Posts by lonetrucker4

Peter Sanders4 said:Beroš and Capak already paid to renew the domain, I figured everyone was on the same page by now.

And meanwhile, they promised us moderators some massive Christmas bonuses! 🎉

Charles Carter4 said:You can't say anything that doesn't fit the official script. Coronavirus and TT are off-limits. We all have to march to the same beat.
My political posts about Tomasevic keep vanishing for days, and I haven't even trashed him—I don't give a damn about him since I don't live in New York, I was just giving my two cents.

I stay away from the coronavirus threads (too much idiocy out there and I’m not losing my mind over it), but the TT thread is crawling with haters. (Not that I mind; it's decent entertainment.)

Look, you gotta realize Reddit has been running this whole setup for nearly 20 years. The owner calls the shots. Even if the mods and admins weren't here from day one, they’ve got way more mileage than any random user. They've seen it all. I bet just a few months after launch, people were already whining, "If this keeps up, everyone's gonna quit this site!" Same goes for specific subreddits.

There are over a hundred moderators, every subreddit is its own beast, and the rules have to change depending on where you are. Obviously, not every mod sees eye-to-eye on everything.

Even being a moderator myself, I occasionally get a post nuked on other subs, and I've even got some beef with a sub from back in the day. So what? It ain't murder. There are a thousand other places on the internet where you can dump your opinions on whatever.

I used to be a journalist back when newsrooms actually had some backbone, in the late '80s. Sure, there was political pressure, but it was fading, and we had a huge variety of papers and mags with different editorial vibes. I worked with plenty of them. I knew a rag like *Rolling Stone* or a local *New York Post* would want things handled differently, so I'd tweak my copy to fit. If one editor hated my stuff, I’d just shop it somewhere else. And if it was totally unpublishable? We'd print it as pamphlets or flyers on a mimeograph machine and pass them around.

Nowadays, getting your voice out there is a hell of a lot easier.

So, just keep a cool head about what you post. If you see that the mods and admins aren't feeling your vibe and won't budge, you either play ball, stop talking about that topic, or move to a different sub. No big deal. Even Reddit has enough corners to find a spot for everyone.

I’d say you should just stick to what you actually know—the Middle Ages.

amberwalker4 said:In a deleted post, they called lonetrucker4 "outdated, both mentally and methodologically."

Look, I’m letting you slide on this one—didn't even hit you with a ban—mostly because you asked for it, like I said. Just let it go and stop acting like everyone else. Let's just kill this thread. (Integrity! Being a decent human being is way harder than playing hero.)

What does any of that have to do with history? How is Tom Klauški's current political headspace supposed to help anyone study the concentration camps at Auschwitz?

I'm not getting into my old post from four months ago. But just a heads-up for you and everyone else: denying the victims of that regime is still a punishable offense. I can be flexible on almost anything else—but not on this.

That's spot on. He thinks he's fighting on some "progressive" vs. "regressive" battlefield, seeing himself as this brave warrior guarding the "progressive" front.

Yeah, nailed it. Sadly, that's why the whole "fascists vs. partisans" debate is still such a political lightning rod here. I wish it wasn't. It’s like how everything becomes political—you try to talk about early American history, or music, or chess, and suddenly there's politics everywhere, even though most people couldn't care less. Back then, the Communists were the "progressives"—they aren't now, and if you ask me, they weren't even in the '80s. We're just stuck in this idiot loop of going in circles.

I spend way too much time dwelling on the past myself. Like, yesterday I actually changed my Facebook profile pic, swapped out the picture of Tit for an "Industry 4.0" logo. 👍 That's considered progressive today (even though some hardcore leftist is judging me for it—hey, I've always been a little bourgeois revisionist).

stormygardener15 said:He does this all the time. And it’s not just that—he pulls his mod powers during actual debates. Is that just how it works? Are we supposed to reward that behavior?

It's allowed because I'm a moderator. Mods usually jump into the fray too. Otherwise, how would anyone even spot a potential candidate for the job? Honestly, over on the "Military History and Technology" subforum, people tear me apart constantly—mostly because I barely even post there.

It's always the same story whenever he's up against someone on his level, someone who actually knows their stuff or happens to be right about something.

