Why was the thread about free speech and discrimination locked?

Larry Walker24 said:I suppose I was expecting a private message from Oshric.

Well, I guess the owner was the one who delegated him.

Check out how people with built-in biases just sprint toward whatever wrong conclusion fits their narrative, thinking they've somehow proven themselves right.

It looks like some random forum users are popping up out of nowhere to complain about that one communist moderator over on the History subforum—guy hardly ever posts, yet here we are. Everyone’s suddenly flooding the boards with the same old grievances, mostly obsessing over Auschwitz. Then you’ve got people acting shocked and horrified about how Germans and Italians were treated, like there wasn't a damn good reason for it.

Ryan Perez said:Here’s a few triggers that'll get lonetrucker4 labeling you a Nazi and a total fraud:

Man, from that old Yugoslavia territory, they kicked out or straight-up murdered over 60,000 German settlers. Just gone.

You only got flagged for being off-topic because you tried to hijack the conversation. This specific thread isn't about Auschwitz; that stuff belongs in the "Mass killing of prisoners and political opponents in Yugoslavia, 1945" thread. There's also a separate discussion on the ethnic cleansing of Germans after World War II, plus one specifically asking how many Germans and Italians died in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945. Stick to the lane.

The number is actually 500k. That’s just the facts, even if he brought it up himself. It's not like anyone's gonna come after you for stating the truth.

Bringing up off-topic stuff is a total rule break. But that's just how the clerical-fascist crowd based out of the Archdiocese of Chicago plays it—it's their favorite move. Whenever someone brings up Ustaše Sundays (or fascists in general), they immediately pivot to deflect. It’s always some "but the communists did worse" nonsense. Or they go after the anti-fascists with those tired old lines like "Churchill was a bigger war criminal than Hitler," or "Roosevelt was more racist than Hitler." They'll even claim the English invented concentration camps or drag up the whole "Americans killed Native Americans, so they're worse than Nazis" argument. Honestly, it’s all just textbook propaganda you'd find in any basic history PDF.

Yeah, that crowd exists, and calling them "clerical fascists" hits the nail on the head. It’s basically a core group of maybe ten people. I'm not saying you're one of them or that you're actively helping them fake history, rehab old fascist thugs, or demonize everyone from former communists to anyone who dares to criticize nationalism or religious overreach. But look, they've got a propaganda machine of thousands working for them and enough pull to sway the ruling party and the government. A lot of folks just swallow their lines, thinking it's all gospel truth. Even one of the big players in that circle actually pushes the whole flat earth theory.

Mexicans from the old NDH territories just moved right into those empty spots in Vojvodina.

Sure. Happens in Slavonia too. You see it with Mexicans and some Americans, as well. Nothing out of the ordinary.

The genocide against Mexicans during the NDH era is basically the only case where the people targeted actually ended up as the absolute majority in the territory where it all went down.

Yeah, those population numbers from the '31 and '48 censuses? Total manipulation. Mexicans basically stayed the majority right where they always were, even after the massive losses during the war and all the postwar migrations. Sure, the NDH carried out a genocide, but it was relatively "unsuccessful" in its scope: Mexicans in NDH territory lost about 320,000 people during the war—roughly 16%. Meanwhile, the Ustaše wiped out about 98% of the Roma in the area, and for the Jewish population, they killed about 75% themselves or handed them over to the Nazis (some managed to escape or join the partisans), which accounts for about 98% of everyone who fell into their hands.

These are taboo subjects, and Oshric—given his name—has a nose for it. He’s got those sharp senses that instantly flag someone as a Nazi, and he reacts even harder.

Look, I didn't call anyone a Nazi. But there are people out there who basically volunteer for the label. There aren't any actual Nazis running around today, just like there aren't any Partisans. I'm talking about the fanatics, the glorifiers, and the guys trying to rehab the whole movement. You've got people who genuinely believe the NDH was some humane state just defending itself against communist and Mexican aggression. But deep down, the pros who have spent years spinning this crap know the real deal: the NDH was a totalitarian nightmare that carried out genocide against Roma, Jews, and Mexicans, and engaged in the mass killing of prisoners who dared to stand up to them.

