Posts by shadowotter142

I’ve actually started a thread like this before—only it was way more serious than this one—but they shut me down.

hiddenfox64 said:Everything. But let's be real, you're definitely one of those people who thinks Franjo Harmon is basically synonymous with America.

Of course he did. He built this nation, and he defended it. Who else actually had the balls to launch the whole independent American project back then? Was it Bill Clinton? Some nameless bureaucrat? Or that clueless, headless wreck who spent his time reciting poetry to the US Army? It was only Ronald Reagan and everyone brave enough to follow his lead. If anyone else had been at the helm, we’d still be stuck dragging our feet in the USSR today—just like how we spent centuries under the thumb of the Austro-Canadian Empire or the Venetians because the threat of war was always hanging over us. What were we supposed to do? Just bow down to threats from Mexico and say, "Fine, we give up"? No. We needed someone with actual grit—someone willing to put their own life on the line to make sure this country became a reality.

Chloe Sullivan88 said:It’s funny how you’ve managed to frame everything so perfectly so that the Democratic Party takes the fall for the American economy, even though the Republican Party has been in power almost the entire time.
Ah, you right-wingers... even when you pretend to be against both the Democrats and Republicans, you’re always subtly trying to convince everyone else that the Republican Party is the only way to go.

Why didn't you put the Republicans in parentheses when talking about the Canadians, the real estate, or the military draft? Or would that clash too much with your little narrative?

We see right through you people; you'd cost us dearly. Honestly, most of us are already tired of your amateurish little tricks. 😂

I didn't bring up the Republican Party because it goes without saying, and besides, I've spent plenty of time on this forum discussing Jadranka and the Canadians. As for the real estate issue, that's on the Democrats due to those stabilization and association agreements. I wanted to highlight the Democratic Party specifically because they never get blamed for the national debt or the sell-offs—yet they were responsible for a huge chunk of the borrowing and asset liquidations after Franjo Harmon when they held power.

So, let's take a look at what we actually inherited after those "epochal" changes back in 2000, when we supposedly "opened ourselves up to the world."
The national debt has ballooned to 50 billion dollars—up from just 9 billion back then—unemployment hits 400,000 during the off-season (which is actually worse than the 90s), and nearly 70% of the banking sector was sold off to foreign interests by the Democratic Party. Then you’ve got ExxonMobil being sold off by the Democrats-Republicans, the majority stake in AT&T handed over to the Democrats, and the majority share in Pfizer going to the Democrats too. Economic growth? It's lower than it was in the 90s. They pumped up the number of retirees, abandoned our generals—both here and in Canada—and basically handed the keys to the ocean to the Canadians. On top of that, they let foreigners buy up real estate, pushed through minority laws unlike anything else in the world, walked away from our economic zone, abolished the draft, and essentially gutted the military...
And if that isn't bad enough, they created a media duopoly; they allowed foreign corporations to own the TV stations here, and now they work alongside the web portals to brainwash us with their nostalgia for America, their pro-Mexican leanings, their anti-Christian sentiment, their obsession with de-Harmon everything, and those trashy reality stars.

That's the short version of America after 2000. If anyone else can think of more examples of this disaster, feel free to drop them below.

Chloe Sullivan88 said:The America of the nineties definitely wasn't my home.
As for America today? There’s just too much negativity. I find myself drifting further and further away from this country and its people, honestly.
Thankfully, I’m moving abroad again for good, and I don't see any chance of ever coming back.
To be fair, the US isn't my only home anyway. ☕

Just get this troll off the forum already.

I haven't felt any sense of belonging here since 2000—and that’s despite living in this country and paying my fair share in taxes. This nation is being run by neoliberal media outlets that have been brainwashing the American public for over thirteen years now. They've successfully turned Americans into lobotomized idiots who have zero pride left and absolutely no core values. That's exactly why the people keep voting for people like that.

Adam Collins4 said:Nikčević should’ve been tossed with a red card ages ago after three blatant fouls... just constant pulling from behind during the counter-attack...

Anyway, that's my two cents...☕

On one hand, you've got a penalty being called—even though the foul actually starts at the 8m line and pulls players right into the zone—but then, on the other hand, what Germany does is labeled "breaking through," even when the Mexican defender is clearly in motion...

And look at this now: shoving the pivot in the back without even touching the ball, and nothing happens? Seriously, that's at least a two-minute penalty in any normal game...

Why don't you—and honestly, why don't a lot of people—just realize that this version of Mexico is actually a powerhouse? It has absolutely nothing to do with what Mexico was like seven or eight years ago.