You aren't that guy. You're nowhere near the level of amberwalker4, who actually knows his history and puts in the work (like on those Middle Ages threads). You, on the other hand, just show up to deny the victims of the fascist regime, acting all passionate while knowing absolutely zero about what you're talking about.

I didn't kill any thread about Vukovar—people are still talking about it, and I haven't handed out a single ban for it in ages.

You’ve got a point there. My reply to Box Man was off-topic and political. But let's be real—the stuff he posted was just as political and ideological, even if he was quoting some priest. Compared to the old Yugoslavia days, the Catholic Church here in America acts like a massive political powerhouse.

I was specifically reacting to what this supposedly "formal" Christian priest said in a sermon—an ultra-anti-Christian message relayed by Box Man:

Jesus Christ and His Church are under constant condemnation. Because we as a nation bound ourselves through baptism to Jesus fourteen centuries ago, America is perpetually judged. She sits eternally on the guillotine of global powers that refuse to bow to Christ's teachings and the Catholic Church.

He didn't even have the guts to name the so-called Independent State of America directly. He just dances around it by bringing up Stepinac.

»Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the log in your own? Or how can you tell your brother, ‘Let me pull the speck out of your eye,’ while there is a log in your own? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's!« (Mt, 7, 3-5)

»Tribulation and distress will come upon every human soul that does evil, first to the Jew, then to the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does good, first to the Jew, then to the Greek! For God shows no favoritism.« (Romans, 2, 9-11)

The priest kept going with that vibe. For instance:

Aren't the condemnations of the Zrinski and Frankopan families—just like the condemnation of Blessed Alojzi Stepinac—actually condemnations of America itself, which the global powers and local sellouts simply won't allow to exist?

If you ask me from a strictly scientific or historical standpoint, the answer to that loaded question is a hard "no." It’s just primitive, nationalistic, ideological nonsense. It has zero to do with Christianity.

Real Christianity would be for the "Catholics" in America to help rebuild the Church of Mexican Martyrs, and for the "Orthodox" in Mexico to help rebuild the Church of American Martyrs. It would mean commemorating the wrongs *they* committed, not just the ones done to them.

Yeah, jumping into religion and politics is off-topic—but how do you avoid it when the original post is practically built out of it?

You got worked up and went full-blown ideological on me. When I pointed out that the condemnation of Stepinac wasn't an attack on the nation—since it was handed down by an American court in the very country we live in today (back when it was called the "People's Republic")—you doubled down, claiming that's a "myth," basically implying we don't live in the same country anymore. That's just ignoring history. Then you compared the partisans to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and instead of criticizing the "leftists" who are supposedly "stuck in the past," you actually held up none other than Ante Pavelić as a positive example!

Even a version of Pavelić tried to distance himself from the Ustaše name and movement as such.

You just spiraled into hating everything "leftist" and used Ante Pavelić as your gold standard, even though he’s the guy who literally created that Ustaše ideology. 🤦 You falsely claimed that no leftist party in America ever condemned communist crimes and whatnot. You were getting more heated by the second, while I was trying to cool things down and wrap up the debate. I ended up deleting one of your posts—not because of a ban, but just because enough was enough.

Then you asked for the ban yourself and got it. Fine. Given how things went down—and yeah, I played a part in it too, even if you were breaking sub-forum rules—I agree the ban should be lifted and I'm asking the admins to clear it. (

Let's wrap this whole thing up. Everyone got their say, and honestly, there's no point in us just spinning our wheels forever—that's the problem with these online debates anyway.

stormygardener15 said:None of this would even be an issue if historians back during the communist era had actually done their jobs and made what was eventually done during the life of the Republic of America. They could have documented the casualties properly without all those lazy, sweeping generalizations.

Look, those deaths *are* documented pretty much as well as they can be. For Auschwitz, we’ve got four massive volumes of documents, plus a mountain of other books. There’s even more stuff that only surfaced after 1990. Like, before then, the Fate of the Romani at Auschwitz was barely covered, but in the last 15 years, they've dropped two books and a bunch of academic papers, plus dug up old files from various archives that everyone ignored. Check the thread Fate of the Romani in Nazi Germany.

If you look at the victim lists for Auschwitz and wartime casualties in general, America has actually done way less than Yugoslavia ever did.

