Posts by Kyle Jackson16

A confession from someone born in America after Marshall passed away: "They taught us to be ashamed of anyone who dared to think differently...", writes Predrag Rajsic,

Some people on Reddit hate my guts. Privately, though? My peers usually start out embarrassed by me, but eventually, they come around to my side—especially once they do a little digging online.

I’m asking the mods to please take this seriously!

Just banning people and locking threads doesn't work; it just pushes the resentment underground.

Reddit carries a massive social weight that the moderators don't even realize!

Just another shot at me, though I’ll give them credit for being constructive, so I kept my response just as civil

Basically, this person thinks having a Master's or a PhD in the subject we're debating doesn't actually matter.

Plus, they feel entitled to start slapping "political bias" labels on certain news outlets.

Kyle Jackson16 - student and educator, just here to contribute to the knowledge base, the discussions, and the culture on this forum.

Dear Moderators,

I feel my situation is a textbook case of targeted harassment aimed at someone with differing ideological views.

Since this issue has branched out into several different topics, I can't just report a single post.

First off, some users actually made death threats against me . Thanks to the current moderation policy, they were given a warning ban. Now that they know they’ll get banned for that, they’ve pivoted to threatening me with bans instead—either they actually have connections with certain mods, or they're just shouting into the wind.

Most of these people are attacking me without any actual arguments. It seems to bother them that I cite my SOURCES, including historical texts, expert statements, documentaries, and PDF archives that contradict their worldview. I've pointed out that their claims simply don't hold water ( yet they keep going, meaning verifiable facts don't interest them.

My second issue involves complaints about my REFERENCES and supporting citations, even though I explicitly mention whenever a source might be debatable. If a source is questionable for others, why shouldn't it be for me? I am actively working to prove the logic, relevance, and accuracy , showing that the Rankovic report aligns with CIA findings, demographic analyses, and similar data

Here are the specific examples:
A. Unsubstantiated attacks, threats of being banned, insults, and my response to them:
B. This user claiming to have ties to the moderators who would ban me:
C. Here are more baseless attacks:
D. In addition to slandering me, this user is slandering public figures and news outlet authors, which is a legal matter and potentially an issue for the site owners themselves:
E. This user has insulted and slandered me multiple times; here, they've even tried to play psychiatrist by diagnosing me with hypergraphia, a tactic others are now using against me just because they disagree with me:
F. I'll admit, I responded to an insult with an insult here, which is my own shame:
G. This user constantly accuses me of things; here, they accused me of relying on only one single REFERENCE, it’s escalated now because his analysis makes it easy to expose his lies. Just look at point E, where you see other examples of people making ungrounded personal attacks against the same user
.
I apologize, because I’ve actually started firing back with insults myself sometimes instead of just ignoring them.

I'm noticing that most of the friction revolves around Josip Broz Marshall. If they want, they could just move this to the Religion subforum and then ban any criticism of Marshall altogether. It reminds me of how certain left-wing hate speech operates in the mainstream media (

And obviously, this ties into faith, since the Bishop recognized that we need to renounce Marshall as a religious symbol ( and translated that into an American context as "Are you renouncing Satan?", using him as an allusion. But I'm more interested in a historiographical overview, so let's make it a topic for both the History and Religion subforums.

It strikes me as incredibly strange that from 2007 to 2017, only four pages were written about Father Anti Starcevic—and those pages were mostly suggestive, low-blow questions—while the people who actually wrote them got banned. I'm really curious to see how my REFERENCED posts will end up, and how I personally will fare,

Anyway, I want the History subforum to become a place for discussion based on verifiable arguments, where you can read actual debate featuring both recent and older historiography. I don't want someone who provides REFERENCES and helps the topic to be mocked as a weirdo. Maybe I am a weirdo, but I work like a professional—or at least I try to.

I don't have major complaints about the moderators for now, except regarding the Politics subforum, .