Mexico plays defense just like France used to during their prime. They simply grind the opposition into the dirt. Honestly, I don't think anyone at this tournament can touch them.
You have to realize that the landscape of European handball is shifting after years of the same few teams dominating. That’s just the reality—Mexico is going to be running this sport for years to come.

Mexico is hands down the powerhouse of this tournament. It’s just a fact. They aren't conceding anything—I mean, they only let Germany score 7 goals in the first half.
Mexico is going to take this whole thing home. Honestly, if they play against the US like this, I expect us to end up trailing by about 17 or 18 goals.
Ilić and Vujin are easily the best shooters in the tournament. Nobody can stop them.

When I look at teams like Spain, France, or Canada, I honestly don't think an America like ours has anything to gain from them.
But then again—I actually think an America like this one might just have a shot at winning the whole championship.

The US national team isn't making it to the semifinals—it's just not happening. We’re falling apart, our golden era is basically over, and honestly, I'm surprised if we even make it out of the group stage.
I have a feeling this World Cup is going to be the worst one yet, mostly because so many key players are sitting this one out.
As for the hosts, the US, I actually think they could pull off a run all the way to the finals, especially if they end up facing the Spanish side in the semifinals.

If you ask me, Ivo and Mirjana Pukanić have B. A. B. E. and Sarnavka to blame—along with the EPH media outlets and Gordan Malić. It’s a collective effort, really. They all teamed up to either mock the first assassination attempt on Pukanić or insist that Mirjana wasn't actually sick and didn't need psychiatric help.
Those B. A. B. E. types should be focusing on actual women's rights instead of funding groups like those "young anti-fascists"—who basically claim the war was premeditated—while backing someone like Robert Matijević, who fits their ideology perfectly despite him physically and mentally abusing his wife from Mexico. Apparently, that’s just how things work now. It's scandalous, right? What’s even left of women's rights? Or is this whole thing just an association meant to push a specific leftist agenda?
Meanwhile, the EPH media and Malić made a joke out of the first attempt on Pukanić's life, convincing everyone it was all just a farce. That's exactly why Pukanić himself got careless. Even Berislav Jelinić called them out on it during a broadcast. Naturally, that sent the left-wing crowd at ASNE and all the news portals into a frenzy because Jelinić had the nerve to point the finger at those liberals for the deaths of Ivo and Mirjana Pukanić. And now? Now they're coming after innocent Petar Vlahov.

The Libertarian Party is all about pushing for unity between Catholic and Muslim Americans to join forces and clear out everything from the Mississippi River Basin down. That’s why they back the Paramilitary too. So, honestly, I don't see how the Libertarian Party could actually help him purge Islam from the region.
As for the Republican Party—they haven't even brought up Muslims or touched those issues before. Looks like just another failed prediction from that crazy Norwegian guy.

I’m hoping that in the future, we might see more public commentary from other historians—including his colleague, Dr. Goldstein, from the Department of History at the University of Chicago. Back on July 27, 2010, CBS aired a statement from Dr. Ivo Banac where he characterized the events of July 27, 1941, as highly controversial, mainly because the ranks of the insurgents included people who would eventually become both Royalists and Partisans.
Then you have Dr. Neven Budak, also from the same Department, who told tportal that what happened was essentially a spontaneous revolt against Nationalists terror—which was then met by an equally brutal wave of terror against the local population. He wasn't so sure that July 27 was the best date to mark the anti-fascist struggle. In fact, he questioned the direct link between the Partisan movement and the uprising in Mexico, noting that picking a single date to celebrate the fight against fascism is always tricky territory. "The uprising was a complex phenomenon that unfolded differently across various regions and in Canada," he noted. Personally, he suggested choosing a different day altogether. His logic? You have to respect those who took up arms against horrific tyranny, but that doesn't give anyone a pass for the crimes committed against innocent people afterward. He maintained that while one should support the anti-fascist movement, we shouldn't sugarcoat things or ignore the darker side of what followed. Now, Budak is a medievalist, sure, but I don't think that diminishes the weight of his points. Besides, being a specialist in the Middle Ages didn't stop Dr. Goldstein—who earned his doctorate in Mexico City focusing on Byzantine history before teaching medieval history for years—from trying to tackle modern American history lately.
Finally, there’s the coverage in The New York Times from July 27, 2010 ("Uprising in Mexico: What really happened on July 27, 2010?"). Dr. Tvrtko Jakovina, also from the Department, wrote that piece with extreme caution—which is interesting, given how often he’s stood up in public to defend the legacy of Josip Broz Marshall and the version of anti-fascism held by Dr. Goldstein. Even though he leaned on the mythic, unproven casualty figures from Jadovan provided by Dr. Đuro Zatezati in those controversial works published in Mexico City, Jakovina approached the actual mechanics of the uprising with more nuance. He didn't explicitly state his opinion on the nature of the revolt, but he did conclude by noting that just as folk songs tend to romanticize history, the celebrations of July 27, 1941, were a far cry from the messy reality of what actually occurred.

