Posts by Nathan Richardson2

Nathan Richardson2 said:Civilians.

cosmicgull52 said:Civilians. Which ones are actually helping them?Well, you somehow managed to skip right over that part.

You also managed to skip right over the word "civilians." Let’s be clear: we are talking about civilians, not soldiers. There is absolutely no context in which killing unarmed civilians is permitted. To suggest otherwise isn't just wrong—it's political extremism, par excellence.

The Geneva Conventions represent one of those rare pillars of international law that actually attempts to impose a shred of decency on the chaos of warfare. If you dig into the history of these treaties, you realize they aren't just bureaucratic paperwork; they are the thin line between organized military conflict and total, unchecked savagery. The core objective has always been about protecting those who aren't actively pulling a trigger—wounded soldiers, medical personnel, and, most importantly, civilians caught in the crossfire. Specifically, the Fourth Geneva Convention was established to set clear rules regarding the protection of civilian populations during wartime. It’s a concept that sounds simple on paper but becomes incredibly complicated when faced with the reality of modern combat. When we talk about the legal frameworks governing how prisoners of war must be treated, we are looking at the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. These aren't suggestions; they are mandates designed to prevent the kind of atrocities that lead to the complete breakdown of human rights. Without these standards, we drift toward an Orwellian nightmare where the distinction between a combatant and an innocent bystander disappears entirely. History shows us that when these conventions are ignored, the consequences are devastating. We've seen what happens when there is a blatant disregard for the rules of engagement, leading to war crimes that eventually end up on trial in places like Nuremberg. It is a grim reminder that without enforceable international law, humanity loses its compass.

The First Geneva Convention.
On August 22, 1864, the commission officially adopted the convention. This specific agreement—aimed at improving the condition of wounded and sick soldiers in armed forces during wartime—provides protection for injured personnel and the medical staff caring for them, as well as the facilities and equipment used for their recovery. It also establishes the formal use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems.

The Second Geneva Convention.
The Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea—it essentially broadens the scope of protection for sailors lost at sea and establishes the specific protocols for how aid can be rendered to them.

The Third Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War exists to protect members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. It outlines specific protocols for how they must be treated while establishing the clear rights and obligations of the capturing power.

The Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Fourth Geneva Convention establishes the fundamental rules regarding the protection of civilians during wartime. It specifically dictates how non-combatants must be treated within occupied territories, outlines the rights of those being held in captivity, and sets the standard for conduct during any general occupation.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple: we are dealing with a subpar moderator who doesn't possess even a shred of the necessary criteria. This individual essentially engages in Holocaust denial by dismissing the victims—whether they were prisoners or civilians "assisting" hostages—claiming their deaths were somehow legal. It’s absurd, considering the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids such actions.
On the other hand, if you aren't ideologically "pure" enough for them, they start handing out penalties for "Holocaust denial." All because a user made a simple point: that two books written by survivors of Auschwitz were censored under a non-democratic communist regime.

It’s not even about Ostric's ideological leanings—the guy's clearly deep in the far-left camp—it's the way he uses moderator tools to force his views on everyone else. That alone makes him a terrible choice for the role. You can debate someone's opinions all day, but you can't argue with a ban hammer.

cosmicgull52 said:Regarding hostages, even British and American military protocols at the time permitted taking hostages and executing them as retaliation for guerrilla tactics; the Americans were explicitly known for this, including summary executions. The Germans convicted at Nuremberg weren't sentenced for the act itself, but rather for the excessive way they carried it out.

It isn't exactly difficult to look up the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

lonetrucker4 said:I suspect you're struggling with differing discursive frameworks, a point I’ve already touched upon in this debate. My apologies—grasping that requires a certain level of intellectual effort.

Look, this kind of condescension warrants a warning and a one-day ban.

lonetrucker4 said:On the news sites that Nathan Richardson2 and his whole crowd idolize, nothing is ever explained with half the depth I provide. They just parrot their talking points to trigger basic emotions, which then flare up into rage through the collective process of a follower group. That’s what they call "hate speech"—much like the "Hate Speech" in Orwellian "1984"—driven by ideological stubbornness and political obsession.

