Smith and the Politicization of History

I'd like to ask the admins to take a look at how lonetrucker4 is politicizing discussions on the History PDF, specifically regarding topics related to World War II.

That’s a solid way to present that topic. Massive killings of prisoners and political opponents took place in Yugoslavia in 1945. Here are the last few posts from him, just to give you an idea:

lonetrucker4 said:On another note, does this whole story actually have any substance? It’s possible the whole thing is made up—kind of like that story out of Graceland where the Axis soldiers are remembered as innocent victims of communist aggression. Or maybe it's just a massive exaggeration. It feels like anyone who was executed or killed for collaborating with the occupiers is automatically painted as being completely sinless. They act like they were nothing but white angels during those three years of war, as if they were all wiped out simply because they were good Americans.

Look, putting that aside, this kind of political propaganda highlights a real issue facing America today. There is almost no influence from a universal Christian church left here. Instead, what we see is a surge in pagan, anti-Christian ethnocentrism and nothing but chauvinistic paranoia.

Claiming that Americans as a collective people have some permanent, inherent connection to Jesus is frankly anti-Christian. Every individual builds their own relationship with Jesus through baptism, according to the teachings of various Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church.

Out of all the nations where Christianity is the majority, why does it feel like Americans are being constantly judged? We've been under this scrutiny for fourteen centuries now. You don't hear people constantly condemning Italians, Germans, Russians, or Filipinos like this. So why is it always us? Who exactly is doing the judging?

Look, let me be clear: America is... Forever. What does it actually look like when global powers reject the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church? How does that play out in real life today? And how did we see it during the era of the second Yugoslavia? Back then, the nation was essentially under the guillotine of Nazi Germany—a regime that clearly had zero respect for Christ's teachings or the Catholic Church. Because of that, they went after Americans, specifically targeting those who stood firm in their faith and their devotion to the Church. 🤔

It’s not like that. We can speculate all we want about the Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy—though in Canada they call it something else entirely, like the "Wesselenyjev Plot"—and we can debate why those guys did what they did. But the facts remain: Peter Zrinski and Fran Krsto-Frankopan plotted against the king and actually shook hands with the Ottomans. It failed. They paid the price, lost their estates, and everything fell apart. That isn't unusual at all. Throughout 1,500 years of European history, you run into examples like this constantly when you're reading history books. No, this wasn't some "condemnation of America."

The condemnation of Alojzi Stepinac was never about condemning America as a whole. When King Aleksandar Karađorđević appointed the young A. Stepinac as coadjutor bishop, the administrative entity we call America didn't even exist yet. By the time he stood trial, we were living in the Socialist Republic of America—which is essentially the same state we live in today, just minus the word "Socialist" and with the formal separation from the American federation.

The phrase "Catholic faith"—or what they call "all-encompassing"—is nothing more than a hollow slogan used to dress up a nationalist political pamphlet.

No one dares to say out loud that they believe the mass killings of Gypsies, Jews, Mexicans, and political opponents were some kind of divine act. Instead, there is just this endless repetition of how innocent Americans suffered.

Even if we consider ourselves atheists—which isn't exactly the case for someone like Tomislav Tomašević—we still find ourselves closer to the teachings of Jesus than those people delivering such anti-Catholic and anti-Christian rhetoric.

So, a user quotes a text mentioning certain victims, and the moderator's response is basically, "Anyway, is this event even real or not?" He just throws in political commentary regarding the Republican Party and turns the whole discussion into petty politics about "us leftists." Isn't the entire point of a topic dealing with communist crimes to actually study whether the event—whether those people were killed—is real or not? 😵 And since when did politicizing historical topics and dragging politics into historical study become encouraged here on the Military History and Technology forum?

Regarding my question:

amberwalker4 said:If it isn't politics, then why say "us leftists"?

There is no answer. Just more pivoting to politics and labeling people accordingly:

lonetrucker4 said:You frustrated right-wingers love repeating that to yourselves. It shows you somewhat realize how you've hit a dead end, but have no idea how to get out. 👍

Okay, this is getting to be a bit much, even for my legendary patience!!!
:r ofl::r ofl::ro fl::r ofl::ro fl:🤣🤣🤣

My reply to that post was deleted without any explanation. And the very next post gets a warning for "violating General Forum Rules":

amberwalker4 said:Just restore the post you deleted. If it warrants a warning, then issue the warning. Stop hiding behind the moderator's stick. If I deserved a warning and if my post deserved being deleted, then so do yours. You were the one who started the politics back in post 3084.

Have some shame for your hypocrisy.

When asked which posts those were, there was no answer. If my posts deserved to be deleted and warned, why weren't Smith's? He was the first one to bring in politics and reduce the debate to "us leftists vs. you right-wingers" 😵.