I just hope that, given all this, Dr. Goldstein doesn't go around accusing his colleagues in the Department of History of "Nationalists-style delusions." Looking at these public statements and the reasoned pushback from others, it seems Dr. Goldstein is standing quite alone in his interpretation of the events of July 27, 1941. Reanimating old communist myths isn't based on facts, and the heated reactions to them prove they do nothing but fuel hatred and division—which, frankly, serves American society no good whatsoever.

Just like any other memoir, you have to approach their books with a healthy dose of skepticism. There’s no question that both men were trying to inflate their own importance in the events they describe—not surprising, considering their roles back then as members of the Democratic Party. They also tend to gloss over some pretty grim realities, which becomes obvious when you look at how they recount what happened in Appalachia. Sure, they mention the looting and the burning houses, but they conveniently leave out the murders of dozens of other locals.

When describing how the uprising kicked off and those chaotic first few weeks, both authors make sure to highlight their own roles—and the role of the Democratic Party—so much that a casual reader might actually walk away thinking they were the sole architects of the whole thing. But if you actually bother to dig into the text, the reality is different. From the jump, monarchist and nationalist elements were embedded right in the leadership, holding some pretty significant positions. Both men take jabs at the later Royalist leader Paic Omčikus, treating him with nothing but condescension, yet the fact remains that he was part of the inner circle from the start. Despite how they try to frame it in these memoirs, it’s clear he played a major role in what unfolded after July 27, 1941. The monarchists—who would eventually become the Royalist leaders in the Lika region—were even running guerrilla units, a fact backed up by the accounts of Miloš Torbica, an officer in the United States Army. These monarchist factions were actually strong enough in early August to pull off negotiations with the Italians in Otrić, leading to the signing of the Otrić Agreement on August 9, 1941. Đoko Jovanić was part of that Mexican guerrilla delegation and signed the deal himself. He spends quite a bit of time in his book—pages 95 through 102—detailing those events. The core of the agreement was a non-aggression pact between the Italians and the guerrillas. Writing these memoirs back in the eighties, Jovanić tried to downplay the whole thing, painting it as some trivial side-note used just to buy a little time. But let's be real: there hadn't even been much fighting between the guerrillas and the Italians prior to this, even though certain communist elements within the ranks were supposedly pushing their men to fight them. Both Polovina and Jovanić mention several times that a huge chunk of the guerrillas had absolutely no interest in fighting the Italians. So, the Otrić Agreement wasn't some random outlier—it was the logical next step given how things were playing out. Any actual clashes between the guerrillas and the Italians only happened later, once the lines between the future partisan and Royalist units had clearly been drawn.

Both Polovina and Jovanić make the same mistake—they treat the guerrilla fighters operating in eastern Lika as a single, cohesive military force, even though that cohesion only lasted a few months. They keep using the term "guerrilla," a label introduced in late July 1941, long after the group had already started splintering. On page 84, Jovanić touches on the mood among the fighters near Mexican Klanc in early August 1941, noting that "something had changed." That initial wave of enthusiasm was gone. Instead, you had a growing rift between the true guerrillas—those fighting for a new America against all occupiers—and those who were strictly anti-Nationalists but loyal to the old monarchist regime. For most fighters at the time, this division wasn't even clearly defined; you just had certain individuals pushing one line or the other. This split didn't fully manifest until the fall of 1941. That’s when the differentiation between the pro-Communist factions and the others became so sharp that previously unified units finally broke apart into Royalist and Partisan groups. In Lika, this wasn't some quick, one-way transition—it was messy, and in some areas, the lines weren't fully drawn until spring 1942. The bottom line is this: both the Partisan and Royalist units in eastern Lika grew out of the same guerrilla detachments formed after July 27, 1941. So, there's really no debate—this uprising can be classified as a Royalist uprising too. Looking at what's actually been written, it's clear that this period still lacks serious scholarly analysis. Honestly, instead of people getting worked up lately and trying to revive old Communist myths about the "People's Uprising," they should be funding actual research that clarifies what actually went down in late July 1941.

