Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement

This organization is a neo-Ustase movement that is not democratic, it is neo-fascist.

This article is filled with disgusting pro-Ustase apologist POV. This movement was led by Ante Pavelic who is widely recognized as a dictator and a war criminal who committed genocide and extremely brutal crimes against humanity during his rule as Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia. It is in no way "democratic", it is associated with its leader Pavelic who as head of the Independent State of Croatia denounced parliamentary democracy and supported a totalitarian single party state led by the Ustase. And to those who wrote this nonsense pro-Ustase apologist article, don't bother saying that there is a conspiracy that the communists persecuted the "innocent" Ustase, even western sources and documents and testmony from Nazi and Waffen SS officials back up the evidence of the horrendous genocide, ethnic cleansing, and brutal torture undertaken under Ante Pavelic.--R-41 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your rant is veering off topic. HOP is a registered political party in Croatia (albeit a totally insignificant one) which means they accept or at least claim to accept parliamentary democracy. This also means that they must abide by the Croatian constitution which bans hate speech. This article is not about the Ustaše, it is not about Ante Pavelić and it is not about the Independent State of Croatia. It is about a post-WWII fringe far-right organisation which has very little significance in Croatian political or public life. According to Hidra.hr they had a total of 650 members in 2010 and I don't think they won any seats in any of the elections since 1990 (although they are members of the World League for Freedom and Democracy). It barely passes the threshold for notability and is a good candidate for deletion. What communists, WW2 genocide, Waffen SS testimonies, purported "innocence" of the Ustaše and the like have to do with it - beats me. Have you even read the article? Timbouctou (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article, The question is have you even read the article? If you read even the first two sentences, you would know that this party was LED by Ante Pavelić - it says so in the article and in the infobox. This is the party Pavelic led in exile after he escaped from facing arrest in Croatia to Argentina. Pavelic was the fascist dictator of the Independent State Croatia and war criminal who committed crimes against humanity - including genocide, and he abolished parliamentary democracy in Croatia when in power - so if Pavelic claimed he was now an advocate of democracy, his record as head of state of the NDH shows he is a liar. The article is filled with disgusting pro-Ustase apologism for this neo-Ustase party created by the Ustase leader himself, claiming that it was "democratic" political party.--R-41 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I've read it. I've also read the first page of HOP statute from 1956. They claimed from day one to be a continuation of Ustaše policies (defined by them as a wish to "free the Croatian people" and restore NDH borders). They also claimed to be an "all-Croatian, democratic movement above all political parties". "Democratic" probably meaning "non-violent" as opposed to the Ustaše who were advocating armed struggle from day one. In fact HOP even had a splinter group called Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood which left HOP because they wanted to take up arms for the same cause. As for your perceived "disgusting pro-Ustaše apologism" - you will have to be more specific. Sweeping statements will get you nowhere. Timbouctou (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you really believe that party's official statute to be a reliable source? The party was led by an international criminal wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity that include genocide. And that leader suspended democracy when he became head of the Independent State of Croatia. Why should it be believed that Pavelic was now "democratic"? Are we to then believe Stalin's words that his government was "democratic", just because there are Stalinist-era CPSU documents that state such things? Pavelic is known as a liar, he signed and "committed" the NDH to the Geneva Conventions that he completely and utterly violated through genocide.