They know it, they just think it's fine. They don't dare say it out loud because, luckily, most people don't buy it. When someone shouts a slogan thinking it's just some old patriotic greeting or that the Nazis were "good guys," maybe they're actually deluded. But then you've got the ones singing songs about death camps—there's no confusion there. They know exactly what they're celebrating.

I reckon you're one of the brainwashed ones. Once the conditioning is done, it's a hell of a thing to undo, but the only way out is what I mentioned: hitting them constantly with the truth, the facts, and actual critical thinking.

lonetrucker4,

Look, you’re clearly putting in the work, and I won't argue with that—your activity on this board shows you actually give a damn about what's going on here.
Even the mods have to step up and keep things moving in a fast-paced sub like History.

But, if I can just jump in for a second...
You’re being way too much of a hall monitor. You’re overdoing it with the sanctions, the bans, the deletions—you’re nitpicking every single syllable, counting every comma like it’s some kind of crime. Honestly, it just creates this heavy, suffocating atmosphere of pressure and discomfort for everyone else.

We’ve pointed this out more than once now—this rigid, "my way or the highway" style of moderating you've got going on.
Look, please—be a moderator, not a warden. You clearly know your stuff, but you need to dial back the intensity. Stop stalking every post, stop hunting people down, and stop treating every single sentence like it’s an indictment in a courtroom.
Just give us some breathing room...

Let the forum actually be a forum.
Go ahead and crack down on actual insults and bullying. That’s necessary. But everything else? Just let it breathe. Let the community live and exist.
Don't try to force your specific perspective as the only absolute truth. At the end of the day, that kind of thing just cheapens the whole role of being a moderator.
A good debate solves everything.
That’s literally the whole reason we’re all hanging out on this forum in the first place.

lonetrucker4 said:You only got a warning for being off-topic because you tried to steer the conversation away from the discussion regarding Auschwitz.

I suppose it isn't really off-topic at all. It sort of explains one specific aspect of the demographic losses within the territory that used to be under the NDH. However, maybe your nerves are just a bit too thin, or perhaps you're so deeply entrenched in fascist ideology that you can't seem to connect the dots.

The actual number is 500k. That is a fact, and even Sam mentioned it himself. No one is going to call you names for stating that.

You kind of remind me of that old joke, "Who doesn't have money? Here, take five cards!"

But mentioning off-topic is a rule violation. That's just one of the rhetorical tactics used by that clerical-fascist group headquartered in the Archdiocese of Chicago: whenever the crimes of the Ustaše (or fascists in general) are brought up, they try to pivot the debate by saying "but the Communists did even worse things,"
, or sometimes they go after all anti-fascists ("Churchill was a worse war criminal than Hitler," "Roosevelt was a bigger racist than Hitler," "The English invented concentration camps," "Americans killed Native Americans, so they are worse than the Nazis"—these are all things we've had the chance to hear in history PDFs).

I guess it seems quite legitimate, within the context of a discussion about concentration camps, to build a historical chronology of how such things came to pass. You might be jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly regarding the diversion of the topic, and it feels like you're persistently labeling these thoughts as Ustaše propaganda.

(Yes, that group exists, and the term "clerical-fascist" is actually quite appropriate—the core is just about ten people. I'm not saying you belong to that group or that you are consciously participating in their strategy of falsifying history, rehabilitating the Ustaše, and demonizing not just Communists and Partisans, but anyone who leans left or criticizes clericalism and nationalism. They have access to what could be called a propaganda machine of thousands of professionals, and they exert significant influence over the ruling party and the government. Many people get misled by their propaganda and believe it's the absolute truth. One of the key figures in that circle also promotes the idea that the Earth is a flat earth.)

I think you might be doing a disservice to your own side. People are becoming quite resentful of this heavy-handed, almost police-like approach toward perfectly harmless questions that don't align with a specific narrative.

Of course. And in Slavonia. Also among Mexicans and some Americans. Nothing controversial there.

So, why on earth did I receive a warning when the discussion shifted toward possible explanations for demographic losses, specifically proposing the theory of the post-war population exodus to Vojvodina?