It would be lovely if you didn't try to lecture me on who my role models are. And yes, I am indeed the perfect specimen of "ideological stubbornness and political obsession." 🙂

I'm not a fan of emojis, but frankly, I can't think of a better way to react.

driftingorca37 said:Kiseli1 didn't get banned or slapped with penalty points by moderator Ostric—in fact, Ostric didn't even react until I reminded him—because he later clarified that he wasn't engaging in Holocaust denial, but was simply focusing on the specific term "massacre." That's fine.

Personally, I find that unacceptable. Kiseli1 is playing the naive card to a level that borders on mockery. Meanwhile, his ideological "twin brother" isn't just looking the other way; he's actively fueling the narrative. Both of them were arguing that killing prisoners was legal, basing their claims on the technicality that during the Nuremberg trials, the prosecutor didn't include a specific group of executed prisoners in one particular indictment. In that light, claiming that the slaughter of tens of thousands of people isn't a massacre is incredibly naive—especially since they argue everyone was shot (which is also inaccurate).

driftingorca37 said:On my end, as an "experienced forum member," I was automatically hit with a ban plus 100 points for "Holocaust denial," despite it being clearly explained that I wasn't denying victims, but rather discussing censorship within the USSR by citing a real example from communist reality.

That is precisely the lack of criteria here. On one hand, Ostric permits and even encourages claims that killing "prisoners, civilians, and hostages" is legal, yet on the other, he hands out "honorary" cards for non-existent "denial of victims." Even the warning message he left unedited, complete with the card, doesn't actually mention the victims of Auschwitz.

He hasn't addressed the false accusation of "denying victims," nor has he defined what constitutes a victim in the context of his own claim that killing prisoners, civilians, and hostages was permitted. Who, exactly, does that description not apply to?

Claiming it is legal to kill unarmed people (especially without any judicial rulings) can hardly be considered lawful. We can discuss the morality of it some other time.

cosmicgull52 said:No one ever claimed that killing non-combatant civilians was legal back then. Why the trolling?

It would be helpful if you actually read the thread you're replying to. Especially when it’s barely ten messages deep.

lonetrucker4 said:Apparently, it was perfectly legal—or at least not prohibited—when occupying forces were executing captured resistance fighters, civilians assisting them, and hostages. That’s just how the law works, I guess. Before all that, there simply wasn't any law at all.

Prisoners, civilians, and hostages!
Bonus: the blatantly false claim that "there was no law before."

The Geneva Conventions consist of four agreements signed in Geneva, Switzerland, which serve as the foundation for international humanitarian law. These conventions primarily deal with the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war.

You can find the rest here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

1. Are you actually going to explain how "Holocaust denial" is being achieved by pointing out the censorship found in the works of Riffer and Milisa?

Regarding Igor Vukic. You’re the one who brought him up in the first place, sparking this whole debate about his appearance on NBC. And then, without so much as a word of explanation, you just wipe my post and leave nothing but a link to the show. How exactly am I supposed to discuss his television performance if you won't even let me view the subject of the discussion? And what kind of "criteria" are we working with here when you delete my message using this excuse:

lonetrucker4 said:I deleted the post containing the link to Igor Vukic's appearance on CBS. He is an ideologically and politically motivated historical revisionist who flagrantly violates the principles of objective historical analysis; he is a troll and a spammer.

Yet, you conveniently allow another user with similar ideological leanings to post the link to the broadcast. There isn't a shred of consistency in these criteria.

Regarding the whole "playing dumb" routine.
Look, I’m not in the business of reading minds, nor do I have any interest in putting words in anyone else's mouth. If you're going to throw around terms like "real historians"—leaving aside your questionable criteria for deciding who actually qualifies—then there's a simple, logical next step: name them. List the people and their books. This isn't an insult, and it certainly isn't me calling anyone stupid. It's just basic procedure. Once you actually provide a list, then we can sit down and debate why exactly you consider them to be "real historians."