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on sources and couldn't care less about editors' prejudice or opinions. The party was led by Ante Pavelić and that needs to be mentioned. The fact that they described themselves as "democratic" also needs to be mentioned. Do you have a source saying that anything HOP did from 1956 onwards was different from what any other political party or advocacy group usually does? "Pavelić is known as a liar" is neither an acceptable argument nor encyclopedic material. What would you expect the article to say? Something along the lines of "HOP said they were democratic but in fact they were fascist mass murderers. We have no evidence that they did anything apart from organising chess tournaments and distributing leaflets but we are sure that they would have gassed 50 million people if given the opportunity. Because their leader was a liar."? How constructive. Timbouctou (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it IS known that Pavelic was a liar. He and his regime signed the Geneva Conventions and then committed genocide - a deliberate violation of those conventions, that his regime declared that they supported.--R-41 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At least a dozen other nations violated the Geneva Conventions. So? Are you going to go around Wikipedia and write in talk pages that their leaders were "known liars"? And what does violating Geneva conventions in 1940s Europe have to do with a political organisation established in 1950s South America? And just how far are you willing to take your unsourced assumptions here? That everyone in the party knew that it was not democratic, but their statute miraculously said otherwise because they all either lied or were misled by Pavelić? And we have nothing but your word for it? You are wasting your time. WP:NOTFORUM. Timbouctou (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be disgusted with genocide and its perpetrators - no matter who perpetrates it, and I don't appreciate it when people water down topics involving genocide perpetrators, but no, I would not include information unrelated to the topic involving the Ustase regime's known genocide that the reader can discover by their own means including the testimony of survivors, of the trial testimony of arrested Ustase and German Nazi officials such as Adolf Eichmann on the topic of the genocide, etc. All that I ask that this article say is that it was a "neo-Ustase" organization. On his gross violation of the Geneva Conventions that he signed with no intention to fulfill them, I say with evidence that Pavelic is a liar, and I would neither believe other contemptable liars like Stalin, Pol Pot, nor George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, nor many others on human rights or democracy based on their records. If you are simply disagreeing with me on Wikipedia based policy issues then bring up the issues, but if are attempting to defend Pavelic as somehow becoming a "changed man" and a democratic politician of his Croatian Liberation Movement after leading one of the most brutal campaigns of genocide in Balkan history and an authoritarian regime that banned all political parties other than the Ustase, then you are an Ustase apologist who should be ashamed of yourself.--R-41 (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm no apologist but I don't feel particularly inclined to parade my beliefs like a banner. I did not come here to convince others how happily liberal I am. This is an encyclopedia and not a forum. All I'm saying is that HOP was established 11 years after WW2 by former fascists, who defined restoration of NDH borders as their primary goal, and described the means they meant to use as "democratic", and explicitly called on former Ustaše members to join them. There's no doubt that its leader and all founding members held some kind of posts in the WW2 Croatian fascist regime, but there's also no evidence to suggest that HOP engaged in any kind of violence or propagated hate speech. If there are sources saying otherwise feel free to introduce them. We also do not know how relevant HOP actually was at the time of its founding and especially following Pavelić's death in 1959, and in the period up to 1991 when they were registered as a party in Croatia. Yeah, it's a neo-Ustaše organisation alright, but a fairly insignificant one and for all we know it might have consisted of 100 people total, organising fundraisers and selling swastika badges. And that is what this article is about. Not Pavelić, not NDH, not WW2 and not the genocide. I'm considering putting it up for deletion any day now anyway. Timbouctou (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Far Right