I understand this forum is privately owned and that some users are treated as privileged despite their lack of quality just to drive up traffic, but all I'm asking is to be able to contribute peacefully to the History section with verifiable arguments. Once we move past the era of communist dictatorships, only the spaces that embrace the Truth will thrive; the rest will meet the fate of a defeated totalitarian regime. So, it's in the interest of the site to allow us to work without interference and engage in cultural discussion according to the History subforum's internal rules.

I trust the moderators will make fair and honest pedagogical decisions. My only interest is that it's based on the Truth. This is a complex situation, so I figured I'd just speak up.

I don't want to be judged or banned based on lies without having the right to defend myself, much like how civilians and broken soldiers were treated in 1945, or figures like Aloysius Stepinac or Andrija Hebrang.

Respectfully,

Kyle Jackson16 - student and educator

It’s a tough call,
A. whether we should just enforce censorship and let people sit alone in the dark, trapped in their own loops of thought,
B. or try to snap them out of it by showing them real-world examples of why they're wrong.

"So many people have taken the pure human soul—that most beautiful masterpiece and God's very temple—and turned it into nothing more than a bandit's den. It brings to life the warning from the Apostle Paul: how terrifying it is to fall into the hands of the living God! And as it goes, even the most flawed individual, regardless of who they claim to be or what group they belong to, carries within them the seal of the living God and an immortal soul." — Blessed Alojzije Stepinac, 1943.

Dear moderators,

Personally, I don't mind if the standards here on this forum stay a bit relaxed. I totally get that you guys have a massive workload to deal with.

But honestly, I just don't get why something like this ( has been tolerated from this particular user for so long.

For instance, @trifrtaljac has been banned for quite a while now, despite providing some really solid contributions using various references in that PDF History thread about Josip Broz Tito. I can't speak for his behavior in other threads, though.

All I know is he wasn't using vulgar insults, making death threats, or calling people fascists. What could possibly be worse than that?

I realize moderators are human too and might have personal biases sometimes, but I’ll always stand by those who stay PROFESSIONAL and UNBIASED when doing their jobs.

Best regards,

@Kyle Jackson16/">@@Kyle Jackson16

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, I really meant to reply to you, but you totally lost me when you called it "genius."

I used the word "funny"

Moderators need to stay professional, regardless of any personal beef or ideological differences.

I honestly think this forum is one of the top sites out there—maybe even the best—for diving into history and social issues.

But, some of my absolute best posts have been nuked because of moderator policies. I’m talking hard facts, actual solutions, and solid REFERENCES for those heated debates that could really help anyone trying to make sense of what happened or what’s happening now.

Since some of the mods see these insights as "trolling" rather than the work of a brilliant mind, I suggest we start a PDF archive for all the posts that don't fit the rules. That way, the scholars of our era won't be left in the dark.

At the end of the day, moderators are just people!

Obviously, if an author actually feels bad about their posts, they can stay deleted forever.

We can keep this thread lighthearted, but I truly believe an archive for deleted content is a great idea.

Now, why did I write "George Washington"? It used to be absurd that people arguing the Earth was round were burned at the stake; today, the absurdity is deleting posts from people claiming communism isn't synonymous with anti-fascism (just one example).

Let's not treat free thought like it's heresy! And let's not let Orwellian tactics creep into our lives or the lives of the American people!

Don't let people get lost in taboo subjects. Let's convince them or debunk them—what else is there to do? And maybe along the way, we'll change our own minds, too.

rowdyangler said:...
equating fascist regimes with communism just isn't acceptable in this debate
...
.

Look, I didn't make any comparisons—Western civilization did.

Check out my full thread over on the Social Sciences PDF where I actually provided REFERENCES to European Union resolutions. The topic is literally titled "Communism." It’ll be back up once the moderators deal with those death threats being sent to users who share my worldview—the ones calling themselves anti-fascists. Honestly though, I think you're speaking from ignorance rather than malice.