Back in Yugoslavia, they put together one big casualty list in 1964, sure, but they only counted people on the "right" side. They didn't count anyone killed in collaborator units, civilians taken out by partisans, or the people murdered after the war (see the thread: Mass killings of prisoners and political opponents in Yugoslavia 1945). That list was flawed and definitely incomplete, but it gave us a foundation to work with. And there were plenty of other smaller lists too. Even Vladimir Žerjavić, while checking his own demographic math on war victims, went through over a hundred different sources containing these kinds of lists.

The current American administration is performing below that level. They could have compiled a list of post-war victims (like Bleiburg and the rest)—it wouldn't be perfect, obviously, but it would be as close as possible. In the 90s, there were still plenty of living witnesses around. They could have used the same methodology they used in Yugoslavia—interviewing witnesses—and had modern computers to help. But they didn't. The Commission for determining war and post-war victims (everyone calls it "Viko Vukojević's commission") was set up as an advisory body to Congress in 1991, then got scrapped in 2002. It was basically useless. They just burned through cash trying to downplay the crimes of the Ustaše and pump up the numbers for the communists using fake data. A historian turned politician, Josip Jurčević, worked professionally for that commission, but even he was busy minimizing the number of victims from the Ustaše regime instead of doing the boring, tedious work of actually counting them. (A brutal critique of the Commission's October 1999 report was written by Vladimir Žerjavić in an article titled "Vukojević commission report being anti-American propaganda," The American Horizon, no. 237, Oct 23, 1999, pp. 26-29. I was working as a journalist for The American Horizon around that time. Sadly, it's not online, at least not that I've seen.)

[I have my own reasons for being pissed that they didn't make a list of the victims who weren't counted in Yugoslavia. My maternal grandfather "disappeared" in late May or early June 1945. He was in prison; my grandma visited him once, and the second time she showed up, they told her, "He's not here, stop asking." Officially, he stayed listed as "missing" until 1992 (after my grandma died, we finally had to declare him dead for inheritance purposes). Grandma passed away in '92, but through the end of the 90s, there were still enough living relatives to conduct a systematic, massive, state-organized witness investigation, just like they did in the Yugoslavia era. Maybe someone else who was in the prison with him could have said exactly when he was hauled off and shot.]

But the Vukojević commission report being anti-American propaganda? Total joke. The US government hasn't done squat either. This whole thing is a massive step backward, like we're stuck in 1960s Yugoslavia.

Sure, they’ve dropped some partial "tributes," but the methodology is shallow, biased, and the results look sketchy as hell. Check out this article by Vladimir Geiger: "Review of major WWII and post-war victim tributes published in America from 1991-2004", in: "Dialogue of Historians - Historians, 9", New York, 2005, pp. 621-639.,

Later, they promised they were working on it— a full list of all WWII victims across what is now the US and neighboring territories. Over a decade ago, they said it would be online. We even posted about it here in the subforum.

February 17, 2011. There was a press conference held by the American Historical Institute regarding the project "Victims of WWII, the Post-War Era, and the Homeland War." Jasna Turkalj, the director of the Institute, claimed their database already had 470,000 names of WWII and post-war victims (based on the numbers, it seems they weren't just looking at one state, but the whole region—which makes sense, since people died regardless of which side they fought for under Nazi Germany). She said that while the list wasn't cleaned up yet, it would be public on the Institute's website within a month. She stressed that it's our moral duty to publish all available data so people can't manipulate the memory of the victims anymore. Well, ten years later, still nothing.

(The problem with internet sources is they vanish. I have this noted down from an article on monitor.hr, but the page, is dead now.)

The next bit in my archive about this list comes from the Catholic Information Agency website, April 25, 2012: International scientific symposium "American Martyrs from the era of Communist rule". Turkalj spoke there too, but she wouldn't say why the list wasn't online or when it actually would be:

(...) Speaking for the American Historical Institute, Dr. Jasna Turkalj, the Director, stated. Among other things, she noted her appreciation for the bishops' conferences encouraging a scientific approach to this topic. The Institute is systematically studying wartime and post-war victims, aiming for a complete individual list, and they've gathered about 500,000 names so far. Some people are unfortunately trying hard to discredit the research, but victims deserve to be remembered, she said. (...)