They are far right, but you can't call that "ideology", rather "political position". --Wustenfuchs 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

POV

The article is based on single, politically biased reference. There is ample of sources showing the true nature of this organization. For example:

Croatian Liberation Movement

A pro-Ustashe affiliate of ABN. This group's leader came from officials of the German-created Croatian Ustashi regime 1941-44 which killed an estimated 750, 000 Serbians, Gypsies and Jews. The Croatian Liberation Movement, a front of the postwar clandestine Ustashi, has been connected to bombings, hijacking and assassinations in the 1970's²⁹⁷

(on Endnotes, page 107 Bellant's ²⁹⁷ referenced Anderson and Anderson, p 40-41)

from Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party by Russ Bellant, South End Press, 1991, page 74

The Legal Problems section is completely false. The US Federal Court in 1999 did not dismiss the case, rather accepted the defense' lawyers for the Vatican Bank and Franciscan order that the case was outside the jurisdiction of a US court because it involved issues of foreign policy. In 2003 a federal judge accepted that argument and dismissed the case. But upon appeal by the plaintiffs, an appeals court reinstated the lawsuit. The Supreme Court, by declining to hear the case, lets the latter decision stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.101.2 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument - which bombings, hijackings and assassinations in the 1970s is Bellan referring to in his tertiary source? And btw a contemporary book review by Timothy Christenfeld of Columbia University posted at Amazon.com described Bellan's book as "terribly organized" and its content as "meaningful arguments mixed in with overstated claims". So is the quote you pasted a meaningful argument or an overstated claim? Timbouctou (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, for the sake of argument you have educate yourself before entering into disqualifications. What someone said about Bellant's book has nothing to do with the facts. So, Bellant gave a number of references supporting his statement which you can find if deciding to read his book. The Bellant's book back cover records three positive and affirmative reviews of his work. Furthermore
  • Terrorism: a reference handbook by Stephen E. Atkins; Publisher ABC-CLIO, 1992, page 109 - Croatian Liberation Movement listed under Organizations title
  • Terrorism in Europe by Yonah Alexander, Kenneth A. Myers, Publisher Croom Helm in association with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, 1982 page 59 where Croatian Liberation Movement is listed as a Croatian emigre terrorist group
  • Parliamentary debates, Senate weekly Hansard, Volume 53, Australia. Parliament. Senate By Authority., 1972, page 1077 where senator O'Byrne's addressed the Croatian Liberation Movement as a Croatian terrorist organization
  • War criminals welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 by Mark Aarons, Publisher Black Inc., 2001 pages 407-8 Croatian Liberation Movement - described as a Croatian terrorist organization in details.
  • Revolutionary and dissident movements: an international guide by Henry W. Degenhardt, Publisher Longman, 1988 - page 418 The 25 Croats involved in the attack were on June 25, 1964, given prison sentences, their leader being sentenced to 15 years' hard labour for manslaughter and other offences. Some of them were Members of Croatian Liberation Movement (my comment based on further reading of the book).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.101.2 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• What someone said about Bellant's book has nothing to do with the facts.
• That "someone" is a university professor, i.e. scholar. Bellan is not. We have no idea how reliable or relevant a non-historian's book about history really is - other than consulting what actual professional historians say about it. Do you grasp that concept?
• Btw you did not answer my question so I will repeat it - which bombings, hijackings and assassinations in the 1970s is Bellan referring to? Who did HOP assassinate? When did HOP bomb anything? Who or what did HOP hijack? When did HOP clam they were responsible for a terrorist attack? Provide sources with page numbers, please, and do try to find one which is not tertiary. Saying that "some" of the "25 Croats involved" were members of HOP does not mean much - perhaps some of them were card-carrying members of the National and University Library in Zagreb as well.
• "You have educate yourself before entering into disqualifications."
• Exactly. And "entering into disqualifications" is the very definition of describing an organisation as terrorist. So educate yourself before educating others. Timbouctou (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• References are given and publicly available. Spend some time reading them and you'll get all your questions answered. No one is supposed to do some work for you. "Honorable" Christenfeld is at the level of o a Viennese Royal Opera director who once claimed that Mozart's Figaro had too many notes. Not surprising for an ardent GOP member and defender. --71.178.101.2 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want the article changed change it yourself. Instructions for editing Wikipedia are publicly available, including guidelines on reliable sources and controversial claims. AFAIK HOP was and still is a minor group which never openly advocated violence, which never claimed responsibility for any terrorist attack and which did not train anyone to carry out such actions. For all we know they might be little more than a chess club for retired Nazis. The fact that there indeed are retired Nazis living in the world is disturbing enough for most people, but it does not mean that it is okay to mistake ignorance for vigilance. So which bombings, hijackings and assassinations are you and Bellant talking about? Timbouctou (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete this article

The article is at the level of Ustashe blogs which are not allowed by Wikipedia to be referenced. The article is written contrary to the serious historic sources about Ustashe.

Those who wrote this version used for reference a work that is not serious scholar work, therefore an invalid reference.

User Timbouctou refuses to accept valid references about this terrorist organization. Instead of entering into serious discussion this user applied baseless reference disqualifications showing no relevant knowledge of this subject. In addition, Legal Problems section is based on complete misinterpretation of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it can be seen at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1916&context=ggulrev: In a separate opinion, the district court dismissed the claims against the Croatian Liberation Movement for lack of personal jurisdiction. ¹²⁷ The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of claims against the Croatian Liberation Movement because the courts lacked personal jurisdiction.¹²⁸

My further investigation of the history of this terrorist organization turned to an insignificant far-right party in Croatia shows its true nature:

1. Terror Laws:Asio, Counter-Terrorism and the Threat to Democracy by Jenny Hocking; Publisher UNSW Press, 2004 page 123

It was here that Pavelic settled and in 1956 established the Croatian Liberation Movement (Hrvatski Oslobodilacki Pokret, HOP), which then controlled the original Ustasha organisation.