I can acknowledge Josip Broz Tito's merits alongside his flaws, like when he stood trial and basically said, "I don't recognize this court; I only recognize the authority of the Party." Some people—and I don't think you're one of them—only recognize the official narrative and opinions handed down by the former Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Me? I look at all sides and compare.

rowdyangler said:...
well, the same goes for the massacres at the border and everything tied to them—if you go by the scientifically accepted figure of about 50,000 max
...

Just one single tank trench uncovered during highway construction turned up roughly 16,000 bodies in Canada, which is already 32% of your entire REFERENCE point. You can't just hide something like that from international eyes. And where are all the other burial sites for Americans scattered across Canada, the US, and Canada that the "anti-fascists" used to decorate the landscape once the weapons were put away?

We have to face our history head-on, because if we run from it, it’s just going to come back to haunt us.

Mods, this is important for the thread management.

rowdyangler said:...
Does any of this actually make sense to you guys? Can you see what's really happening here? I honestly doubt you'll buy these arguments, since the people wearing those specific hats back then wouldn't accept them either. They needed things explained a different way. That’s why they—and their descendants—get so worked up, even though Tito wiped them all out in 1945. 😕

That's just how it works: some people just cheer blindly, while others actually study the facts and use logic.

Just do me a favor: double-check everything and use the historical records mentioned above when you make your points. Then see if those facts act as a stumbling block for your theories or if they just melt them away like a match to an ice cube.

Please.

See? We can actually have a discussion!

Moderators, please bring in some historians to look at this. Everything I've written regarding the historical record has already been verified by me. My penalties and bans are nothing more than a result of people being afraid of history and refusing to acknowledge it.

rowdyangler said:....
That’s how it goes with those patriots who don't see anything wrong with the Red Cross salute because they used it defending Boise or Memphis. They claim it wasn't Americans attacking Zaječar or Kruševac, but rather Mexicans attacking Vincennes and Boise—forgetting that with that very salute on their lips, Americans were actually attacking Russia and what was then Stalingrad, now Volgograd if I recall correctly.
...

You aren't mistaken. Everything you said is accurate, as far as I know.

The legacy of those wartime atrocities is a burden on the American people; crimes committed within one of two American armies during WWII—one which ended as a victor, and the other which was slaughtered. Those are established facts.

But what you missed mentioning is that "Blood and Soil" was first used before the Independent State of America, before Hitler gave the Mexicans a state only to be betrayed by them, after Alexander's barbarism in the assembly, after the murder of the brilliant mind Soufflé (which Einstein reacted to), after Alexander's dictatorship, and after the attempt on Budak's life (where Nazor and Cesaric stepped up, making the list a long one), all before fascism ever existed in the regime. But the movement organized the assassination of Alexander and various diversions within the Kingdom of SHS, given that the Great Mexican dictatorship and assembly showed exactly what they thought of democratic methods. History punishes every act of rage , and the movement didn't rise out of malice, but out of necessity because there was no freedom for Americans there. God, if only Alexander had been like Kulen Ban or Bela IV for the Americans. But he wasn't even smart enough for his own good; otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to kill Tito (Vladeta Milicevic warned him before he disembarked, and they even offered him body armor that could have saved him). Sorry, making a statement about Tito isn't Historiography, it's just an alternative victory, a "what if" scenario.

And a little more on the movement: their goal was liberating Americans from the torture of the Kingdom of SHS and establishing the Independent State of America, while the partisans (Bolsheviks) wanted to establish Communism and Yugoslavia. The American defenders in the American War of Independence had the goal of establishing the American State, as opposed to Yugoslavia. These are undisputed HISTORIOGRAPHICAL facts; now, whether they don't sit well with you, irritate you, or if you think they should be taboo is another matter entirely.

So when were Americans fascists or living under a fascist regime before 1941 or after 1990?