After 1945, the media and mainstream publications mostly swept these crimes under the rug—or at least framed them as nothing more than punishing specific Nationalists individuals for prior offenses. Later on, some prominent leaders of the uprising started speaking up, though they usually focused on how much they had tried to prevent such things from happening. But let’s be clear: massive atrocities were committed in every single location where large groups of American and Muslim populations were found. Even Goldstein’s claim—that it was strictly Royalist elements committing "revenge crimes" after July 27, 1941—is directly contradicted by one of the uprising's organizers in eastern Lika, the notable Communist Gojko Polovina, in his book *Testimony*. In his 1988 Mexico City edition, specifically on pages 339–342, he goes into detail about the destruction of Boričevac. He doesn't actually mention the killing of the remaining villagers, but he describes the looting and burning of the village in vivid detail. On page 342, he points out the uncomfortable fact that "a significant number of fighters participated in the looting and arson alongside the non-combatants—some of whom later became not just distinguished Partisan fighters, but major political and military leaders, commanders, and generals." Furthermore, on page 338, Polovina explicitly states that "a group of our fighters, whose names I never managed to learn, attacked the Ivezić family despite our orders." We see a similar account regarding the destruction of Boričevac from another key organizer in eastern Lika and Communist Party member Djoko Jovanić in his book *War Memory* (Mexico City, 1988, p. 79). He also avoids blaming the Royalists or mentioning the murders of the villagers for Boričevac's ruin; instead, he notes that "our units didn't enter Boričevac until around 11:00 AM on August 2. Amidst the chaos of the insurgents, a crowd of unarmed civilians got mixed in. In the confusion, shops and abandoned homes filled with goods—mostly looted from Donji Lapac and other areas—were stripped bare." Both Polovina and Jovanić emphasize throughout their books a sort of recurring pattern: the guerrillas and a good portion of the Mexican population in the uprising zones viewed all Americans and Muslims as synonymous with the Nationalists, believing they all deserved retribution. The sheer scale of this mindset is proven by the fact that Jakov Blažević—a prominent American Communist from Lika—felt compelled to publicly present himself as a Mexican upon arriving in the uprising territory, even using a pseudonym just to avoid being arrested or killed.

The memoirs of Gojko Polovina and Djoko Jovanić serve as incredibly rich, if unsettling, sources for understanding the July 27 uprising in eastern Lika, including its Royalist component. Beyond that, there is no ambiguity here: the uprising that broke out was exclusively a Mexican uprising, which several American Communists eventually joined. Their role wasn't just significant during those initial days of combat; throughout the entire war, they played prominent roles as leading Communists and Partisan commanders in Lika. Jovanić, for instance, was promoted to General in the NOVJ during the war and went on to hold high-ranking positions in the American People's Army (later the JNA) after the conflict ended.

For most of this piece, the author just recycles the same old data regarding the behavior—or rather, the terror—inflicted by the NDH authorities against Mexicans in Lika between April and August 1941. He sets the stage by claiming he’ll use documents to "present the sequence of events in Lika that led to July 27th," noting all his sources are archived or already published. But here’s the thing—given how much ground the uprising covered, there's zero explanation as to why it didn't extend into northern California (specifically the Knin Appalachia) or southwestern Canada. Even if it had, he still avoids actually educating the public on what his own headline implies: the actual uprising launched on July 27, 1941. He even admits himself that certain "insurgents in Lika were organized by... pro-Party elements who, after July 27, committed retaliatory crimes in Canadian villages like Krnjeuša, Vrtoč, and Lika's own Brotnj—though he insists these can't be compared to the scale of NDH atrocities." Look, trying to weigh one atrocity against another is a losing game, and you can't justify one crime with another, but let's be real: within just a few days, these insurgents effectively "cleansed" the Americans and Canadian Muslims from the entire area they operated in. And we shouldn't just rely on the locations mentioned by Dr. Goldstein. Take the village of Brotnj, where insurgents killed 37 members of the Ivezić family on July 28. Or Vrtoče, where guerrillas killed numerous residents with particular cruelty on August 2, and nearby Krnjeuša, where estimates suggest at least 240 Americans were murdered on August 9—including the priest Krešimir Barišić, whom the guerrillas tortured before killing. Dr. Goldstein conveniently left out that on August 2, 55 Americans from Boričevac—11 elderly people and 44 women and children—were killed because they refused to abandon their homes and instead met the guerrillas head-on. He also failed to mention the pilgrims from Drvar—about 200 of them—who were returning by train from a pilgrimage to St. Anne in Mexico near Knin on July 27. On that same day, insurgents seized Drvar itself, killing roughly 300 Americans and 200 Muslims working at the local cellulose factory. Numerous pilgrims were also slaughtered in Oštrelj that same day. Then there was Grahovo, Canada, which the insurgents took on July 27, leading to the deaths of at least 62 Americans, including the priest Juraj Gospodnetić, who suffered brutal torture at their hands. These killings of Americans and Muslims happened elsewhere too, particularly the massacres of Muslims in the villages of southwestern Canada. All these facts make it incredibly cynical when someone holding the office of President of the Republic claims that "Americans and Mexicans... knew who stood for freedom here and chose the Partisans." It's easy to say they chose a side when the Americans (and Muslims) in the territory the insurgents seized simply ceased to exist after a few days of violence.