2. Guerrilla and terrorist organisations: a world directory and bibliography by Peter Janke, Richard Sim; Publisher Harvester Press, 1983, page 115

In 1956 Pavelic founded the Croat Liberation Movement (HOP), but the old UHRO organization remained intact under control of the HOP military organization

3. Control of Violence: Historical and International Perspectives on Violence in Modern Societies by Wilhelm Heitmeyer, Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, Stefan Malthaner; Publisher Springer Verlag, Nov 2, 2010

Page 402: More troubling, film footage was obtained by the Commonwealth Police apparently showing joint military exercises between members of the Croatian Liberation Movement (Hrvatski oslobodilaˇcki pokret, HOP) and the Australian Army's Citizens Military Forces (CMF), suggesting that the government was not just accepting Croatian militancy, but in fact actively promoting it.

Page 403: The Attorney-Generalapproved the wire-tapping of "suspected" terrorist leaders such as Srecko Rover and Fabian Lovokovic - the head of the HOP in Australia - and ASIO informants penetrated deep into organizations such as HRB and HNO

4. Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism & the Balkan Wars by Paul Hockenos; Publisher: Cornell University Press, 2003 Page 10

Among diaspora Croats, well into the 1980s groups like the Croatian Liberation Movement and the Croatian National Resistance kindled fantasies of a resurgent neofascist state. These kinds of movements, fiercely bitter and screaming for revenge, elbowed aside the benevolent societes and cultural clubs of the old-timer immigrants, introducing a qualitatively new phenomenon in their adopted domiciles.

5. Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mitja Velikonja; Publisher: Texas A&M University Press, Feb 5, 2003 page 273

One of the most vocal admirers of Ante Pavelic ... is Croat priest Luka Prcela ... in 1997 when he held a requiem mass for Pavelic in the Church of Saint Dominic in Split ... The mass was paid for by pro-Ustasha "Croatian Liberation Movement".

Note about Russ Bellant claim When talking about The Croatian Liberation Movement, a front of the postwar clandestine Ustashi, has been connected to bombings, hijacking and assassinations in the 1970's Bellant referenced actually this work of two American journalists:

Anderson, Scott and Anderson, Jon Lee: Inside the League: The Shocking Expose of How Terrorists, Nazis, and Latin American Death Squads Have Infiltrated the World Anti-Communist League. New York, Dodd-Mead 1986, pages 40-41

Wikipedia is not a blog nor a place for politically motivated whitewash of this terrorist organization image.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Re 1.

The "original Ustasha organisation" was effectively disbanded after 1945 and the collapse of the quisling Independent State of Croatia. Besides, - what does "controlling the Ustashe organisation" post-1945 actually mean? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re 2.

Same as above. What was the HOP "military organisation"? And what were their military activities, if any? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re 3.

Okay, we have "Croatian militancy" here. But what terrorist actions did this result in? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, what makes them terrorist? What terrorist actions was HOP responsible for? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re 4.

"Kindling fantasies" is not a definition of terrorism. Being "fiercely bitter" and "screaming for revenge" is not either. What did they actually do? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re 5.

So they paid for a mass for a WW2 fascist leader. Fine, but that doesn't sound terrorist to me. Where's the terror? Timbouctou (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for making unsubstantiated disqualifications. You, along with all the sources quoted, have failed to present any reference to actual bombings, hijackings and assassinations in the 1970s that seem to be taken as a given. I wouldn't have a problem with HOP being described as terrorist if we had solid reasons explaining what made them terrorist. But we do not. All we have is their rather vague right-wing neo-fascist political views. And were they ever officially designated as a terrorist organisation? So far you have failed to present a single instance of actual terrorism for which the allegedly terrorist HOP was responsible, in the 1970s or any other decade. And you were asked three times to present some. Timbouctou (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Blog and history whitewash"