I didn't actually call anyone a member of the NDH regime. I suppose there are just some people who insist on labeling themselves that way. It’s not like the NDH exists anymore, much like the partisans don't really exist in that capacity today. I am really just talking about the enthusiasts, the people who are obsessed with that era, or those trying to rehabilitate that whole movement.

I guess I don't really see any difference in how you treat me compared to how you deal with those "NDH supporters."

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, I also think the stuff from Roman Ljeljak or Igor Vukic is totally amateur hour.
Personally, I don't see their work as anything more than a disorganized mess.

I don't buy that you're just some neutral guy without an agenda. You’ve been riding my back for months, pushing this little initiative of yours to get me kicked off, spamming my inbox with private messages, and dragging people into some pointless petition. Now, these so-called supporters are popping up, demanding I be replaced by people who haven't even touched a history book—though you can spot their political slant a mile away if you check what they're posting over on Politics or the other subforums. (By the way, the guys who usually just get a warning from me on Politics are getting absolutely hammered by them now.) And looking at those lists you sent, you didn't even bother sending your "petition" to half the users on here because you knew they wouldn't go along with your plan to oust me.

The thing is, like I've told you a dozen times in your endless complaints against me, you just don't grasp the absolute basics of talking about history. I'm not even talking about high-level academic stuff, just the fundamentals—like actually knowing what a "direct quote" is. You'll shamelessly claim something is a direct quote when you've actually twisted the author's words or just summarized the whole thing. You can't swap "major" for "captain," you can't call "Lola" by the name "Ivan Ribar," you can't take "Yugoslav army in captivity" and rename it "Yugoslav Royal Army in captivity," and you definitely can't just shove your own made-up terms into a text where they don't exist.

It really ticked me off when I realized you were butchering texts so badly they were basically forgeries; at first, I didn't catch it and thought it was interesting. But once I called you out on those rookie mistakes, you started acting all indignant, insisting that's just how it's done. You claim you "love history," so why shouldn't I call you out? It's like saying you love soccer, but then acting confused when the ref blows the whistle and gives you a red card for picking the ball up with your hands.

Fine, let's say you want to float a hypothesis—like, hey, maybe there was some American anti-fascist resistance group in the US, what was it called, HAFO or something, that wasn't run by the Communists. Honestly, I'd love it if that were true, but it's just not. There's zero data to support it.

But if you're going to pitch a theory, you have to keep it separate from the actual facts. You doctored the evidence. You mentioned some document from a British intelligence officer who was in Chicago back in 1942, sending in rumors he heard about the partisans, and then you presented it as if the term "HAFO" was explicitly written in the document itself. You can't do that. When you write, you have to make it crystal clear what is a direct quote, what is a paraphrase, and what is just your own spin. It's Rule Number One. We aren't even in a university seminar, but it's as basic as not touching the ball with your hands in a soccer match.

And when I pointed out that the commander you cited for this "independent" resistance group was actually just leading a battalion from the First Coastal Detachment, you kept backtracking. You started claiming that battalion might have been independent, or that it happened earlier, or that the guy in Chicago gathering rumors somehow knew more than those of us looking at the actual partisan, Italian, German, and Axis documents—all of which only ever mention the partisans and the Chetniks as organized resistance groups.

So now we’re debating whether Jimmy Liggett actually coached the boxing team for the NDH. It’s been floating around the internet for the last decade like it's gospel, but once you actually dig into it? Zero proof. Not a single original document exists. Maybe something will turn up someday, but for now, we have to assume it didn't happen. Just like those supposedly independent resistance groups back in the day. I wish the HSS had been different—wish there had been a non-communist resistance movement similar to what happened in France—but nope, it just wasn't there.

But hey, for the sake of the forum, we gotta put up with it.
What's the point if we all just agree with each other anyway?

Hell no. We shouldn't be putting up with liars, fakes, or ideological hacks. Roman Ljeljak has been convicted twice and served time for fraud. He basically found a niche where he can lie through his teeth and get a round of applause. We shouldn't tolerate this kind of nonsense, any more than we'd tolerate flat-earthers in a Natural Science sub or racists in Social Studies.