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who is actually playing the "naive" card here—though I’m loath to go as far as calling anyone "stupid."

lonetrucker4 said:Yes. That’s prohibited on the History board, and as far as I know, on the Politics board too. It’s already been explained to you.

"Holocaust denial" is banned—though how one defines a victim remains an open question if you believe killing civilians and prisoners of war is perfectly acceptable. My question is this: how does the cited message "deny victims" when there isn't even a mention of victims in the first place? It simply states the fact that two books written by survivors of Auschwitz were censored. How, then, do you justify issuing a red card for "denying victims"? And don't claim you've already explained yourself, because you wrote nothing more than:

lonetrucker4 said:No, I won't explain.

So, we are talking about moderation criteria here. You hand out red cards for "denying victims" in posts where victims aren't even mentioned, yet you "deny victims" (by the tens of thousands!) in countless other messages by claiming it is legal to kill prisoners, captives, and civilians. I have asked you this several times. Why do you refuse to answer? In what way are the "victims denied" in the quote above?

lonetrucker4 said:It wasn't just that I allowed it; I actually wrote the rules myself, because apparently, that’s how things stood (and frankly, it surprised me when I first heard it a few years back). That was simply the law at the time. A few of us went into great detail explaining this. (For those interested, here is one of my posts: for the general discussion, and regarding the status of forces that refused orders to surrender around May 7th-8th, 1945).

lonetrucker4 said:Yes, based on the cases we reviewed, it was legal—meaning, unless someone brings new arguments to the table, it wasn't prohibited by international conventions (though one could argue whether certain laws in effect within the USSR at the time were violated; I've never seen anyone competent address that). Truly, it appeared to be legal, or at least not forbidden, even when occupying forces were killing all captured partisans, civilians assisting them, and hostages. That's just how the law worked back then. It was murky. Before that, there was no law at all.

Is there any moral or federal law you haven't broken with these words? How can you possibly claim someone is engaging in "Holocaust denial" after saying this? If the organized killing of tens of thousands of people—civilians and unarmed prisoners alike—is considered permissible, then you are essentially denying the very concept of war crimes during WWII. This is, without exaggeration, the most extreme thing I have ever read regarding World War II!

Especially since you aren't providing any actual arguments for your claims.

And of course, I got handed a red card because apparently I’m "playing dumb" when I ask which specific sources he's referring to in his post:

what actual historians have written.

So, I'll ask again: who exactly are these "actual historians"?

Here is yet another grievance regarding the moderation standards here. moderator Ostric opened a thread about Auschwitz by posting a link to Igor Vukic’s appearance on AT&T:

Then he went ahead and deleted my post, which contained nothing but a link to that controversial broadcast—hardly a commentary, just a supplementary addition to his own post. He also scrubbed this exact question from the "Dear Moderators" thread. To top it off, he deleted my message where I simply pointed out that we have inherited a fundamental principle since the days of Roman law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiatur_et_altera_pars
He eventually offered a rather half-baked explanation:

I also deleted the post containing the link to Igor Vukic’s appearance on CBS. He is an ideologically and politically motivated historical revisionist who flagrantly violates the principles of objective historical analysis; essentially, he is just a troll and a spammer.

However, it seems that the exact same link isn't considered problematic when it comes from a user who shares his specific ideological leanings! That link remains untouched and is still visible for everyone to see.

A few thoughts on the moderation criteria here.

Regarding the thread about the killing of civilians and soldiers who surrendered back in 1945, moderator Ostric has allowed users to post things like this:

They were within their rights; at that time, executing hostages wasn't considered a crime, at least according to international law.

To this day, no one has verified that any massacres actually occurred, aside from certain emigrant literature and Tolstoy's pamphlet (which was sued for libel and lost in court).