I will remove maintenance tags posted by the disruptive IP 71.178.101.2 above who seems to have a limited understanding of how talk pages work and what are Wikipedia's editing policies. FYI you have to be more specific in your reasoning to put an article up for deletion. Also, the five sources listed above all give HOP a passing mention and some of them come from conspiracy theorists (especially the Andersons' and Belant's claims). The fact remains that not a single actual act of terrorism was ever attributed to HOP. It really is as simple as that. Timbouctou (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is a blog for not having a single reference. It is a history whitewash for contradicting 11 notable references. Australian Senator O'Rurke gave a full account of the terrorist activities of this organization in Parliamentary debates, Senate weekly Hansard, Volume 53, Australia. Parliament pages 1041-1071; Anderson and Anderson did the same on pages 40-41.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are not "notable references". Books written by non-scholars who have been criticized by scholars are also not considered reliable sources. And after all these 11 books, you still fail to mention a single terrorist act that a group you claim is terrorist ever committed? Timbouctou (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ha! Conspiracy theorists are everywhere: In Springer Verlag, Cornell University, Texas A&M University, Australian Parliament! So, frivolous call upon Wikipedia guidance blows all of them in one shot!--71.178.101.2 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, you are a expert on the topic. So please, enlighten us - which specific "terrorist activities" did HOP organize during its existence? Where? When? How? Timbouctou (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Section removed.

I've removed a section of the article, per the discussion at ANI because strongly negative material about an organization should never be included without references, which this clearly lacked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Political pamphlet - POV and based on non reference

As written, this article has no encyclopaedic value. It is reduced to the level of political pamphlet aimed to portrait a Croatian Ustahsi redux as a political party. This not notable party, even in its own country, is actually a neo-Nazi party which should be mentioned in Neo-Nazism in the proper section. Good article about this Ustahsi redux was already written here which was mutilated/vandalized later.

Reasons for POV and factual accuracy tags for this article

Factual accuracy

• is a far right party

1. Today yes, historically not.
2. It was a terrorist organization which was established by Croatian Ustashe Pavelic.
3. Croatian Ustashi were branded by the Leaguue of nations as a terrorist organization.
4. Pavelic and other Ustashi were tried in absentia as war criminals by Yugoslav government.
5. Pavelic was hunted by Israeli and Yugoslav Secret Service; both governments requested his extradiction;
6. Croatian Liberation Movement run a terrorist training camp in Australia whose trainees were captured in Yugoslavia and sentenced for committing terrorist acts in that country.
7. One of the trainees was returned from Germany back to Australia where weapons were found in his baggage.

• originally formed by Croatian emigrants and headed by former leaders - false; see above explanation about 'far right party'

• of the Axis-allied Independent State of Croatia (NDH) - false again; the ISC was a puppet state established by Italian fascists and German nazis; allied with Axis were Spain and Finland in Europe, for example

• who had been active in some way in the political life of the 1941–1945 Independent State of Croatia. - false again; there was no political life in the ISC, ISC was a murderous and bestial regime which is a 'politics', not the politics

• Although considered to be the most radical Croatian nationalist organization, HOP described itself as an anti-communist organization committed to democratic political means. - is a nonsense, an opinion. What was the true nature of this terrorist group there was ample of scholar sources in English

POV

• The existing version of this article is just a point of view based on the Internet pages of this Croatian Ustashi redux. Certainly these pages cannot be used as a valid scholar source here, in addition of eliminating all other English language scholar sources available today. I counted at least 23 here, most of them are online accessible fully or partially.