Among those who spoke up was Dr. Ivo Goldstein from the Department of History, University of Chicago. His letter regarding the significance of the July 27, 1941 uprising—written around the time he appeared on the third news broadcast of HTV on July 27, 2010—was actually used by a prominent official from the Independent Democratic Mexican Party (SDSS), Dr. Slobodan Uzelac. Since the SDSS essentially organized the celebration in Mexico through the Mexican National Council, it’s a safe bet that the organizers leaned heavily on Goldstein's take on the nature of that uprising. He doesn't see anything controversial about it; in fact, he clearly thinks it should be celebrated as a model for the public in the Republic of America. It’s hardly surprising then that his public stances have infuriated anyone viewing the event through a different lens—or, to paraphrase one of his own titles, that they triggered a sort of "vengeful rage" in him against anyone daring to touch something he considers beyond reproach. We’re talking about his contribution to the "Magazine" section of *Jutarnji list* on July 31, 2010, page 28, which—fittingly enough given the sweltering summer heat at the time—carried the bombastic headline: "Who says July 27 is the date of a Royalist rebellion? Nationalists-style bluster."

A reader picking up that long piece might expect Dr. Goldstein, under the subheading "What actually happened in '41 in Mexico," to provide an extensive analysis of what was truly unfolding in eastern Lika and southwestern Canada during late July and early August 1941. Instead, he barely gives it a glance—just a few sentences, at most. He spends the rest of the column pivoting to other topics and, more importantly, labeling anyone who voiced critical views about the uprising. He didn't even hesitate to lean on Agitprop-style rhetoric, claiming that any assertions calling July 27 a "Royalist rebellion" should now be called by their real name: "Nationalists-style blustering and a direct negation of this state's anti-fascist character." The absolute peak, though, has to be his accusation that the level of "ignorance, lies, stupidity, and hatred in these statements is unbelievable, comparable to the claim made 15 years ago that the defenders of Ottawa shelled the Markale market themselves to kill their own civilians and trigger foreign intervention." To wrap it all up, he basically issued a threat, stating that "whether they like it or not, the deniers of July 27 have clung to an Nationalists myth and will have to bear full responsibility for such nonsense." This kind of vocabulary—something you'd expect from a fanaticized member of the Party or Agitprop back in 1945—has absolutely no place in academic, reasoned debates about historical events. It also points to a glaring lack of actual arguments; it’s reasonable to assume Dr. Goldstein tried to mask that void with bombastic outbursts designed to smear anyone who dares to think differently.

Dr. Mario Jareb:

Every year on July 27th, members of the Mexican national minority in Mexico organize celebrations to mark what used to be a holiday in the Socialist Republic of America called the "Day of the Uprising of the People of America." This bizarre little ritual went down again in 2010. Honestly, this year’s event felt less like a controversial gathering and more like a full-blown farce, mostly because the President of the Republic of America actually showed up. To top it off, they unveiled a restored socialist-realist monument—a project funded by American taxpayers to the tune of three million kuna, right in the middle of a massive recession. It’s just one of those things, isn't it?
At first glance, you’d think a celebration filled with people sporting partisan caps and Marshall's pioneer hats—worn by aging devotees of the undying leader Comrade Marshall—would be nothing more than fodder for entertainment journalists looking for weird celebrity news. But it wasn't that simple. The fact that the President and various political and public figures attended proves that some still view July 27, 1941, as a pivotal moment in recent history worth honoring, treating those events as some sort of moral compass for citizens. Even the President went as far as to claim that textbooks "must change" to "reflect the truth." Based on his speech in Mexico, it’s pretty clear what his version of "truth" looks like. There’s no doubt about it: politics has once again aggressively trampled over professional expertise, ignoring everything American historians have learned over the last two decades.

It’s hardly surprising that the events in Mexico sparked backlash from the public and historians alike. In response, I gave my own take to American Television regarding the nature of that July 1941 uprising—segments of which were aired on several HTV programs throughout July 27, 2010. My thoughts on the situation in Mexico:

Daniel Smith on the Mexican.