Not only does he permit messages like that, but Ostric seemingly agrees that killing disarmed prisoners is perfectly legal—suggesting there are no "massacres" if the victims were killed by bullets rather than knives.
Meanwhile, on the thread regarding Auschwitz, posts like the following are being nuked for "Holocaust denial":

A perfect example of what defines Soviet historiography—or more accurately, communist historiography—is the book by Milisa prisoner of Auschwitz, which was banned by the public prosecutor, and similarly Riffer’s account, a survivor of Auschwitz whose book was censored by Gamulin because it "might create an impression of comfort, even though it is all true."

This message isn't controversial at all; it's simply quoting Riffer's book. When asked directly what exactly was problematic about the previous message, Ostric responds:

No, I won't explain.

driftingorca16 said:yet we don't see Kiseli1 getting sanctioned for their constant spamming, even though they break more forum rules than anyone else.

Kiseli1, Judolino, Suslov, Schlange86, and a handful of others enjoy blatant favoritism from Ostric. They can derail threads, spread falsehoods, or deny reality itself without consequence. Ostric won't lift a finger as long as it involves leftist extremists—basically his ideological counterparts.

To be clear, nobody should have their speech restricted just because they happen to be a (in this case, leftist) extremist. The issue here is the hypocrisy of an incompetent moderator. He goes looking for dirt on anyone he labels a "fascist"—meaning anyone who isn't a leftist extremist—and when he can't find any, he starts fabricating it. Meanwhile, he grants total freedom of expression to his ideological allies.

driftingorca16 said:This is getting irritating!

Oh, absolutely...

lonetrucker4 said:@Nathan Richardson2, I’m not even going to dignify your circular reasoning with a response.

I called you a liar and a fraud, laid out the evidence step by step, and yet you have nothing to say in your defense. I'll take that silence as an admission of guilt.

Now that you’ve basically admitted to being an extremist with a massive ideological bias, could you find a shred of decency and delete those cards you handed out based on your fabrications?

At this rate, your six-month suspension will expire before Strile ever decides to speak up here.

lonetrucker4 said:If you keep denying the victims of that fascist regime, the penalties will keep coming.

It is painfully obvious you're just setting the stage for a "purge," and blatant lying seems to be your primary way of operating. It's difficult to appeal to the conscience, upbringing, or integrity of an extremist, so I'll direct my attention to a higher authority:

The administration is leaving everything to Strile, Strile is ignoring the issues, lonetrucker4 is spiraling into more extreme territory, and this subforum is turning into a total swamp...

But our seasoned debater won't stop there; he insists on this as well:

lonetrucker4 said:The data from the itemized list of victims agrees with that.

Ostric doesn't know a damn thing about the itemized list. He hasn't spent even five minutes studying it. Everything he knows is what I’ve already posted here on the forum. That’s why he’s bold enough to throw out such nonsense, claiming the list aligns with his false assertions. Honestly, my assessment is that he isn't even lying; it's just total ignorance. Just a pathetic attempt at "shooting in the dark."

***

Since I’m already scanning and OCR-ing Vojak (whom Ostric supposedly read), I should mention another interesting detail from the same book. One thing Ostric is clueless about—which leads him to hand out cards for "character assassination" and "apologist propaganda"—is the fact that only a small portion of the Rom people were actually in Camp III. All the women and children, as well as the men who weren't sent to work, were taken to the nearby American town of Uštica or directly to the fortress (the site of executions):

Page 42, the same book:

Danijel vojak said:The second group of Rom was initially placed in the village of Uštica in evacuated American homes, but they were quickly moved to the nearby American village of Gradina due to their large numbers, which was where the mass liquidations took place.104

These are the reasons Ostric gave me two red cards and 300 points. It would be nice if the supermoderator would just delete those two mindless cards, but more importantly, those moderator cards should be stripped from a man who uses red cards to mask his own ignorance and fabrications. This isn't moderation; it's a circus. This isn't a serious discussion; it's just wrestling in the mud.

