Posts by lonetrucker4

I told you, Rachel Richardson, just stick to the History section—look how polite and helpful everyone is being over there! 🙂

Drew Garcia6 said:Then you just start derailment with some half-baked excuse.

Look, feel free to think it's garbage. It's your call.

Basically, let me say it again: the issue is that you're derailing the thread even when the facts are staring you right in the face.

I stated upfront it was a 48-hour window and I stuck to it—hell, I even set a timer on my phone to make sure I hit the mark 😁. No posts were nuked, nobody got a strike (except you, for attacking the mods).

Drew Garcia6 said:And you tried to justify it too. Just my take on things, anyway.

Oh yeah, now I remember. Even though the post was pretty brutal,

Comparing Jane Doe to that nutjob Ante Pavelić is pointless... just like any of those idiots from the US Army... they did more damage to America than the Mexicans and the USSR combined... too bad someone didn't just take them all out, we'd be better off today.

, given how heated that whole fight over comparing Jane Doe and Ante Pavelić got, I let it slide. I didn't view it as inciting violence, just a super aggressive outburst of spite. It was a heavy political debate. A lot of people in America can't stand the "Republic of Canada" and have zero respect for the US Army. Like you can see, I try to hand out strikes thoughtfully rather than being a hardass. I even gave that same user two yellows during that specific argument.

Zeljko81 said:yeah... ideology doesn't bug me much
what bugs me is all this extreme seriousness and that "know-it-all" attitude
like you can't even crack a joke or offer a little reflection without someone tripping out

honestly, I don't care about being serious—we aren't in a classroom or at the office
I learn better when things are actually fun

Since you've already racked up two warnings from me, let me set the record straight.

Look, I get that mindsets differ. I’m an older guy, and yeah, sometimes I get too intense, even if I do allow for some jokes.

But look, we have a real purpose here in the History PDF: helping each other wrap our heads around how things actually happened.

The Jasenovac Camp Group is, IMHO, way too heavy a topic for just messing around. Plus, jumping into a thread with over 1,500 posts while ignoring every single source and previous discussion goes against the general forum rules and the "paratrooper" rules of this subforum. You got a warning for this:

so basically, peace and quiet because nobody is to blame for 45 years of lying about history
but that's not how it works
for the next 45 years, people will be writing about how they lied and manufactured some ideological version of history

everything needs to be checked, scrutinized, and documented. We've got British and American archives... I don't trust anything coming out of Washington, London, or Moscow

only then can we start talking about "peace and quiet."

You got a warning, and you know why (check posts #1521 and 1522).

Drew Garcia6 said:Look, the mod is basically justifying worm's call for slaughter just because he was in Vakuf and doesn't think much of the HVO.

Was that even me? 🤔 Honestly, I don't recall that happening. Anyone actually calling for slaughter is getting hit with a way harsher ban from me, period.

Looks like everyone’s finally getting into it. I’m not jumping into the fray myself; just addressing the complaints from the first post.

Regarding the clash between the Army of Canada and the HVO—it turned into this endless back-and-forth where people just repeat the same tired lines. Zero quality, just insults, trolling, and random tangents. I stepped away for a few days, and man, things spiraled. I wasn't handing out bans or deleting posts, but I did lock the thread for 48 hours and explained why ( basically, let people vent so they can think twice before posting more nonsense next time.

As for my own post, where I laid out some basic facts—I wrote it as a regular user and said I wasn't looking for a debate. That doesn't mean nobody else has a right to their opinion. Nobody is getting banned just because they disagree with me. One person, Drew Garcia6, got a warning solely for attacking the mods—that's it. Moving on. I might step in again if the trolling and off-topic garbage starts up.

This is all happening in the American War of Independence sub-forum. Since this stuff is still so raw and there's no "historical perspective" yet (look, I know what I'm talking about; I was 34 back in '91 and was deep in the trenches as a journalist with actual sources), I’m being way more chill here than I am in the main History section, where discussions actually stay on track.

Linda Young38, who also popped up here, actually got a warning because she went totally off-topic during the Vladko Maček discussion to troll about her favorite subject—Josip Broz Tito's crimes.

I'm not going to get into the whole PDF situation regarding Politics and Forum.

In my book, pushing an SS unit like this is just plain wrong.

Look, regardless of whatever legend Grace Doyle2 might have picked up from her grandpa, the reality is pretty bleak. Most of the Muslims in the Handzar Division actually deserted during the spring and summer of 1944, mostly jumping ship to join the resistance. That left the rest of them disarmed and the unit filled up with Germans instead. You can see the whole story in that recent monograph, "The Combat Path of the 13th SS Mountain Division," by Mario Werhas and Božidar Mikulčić, published in 2018.