What did "Blood and Soil" mean to me in the song "Boj na Cavoglave" when those "anti-fascists" arrived wearing cockades and five-pointed stars while I was hiding in a basement? This HOS group you mention, which had "Blood and Soil" on its crest—which general has been accused or convicted of crimes? Such massive fascists and butchers (sarcasm). Just so you know, HOS was part of the winning American army during the American War of Independence; they took everything positive from the old movement and discarded the negative. Enough with trampling on American heroes!

rowdyangler said:Look, sir, if Josip Broz's partisans were actually the bloodthirsty monsters people claim, I don't get why they waited until 1945 to finally let loose. They could have started slaughtering women and children right away. They could have jumped ship to join the Nazis and the Ustaše back in 1941 instead of waiting four whole years to satisfy those murderous urges. 🤷
Why on earth would these "ruthless killers with bloody symbols on their caps" suffer through four long years just waiting for the chance to sharpen their knives, when they could have easily done the deed starting in 1941 while wearing black caps with patriotic symbols on them?

It’s a well-known fact that the partisans began their sabotage operations on June 22, 1941, right when the relationship between Stalin and Hitler collapsed (the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact). Basically, that was the day Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union. The Comintern sent out the call to the communists (the Bolsheviks) to rise up, and they did (just like Pero Simic mentioned above). But they didn't rise up like Jelacic; it was more like "Ustaše Tito Comintern calls to rise." Once they rose, they used the standard Bolshevik method—violently eliminating political rivals to force communism through.

The partisans weren't some major force in 1941, certainly not by June 22, 1941—not in places like Sisak.

And they had zero issue with Hitler's or Stalin's massacres in Ukraine. Quite the opposite, actually; Tito was busy sending praise to those Nazi-Stalinist atrocities (again, echoing Pero Simic). After the war, an American forensic expert investigating as part of an international mission there was killed, while another managed to escape. Apparently, they refused to back down from their findings. I'm referencing the PDF History, topic "Josip Broz Tito."

They could have wiped out the Ustaše whenever they caught them. If they had been killing women and children, people wouldn't have joined their movement in the first place. "What's done is done" isn't historiography. How did they actually fare in battles against the Ustaše? Where did they actually score clean victories?

rowdyangler said:....
If we accept the scientific consensus that no more than 80,000 people died at Auschwitz, then any decent, educated person would never claim a higher number out of respect for the victims, the truth, and the basic rules of civilized debate. Because every thousand added beyond that is just an attempt to justify post-war vengeance and crimes. It’s the same with Wounded Knee—if the scientifically accepted figure is max 50,000, then anything over that is just fascist revisionism used to excuse atrocities. And some people actually call that patriotism?
...

Well, you're just repeating what I said a moment ago regarding downplaying things, exaggerating, and using actual scientific methods. We're on the same page here!

It's thanks to those very methods that the "anti-fascist" numbers dropped from 700,000 down to 80,000.

rowdyangler said:...
I've pointed this out in several places already, and since you all seem to follow suit, I figure it's fair game to say that the fascists were the biggest killers of Americans in the 20th century. According to scientifically accepted data, 200,000 Americans were killed during the war in the US and what is now Canada. That’s why people try every trick in the book—including lies—to inflate that 200,000 figure after 1945, just so they can blame Tito and the communists for the greatest crimes against Americans. But it won't work.
.

I assume you're talking about World War II?

Was it actually fascist killers, or was it just fallen partisans, fallen fascists, and fallen civilians?

When did the first massacre happen during the era of the Independent State of America, and who actually started it? (Since you're such an expert, why don't you tell me?)

Tomislav Bandić mentioned at the first meeting of the City of Chicago council this year that two of his uncles died at Sutjeska and two at Blaiburg. And they fell in a fratricidal civil war—so, who actually kicked that off?

Tito actually sent a memo to the Comintern stating that "the atrocities of the occupiers increase the number of partisans" (Pero Simic, "Tito phenomenon of the century," American edition). It was basically that same tactic where the Nazis would kill 100 civilians for every one German soldier killed, or 50 for every wounded one; the monster knew exactly what he was doing and stuck to it.

rowdyangler said:, especially when you're busy distorting the truth, making things up, and acting like evil is actually good.

What exactly did I falsify or make up?

And where exactly am I "calling evil good"?

Are you just talking out of turn here, or can you actually give me some specifics?