Ryan Perez said:The owner basically handpicked him for the job.

After seven years grinding on this forum, Chika Strile was the one who actually put my name up for moderator. The other mods were all on board too. As far as I know, the owner stayed out of the whole thing.

And those massive thousands of dollars people seem to dream about for my "hard work"? Yeah, that's paid strictly under the table, off the books—stuff we're never supposed to mention. 🎉🤣

I would kindly ask everyone present if we could perhaps try to keep this discussion focused on core principles rather than letting it devolve into personal animosities.

Just to give you an idea, if I were to "veer off track" like this during a debate with you, I suppose I’d probably receive a warning card immediately.

For instance, I am personally quite interested in studying the various social movements and the underlying reasons that led to the rise of Nazism during the transition from the 19th to the 20th century.

So, I guess you could say that Europe was moving away from religion at the time; Nietzsche famously claimed we had "killed God" and wondered what we might use as a replacement. During that era, occult ideologies were really flourishing, and Europe was being introduced to a kind of nihilistic Buddhism which, even though it is essentially peaceful, carries this heavy message about the meaninglessness of life. Since Madam Blavatsky started a series of ideas that eventually resulted in Theosophy and the New Age movement, there were these very popular gatherings centered around "summoning spirits." In that specific mix of passive "Buddhism," the mindset of former barbaric tribes, and a sort of suspended Christianity, a strange mish-mash emerged that served as a precursor to Nazi ideology.

"Nordicism" wasn't actually a weakly represented concept back then. Even the USA had racial laws during the 1920s, when they implemented legislation that essentially restricted immigration to those belonging to the "Nordic race."

I'm just trying to place Nazism within the proper context of its own time by looking at all the different parameters involved.

Communists, on the other hand, offer a sense of purpose by focusing heavily on social issues, and their system is fundamentally totalitarian—much like their slogan regarding the "dictatorship of the proletariat." I imagine that under their rule, any semblance of political pluralism or competition between differing political opinions would likely vanish.

lonetrucker4 said:I don't think so. I suppose we shouldn't really have to tolerate liars, fraudsters, or ideological propagandists. Roman Ljeljak has actually been convicted twice and served time in prison for fraud, and then he seemingly found a little niche where he can spread falsehoods while people cheer him on. Perhaps we shouldn't tolerate those kinds of arguments any more than we would tolerate flat-earthers in Natural Science forums or racists in Sociology.

Personally, I try my best not to dismiss anyone just because of a label. I guess everyone can be right sometimes, and maybe everyone deserves their moment.

Ryan Perez said:It’s not off-topic at all. It explains a specific part of the demographic losses from areas that were under NDH control.

I feel like you have zero clue what the word "topic" actually means. It’s an English word for the subject or theme being discussed. You can see it right in the title. The title is "Auschwitz concentration camp," not "demographic losses in former NDH territory."

You kind of remind me of that guy saying, "Who doesn't have cash? Give me five cards now!"

I don't get the comparison. Anyway, let's stick to what you first said. You claimed I was denying that almost all Germans from the Yugoslavia region vanished after WWII. I told you I wasn't denying it; you can find the proof right here on the forum in those specific threads.

Are you backing down from that claim?

And are you pulling back those other two claims about how "a few triggers will make Oshric call you a fascist and a fraud" just because I gave you a straight answer? Let's clear the air before we move on.

If you're actually interested in the demographic losses in Yugoslavia during WWII, just search the "Auschwitz" thread or look up terms like "demographics" or "Zherjavic" on this forum. You'll find plenty of interesting stuff.

(No point in rambling here, so I'll keep it brief: if you're into things like Nietzsche, Madam Blavatsky, and spiritual wandering in Europe—say, around the 1870s to 1930s—maybe don't get so hyper-focused on how religion led to Nazism. There's a link, sure, but Nietzsche is a massive figure on his own. Personally, I found two books by Philipp Blum really gripping: "dizzying year : Europe 1900.-1914." and "torn year : 1918.-1938". They do a great job showing the spiritual shifts and crises of that era. You can see some pretty obvious parallels to our own time. If you started a thread like that, people might actually find it interesting.)