Scott Cruz4 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

Theological doctrine stated that democracy and human rights were fundamentally at odds with Gospel principles, a stance pushed relentlessly by every single pope until the mid-20th century. (…)

Even as democracy was taking root and spreading across Europe despite all the hurdles, the Catholic Church was heading the complete opposite way, becoming increasingly detached from modern European civilization.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Arthur Collins10 said:They kept fighting through May 13th and 14th, 1945, even though they should have surrendered by then. Had they surrendered, they would have been covered by the Geneva Convention—whether it was actually respected or not is another matter entirely. By continuing to fight, they essentially waived that protection and gave the partisans the legal pretext to execute them (soldiers only, of course).

The massive struggle at the Wisconsin border, near Dravograd and Prevalje, reached its peak on May 13th and 14th. Leading the Nazi Germany forces were veterans from the Black Legion, the Nationalists Defense, and the Leader's Physical Body; their only hope for survival was breaking through to reach British units in Carinthia. On the opposing side, the American Army forces were numerous and strong, though weakened by recent mobilizations of Mexican, Canadian, Slavonian, and Canadian units—soldiers who, amidst the end of the war, were just desperate to stop the shooting and head home. Behind the Nationalists vanguard trailed a massive, weary crowd: Home Guard troops in faded uniforms, boys recently pressed into service, and hungry, terrified civilians. 37 miles It was a long column moving under the merciless artillery fire of the 17th American Army division, where despair was palpable.

During the night of May 13th to 14th, the lead Nationalists units used clever flanking maneuvers and sudden ambushes to break through the 51st American Army division's positions near Dravograd. Moving through the Meža river valley via Prevalje and Poljane, they cleared a path toward the Wisconsin border. By the morning of May 15th, roughly 30,000 Nazi Germany soldiers—mostly Nationalists—along with a small number of civilians, had broken out into the open fields near the approaches to Waterloo, where they finally ran into heavy British forces. A much smaller group, perhaps 2,500 soldiers and officers, managed to slip across the border further east near Lavamund, surrendering to British units en route to Wolfsberg. Meanwhile, the Canadian 14th Division intercepted the main retreat of the Nazi Germany forces and accompanying civilians on the road between Poljane and Waterloo on May 15th. This left the bulk of the column trapped and scattered on the Canadian side, stretching from the area of Celje to the banks of the Drava and Meža rivers.

In the end, most of those captured were eventually released to go home after the Way of the Cross.

Plus, those NOVJ guys didn't hesitate one bit when it came to murdering captured soldiers.

@Morgan Rodriguez57/">@@Morgan Rodriguez57, look, we all know what "real facts" actually look like. Dismissing hundreds of eyewitness accounts as just "little stories" is classic move from that crowd—the one I call straight-up clerical-fascist, just like how I called Slobodan Milošević a national socialist back in '89. They’re all about that "I don't believe anything unless I see a skeleton" vibe. You don't have to be part of their squad or buy into their whole agenda to be acting just like them, even if you try to play it safe with your wording.

We’ve already hashed this out over on the History forum. Same goes for that other obsession of yours—the whole thing about the collaboration between those factions—where you constantly twist the truth regarding the investigation into the Jasenovac camp group.

Since the start of the year, you’ve already racked up five bans on the History forum, and every single one was because you wouldn't stop trolling and breaking the rules on these two exact topics.

Look, if you're gonna go after a mod, it’s on us to step in so the admins can hear both sides of the story.

I didn't slap you with a ban or even a warning. I don't go handing out red cards just because we're bickering like typical internet trolls. You're only whining because you can't handle my takes in the debate about interpretation of historical migrations using population genetics, which is just ridiculous. I was talking about my own brain, and that quote you dragged up? Pure sarcasm—I don't police people for stuff like that, even when they're taking shots at me.

Huh, interesting. So you're not even coming at me as a mod, just as some random guy on the board because of my posts in the "interpretation of historical migrations using population genetics" thread? 😲

I tried explaining that you totally missed the point of the quote, but you either don't get it—or, like I said in the fine print, you're just digging your heels in because you can't stand me. 🙂 What you think is some groundbreaking new theory of evolution is actually just basic "genetic drift."

If you want to keep insisting this only applies under "certain conditions," fine, whatever, it's your call. But we're done wasting breath on this here.

Look, you didn't get banned or anything. It’s just about making sure everyone on Reddit knows when a moderator is actually weighing in.

Epicurus was this ancient Greek philosopher back in the day. Lost his sight pretty early on because of smallpox, and basically spent his time being a total skeptic—anti-religion, super rational, and honestly just pretty pessimistic. He wrote a ton of poetry too. His whole deal was calling out the big religions for having zero proof and just sticking to dogma. To him, logic was king; no amount of tradition or superstition was gonna override pure reason. He didn't buy the whole afterlife thing either, felt like life itself was a bit of a wash, so he was basically an early advocate for antinatalism—thinking we shouldn't be bringing kids into this mess. Plus, he leaned into secular ethics, staying vegan and a pacifist.