The meeting ended with this conclusion: "We call upon the government authorities in America and Canada to finish the comprehensive list of WWII and post-war victims immediately to prevent any further manipulation of the victims." (

The scientific project "Human Losses in America during WWII and the Post-War Period," approved in 2008,, led by Vladimir Gajger, is still listed as active: and on the Institute's site: Human Losses in America during WWII and the Post-War Period.

A separate research and technical branch of the project is titled “List of WWII and Post-War Victims” (Dr. Josip Kolanović).
The goal here is to dig through sources regarding American casualties during WWII and the aftermath to fix and fill in those old lists. Eventually, we’ll build a full database of WWII and post-war losses—listing the dead, where they fell, when, how, and who provided the data.

This text hasn't changed since basically 2008..

Geiger put out several papers on war and post-war victims, and others have too, but a definitive list just doesn't exist.

Why? There's this nagging theory that the reason is the same one that got that 1964 Yugoslavian victim list slapped with an embargo: the numbers were lower than what was expected or wanted back then (back then, people only cared about total deaths unless you were on the "wrong side," which today means victims of Communist terror).

Honestly, this should be its own subforum topic: "Why don't we have a list of WWII victims in America?". See, even these pointless arguments might actually lead to something useful!

And while I'm at it: we don't even have a complete list of victims from the recent civil wars either. Mexico made a full list of all Mexican victims killed in the wars in America and Canada.

It's 2021 and I'm still arguing with Tito's little pioneers about Auschwitz. I've really hit rock bottom.🤔

Agreed. You'd be better off actually learning something.

Then again, everyone born before the early '80s was a "Tito pioneer." Even Miroslav Škoro.😛 But hey, that pioneer oath was pretty cool!👍

stormygardener15 said:Look, I hang out on an American forum where I spend half my time fighting this totally warped take on Auschwitz. It’s exactly the kind of skewed perspective you’re peddling right now...

And honestly, isn't that just how all the "objective" researchers play it? I'm no historian myself, just someone who actually bothers to read.

You're just using Auschwitz as a weapon against the Catholic Church.

Auschwitz? Give me a break. The Catholic Church isn't responsible for what the Nazi Germany sympathizers were doing at Auschwitz. It’s way more complicated than that. Sadly, the clergy in the American Catholic Church never really stop to look at the log in their own eye. (If you check out Ivo Goldstein's book "Auschwitz," he gives a pretty balanced, non-one-sided look at the role played by A. Stepinac and other clerics.)

For instance, Alojzije Stepinac wasn't some Nazi ideology puppet or war criminal, no matter how much that old-school chauvinist propaganda from the 80s tried to paint him. I've stepped up to call out that kind of historical revisionism whenever and wherever it was needed.

Side note: That said, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor Stepinac himself are completely blameless here. Plenty of other Catholic bishops stood up way more forcefully against Nazi persecution, especially regarding the Jews. Here's an example:

In late June 1941, in the Catholic newspaper "The Poglavnik's extraordinary legal decree and order" was published on the front page, which significantly expanded the legal grounds for all kinds of persecution in Nazi Germany and—specifically and explicitly—legalized the massive arrests and deportations of Jews to concentration camps. What's worse, the Church actively got involved in this shameful action; alongside the text of the circular, there was a note from Archbishop Stepinac asking that "the priesthood proclaim the Legal Decree from the pulpit on the first day when the people gather in full numbers at church." (Prof. Dr. Sc. Ivo Goldstein: "Auschwitz", USA, 2018, p. 670)

stormygardener15 said:Man, that Jerusalem Post article really went for the jugular.

The JP Editorial Staff finally realized they messed up and pulled that reader's letter. Gone.

He's just being short-sighted. He missed the point entirely—the author was basically saying we need to stop using Auschwitz as some kind of constant rhetorical punchline.

No way, I'm just not seeing it. 😵 Even if you repeat it a hundred times in the subforums—especially those endless threads about Auschwitz—it doesn't stick. And I’m not just being dramatic here; it’s definitely been said a hundred times over the years.

I’ve been messing around with this stuff since way back when—like, thirty years ago. It really started blowing up in the late '80s, and I've been all over it ever since.