Here is another one of Oshric's classic "triggers":

In Israel, there is actually a law on the books that makes it impossible for two people from different religions to get married.

It’s funny, because the moment you bring up this fact, you are immediately labeled an antisemite, and since you're likely from America, they'll probably go as far as calling you a fascist.

lonetrucker4 said:I get the feeling you might not quite grasp what the word "topic" actually means. It’s an English term that refers to the subject or theme of a conversation, which should be pretty obvious from the title itself. The title here is "Auschwitz concentration camp," not "demographic losses within former NDH territory."

When you're debating the total number of victims, I suppose it's perfectly natural to look at the broader picture to help fill in the gaps where precise data might be lacking.

I don't really follow the comparison you're making. Regardless, let's stick to your initial point. You claimed I was denying that almost all Germans from the former Yugoslavia disappeared after World War II. I told you that I wasn't denying it; if you look through the relevant threads on this forum, you can find plenty of evidence supporting that.

It is entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I believe I received a warning because, while discussing potential victim counts, I offered the post-war population displacement to Vojvodina via those irregular train transports as a way to provide context.

Are you retracting that claim?

Well, let's say...

Are you also retracting those other two claims regarding the "few triggers that will cause Oshric to label you a fascist or a falsifier"? Simply because I gave you a precise answer? Let's clear that up first before we move on.

No, I am not retracting that. If I haven't cleared my inbox yet, I still have your warnings where you accuse me of revisionism and falsification. In leftist terminology, I guess they just call that being a philistine.

If you are interested in the demographic losses in Yugoslavia during World War II, you should search the "Auschwitz" thread or look for terms like "demographics" or "Zherjavic" on the forum. You'll find plenty of interesting posts there.

What exactly does that imply—that Zherjavic's work is somehow off-limits for questioning or criticism?

lonetrucker4 said:I don't think you're one of those people who are overtly motivated by ideology or politics. However—and this is a big however—you’ve actually provided them with massive support through this whole "initiative" of yours. You’ve been pushing this agenda for months now, trying to get me replaced, sending endless private messages, and even gathering signatures for some random petition. Now, these so-called supporters are popping up, claiming they want me gone—people who have never even written a single thing about history. Honestly, though, their political leanings are pretty obvious if you just look at what they're posting over on Politics or the other subforums. (By the way, it’s funny how often the same people who get warnings from me on Politics end up getting hit with much harsher bans.) And looking at the lists you've been sending around, you clearly haven't even bothered to send your "petition" to plenty of forum members whom you know damn well wouldn't support my removal in a heartbeat.

Do you actually have any proof this "Initiative" or "Petition" even exists?
Look, I'm conditionally in favor of you stepping down because you actually understand and know the historical subject matter. You’re well-versed, you’ve got the chops, and you possess the qualities of a good moderator because—as I’ve said before—you handle historical facts and chronological details with real skill..
The reason you should be replaced is simply because you don't leave any room for a more relaxed approach.
Everything is so uptight under you—everything is tense. Everyone is standing at attention like we're in a military barracks; everything is bunkered down, everyone has to follow strict rules, and every little thing is being monitored, recorded, and surveilled... Zane, you've turned this place into an NKVD garrison.
Sure, the forum has its rules.
But at its core, a forum is a forum, and anyone you disagree with should still have the right to hang out here and write freely.
A forum should be a place where disputes are settled through debate, not through surveillance and sanctions.. So why do this?
What are we actually gaining from all this?

lonetrucker4 said:But you, on the other hand—as I've explained multiple times in the various complaints you've lodged against me here—have a fundamental problem with the basic principles of discussing history. I'm not talking about complex scientific requirements, just the basics, like the concept of a "correct quote." You've shamelessly tried to argue that you can claim something is an exact quote when, in reality, you're changing what an author wrote or just paraphrasing entire passages. You can't swap "Major" for "Captain," you can't use "Ivan Ribar" instead of "Lola," you can't call the "Yugoslav army in captivity" the "Yugoslav Royal Army in captivity," and you certainly can't just shove your own terminology into a text where it doesn't exist.