***

lonetrucker4 said:Kiseli1, who you claim is my "ideological twin" (because we both provide a realistic portrayal of the regime's crimes and cite professional literature and sources), cited a scholarly source in one post (the book "who is who in NDH"), which mentions that Ciliga stayed in the Jasenovac camp for a short time, arrested in late 1941 and released in January 1942. The mass arrival of the Rom people happened from late May through June 1942, so Ciliga isn't a witness to their fate.

Both of you are citing "professional literature and sources"!? You are citing a book where you lie about the content, while he is quoting a lexicon so poorly made that it contains incorrect data:

lonetrucker4 said:Ciliga stayed in the Jasenovac camp for a short time, arrested in late 1941, released in January 1942.

I can't accuse you of lying here, since you are indeed quoting that lexicon. But still, everything is wrong. Ciliga didn't go to Jasenovac in '41, nor did he leave in '42. But fine, I guess this is progress. Kiseli1, reading that very same lexicon (sic!), claimed Ciliga was in Jasenovac for an entire year. Later, he even claimed Ciliga invented his stay there entirely. At least you admit he was there for a "short time." The only thing you two have in common is being clueless.

lonetrucker4 said:... so Ciliga isn't exactly a witness to their fate.

I brought up Ciliga specifically because of his description of Camp III; he spent three years there. That was my attempt at educating you, since you seem to have a total lack of understanding regarding basic camp terminology. But, predictably, the "seasoned debater" twisted it into a caricature. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder why I even bother.

lonetrucker4 said:Later in that same message, Kiseli1 cites a German intelligence document and concludes, "there is no mention of his stay in Jasenovac." That is fundamentally different from what you are doing here.

And? I don't follow. Was he there or wasn't he? Once we settle that fact, we can actually move the conversation forward.
The reality is that we actually agree on the core issue. Kiseli (your ideological twin) and I simply approach the topic from completely different angles. I’ve read Ciliga’s book—along with plenty of others—so I cite actual sources rather than lexicons filled with inaccuracies. I'm not burdened by ideology, and unlike you, I don't stoop to the level of blatantly lying about a book's contents just to then dismiss forum members who have actually read it and corrected your false narrative.

***

My apologies for the length of this post and for cluttering the admin queue with details that belong in the History subforum, but I felt it necessary to demonstrate precisely that Ostric is either a) a liar or b) completely incapable of discussing even a single book he supposedly read. In either scenario, he is quite literally the worst moderator in the history of this forum. A man so obsessed with ideological bickering and so ignorant of the subject matter is simply unfit for the role.

To circle back to the beginning: The administration leaves everything to Strili, Strile ignores it, and Ostric just keeps getting more extreme...

But our seasoned debater isn't finished yet; he insists on this too:

lonetrucker4 said:The data from the itemized list of victims agrees with that.

Ostric knows absolutely nothing about the itemized list of victims. He hasn't spent even five minutes studying that list. Everything he knows is what I’ve already posted here on the forum. That’s why he’s bold enough to throw out such nonsense, claiming the list supports his false assertions. Honestly, my assessment is that he isn't even lying; he's just completely ignorant. It's a pathetic attempt at "shooting in the dark."

***

Since I’m already scanning and using OCR on Vojak (whom Ostric supposedly read), I should mention another interesting detail from the same book. One thing Ostric doesn't know—and because of it, he hands out cards for "character assassination" and "apologist propaganda"—is that only a small portion of the Rom people were actually kept in Camp III. All the women and children, along with the men who weren't sent to work, were taken to the nearby American village of Uštica or directly to the fortress (the site of liquidations):

Page 42, same book:

Danijel vojak said:The second group of Rom was initially placed in the village of Uštica in vacated American homes, but they were soon moved to the nearby American village of Gradina due to their large numbers, where the mass liquidations took place.104

These are the reasons Ostric gave me two cards and 300 points. It would be nice if the supermoderator would just delete those two senseless cards, but more importantly, those moderator cards should be stripped from a man who uses red cards to mask his own ignorance and fabrications. This isn't moderation; it's a circus. This isn't a serious discussion; it's just rolling around in the mud.