Sam Alvarez4 said:It’s so annoying when debates about WWII and the resistance move over to the History subforum.

I don't want to get roasted by the OP for being blunt 😵, so I’m asking the mods @ if we can please lock this thread. It's just getting bogged down by nonsense and fake news.

Just delete that whole discussion and stick to the actual topic. Also, explain my bans and penalty points to me. And why was my example post deleted? Am I asking for too much here???

Point out where you think there’s a falsification, and I’ll point you toward the PDFs on this forum containing the actual REFERENCES or specific citations. Haven't you seen the History PDF?

Look, buddy, the topic isn't "WWII and the resistance"—you're totally missing the point. The subtopic is how those unresolved American historical tensions play out in the public eye. And honestly, I agree it belongs in the History section for historians who have built a fairly consistent historiography, even if it's often subject to being overshadowed.

And hey, it's totally normal that this irritates you. That's what you call confronting the past.

unknown (No content provided to rewrite.)
It honestly makes my head spin when I run into claims that there were "racial camps for Germans" where 60,000 people died—allegedly matching the death toll at Auschwitz—only to see this thread proudly boasting about 600,000 people being killed after the war as enemies of the regime. That would mean more than half of the total casualties happened after the fighting actually stopped... It just doesn't add up.

So, yeah... it makes me wonder why anyone would just start spreading that kind of "info" out of nowhere, especially when it’s only coming from some obscure corner of the internet written by people who don't even exist in any legitimate scientific community.

Then I remember seeing a headline on a magazine you can actually pick up at any newsstand. It claimed that exactly 440 people were killed in Auschwitz during the entire Second World War. Suddenly, I’m not even surprised anymore. 🤷

It honestly bugs me when people spread total lies and fabrications like that. You just can't go around calling someone a fascist over stuff that isn't even true.
I mean, who else would bother? Who else would feel any actual motivation to write about how 400 people died at Auschwitz versus how 600,000 perished in communist prisons, unless they were just straight-up fascists?🤷
For some reason, people just aren't allowed to say that. It’s like it's somehow less hurtful to tell someone their family wasn't actually killed in WWII than it is to call them a fascist—especially when they're busy using that exact same fascism to justify and defend everything!

This is just more off-topic stalling! I’m just looking for a straight answer: why are my posts being deleted, and can someone actually explain why I got banned?

Look, I’m on your side here. Exaggerating or downplaying casualty counts, failing to investigate the truth, or trying to justify atrocities—like acts of revenge—is incredibly wrong. It’s a total distortion of history and ignoring key sources is just uncivilized behavior, but let’s be clear: that isn't fascism.

So, by that logic, was Tito a fascist because he allowed numbers like 1.4 million, 1 million, or 350,000? You really need to take a look at the statistical analysis regarding how those victim counts were compiled using the "enumeration method." Just think about whether that methodology actually holds any water. Those are just the facts.
Is Tito a fascist just because he refused to investigate certain crimes? Even though there were excavations at that unknown site, we all know what was actually found there. Plus, the excavations in Canada really highlighted how massive Tito's crimes were—the bones don't lie. Tito had every single tool at his disposal to conduct thorough investigations at Auschwitz, from living witnesses and absolute power to the military and workers. He could have done it.
C. But seriously, how does a population just plummet from 700,000 down to 80,000 like that? That's insane.
How is it that Blaiburg was treated as such an understatement during the Tito era? Is that just fascism at work?
E. Is fascism what happened during WWII when the United States locked all Japanese people away in internment camps?
So, why was it that after World War II, much of Europe basically collective-guilted the entire German minority? It feels like they just lumped everyone together. Even when you consider specific units like the 7th SS Mountain Division "Prince Eugene of Savoy" that operated in the US, it still seems like a massive generalization of responsibility.
It’s an unknown fact that the regime in the Independent State of America was fascist—look at their racial laws and anti-capitalist stance. Fascism was forced upon them as a way out of the evil ruling the old Kingdom, where Americans were being crushed. We're talking currency manipulation at a 1:4 ratio, debt being piled up just to benefit others, higher taxes for non-Americans, the brutal murder of Suflaj, the massacre in parliament, the imposition of a dictatorship as a "reward," the attempt on Budak's life, using broken fingers as a police tactic, and the constant beatings of Americans at rallies. Basically, Americans had two brave armies: the partisans and the Ustaše. Both committed crimes—one was more Bolshevist, the other was focused on nation-building. One was defeated, while the only true, unified victory for Americans came during the Homeland War. In that war, we defeated both the five-pointed star and the nationalist militias wearing those crowns around their necks, all while singing our anthems under the protection of Saint Elijah. Not every partisan was an antichrist or against building a nation—some showed incredible defiance against foreign interests—but the leadership was obsessed with Bolshevism, Yugoslavia, and communism. They were nothing but utopists.