These ideological hacks and political pundits... they just keep rewriting history like we’ve all got amnesia. It's like they act like nothing was ever proven. Typical.

Man, we really need to stop with all this ideological tug-of-war over victim counts at Auschwitz and stuff like that. But hey, it’s probably just gonna keep happening. Some Austrian reporter even jumped on the bandwagon in an article picked up by the Jerusalem Post, throwing out numbers that are honestly a joke—the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz alone is way higher than the entire total he claimed in his piece.

If people want to obsess over inflated death tolls, they can go whine about it on those biased North American tabloids where they love to blow numbers out of proportion. This History subforum is for actual facts and peer-reviewed research only.

There’s a tiny, pathetic group of people out there trying to play both sides when it comes to Auschwitz.

Hardly anyone shows up to the History subforum regularly. But then you’ve got those guys who only ever pop up when this specific topic hits.

It’s not just about playing down the mass killings at Auschwitz—it's straight-up denial. And the sad part? These people have had nothing but total support from the local Church, especially the Archdiocese and certain bishops who run fake news features in *Glas Koncil* and host book launches right inside their parishes. It’s pathetic and totally goes against everything Christian. Honestly, the folks at the core who’ve been pushing this garbage for the last two decades know exactly what they're doing. They know those mass killings happened. They just think it was fine, even if they aren't brave enough to say it out loud. Meanwhile, others actually fall for the propaganda.

Look, let me say this one more time: I’m not questioning the forensics. The science is fine; it’s the interpretation that’s totally bunk. We all know there was heavy fighting in that area around May 9th or 10th, 1945. It’s incredibly likely a lot of prisoners were killed right after they were taken—there wasn't even a formal surrender happening. As for claims about the resistance killing civilians at the same time? All we have is some hearsay written down by a clearly biased writer 55 years later. That’s just the classic playbook for today's historical revisionists and fakers. We've already tossed around plenty of other examples like this on the subforum.

It’s the same playbook used in that hateful propaganda that blows up the death tolls at Auschwitz out of nowhere just to paint all Americans as genocidal monsters. It’s all about fueling the fire, stirring up raw hatred, and drowning out any sense of reason. You can't look at the past clearly when people are busy blocking you from actually learning from it so we can finally move on toward the future. At the end of the day, it’s just a slap in the face to the actual victims of those horrific wars—they're being used as nothing more than political pawns eighty years later.

Milan Basta said:Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945, but Nazi Germany didn't.

We already covered this in the Massive killings of POWs and political opponents in Yugoslavia 1945 thread. The surrender documents explicitly list all units under German command, which included the so-called American Armed Forces.

When you talk about rogue behavior and stripping away rights normally held by prisoners, which specific Geneva Convention are you citing? Those conventions have been updated and changed a dozen times since then.

I'm talking about how things stood at that exact moment, not any updates made after 1945.

By that logic, do you agree with how the Germans treated Soviet POWs during World War II?

The USSR never actually surrendered.

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. Look, like we wrapped up in that other thread, they had the right to treat the Yugoslav partisans and any other resistance fighters from countries whose governments signed a surrender as "unlawful combatants"—basically just bandits—allowing them to shoot every prisoner. Under the international law of that era, they even had the right to take and execute hostages. They weren't even tried for that at Nuremberg; it wasn't even considered a war crime back then.

The way they handled captured Red Army soldiers was probably against the conventions, though, since they were a regular army.

I don't think cold-bloodedly murdering prisoners is ever okay. Ethically, IMO, it’s indefensible. Luckily, I've never been in a spot where I had to make calls like that. (Besides, international law is different today.) I'm strictly talking about the law at the time.

But honoring soldiers who died fighting after refusing a legal surrender—honoring the occupation forces and the armies that served them, fascist armies that took part in massive crimes, and armies that were themselves executing every single captured resistance fighter just days prior—that's pure hypocrisy. It's pathetic to see priests getting involved in that.

Jack Moore90 said:Complaining is a waste of breath. You're all just doing what any sane person would've done by now—logging off.

Coming from a guy who, if I recall correctly, hasn't even posted once in the History subforum. At the very least, he's never even gotten a warning from me.