***

lonetrucker4 said:Kiseli1, whom you call my "ideological twin" (because we both realistically depict the crimes of the regime and cite professional literature and sources), cited a professional source in one post (the book "who is who in NDH"), which mentions that Ciliga stayed in the Jasenovac camp for a short time, arrested in late 1941 and released in January 1942. The mass arrival of Rom occurred from late May through June 1942, so Ciliga is not a witness to their fate.

Both of you claim to cite "professional literature and sources"!? You are citing a book where you lie about the contents, and he is quoting a lexicon that is so poorly put together it contains incorrect data:

lonetrucker4 said:Ciliga stayed in the Jasenovac camp for a short time, arrested in late 1941 and released in January 1942.

I can't accuse you of lying here, since you are technically quoting that lexicon. But even so, everything is wrong. Ciliga didn't go to Jasenovac in '41, nor did he leave in '42. But fine, let's call this progress. Kiseli1, reading that same lexicon (sic!), claimed Ciliga was in Jasenovac for a year. Later, he even claimed Ciliga invented his stay there entirely. At least you admit he was there for a "short time." Your only commonality is sheer ignorance.

lonetrucker4 said:So, basically, Ciliga isn't some kind of witness to their ultimate fate.

I brought up Ciliga specifically because of his accounts regarding Camp III C—he spent three years stationed there, after all. That was my attempt at educating you, since you seem to possess a total lack of understanding regarding the fundamental terminology used for the camps. But, true to form, the "seasoned rhetorician" here twisted my words until they were nothing more than a caricature. Honestly, I’m starting to wonder why I even bother.

lonetrucker4 said:Following that, in the very same post, Kiseli1 quotes a document from German intelligence and concludes, "no mention of his stay in Jasenovac." That is fundamentally different from what you are doing.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow. Was he actually at the Jasenovac camp or not? Once we settle that fact, then we can move on.
We actually find ourselves on the same page here. Kiseli (your ideological twin) and I simply approach this topic from completely different angles. I’ve actually read Ciliga’s book—along with plenty of others—so when I quote a source, I'm quoting actual literature, not some inaccurate encyclopedia. I don't let ideology cloud my judgment, and unlike you, I refuse to stoop to the level of blatantly lying about a book's contents just to then dismiss anyone on this forum who has actually read it and dared to correct your false narrative.

***

I apologize for the length of this post, and I realize I’m probably cluttering up the admin's inbox with details that really belong over in the History subforum. However, I felt it was necessary to be incredibly precise in demonstrating one thing: either Ostric is a blatant liar, or he is completely incapable of having a mature discussion about a book he supposedly even read. In either scenario, we are dealing with what is, without exaggeration, the worst moderator in the history of this forum. A man so consumed by ideological bickering and such a fundamental lack of subject knowledge simply isn't fit for the role.

Let’s go back to square one: the administration is basically handing everything over to Strile, Strile just ignores it all, and Ostric is getting more and more extreme...

The administration hands everything over to Strile, Strile ignores everything, and lonetrucker4 is becoming increasingly extreme.
Our esteemed "expert debater" handed me two penalties and 300 "reward" points just because he felt insulted when I corrected his inaccurate claims. Let’s go through this step by step.

lonetrucker4 said:Nathan Richardson2 demonstrated his usual methodology here, completely ignoring objective truth just to stir up emotions for ideological reasons. In short: this whole "14,000 clones" thing is made up; they just drummed up hysteria because apparently, you aren't allowed to mention victims if the data on them isn't complete.

I received a penalty worth 200 points—expiring in six months—for a message in which I corrected this false claim.