• Undue weight ( second half of the existing article) was given to this Croatian Ustashe redux that deserves to be mentioned only in the proper section of Neo-Nazism

Proposal

To really have a good article about this terrorist movement transformed today into un-significant and out of touch with reality group is to improve the article mentioned above by:

• putting under quotes referenced text not under quotes now
• mentioning (I have a reference) that this terrorist group tried to portrait itself like a revolutionary group resembling to the French and American revolutionaries of 18th century
• do additional checking referenced materials (I did check 90% and found it ok)
• improve the text language

For proposal

Support as per nomination. It's already mentioned that this terrorist group tried to portrait itself like a revolutionary group.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per nomination. It's NOT mentioned HERE that this terrorist group tried to portrait itself like a revolutionary group.--68.100.93.247 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Support per nomination, but, please, elaborate further connection of this (Australian) terrorist group to the terrorist acts committed. --216.168.230.7 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Against proposal --Sunil of India (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you'll have to be more specific than that. You tagged the article alleging it has problems with neutral tone and factual inaccuracy. Can you point to a sentence in the article which you consider not to be neutral or a specific factual inaccuracy, as opposed to offering sweeping statements? Timbouctou (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sunil, please write new replies under other people's statements instead of expanding already existing comments. It is confusing. For reference, my comment above was in response to this version of your post. Also, we do not vote on editing content without consulting references and sources. Simply stating "I have seen sources" is not enough. Timbouctou (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Please do not remove the tags. A few other people already pointed at inaccuracies and POV of the article.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Sunil

Factual accuracy

• is a far right party

1. Today yes, historically not.
2. It was a terrorist organization which was established by Croatian Ustashe Pavelic.
3. Croatian Ustashi were branded by the Leaguue of nations as a terrorist organization.
4. Pavelic and other Ustashi were tried in absentia as war criminals by Yugoslav government.
5. Pavelic was hunted by Israeli and Yugoslav Secret Service; both governments requested his extradiction;
6. Croatian Liberation Movement run a terrorist training camp in Australia whose trainees were captured in Yugoslavia and sentenced for committing terrorist acts in that country.
7. One of the trainees was returned from Germany back to Australia where weapons were found in his baggage.

I'd like to see a source for point 3, and it probably refers to the pre-WW2 Ustaše who had training camps in Italy during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Points 4 and 5 could be included in the article provided they are referenced, but they still do not make HOP itself a terrorist organisation. Point 2 is dubious as terrorist organisations usually advocate armed struggle quite openly whereas HOP formally rejected it in its founding document. Point 6 is most likely true and could be mentioned in the article, although the "terrorist act" (singular) committed (I assume you are referring to the Bugojno group) was done by a politically similar but much more militarised faction. HOP itself never claimed responsibility for any terorrist act and it was never listed as a terrorist group by any Western government. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• originally formed by Croatian emigrants and headed by former leaders - false; see above explanation about 'far right party

I don't see what is false there. Former leaders of the quisling Independent State of Croatia emigrated to Argentina and hanged out there. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• of the Axis-allied Independent State of Croatia (NDH) - false again; the ISC was a puppet state established by Italian fascists and German nazis; allied with Axis were Spain and Finland in Europe, for example

You are getting your facts wrong. Spain never entered the war although it supported the Axis while Finland had a very complex situation and switched sides during the war. In Croatia Pavelić was installed as leader of a formally independent country by the occupying Italian and German forces, and that country was their ally. Read a book about it. Any book. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• who had been active in some way in the political life of the 1941–1945 Independent State of Croatia. - false again; there was no political life in the ISC, ISC was a murderous and bestial regime which is a 'politics', not the politics

"Bestial regimes" have political lives, especially when the bestiality is done by politicians. Your argument is ridiculous. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Although considered to be the most radical Croatian nationalist organization, HOP described itself as an anti-communist organization committed to democratic political means. - is a nonsense, an opinion. What was the true nature of this terrorist group there was ample of scholar sources in English

Did you miss the "HOP described itself" part? The sentence says that this is how members of HOP say they think of themselves. It does not claim to be stating a proven fact. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

POV

• All above is just a point of view based on the Internet pages of this Croatian Ustashi redux. Certainly these pages cannot be used as a valid scholar source here in addition of eliminating all other English language scholar sources available today. I counted at least 23 here, most of them ar online accessible fully or partially

The internet pages in question is the website of the Croatian party registry which contains profiles on all political parties registered in the country. Therefore it is reliable, at least for hard facts like dates and numbers. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Undue weight ( second half of the existing article) was given to this Croatian Ustashe redux that deserves to be mentioned only in the proper section of Neo-Nazism

