and sent to prison (with the intention of being executed along with other Partisans, as documented by the death certificate they sent my grandmother prior to his escape). He witnessed suffering first hand. He was indeed hoping that his scholarly research would uncover the truth and put an end to the irrational claim that Croatia as a whole was a genocidal people, and perhaps prevent a war. To blanket all Croats with this horrible untruth is to deny those brave Croats, so many of them (like my grandfather), that fought side by side with Serbs to end the suffering and persecution of all the innocents. Let's hope there are fair and rational historians that will recognize this and put an end to this unfair defamation of a great culture, and, in the hopes of my late grandfather, inspire all peoples in the Balkans to live side by side in peace, harmony, and economic prosperity. -Christos

A request and a suggestion

The tone of this discussion has grown rather tense and heated. I would urge all involved to review Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I think we all share the same goal -- to create an unbiased article that gives a number of points of view, while at the same time is clear and readable. Perhaps people might want to stay away from the article for a day, and come back when everyone has had a break.

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:24, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting for you to note that, BCorr, because I actually declared my intention to quit editing this article a few days ago, except for minor edits and cosmetic changes. I did that for the explicit purpose of not getting into an edit war. But as you can see, I am still having to defend myself against insults here on the talk page. Maybe I should just quit responding? Everyking 22:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have had an equal share of insults, and I think it is fair to say that all of us have gotten heated, so I agree with BCorr.

Also, I do understand your point of view, of course some would assume a Croat to be biased with regard to this. I don't know what makes figures "acceptable" or "unacceptable", apparently the first criteria is that the one doing the demographic work can not hold the same ethnic identity of one of the parties in question. Is there any way for a neutral stance to be had here? I am totally willing to have both viewpoints up there, as I have said in the past, but you know as well as I do that in a week or two someone on either side of this argument is going to change it, so I am left will little choice but to scratch my head and move on. I haven't been getting much sleep. Anyhow, I know he was stubbornly honest and only had good intentions to seek the truth, but it is inevitable that others will see things differently.

I'm done contributing to this article. I wish you all the best. -Christos

p.s. Big thanks to Bcorr and Shallot, you helped out so much.

Let's keep it neutral and avoid the propoganda.

Apparently this site is becoming a place for political propoganda.

I'm against all propoganda from either side.

Obviously this article will change, again and again, as I'm sure many others do.

This certainly makes one realize that this site, while interesting at best, is not at all a place for reliable information, but a place where people can rewrite opinion as history.

pavelicpapers

In the Introduction to Crimes in the Jasenovac Camp (http://www.pavelicpapers.com/features/jasenovac/introduction.html) at pavelicpapers.com, Siniša Đurić criticized Vladimir Žerjavić on three points:

• that the growth rate of the different ethnic and social groups in Yugoslavia was probably different and that one blanket growth rate couldn't be estimated
• that his calculation of 13,000 Jews killed in Jasenovac was wrong based on Yad Vashem having a list of 25,000 names of Jewish victims
• that his calculation of 10,000 Roma killed in Jasenovac was wrong based on contradiction with the findings of the State Commission of Croatia for the Investigation of the Crimes of the Occupation Forces and their Collaborators from 1946, and with the distribution of Roma in the 1948 census

This could be debated further. --Joy [shallot] 14:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

67.68.77.222's comments

This bit does not makes sense:

In 1931, there were 3,430,270 people in Croatia, of which around 633,000 Serbs (~18.5%). In 1948, there were 3,779,858 inhabitants, of which the Serbs numbered 543,795 (14.38%). Taking into account that in the years 1946/47, some 60,000 Serbs emigrated from Croatia within federal colonisation action to settle on the abandoned property of Germans in Vojvodina, there was a decrease by around 30,000 people of Serbian nationality, or a bit over 1.5%. Had genocide of such monstruous proportions as those for whom Žerjavić is a bete noire claim really happened, this would certainly have left a vast and all-too-visible hole in the country's demographics. No such thing, as other researchers and comparison of official censa in 1931 and 1948 have shown.

What about the natural increase between 1931 and 1948? Births? You can not just add and subtract 17 year-old figures. And how accurate is the 633,000 figure?

Those statistics weren't available, but I'll add the next period's growth rate for comparison. --Joy [shallot] 23:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)