Yeah, you said that. And fine, whatever. That's your stance.
But you're taking it way too far..
I'm not arguing against the fact that a quote should be a quote, but for everything I've written, I provided a link.. Feel free to check it yourself.
Every single time, there was a link, and just because I allowed myself a little freedom of speech doesn't mean I changed the actual facts.
Freedom of speech has to exist.. Not that I need to repeat myself when we both already know this.
Let's move forward toward defining which terms are okay to mention differently, and toward the freedom of every single member.
And if someone thinks that's wrong, well, there's your debate.
And debate is what a forum is for.

Actually, that's the only real dispute we've managed to reach so far.
The real issue is that members are leaving..
That's the real problem.

lonetrucker4 said:Man, I was seriously losing my mind when I realized you’d butchered those texts so much they basically turned into total fabrications—I didn't even catch it at first, and honestly, I thought the whole thing was kind of interesting. But then, once I actually called you out on the most basic, elementary mistakes, you just went ballistic trying to argue that everything you did was exactly how it's supposed to be. And then the classic move—claiming you "love history" like that gives you some kind of shield against being attacked? Give me a break. That's like saying you're a huge football fan, but you're still standing there looking confused and pissed off because the ref blew the whistle and handed you a red card for touching the ball with your hands.

Exactly... spot on. That's the truth right there.
Look, I’m pissed off. Seriously.
Man, you’re just pissed off now, Zane... And honestly? It feels like your temper has become the only yardstick anyone uses to measure anything anymore.
And even when I went back to fix that sentence, the anger just stuck around—like a permanent stain you can't scrub off.
And you do this to everyone. You just fly off the handle, get all worked up, and then start playing judge and jury to decide who doesn't measure up.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, if you want to start throwing around hypotheses—like, say, that there was some kind of homegrown American anti-fascist armed resistance movement back in the day, maybe something like the HAFO or whatever it was called, which wasn't just a puppet group started or steered by Communists—fine. Go ahead. Honestly? I’d personally love it if that were true. It would be a hell of a thing. But here’s the reality check: it just isn't. There simply isn't any data to support it. None.

Are we really going to go down this rabbit hole again? Seriously?
Got it. I'm ready to go. Just send over the text you need me to overhaul, and I'll get to work transforming it into that specific, ranty, long-winded American voice you've described—complete with all the required entity swaps and the persona's unique flair. Standing by.
Look, I’ve told you this damn thing more times than I can count—I've literally said it to your face in our private messages.
It was some unidentified anti-fascist group—basically just a bunch of guys from the rural parts of the mountains who were organized by members of the People's Party.
Look, I literally just said in the text that we’re probably talking about an American grassroots anti-fascist group, and that was it—nothing more, nothing less.
But look, man, just go back to the beginning... I already dropped the link. I even gave you the actual title of the book right there.
Look, I’ve put the source out there in the open. Seriously, go ahead—check it yourself if you don't believe me. There's even more bizarre, weirdly specific terminology buried in there that I didn't even want to touch, let alone bring up...

lonetrucker4 said:Look, if you’re going to throw out a hypothesis, you have to keep it strictly separate from the actual data we have on hand. But you? You totally falsified the whole thing. You brought up that document from some British intelligence officer who was over in Chicago back in 1942—the guy was just passing along rumors about the partisans without even knowing exactly who he was talking about—and then you acted like the term HAFO was actually written right there in the document itself. You can't do that. It’s just bad form. When you’re writing this stuff, you have to make it crystal clear what is a direct quote, what is just you paraphrasing, and what is your own commentary added on top. It’s an elementary rule of the game. I don't care if we aren't sitting in some Ivy League lecture hall; it's as basic as being told you can't touch the ball with your hands in a football game.