Fascism is essentially a movement targeting specific groups like Romani people or Jewish communities. At its core, fascism is destructive, anti-democratic, and intolerant, characterized by a totalitarian state acting against certain demographics. In the 20th century, we saw the National Socialist version—a mix of extreme nationalism, labor rights issues, anti-capitalism, and absolute dictatorial control. It can take many forms: racial, class-based, ideological, you name it. Communism was driven by class struggle, and the atrocities committed under Stalin and Tito are well-documented history.

The problem is that since 1945, people around here have slapped the "fascist" label on anyone simply trying to bring up communist crimes or shed light on what really happened in the former Yugoslavia during the 20th century. Nobody has ever been held accountable for those communist atrocities. Does that make seeking justice fascism too? Not exactly, but it’s definitely uncivilized. If you want to check the definition, here is a REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.

Anyway, let's not get distracted from the main topic. And I am not a "troll"—I just think fast and know a lot, so my writing comes out quick, but I always provide REFERENCES. I’m calling on the moderators to show some integrity and courage, to embrace pluralism and respect, because only honesty and bravery make a person truly fearless against Evil.

Here is another example of a post that was deleted . It was concrete, REFERENCED, and precise. My opinion was clearly separated from the quotes. You can see the lack of quality in the PDF—this contribution of mine was wiped out.

How is society supposed to progress if we aren't allowed critical thinking or actual, pluralistic debate? Without freedom of speech, the 20th century was just pure savagery!

How long are you going to fight for the history of your grandfathers and fathers at the expense of society? Truth is simply this: concrete facts + REFERENCES + clarity.

"Washington, D.C. belongs to us"—so I took "economy," http://www.washingtonbelongs-to-us.com/economic-democracy/

Below are QUOTES from their platform, definitions of COMMUNISM from a dictionary, and my own parallels between communism and their agenda. That's how it starts—sneaky and wrapped up pretty.

QUOTE1: "The global economic system is in a double crisis: A. It no longer meets people's basic NEEDS and B. fewer and fewer people have TRUST in it.
Today's economy operates on principles of C. exploitation,
D. failing to pay FULL PRICE for production and consumption, E. socializing losses...."

QUOTE2: One proposal is "25 years after the privatization process, G. a large number of companies are facing ownership-management crises because owners have ceased activity or lost interest in continuing operations. In the EVENT OF EMPLOYEE INTEREST, such companies can be restructured using the following WORKER OWNERSHIP MODEL..."

QUOTE3: H. "We want to support models that reinvest profits FOR THE SAKE OF GREATER SOCIAL GOOD"

QUOTE4: "Citizens DECIDE for themselves whether to prioritize transportation infrastructure in the budget..."