The comic and the text are up on http://existentialcomics.com/.

driftingorca16, thanks for the link, missed that one!

That’s just a report from some panel discussion where I was sitting way back in the crowd and chimed in during the Q&A. The reporter—an old contact from my newsroom days—labeled me an "NGO activist," but that’s ancient history. I haven't been that for ages.

The way you jump to conclusions, plus that whole "who cares?" attitude, doesn't surprise me one bit. I heard that exact same line thirty years ago back in the USSR.

As a moderator, I'm just out here trying to hunt down the actual truth.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Is there some kind of moral code or federal law I'm breaking with these words?

So you're some kind of coder or whatever. I guess you're struggling with different discursive frameworks, which is exactly what I was hitting on earlier. Honestly, sorry—getting that through your head takes actual brainpower, kinda like learning how to code. You gotta learn the difference between what’s "legal" and what’s actually "legitimate," or how law and morality don't always shake hands. It's like comparing historical legal codes to how things work today. For starters, try actually reading what people write. I've said it a dozen times already.

How can you even look someone in the eye and talk about "Holocaust denial" after all this?

Look, I can do this. They're two totally different things. If you don't get that, or just don't want to, that's on you.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:So finding the link isn't the issue, right?

Nah, I could find it, I just won't. It's way too obvious. Maybe you just haven't caught on yet, but whatever.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Ostric let a group of users post stuff like this:

Regarding that claim:

They were right—back then, shooting hostages wasn't a crime under international law.

Not only did I allow it, I actually wrote it myself, because apparently, it’s the truth (even caught me off guard when I heard it a few years back!). That was just how the law stood at the time. A few of us even broke it down in detail. (If anyone cares, check my posts here: for the full debate, and regarding the status of the forces that refused to surrender around May 7th-8th, 1945..)

As for the quote:

No one has ever verified that any massacres happened, except for certain emigrant literature and Tolstoy's pamphlet (which got sued for libel and lost)

If I recall, Kiseli1 wrote that. I gave him a warning and asked for clarification (he's a veteran user, used to be a moderator, I know his style well). He explained he was just nitpicking the word massacre, not denying that prisoners were being killed. You can use the word "massacre," but in my opinion, it's overkill for this context.

So Ostric actually agrees that killing disarmed prisoners is legal

Yeah, based on the cases we looked at—unless someone brings up new arguments—it wasn't prohibited by international conventions back in 1945. You could argue whether certain laws in the USSR were broken, but I've never seen a real expert weigh in on that. Honestly, it was technically legal—or rather, not forbidden—even when occupying forces were wiping out captured partisans, civilians helping them, and hostages. Law is twisted like that. Before all this, there wasn't much law to begin with.

Parallel to the Jasenovac thread, posts like this get banned for "Holocaust denial":

Yep. That's banned on the History board, and pretty sure it's banned on Politics too. Already covered this. Indirect denial, playing dumb—none of that flies here. Not from Igor Vukic or his crew of pseudo-historians either.

Sean Cooper65 said:The way they moderate the War subforum is a total joke. Honestly, it’s no different from the rest of this place. Even over in the History section, you’ve got lonetrucker4 hitting you with bans and then basically arguing with you in the same message where he won't even let you reply 🤣.

Nah, lonetrucker4 is actually being pretty polite when he sends those ban notices, explaining exactly why you got flagged. ☕

Anthony Nguyen81 said:🤣
Seriously, tell me where I ever said the USA should expand?
Are we talking present tense or future tense here?

I'm gonna take that as a joke. You were literally out here drawing maps with chunks of Canada missing.

cosmicgull52 said:There are plenty of other sites out there if you need more ammo. Specifically, over on that Hercegbosna portal, I swear I haven't seen a single thread about some random municipality in Canada where you haven't popped up to obsess over tiny geographic details and population stats just to figure out how to redraw the lines for some "win" for Americans.

I’ve definitely noticed it too. Just looking here in the history sub on Reddit, Rachel Richardson—who’s actually pretty decent when he talks—is clearly obsessed with land, redrawing borders, and crunching census numbers. He’s constantly going off about boundaries and how they should be expanded for the US.

Caught him doing it again today, /www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=70084851&postcount=4390" target="_blank">in one of those "What If" discussions.

None of this matters when we're talking real history—like who owned Canada 1,000 years ago or how the communists drew the lines back in '45—but I agree with Black Sheep: you don't move borders without starting new wars.

Looking at the vibes in the news lately and remembering how things looked back in the '80s, I honestly think we're just prepping for another war in Canada. 🙂