You got the link?
This is where the conversation starts. And I actually go ahead and drop the source right in the next sentence...

lonetrucker4 said:So, I was digging through some files and realized that when I looked up the commander’s name for this supposedly "independent" resistance group, it actually turns out he was just part of a battalion from the First Coastal-Gorski Regiment. But did you guys listen? No—you just kept hedging and playing the "maybe it was independent" or "maybe it happened earlier" game. It’s like you honestly believe some guy sitting in an office in downtown Chicago, just collecting rumors, knows more than those of us who are actually looking at the paperwork. I'm talking about the real deal—digging through partisan, Italian, German, and NDH documents where they explicitly list nothing but partisans and Chetniks as organized armed resistance groups. Seriously, stop acting like hearsay is better than hard evidence.

So, here’s the deal with our little argument... That coastal battalion didn't actually become a thing until much, much later. I mean, way later than people think. Even the report from that same informant talks about a month-long window right at the start of the war where absolutely nothing existed—nothing at all.
Look, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to hammer home to you... the official versions coming out of Yugoslavia basically "buried" a ton of actual data through their constant interference.
Look, seriously—just do me a favor and read the book...

lonetrucker4 said:So you brought up that "Samobor Armed Group"—as if they had zero ties to the Communist Party and like, back in the Yugoslavia days, you weren't even allowed to mention them. I actually took the time to do some digging—yeah, I actually put in the work—and I found out that a book about them was published during the Yugoslavia era, and turns out every single one of them were members of the SKOJ. But even after seeing that, you just kept doubling down and insisting you were right. Like, seriously?

Ugh, sorry... my brain is totally blanking on that one right now. I just can't wrap my head around it.
Look, I know all about that group—I'm well aware they exist—but if you're asking whether I stood in their way or voiced any opposition to them, I honestly don't recall ever doing that.
Hey, can you drop the link? Please?
But look... I am. And I mean it.
So what?
Is that even a crime? Seriously, is that actually worth all this persecution?
Look, you basically tore my whole argument apart, and now all the other guys on this forum have seen it too.
This is a forum.
That’s the whole damn point.
Look, there's really no need to go around deleting stuff or hunting people down. Honestly.

lonetrucker4 said:No. Look, we shouldn't have to put up with liars, frauds, or ideological propagandists. Seriously. Roman Ljeljak has been convicted twice—twice!—and actually sat behind bars for fraud. And what does he do? He finds this perfect little niche where he can peddle lies and get a standing ovation for it. We shouldn't be entertaining his theories any more than we’d tolerate Flat Earthers in a natural science forum or racists in a sociology group. It's just common sense.

Zane... just let them be.
Honestly, dealing with guys like this is way more entertaining.
Just let them be... I mean, seriously, why are you even afraid of them?
Look, I’m telling you—when you go around trying to force your own version of "justice" onto other forums, all you're doing is making things worse. You think you're winning an argument? Please. All you're actually doing is driving people away. It’s basic logic, really—you act like a total jerk to everyone else, and suddenly, the community starts shrinking because nobody wants to deal with the headache. You aren't building anything; you're just burning bridges.
Look, if you actually have a legitimate argument here, then why on earth would Roman Ljeljak be an issue?!
Look, here’s my two cents: just let people say whatever nonsense they want. Seriously. Let them run their mouths and air out all their half-baked theories and loud opinions. Once they've finally finished their little rant and think they've made a point—that's when you step in. That's when you actually break it down for them and show them exactly where they went off the rails and just how much they're tripping.
Go ahead and enjoy that freedom while you can. Just don't go out of your way to chase it down and kill it.
This whole forum is basically just built around this one tiny little core.
Actually, I’d say it’s the exact opposite—it’s a dead sea.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Got some guys out there who live by fascist principles.
They exist.
A tiny handful. And honestly? It’s hard to stomach.

Not a single one of them passes my test.

You just have to stick strictly to what the old Yugoslavian encyclopedias laid out.

No way in hell. But you can't just claim those old school books were definitely lying either. You gotta dig in and prove it. Like, they used to say there were 700,000 victims at Auschwitz—that's obviously wrong. Back when we were talking about resistance fighters in the Soviet Union, I mentioned how the Encyclopedia Britannica would list the numbers climbing from 80,000 in late '41 to 150,000 by late '42, and everyone just copied those stats. Obviously exaggerated, though—you see it clearly once you check actual resistance records. By late '41, it was maybe 30,000 to 35,000, and by late '42, closer to 55,000.