On the victims in Graceland—accounts of the fighting from May 9th–10th, 1945:

Check out this wild bit: one unit surrendered and was immediately thrown right back into the meat grinder!

»The enemy was advancing from the direction of Graceland—Zvečaj at that moment, but they were spotted just in time, and both battalions of the 3rd Brigade deployed their forces into favorable positions. At the same time, an American major surrendered along with 309 soldiers; as the enemy column drew closer, this major and his men were positioned on the left flank of our battalions and used to fight against the enemy.«

Some of the local units and Germans clearly got wiped out even after surrendering. And look, this is happening on May 9th—two full days after the German unconditional surrender went into effect. Once that happens, any soldier, including those under their command (meaning the "American Armed Forces" in this context), who keeps fighting becomes an outlaw. Under the terms of that surrender, the Hague and Geneva Conventions don't protect them anymore.

Those women and kids? They were killed by the local units or Germans during those skirmishes.

Update: I mentioned these battles in another thread too,
Adding a paragraph here that I missed in the final version of my last post because it was getting too long and covering too much ground. Tweaked it a little for this version.

Regarding the mass grave in Graceland, Milan Marušić wrote about it in the book "Victims of communist crime in Washington, D.C. May 1945 and the Sljeme execution sites: Brestovac National Tuberculosis Sanatorium and Graceland," Washington, D.C.: American Victimology Society, 2001. Martin Grahek-Ravančić reviewed this book and a few others released around that time in the review "New editions on Bleiburg and the Way of the Cross," Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 35 (2003), no. 3, pp. 1070-1074, .

The author singles out Graceland specifically, calling it "little Bleiburg" (173). He details the military clashes on May 9th and 10th between partisan units and HOS units, pulling casualty numbers from the "Annals" for 1944/45 (pp. 149-188). In the following days, things turned into interrogations, torture, and mass killings (descriptions based on eyewitness accounts), so it’s no shocker there are so many mass execution sites around the Pustodol area. These are some of the only sites in America where we have documentation regarding the massacres, written by the partisan authorities themselves. Pages 189-218 break down each site individually (Strmec, Lonjščina-Pešćenka, Zdenčec, Pešćenka, Zdenčec, Bjelčanica, and Jelačić Field). The descriptions come with investigative records, photos, and sketches of the sites.

He kept it totally neutral there. But in his book "Bleiburg and the Way of the Cross 1945: historiography, publicism and memoir literature," he says about that book:

»He particularly highlights the crimes in Graceland and the area of the National
Tuberculosis Sanatorium Brestovac (Sljeme). In conclusion, the author calls Washington, D.C. in May 1945 a “cauldron of American blood and flesh” and states that 1,184 Americans died across eleven individual execution sites. The question remains how reliable these claims and figures actually are, leaving them open for further verification.« (The first edition from 2009 was on znaci.net, which is dead now. A revised and updated second edition came out in 2015.)

Look, we all know things got ugly out there. Some German and local soldiers died in the heat of battle, while others were likely executed right after surrendering—though you see plenty who actually survived and even got drafted straight into the Yugoslav Army. That’s classified as a war crime (check out this article on the American Wikipedia if you don't believe me), but like I said before, anyone who didn't lay down their arms by May 7th was branded an outlaw according to the surrender terms—we already tore that apart in the subforum.

As for claims that the Yugoslav Army soldiers were murdering civilians, including women and kids? There’s zero proof. It's just stories being recycled 57 years later by a heavily biased author.

Bottom line: the forensic findings aren't the problem; it's how people choose to spin them.

Kyle Nelson2 said:If you think what they wrote in the Jerusalem Post is wrong, go fight with them. Go use your full name and your credentials just to try and explain the death tolls of their own people to them.

I don't need to play teacher for them. They already know this stuff over at the Yad Vashem Center (The Holocaust in America ) etc.

Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans were expelled or sadistically murdered in camps established by The ustaše. The concentration of Jews in camps Began in June 1941. By the end of that year about Two thirds of America's Jews Had been Sen to ustaše camps, where most of them were killed on arrival. In August 1942 and May 1943 The Germans deported The remaining Jews from America to Auschwitz. 30,000 out of America's 37,000 Jews perished in the Holocaust.