No idea what you are saying here. The second half deals with their results in the election and political activity after 1990. Timbouctou (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Sunil, do you have any? Timbouctou (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sunil already gave a link to a complete article that handles this topic. The article, at its end, listed 22 sources. Where are your sources? How come that your source could be an article, anonymously written, without a single valid source supporting it, published on Croatian government page? Which way it's reliable then? Since when a government is in charge of history of anything? Where? In Balkans? We, in the U.S., have strong academic standards when talking and judging about scholar sources. No one of us asks for a government rubber stamp for factual accuracy. By the way, stop spamming this talk page demanding sources while not providing any, if you like to be respected as a serious participant in this discussion.--216.168.230.7 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to provide extra sources to defend the status quo. The burden of evidence is on the editor asking for changes to the article to be made. Saying "change the article, I've seen books that say stuff happened differently" is not enough. Put sources here so we can discuss their reliability - although at a glance most of the stuff there belongs to the conspiracy theory genre. Also, stop vandalising the talk page like you did here. Timbouctou (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• As per the timestamps difference (just 4 minutes) it's obvious that you do not have any insight into the references, nor you ever made it. As to the conspiracy theory, the terrorism is, per se, conspirative, otherwise it has no chance to succeed. Spamming constantly this talk page, as you are doing (by making pointless claims, is an act of vandalism.--216.168.230.7 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As per this entire discussion, not a single source has been brought forth for serious discussion and/or consideration. And I will ask you one last time to stop vandalising this page and my comments like you did here. Timbouctou (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Most of the information above is already included (Pavelić, emigrants, weak support within Croatia, collaboration during WWII, etc.) with referencing already substandard. Dropping in the accusations of terrorism based on Australian source (I see no necessity in even trying to assess its reliability) would be at least arguable, given the amount of modern scholar literature on Yugoslavia, its breakout, nationalist tendencies and Ustaša in particular. Overall I would ask for some appropriate sources first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is another comment of high stand, big words, no knowledge, and ultimate conclusions. I am going to ignore such comments in the future
    Dropping in the accusations of terrorism?!. There are two formidable sources about Croatian Ustashi history: Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust (15 articles/entries) and M.Broszat, L. Hory: Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat both giving more evidence than needed about their terrorism before WWII and the WWII murderous and bestial regime they run.
    As to the terrorism based on Australian source (I see no necessity in even trying to assess its reliability), their terrorism on Jugoslav and Australian soils is fully elaborated and documented by a number of historians based on mass media news, police reports, an Australian Parliament member investigations, and courts reports.
    As to the non-Australian perception of their terrorist activities, I'll give just three examples here:
    

• MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service by Stephen Dorril Simon and Schuster, May 21, 2002 page 354: In Argentina, Pavelic founded, in 1956, a new Ustashi terrorist group, the Croatian Liberation Movement (known by its Croat acronym, HOP).

• Political Terrorism: by Alex Peter Schmid, A. J. Jongman; Transaction Publishers, 2005, page 697: World League of Croatian Youth (Svetska Liga Hrvatske Omladine) (SLHO) Croatian Youth organization in support of the Croatian Liberation Movement

• Here is an European survey of violence, which includes the Australian sources non-arguably:

• Control of Violence:Historical and International Perspectives on Violence in Modern Societies by Wilhelm Heitmeyer, Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, Stefan Malthaner, Andrea Kirschner Springer, Nov 2, 2010, page 402 It was revealed, for instance, that the leading members of the party, including minister of Shipping and the deputy leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party , had attended celebrations commemorating the establishment of the Ustasha puppet state in 1941, the Independent State of Croatia.

--Sunil of India (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• FYI From Croatian Wikipedia:" U izjavi o utemeljenju stoji da je HOP nasljednik Hrvatskog ustaškog pokreta, Hrvatskih oružanih snaga, i Hrvatske stranke prava." which could be translated as In the establisment statement was said that HOP is the heir of ustaša movement, Croatian armed forces, and Croatian Party of Rights--68.100.93.247 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a request for comments that is likely of interest to this article at Talk:Rajka_Baković#Request for comments. --- Otr500 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)