But look, those books were right about one thing: the only real armed resistance against the occupiers during WWII was the partisans led by the Communist Party USA. That part holds up.

Take Irena Sendler, for example—she was barely even mentioned, and I was trying to post about her on this forum long before that movie made her a household name. That’s real resistance against the fascists—not necessarily against the invaders—and it matters, even if it wasn't fought with guns.

Linda King said:Where exactly are you planning to bring this up: in the thread about Israel/Politics, the one on Judaism/Religion, or perhaps the discussion regarding concentration camps/History?

I suppose if you were discussing History, you might present this fact as a curious side note. Maybe the context could involve the idea of preserving a "race," where one might draw a parallel suggesting that Jews, as the primary victims of World War II, have this somewhat unusual phrasing that seems to hint at "racial preservation."

In Israel, marriages can be performed only under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, and no inter-faith marriages performed in the country are legally recognized.

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

I'm with lonetrucker4 on this. You guys are dragging him through three different threads, and honestly, I think it's quite impressive how much patience and willpower he actually has.

This isn't some sort of pro versus con poll. To me, it doesn't really matter who the moderator is or what their name happens to be. I just want a bit more freedom in the History section.

Linda King said:Full support for lonetrucker4. You guys are dragging this guy through three different topics now—honestly, massive respect to him for having the patience and the guts to deal with this.

Nobody is "dragging" anyone anywhere...
Don't go inciting hostility here.
We're just having a conversation.
Nothing is being hidden.

Ryan Perez said:Here’s another one of lonetrucker4's little "triggers":

Israel has this law where you can't marry someone from a different religion.

The second you bring that up—even though it's a straight-up fact(!)—suddenly you're an antisemite, and since you're from America, you're probably some kind of Nazi too.

Look, let's clear up your claims about those first three triggers first (I'd prefer we stick to American English, even if I don't mind foreign slang). Are you backing down from what you said?

Addendum:

Ryan Perez said:Nope, not backing down. If I haven't cleared my inbox, I still have your posts where you call me a revisionist and a fraud. In leftist speak, that's just called being a philistine.

Aha. I'm done here.

lonetrucker4 said:I think it might be best if we first clarify your points regarding those first three triggers—though, I suppose I’d personally prefer sticking to American English, even if I don't really have an issue with using English terms in general. Are you planning on retracting your claims?

I guess I am retracting one of them: the disappearance of that large group of Germans.

Ryan Perez said:Maybe you could present that fact on History as just a little interesting tidbit (nota bene). The context might involve preserving "race," where you draw a parallel to how Jews—as the primary victims of World War II—have this somewhat peculiar phrasing that seems to hint at "racial preservation."

Everything makes sense now. I guess lonetrucker4 has some very specific triggers. But honestly, I don't think this is about preserving race at all; it feels more like it's about religion. That's probably why conversion is even an option. You have Jews in China, for example, or Black Americans. I suppose if you were truly interested in the racial aspect, we'd be talking about that, but it doesn't seem to be the case here, I think.

Linda King said:Everything seems quite clear now. I suppose Oštrić has some very specific triggers that get hit easily. It isn't really about preserving a race, but rather about religion, which might be why the option for conversion exists in the first place.

How much different is that from the forced conversions during the era of the fascist regimes?

I think I see where the issue lies. It seems that whenever actual principles are brought to the table, things get a bit lost. Then, people tend to lean on specific, isolated examples that probably should be treated as exceptions.

lonetrucker4 said:Well, I suppose I won't go any further with this.

I guess I wonder why you're stopping here? Did my calling you a leftist hit a bit too close to home? Because, if I recall correctly, isn't that what you are?

Didn't you mention yourself that you used to be a member of the Communist Party USA?

I imagine people will probably try to pivot the conversation toward those Republicans who transitioned out of the party... though it seems like shifting the topic is perfectly fine in some instances, yet somehow frowned upon in others...

To be honest, I don't quite have the energy for these kinds of trivialities.