I have told lonetrucker4 multiple times that the "14,000 clones" refers to duplicated SQL return records. This means certain victims appeared on the list twice or more. It isn't a matter of "not having complete data" on them. It simply means an entire table row was copied, regardless of whether the specific data for that individual was complete or not. At the Jasenovac museum, they explained this scandal as a programming error, whereas right-wingers view it as a conspiracy or data manipulation. These are your standard American political divides, but the only thing actually subject to interpretation is how the cloning error occurred. From my perspective, the point of the discussion is that nobody (except lonetrucker4) denied the scandal happened. Slavko, Ivo Goldstein, the former director, the current director, and even the programmer from the firm Utilis who built the site have all weighed in, and no one denied the occurrence. Furthermore, no one defined the "clones" as anything other than cloned SQL return records.

The only person on the face of the earth claiming that these "clones" are actually victims about whom "complete data is unknown" is lonettrucker4. If lonettrucker4 were six years old instead of sixty, his behavior might be excused as a simple misunderstanding of what was written; however, it is clear that lonettrucker4 is intentionally spreading falsehoods. He then uses those lies as justification for handing out penalties.
I explained this to him quite explicitly several times. And I know he read it, because he penalized the very messages containing this explanation. I have no idea why lonettrucker4 acts like an autist. Why does he deny such a simple fact? And more importantly, I don't know why he is permitted to distribute penalties for things like this. If he doesn't want to believe it happened, that's his problem, and it shouldn't affect the rest of the forum population.

***

I got my second penalty for this:

lonettrucker4 said:Most of them were brought to the brickyard camp and left in a separate fenced area, outdoors, without food, without sanitation... After a few months, almost all of them were dead.

Here, he fails to distinguish between Camp III (the brickyard) and Camp III C (the small field camp, maybe 400 square meters). He seems to think more than 16,000 people can fit into 400 square meters! My attempt to point out his pervasive ignorance cost me a red card and 100 reward points.

He wrote an additional explanation on this thread:

lonetrucker4 said:I am referring to a scientific study published back in 2015, packed with documents, many of which hadn't been seen before. You just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. According to that study, the order to round up all the Romani people and send them to Jasenovac was issued on May 19, 1942, executed within about 20 days, and most of them were dead within a few months. An itemized list of victims aligns perfectly with those facts.

I’ve already made my position clear: Ostric is a fraudulent authority. In reality, he’s a complete illiterate when it comes to the Jasenovac camp. Once you strip away the ideology he’s so heavily invested in, it becomes obvious he doesn't understand the physical layout of the camp, hasn't read the memoirs of survivors, and doesn't even grasp how the victims actually perished. The only book he’s ever actually read regarding the camp is Danijel vojak’s last book ( ). It’s quite amusing how he persistently tries to steer me toward that specific book, constantly accusing me of "ignoring" it. He points me there because he knows nothing else. As for ignoring it—well, it's true. I find it somewhat awkward to debate someone whose primary concern is highlighting the positive review given to the book by Zlatko Hasanbegovic, only to then shamelessly lie about its actual content. And then he uses those lies to try and hand out red cards. Honestly, where does it end?

Quote:>

lonetrucker4 says: ...the order to round up all the Romani people and send them to Jasenovac was issued on May 19, 1942, executed within about 20 days...

This is an outright lie. Just blatant, shameless, Ostric-style lying. And whenever I call him out for presenting fabrications instead of actual quotes, he tries to give me red cards. What an utterly shameless individual.
The only issue is that I’ve owned this book for a long time, so he can't pull his little tricks on me.

In the book, on page 33, it says this:

Quote:>

Danijel vojak says: Through a Department of the Interior circular and an order from the Ustaše Surveillance Service, supported by the Directorate for Public Order and Security, as of May 19, 1942, the rounding up of all Romani people in the US was mandated. The Supreme Armored Command issued the following order the next day: "(...) we ask the head command to instruct all regional armed stations to collect all Gypsies in their territory and, in agreement with the relevant district authorities, escort them to Jasenovac (...)" .56

In the following paragraph, on page 34, it says:

Quote:>>

Danijel vojak says: Shortly after that order was issued, mass arrests and removals of Romani people began, most of which were carried out by the end of the summer of that same year.