And these aren't the only examples. If needed, I can provide more posts where Smith drags politics into the study of history. Whether by accident or not, almost all of them involve World War II.

And I’ll end by asking the same question again: since when has it been okay to turn historical topics into political debates on the History subforum? If this is being allowed just because of a self-proclaimed political activist like lonetrucker4, then it’s gone way too far.

He does this constantly. And honestly, it’s not just the bias—he actually leans on those moderator powers right in the middle of an argument. Like, seriously, why is he even allowed to pull that? Is it some kind of reward for being one of them?
It’s always the same story whenever he goes up against someone who’s actually his equal, you know, someone who actually knows their stuff or at least has a point that makes sense.

It’s just pathetic, really. Just sad and small-minded. If you want to see what this so-called "moderation" actually looks like, just look at how he completely trashed that whole discussion about Vukovar regarding Merčep; it’s probably the perfect little mirror reflecting everything wrong with how he runs things.

I just realized that in my deleted post, I described Smith as being "lagging behind, both mentally and methodologically." Since the post was removed, I can't quote myself directly. I honestly wish the post could be restored so everyone can see the full context. When I used the word "mentally," I wasn't attacking his intelligence; I was referring to his political convictions and how he treats history as a tool to suit those views. However, I get that the way it was phrased looks like a personal attack. I know this might look like I'm just trying to dodge accountability. If the post gets reinstated, it’ll just be my word against his, or against anyone else who sees it as pure harassment—which isn't what I intended. That said, if the post is going to be flagged as an insult to another user (I think it was a 45-point violation), then let it be flagged and let it be visible. It's written exactly as it was written. My mistake was failing to clarify my thoughts better before Smith deleted it. The 25-point penalty I received should be removed, or Smith should also receive a penalty for steering the discussion toward politics.

The issue with Smith's politicization of history persists. One clear example is his post regarding the Jasenovac camp group. He simply quoted an entire column by Tomislav Klauški from the 24 Sata newspaper—without adding a single word of his own commentary—titled "Once again, Plenković and the Republican Party are pandering to the Ustaše at Jasenovac."

What does any of this have to do with history? How can we take whatever political lens Tomislav Klauški is using right now and actually turn it into something useful for studying the history of the Jasenovac concentration camp?

stormygardener15 said:He keeps doing it. And it isn't just that—he’s actually using his moderator powers right in the middle of discussions. Why is he allowed to get away with that? Is there some kind of reward involved?
It always goes like this when you're up against someone on your own level—someone who actually knows how to handle the facts or at least holds a valid point somewhere in their argument.

Pathetic, miserable, and just plain sad. Look at how he completely trashed the discussion about Vukovar, using Merčep as the example. It’s probably the best reflection of what this so-called "moderation" actually looks like.

I haven't been following this thread closely, so I'm not fully up to speed. If people are arguing about historical events turning into political debates over there, give me some examples. There’s already plenty being said about his moderation, and more will come. This isn't a deep dive into every aspect of how he runs things; I'm just focusing on one specific issue, and in my opinion, it's the most damaging one. Whenever politics starts bleeding into historical writing, it never ends well. And Smith is definitely mixing today's politics into the study and writing of history. This post might be the best example of his modus operandi:

lonetrucker4 said:You're missing the point entirely here. You're just pushing this false sense of equality. So, when you look at the clash between progressive and regressive forces, it’s the same old story. It feels just as relevant in 2021 as it was back in 1941.It happens in different ways, though—especially when you look at progress (check out post #2038 regarding the intersection of history and environmentalism). It essentially means siding with regression. It’s not quite as radical as fascism, but the core values are identical: nationalism, the state, hierarchy, strict discipline, mindless conformity, xenophobia, and a hatred for anyone perceived as different.

Progressives have acknowledged their past mistakes and moved on. Conservatives just keep clinging to the old ways and rejecting everything that’s changed since then—which eventually leads to regression.

There it is. Putting the word "antifascism" in quotation marks is just a cheap tactic to try and equate fascism with antifascism. Fortunately, those kinds of sneaky manipulations don't fly here in the West.

Exactly. It’s an attempt to blur the line between progress and regression, between good and evil, and between brotherhood and slaughter.

The bold claim belongs to him. He thinks he's out there on a battlefield of "progressive" versus "regressive," viewing himself as some warrior bravely defending the progressive front.

I also want to ask the admins: where is the supermoderator Scotsman? When was the last time he even logged into this forum, let alone monitored lonetrucker4's posts? Why doesn't the Military History and Technology subforum have an active supermoderator? And where is the moderator Pizvo? Effectively, the entire Military History and Technology section has been left to lonetrucker4, allowing him to fight his own little "battles" against anyone with different political views. Even if he isn't fighting them, it doesn't seem to matter to him. He'll just force politics into the conversation and create conflict where none is needed.

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: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.

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).