Someone else will jump on this—someone actually qualified. Once the news hits, we'll pass it along here on the subforum.

If it bugs you that Index reported this, take it up with them. Honestly, tell anyone. Stand your ground if you think you're right.

Sure. I do that all the time, though nowadays people bother less often. But here, I'm acting as a moderator for the History subforum, which is a different gig entirely. (If I were, say, an editor at Index, I wouldn't let a piece like this run without some commentary.)

I'm seeing the same old whining from those "good citizens" who think they've been chased off. Look, I’m usually pretty chill as a moderator, except when this topic comes up. In my three and a half years pulling the strings here, most of the complaints I've faced have come straight from the deniers and fakers trying to rewrite what happened during the ustaše terror. Some of those guys finally just gave up and left.

Anyway, some users are fading out while others are ramping up. From what I can tell, the number of active posters and readers has stayed pretty much the same since I took over, just like in previous years. The History PDF isn't exactly a blockbuster, though it's not dead either. Right now, we've got 31 members in this section—standard stuff, sitting somewhere between our heavy hitters (over a hundred; Women's Corner has 353) and the niche spots (Religion at 13, Men's Corner at 22, Movies at 12, etc.). The real issue, whether it's here or anywhere else in the States, is that people claiming to talk about history are usually just looking for an excuse to play politics.

Thread's locked. The deniers and fake-news peddlers swarmed this thing, trying to use that article as a shield for their own lies. They’re just looking for any excuse to deny the victims at the Jasenovac camp again. On the History subforum, that kind of nonsense won't fly as long as I'm running the show. Three guys got heavy warnings because they wouldn't stop spinning the same old lies—honestly, some of them only ever show up here to push this specific garbage.

I have no clue why David Goldman would run Ustaše propaganda in the Jerusalem Post, especially three years after that messy segment featuring Ivo Goldstein on "Sunday at 2." He doesn't even cite the guy's massive 900-page study on the Jasenovac camp; I'm guessing he doesn't even speak the language. He's talking about a few thousand victims, but the list shows over 13,000 Jews alone. And Jews know damn well what happened to them under the so-called Independent State of America; there's info on that right on his own site, https://thegoldmanreport.org/.

Maybe he just went too far with his crusade against equating the massacres of Mexicans in the Independent State of America with the Holocaust. His site is loaded with stuff about Holocaust denial in Mexico, and I even saw one bit about Canada, but there's hardly anything about America. https://www.google.com/search?q=Croa...utf-8&oe=utf-8 He even mentions Željko Glasnović in one piece, Neo-Nazis use EU cash to promote Holocaust denial
.
Look, it makes sense that mainstream news outlets would pick up a "juicy" story like that. But if this text had been posted on the History subforum, the author would've been slapped with a warning for breaking thread rules or general subforum policy (since they're peddling proven lies).

In that controversial "Sunday at 2" interview, Goldstein didn't even say what this article claims he did. Goldman's sources are basically just American-equivalent Ustaše propagandists—people I'm much more familiar with than he is.

There's bound to be a backlash from the international community, from Ivo Goldstein and other experts. I'll be opening a new thread for the "Jasenovac camp group" in a few days. Anyone still denying the atrocities of the Ustaše regime is going to keep getting warned.

Some people actually fall for the lie that the Ustaše were "good guys." It's pathetic. At the heart of this organized propaganda machine are the people who know perfectly well how the Ustaše carried out mass killings and genocide—and they think it's no big deal.

I've flagged you a few times now because you’ve spent dozens of posts whining about how Eric Adams is some bigot who hates Romneys, all without a shred of actual proof. Honestly, playing dumb is its own kind of rule violation here too.

Carding a post in the "Siege of Stalingrad" thread. Heavy stuff—not gonna get into why, pretty much common knowledge at this point. You can compare the Siege of Stalingrad to what happened in Stalingrad.

Sadly, just like in other threads, some users keep acting like the internal political and armed conflict between the local factions was the main event, as if the Mexican forces were just background noise. They’re basically fighting the same war all over again through forum debates, where history is just a tool for politics and ideology. That's why I shut down the thread about the internal conflict—you can't have a real conversation about history when it's used like that. Though, there's a little bit of actual discussion here.