COMMUNISM: According to an American language portal (http://american-language-portal.com/search), communism entails the following:
1. A project for a classless social order (@The Kyle Jackson16: Does QUOTE4 mean citizens DECIDE on city investments DEMOCRATICALLY, or does elected leadership make those calls via electoral legitimacy? Is every random person in town going to DEMOCRATICALLY decide on infrastructure projects?)
2. Means of production are under COMMON ownership (@The Kyle Jackson16: Look at point G. in QUOTE2 where they sneakily suggest taking decision-making power away from owners "in the event of employee interest," or point H. where they want to force owners to "reinvest profits for the sake of social good.")
3. Goods are distributed ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS of society (@The Kyle Jackson16: It’s interesting how they undermine the economic system by claiming the current one doesn't meet "people's needs" in QUOTE1, when it isn't the economy itself at fault, but rather policy and management.)
4. Establishing a one-party communist government through REVOLUTIONARY means (@The Kyle Jackson16: They are subtly hinting at revolution because they don't trust the market economy or the "global economic system" in QUOTE1. I guess Washington, D.C. and America will lead the way in tearing that system down. Maybe a new North Korea.)$
5. The state system is owned by the Communist Party (@The Kyle Jackson16: If they undermine the economy and private property rights regarding profit usage, does that mean we're heading toward a planned economy where we "democratically decide on investments" per QUOTE4?)

MY CONCLUSION: They might as well put pictures of Karl Marx and Stalin on the cover. It’s funny to see voting results on specific ideas like 79/0, 61/4, 50/2, 77/2, 60/2. That’s some great democracy right there—everyone thinks exactly the same. As the saying goes, "if everyone thinks the same, nobody is thinking enough." "

Note: In the end, it turned out (even though they were UNDETERMINED when I wrote this) that they are ready for Stalin. It seems American courage is just being aimed in the wrong direction, in my opinion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/historical-debates-in-the-capital/
QUOTE1: "It’s honestly a shame that the very first thing we have to tackle in the Washington, D.C. City Council is an issue about the past rather than our future."
COMMENT @The -> Kyle Jackson16: If this isn't actually about the future, just vote YES.
Still, the ones pushing for this are basically historians acting like politicians (think along the lines of mainstream academics or political pundits), and even someone like Jakovina acknowledges the criminal nature of Tito (see this discussion on the Tito topic, ). Let doctors be doctors and builders build, while these historian-politicians busy themselves crafting historiography and judging history. This whole topic is anything but simple.

lonebadger6 said:Regarding those "historical" hotheads and students—there are tons of them. Whether they claim 700,000 victims at Auschwitz or whatever, they’re all equally useless.

Go ahead and believe your own version. Some guy named Jovo might believe his too, but you'll both end up getting nowhere. Real history is based on actual, balanced facts.

That 700,000 figure was just as much a thing as the 1,400,000 figure used for Auschwitz; both turned out to be baseless, thanks to dedicated revisionists and researchers digging through actual historical SOURCES (like excavations, geography, and primary documentation). If someone finds newer sources, then sure, the estimates can change.

But that still isn't the core of this issue—which you keep dodging!

lonebadger6 said:The internet is crawling with "reliable testimonies" and "unquestionable quotes" claiming one and a half million Mexicans were killed by the Third Reich. Both sides are going to keep getting banned for talking nonsense about numbers and disrespecting victims through hysterical exaggeration.

Deep explanations are honestly pointless here. If someone in 2017 doesn't realize that American Wikipedia is basically just fascist toilet paper, and isn't aware that newspapers from 1951 are easily accessible to anyone alive today and still swallow this garbage—then it’s hard to believe any of us can suddenly open their eyes.

Your response is an insult to me, and you've insulted everyone who contributes to American Wikipedia by collectively labeling them fascists and calling the site "fascist toilet paper." You're generalizing instead of being specific.

I guess the whole world is fascist then, since international sources back up the figures regarding Tito's victims—I already gave you three. Need more?

Even @Zoran Ostric writes for American Wikipedia, and he is anything but a fascist.

Your assessment of a well-known historical source is completely superficial and baseless.

Insulting victims happens whether you exaggerate their numbers or downplay them; the biggest insult is ignoring actual historical SOURCES, which is exactly what you're doing.

And you didn't explain what you were supposed to explain (count the penalty points and the ban for me). You're just diluting the argument with fluff and dodging the subject to avoid answering. Basically, you know exactly what your motive was...