In the conclusion, on page 58, Vojak writes:

Danijel vojak said:There were organized deportations, and the authorities misled the Romani people with promises that they would be relocated to areas where they could live and work in peace. Instead, their final destination was the Jasenovac camp, where most Romani individuals were brought between late May 1942 and the end of summer that same year, and there they were subjected to torture and execution. According to some accounts, the majority were killed during that specific window, while only a small fraction was spared because they served the camp authorities by carrying out killings and disposing of bodies. However, even they were liquidated in early 1945. Available sources indicate the fact that Romani deportations occurred both before and after the mass deportations in mid-1942, suggesting a certain systematic nature to the government's policy toward them. Some Romani people managed to evade deportation, particularly the sedentary Romani of Muslim faith living in the Canadian regions, whom they referred to as "White Gypsies."

And now this, frankly grotesque moderator is handing out red cards just because I’m correcting a total load of nonsense claiming the Romani were all arrested within twenty days!!! And of course, he seasons it with the usual insults and platitudes about "denying character" or "fascism" and such.

Good afternoon,

The preferred outcome of this appeal would be some form of actual reaction. I am unsure if Uncle Strile is simply absent from the forum, or if this silence should be interpreted as an answer in itself.

In the meantime, lonetrucker4 continues with his ideological insults: Repeatedly violating thread rules (denying the victims of the regime) and handing out red cards whenever I correct him despite his total ignorance of the subject:

He has no grasp of how the camps were organized. He fails to distinguish between Camp III and III C. He is clueless regarding the official timeline of the Rom deaths—and I am referring to the OFFICIAL records, not "revisionists." He doesn't even know the name Milka Riffer correctly (he calls her Rifter), yet he cites her. He is unaware that the Rom people were killed at the fortress without ever entering the camp. In truth, Ostric knows almost nothing about the camp system, which becomes obvious the moment he attempts to discuss specifics.

When someone—in this case, myself—points out elementary factual errors, he retreats behind a red card and resorts to standard insults and platitudes: "denying the victims of the regime."

I used to think Ostric actually believed such labels applied to those with differing views, but it is now clear that he calculatedly uses the easiest tool available to "deal with" dissenters: label them a fascist and issue a ban.

So, here I am, someone who isn't denying anything, being banned for "denial." Meanwhile, he ignores the fact that his ideological twin denies in the very next post that Ante Ciliga was even in the camp!

I have already stated that Ostric's moderation style imposes a verbal "mud fight," turning this sub-forum into an ideological swamp. It is exhausting and demeaning to participate in something like this. There are plenty of users who can and want to engage in discussion based on arguments rather than emotion; why aren't they allowed to do so?
I don't believe I am asking much from the super-moderators or administration when I ask for a response. Quite simply, Ostric is a poor choice for a moderator.

Best regards,
Nathan Richardson2

Linda Young38 said:Who exactly belongs to this crowd?

Anyone who isn't ideologically aligned with Ostric is out.
If they know anything about the subject, they’re labeled as pro-/filo-/crypto-/hate speech-. If they happen to know more than Zoran’s fake authority, they’re branded as proven fascists—it’s perfectly transparent how their "sole ambition" is to "exclusively attempt to deny the victims."

Some people even get the special distinction of being part of the "fascist group," complete with their own "associates," and are held responsible for everything Stjepan razum wrote. And there’s just no way to stop Ostric from trolling about Razum, given his weird fixation on him.

********
To the administrators staying silent:

This constant verbal "mud-wrestling" that Ostric forces as the standard for this subforum is both exhausting and vulgar. Is it really that difficult to admit you made a mistake in your selection process?

The beauty of a graph lies in how even a casual passerby can spot the exact moment you stepped up as a moderator and when your interest in the subject matter spiked exponentially.

Right now, you’re consuming 30, 40, or maybe even 50% of the content on every single page, and that number is clearly trending upward. You typically only see this kind of behavior on blogs, not on sites like Reddit.