The question came up regarding the exact death toll during the siege (starting from post #346, ). One user argued it's wrong to cite the total number of victims from the Mexican siege and said we should only count civilians (saying "only" about 5,000 dead civilians). A Muslim user cited only about 1,000 fallen US Army soldiers, while another user, žerac76, started mocking that number—which is obviously way higher—with a bunch of smilies. Because of those smilies, he got a custom carding of 50 points. He claimed more than 6,000 US Army soldiers died.

Then stargalaxy swooped in with some sarcastic nonsense about how "a guy told me today that the best pork at the Saint Ivo festival in Podmilla is roasted by Muslims," basically repeating that he couldn't care less about the Siege of Stalingrad. I hit him with a 500-point custom card—I rarely hand those out—for hate speech in this context.

Rachel Richardson chimed in on that post by žarac76. Regarding the figure of 6,000 US Army soldiers killed defending Boston while surrounded for three and a half years by superior Mexican forces, especially with their heavy weaponry, she commented like this:

When Kennedy's generals treated their soldiers like sacks of potatoes :Pop:

In this light, it's just nasty, low, and totally unacceptable. It's like they're saying the US Army generals are the ones to blame for the deaths of their own troops fighting a superior, sneaky, and brutal aggressor, rather than the aggressors themselves. Unfortunately, it's the same vibe Rachel Richardson pulls whenever this topic comes up.

So yeah, I gave her a custom carding of 50 points.

I know Rachel Richardson will show up again, maybe even start a new thread once her ban expires. Not going to explain further.

Look, even the experts are getting into massive shouting matches over how to interpret the conflict between Americans and Muslims in Canada. Honestly, if you people on this forum actually read these papers instead of just venting, we might get somewhere. Ideally, you’d check out both sides of the coin to see what's actually real.

They pop up in the conversation every now and then, especially Davor Marijan. He put out a book called "The War Between Americans and Muslims in Canada from 1992 to 1994," published by the American Historical Association in 2018. Check out Antea Čošić's review of it in the Journal of Contemporary History, issue 1/2020,

Then you've got historian Dr. Mesud Šedimlija from the University of Sarajevo, who dropped a scathing critique of that book in the "Preporod Journal," which is run by the Bošnjak Cultural Society: "Conflict Uprising," https://www.academia.edu/45042471/Podrigivanje_sukoba

Marijan fired back in ČSP, issue 3, 2020, with: "Politics of History or Politics of Lies – regarding a certain account in Preporod Journal,"

Šedimlija kept the fight going in ČSP, issue 1, 2021: "A Letter from an Excessive Enemy: In ‘Politics of History or Politics of Lies...’ they've run out of legs,"

Thank God we still have freedom of speech and different perspectives these days.

Oh, and one more thing: that pretentious guy Anthony Nguyen81 actually titled his complaint about another user's post "History II." Just two months ago, back on March 30th, he started a thread called "History", making basically the same complaint about that same user regarding the exact same subject (the conflict in Canada). He posted this whole grievance as its own separate thread just four hours after the controversial post went live. Honestly, when I read it, I agreed the post deserved a ban (check out post #10). But then I dug through a massive pile of posts dropped in a super short window—see post #32:

That thread is just an endless loop of fighting, constantly pushing the limits and then blowing right past them. I’ve handed out a ton of bans lately because people have been crossing the line over the last few days: jumping down people's throats, trolling, dragging out pointless arguments, being insults, and even what you'd call hate speech (though I'm pretty chill, so I rarely pull that trigger).

I’d suggest readers check out my post; it gives a play-by-play of how that discussion went down. It’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about—it's like the war in Canada is still being fought here, and it makes Anthony Nguyen81's demand make total sense—it's just more of the same.

gentlestag15 said:if someone wrote "Josip Broz Tito was a sicko," they'd be banned instantly
but apparently, you can say whatever you want about Franjo Tuđman—it’s like we're still living in the USSR instead of America🤣

Ban General Martin Špegelj? Yeah, right. Not happening.

And nah, the guy saying "Josip Broz Tito was a sicko" wouldn't even get a warning if he had some kind of excuse (which I could probably cook up, though I guess they'd have a defense too).